Slashdot Mirror
Demonoid BitTorrent Tracker Apparently Back Online
Freshly Exhumed writes "TorrentFreak has broken the news that after more than a year of downtime the Demonoid tracker is back online. The tracker is linked to nearly 400,000 torrent files and more than a million peers, which makes it one of the largest working BitTorrent trackers on the Internet. There is no word yet on when the site will make a full comeback, but the people behind it say they are working to revive one of the most famous file-sharing communities. As the single largest semi-private BitTorrent tracker that ever existed, Demonoid used to offer a home to millions of file-sharers. Note that this is apparently the original Demonoid and not the d2 site that claims to be using the Demonoid database."
I'll get right to downloading and shop on Silk Road while I wait.
Are you NSA?
There are legitimate uses for torrents, but demonoid wasn't about distributing Linux iso's or other open source projects. It was about pirating movies and music.
kindly roll over and die in a fire
You can't stop the signal
Where on the site did it say that? I'm pretty sure they let anyone upload torrents for anything. Gun manufacturers don't advertize their product as being good for robberies, that's the choice of the end user.
Yo-ho, Yo-ho, a pirate's life for me!
I remember a disk copier for the Commodore 64 that used to display a flaming golden skull while playing pirate themed music. I didn't own a computer at the time, and my buddy had, of course, pirated the pirate software. :P
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
No shit
Technical Details
www.demonoid.com uses an invalid security certificate.
The certificate is not trusted because it is self-signed.
The certificate is only valid for americanstoner.net
(Error code: sec_error_untrusted_issuer)
American Stoner? I guess it'll be a real buzz-kill if the copyright cops get them for possession with intent to distribute.
Are you NSA?
GP is a karma whore, not (necessarily) NSA. Very easy to identify as they post "the slashdot line" without saying anything substantial.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
*whi-TISH!*
Is it? Both Demonoid and The Pirate Bay have received direct blessing from music artists and film-makers and featured their work as promos on their front pages. The question is: Why on Earth are you trying to speak for everybody else? You clearly don't hold the only correct opinion.
It had all the problems of being a 'public' site. Shit seed ratios and all that low speed public leechers stuff. Crap descriptions. The same useless crud uploaded 50 times when a current active good version existed. No comments on the QUALITY of the files. Just completely useless "thanks for uploading" repeated for pages.
Along with all the drawbacks of being a 'private' site. Requires logins. Don't say anything to anyone important or you might find your account banned. Don't mouth off. Don't express unpleasant opinions on anything anywhere or you're gone. Offend the wrong person and you're gone.
Plus they had the habit of drawing unwanted attention to themselves as some sort of 'industry spokesman'. And nobody elected them to a damm thing.
I was glad to see it go. It was a kiddy site one tiny step up from the old malware ad infested 'warez' sites. It has been replaced and surpassed by far better sites now. And even the totally public pirate bay beats the crap out of them now.
Go Galt, stop creating digital media?
copyright that isn't in the names of the actual human creators is null & void.
Nothing.
Deal with it.
This is great news because for the last few years the media has done their best to demonize torrents and related activity as nothing more than a pirates' leisure time activity
Lets be real here. If I were to look up usage of torrents by volume and by category (legal video, legal software, illegal video, illegal software), what do you suppose the spread would be? Would you be willing to wager that legal activity was even more than 10%? Because I wouldnt.
I'm a musician, and make part of my income from my music. All of my music is CC licensed, and some people still buy it. It's certainly not offensive to me that these kinds of site operate with impunity.
Not a sentence!
The question is: what can we do to permanently remove illegal filesharing from the web? It's offensive to everyone who creates digital media for a living that these kinds of sites operate with impunity.
First of all, if you are someone who creates digital content and is starting out, this is an amazing boon since it can get your work out to potentially a large audience without any middlemen.
If you are one of those big corporate digital media creators, then create alternatives where buying digital content is preferable to getting them from filesharing networks!
Movies and music downloaded from "official" sources have lower quality than from filesharing. Software, ebooks and other DRM riddled stuff are less restrictive and easy to use downloaded from filesharing.
Last of all, as a lawmaker, don't make copyright essentially last forever. After time, creations become culture and let people share old stuff. Demonoid was great because it had a large repository of stuff that was mostly of historical, nostalgic or cultural interest. Yes, there is still a few drops of blood to be squeezed from old stuff but let it go free so it adds immensely to cultural wealth.
Simple. You just have to understand that what you're trying to restrict is the duplication of numbers; that numbers can be duplicated perfectly and trivially by computers; that many people want to duplicate those numbers; that many people are sharing those numbers all the time; that it takes time and effort to identify where the numbers are being shared from; that each time you remove a site which faciliates the location of that number, or a list of people who are sharing the numbers, it'll get replaced immediately; that the numbers are much easier to obtain via downloading than via traditional methods; that we're in a recession and buying/renting these numbers is a lower priority than buying food/fuel/paying rent; that there's no technical way of preventing the copying or transmission of these numbers.
Also, many people who create `digital media` (I guess you mean `numbers`) do not find it in the least offensive.
There are legitimate uses for torrents, but demonoid ... was about pirating movies and music.
The two are not mutually exclusive. Demonoid had a large collection of abandoned works - music, tv shows, movies, magazines, books, etc that were simply not commercially available. Some were orphaned works where the copyright owner was unknown and so could never be legally distributed again, some where works where the copyright owner just didn't think it was worth it to distribute and some were works that were too risky to distribute commercially - like fan edits of movies and other works that the owner could not afford to go to court to prove their right of fair use. Piracy of those sorts of works serves a legitimate public interest.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Until someone gets the bright idea to store X.509 certificate fingerprints in Namecoin. Instead of paying a commercial CA for a TLS certificate, a .bit site owner would do something analogous to what's done with DNSSEC: self-sign a certificate and store its fingerprint in the domain name registry.
I would. Stuff with cracked software and such is just the most visible. The so-called "legal" (because fuck that designation, morons like RIAA would want everything illegal) torrents are just doing their thing with stable and high traffic and are rather long-lived. Particularly with magnet. You just never hear about them because there's no way to sensationalize torrents being used for standard software and media. It'd be like saying "Millions of web pages served over HTTP!" in a headline. Stupid right? So yeah if you just judge by the headlines no more than 10% of torrent activity is legal. But I'd say you have more conundrums than torrents if you judged based on headlines. Especially on slashdot.
captcha: litigant - Hah.
The "parent" you are responding to talks about "illegal" file sharing - that is, file sharing of content where the copyright does not allow it. Since you licence your files under CC, most are probably not "illegally" shared. But not every artist uses CC.
Just as developers that use GPL code and folks that use CC licensed material must adhere to the copyright conditions associated with GPL and CC, so must they adhere to the copyright conditions that are associated with other types of copyrights.
You can't have it both ways: "you must follow my copyright rules but I don't have to follow yours".
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
copyright that isn't in the names of the actual human creators is null & void.
This is not currently the law in Slashdot's home country; I'm assuming it's a proposed reform of copyright. In such a system, who is the author of a work whose creation involves thousands of people, such as a feature film or a AAA video game? And what happens to the copyright should this author die a day after the work is published?
As a musician, what steps have you taken to make sure that you have not unwittingly incorporated substantial portions of non-CC music into your CC music? George Harrison got in trouble for this (Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music).
demonoid.com [...] happens to be hosted on [a] server [that] doesn't seem to support SNI.
At least on the client side, every major desktop web browser supports SNI except for Internet Explorer on Windows XP. With security updates for Windows XP ending in three months anyway, why aren't more web server administrators installing SNI to use valuable IPv4 addresses more efficiently? (Disclosure: I moved my web site from another shared host to WebFaction about a year ago primarily to get SNI.)
How deep does the rabbit hole of government hijacking go? The government could be running a man-in-the-middle attack on all five of your senses to keep you in a honeypot that is the only existence you've known since birth. How can anyone be sure that this isn't the case?
Do you think that's air you're breathing now?
Demonoid also had (legally or not) a great deal of otherwise inaccessible material. Books and music that were out of print and/or out of copyright. TV shows that were never going to get a DVD release even in this day and age. Obscure movies and serials, many of them from the early 20th.
The tracker is the least important part of demonoid. The interesting bit was their website that had such a great catalog of stuff AND such a great system for search it.
SUB CATEGORIES! Oh man. There were so many sub categories. Which meant if you wanted something you could search just that sub category. Honestly, Amazon.com often has an inferior search system to what old Demoniod had.
If the resurrected the site but kept the tracker offline it would be nearly as good as the old days... assuming anyone ever used the new demoniod again.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
"There are legitimate uses for torrents, but demonoid wasn't about distributing Linux iso's or other open source projects. It was about pirating movies and music."
Actually, no. If you wanted hit movies or music, Demonoid was among the last places you would look. It might have what you were looking for, but probably not.
Demonoid's forte was along the line of more obscure works, like hard-to-find books and such.
"Would you be willing to wager that legal activity was even more than 10%? Because I wouldnt."
In the U.S., it doesn't matter. IANAL, but legally speaking, the amount of illegal vs legal activity is irrelevant. It only has to have genuine legitimate uses to remain legal. Anything else would constitute punishing law-abiders for the actions of others.
See the Betamax decision.
Piracy of those sorts of works serves a legitimate public interest.
Vigilantism works so well in general that I'm glad to see you applying it to copyright law.
Sports don't matter. Like celebrity gossip, they are a time-sink philistines and other dull people, in much the same way that state lotteries are a money-sink for the same. None of these distractions warrant any discussion by people who think about things that do matter.
Where on the site did it say that? I'm pretty sure they let anyone upload torrents for anything. Gun manufacturers don't advertize their product as being good for robberies, that's the choice of the end user.
Yeah, I use the mp3's to water my plants and I have three thousand episodes of US sitcoms just in case the sewerage backs up.
Well, it knew my old login and password. So at least part of the database was there.
Still, no way to know any of these things are not an *AA honeypot now.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The question is: what can we do to permanently remove illegal file sharing from the web?
Tho you are a troll, ill answer you question anyway: Revamp copyright laws so its NOT illegal for non-profit sharing to occur.
Now back to troll, i do hope you are one of the 'victims' and everything you do is shared 'with impunity'.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
They also pay to come to your shows. ( assuming you play live )
And as you say, some of us out here do support our 'artists', at least the ones that don't try to screw us.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Vigilantism works so well in general that I'm glad to see you applying it to copyright law.
Nobody is claiming that piracy is about punishment.
It isn't even close to vigilantism.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
You can't have it both ways: "you must follow my copyright rules but I don't have to follow yours".
Of course you can. You are confusing the form of a thing with intent of a thing.
Stuff like the GPL and CC is about increasing free access, copyright is about limiting free access. The fact that the principles of copyleft are currently implemented on modern copyright law does not validate modern copyright law, it just means that under the current set of circumstances it was the most practical way to get it done.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
I couldn't agree more. Seems like all the advocates of copyright infringement are those who've never created anything worth paying for.
Right. As someone who sells software on the side as a small home business, I can tell folks here that this kind of thing feels quite different when you're the copyright holder. I first found a cracked version of my software on the Internet over ten years ago. It used a fairly simple registration keying system at that time, and probably wasn't too hard to crack. But when I developed that system, it never occurred to me that anybody cared enough about my small-volume software to even try to crack it.
Who know what the motives of the crackers were? Maybe they just enjoyed the challenge of cracking. (Get a puzzle book.) Or maybe they were having a little juvenile fun damaging someone else's property. (Get a spray can and find an abandoned building.) Or maybe they had a High Moral Purpose of freeing the proprietary software from the evil use of copyright. (Donate to the FSF.) Or, maybe they just wanted to keep my kids from going to college. (Sorry, but I can't think of any alternate way to do that.) But if they had enough skills and time to do cracking, why don't they use those talents to *create* something of their own? Isn't that the best way to make the world A Better Place?
At one time, cracks for the software were listed in Google rankings above my own site. That's really discouraging. Fortunately, cracks for the software now have moved down in the search results, though they're still there.
A wise friend of mine who also sells software on the side said that there isn't really any point in fighting crackers because you don't lose much (or any) revenue from it anyway. So, I came to think of my registration keying system as a way of keeping honest people honest, not of defeating those who really want to steal my software. But it still feels like being raped.
The first crack soon disappeared (the cracker had posted it on his employer's site for some silly reason), but a different crack appeared a few years later, this time from sort of cracking group. They also published a key generator. Raped again, only worse. So, I created a much stronger registration keying system, and made every anti-cracking change I could think of to the software design. That took me about six weeks altogether. It truly is a Rube Goldberg machine. It's so complicated, I barely understand it myself. Under my friend's theory, it was wasted effort: six weeks I should have spent improving the product. But if it took me six weeks to create it, I wonder how long it would take someone to duplicate the new keying system via reverse-engineering? Hopefully, it's beyond the average cracker's attention span for small-volume software. Anyway, I think it's working.
I've tried to download some of the cracks that still appear in order to see what I'm currently up against, but it seems that one now has to give credit card numbers to the crackers first. So, I didn't go any further. But the credit-card thing actually is the best anti-cracking technique of all. If someone wants to give their credit card to crackers, I'm all in favor of it. Even if they get my software for free.
(I'm posting as AC in case anyone here wants to track me down and teach me a lesson. Thanks for listening.)
Exactly. I'd put my stuff out as public domain, but not every country recognizes such declarations. A CC license (attribution only, not nc or sa) achieves much the same thing, and works for people in such countries.
Not a sentence!
Point taken. But rather than punishment, I was thinking more of the idea of "I don't like the law so I'll just create my own." For example, there's a stoplight near my home which I clearly could go through safely most of the time when it's red. Instead, I wait for it each and every time, as does everyone else. Each of us could find laws we don't agree with but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to disregard them. I just think our society works best when everybody plays by the rules that have generally been agreed to.
I actually don't like some elements of copyright law, either. For example, I think the terms are too long and orphaned works ought to be available. But if I don't like the law the way it is, I'd rather work within the system to get it changed rather than just violate it because I disagree with it. (Cynics can call me naive on this point.) In truth, I haven't made any effort to get copyright law changed, but neither have I tried to get the stoplight changed. I can live with both the way they are.
I'd rather work within the system to get it changed rather than just violate it because I disagree with it.
Breaking the law because you disagree with it is part of the system. Pot would never have been legalized if it weren't for all those people smoking it in violation of the law. Same thing with anti-miscegenation laws, sodomy laws, removal of the national 55mph speed limit, repeal of prohibition, etc. There are countless examples.
A typical response to that point is to claim that disobedience doesn't count if you don't do it publicly and get arrested. But practically all of the examples I've given were not done publicly - it took wide-scale private law-breaking for people to become comfortable enough with the concepts in order for the handful of court challenges to be successful.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
That's what you get for releasing proprietary software.
Yeah, some artists only put out poor-quality MP3s officially, but you'll see 24-bit FLAC on, say, What.cd.
You're right. My children don't really need to go college anyway. Heck, a college might teach them how to program. Then, they might use those skills to make the same evil mistakes I've made.
I don't think he would have made any more money if it were GPL.
This idea keeps coming up, but is fundamentally broken, since it is always possible to make profit indirectly by trying to damage your competition. If copyright were revamped as you propose, a larger company that may want to do financial damage to a smaller competitor could resort to distributing that competitor's work entirely on a non-profit basis, relying on their much larger distribution network to effectively circumvent the smaller competitor's revenue stream they might have otherwise wanted to obtain through it. This would effectively mean that only very large conglomerates could effectively have any real control over their copyrights.
We could, if you want... just get rid of the whole concept of copyright entirely, but this carries a baggage of other issues that are also problematic... We are already seeing only glimmers of what would happen as content makers are starting to lose faith in copyright to protect their interests, relying on techniques such as DRM, for example. In utter absence of copyright, such measures are but the tip of a monolithic iceberg that only the very wealthiest people in our society would tend to have the means to actually deal with... and by the time the rest of the public have reasonable access to the same content, it would tend to be the case that it was old enough to no longer be relevant or useful to most.
So... Got any better ideas?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Whoop de fucking do. If you are a warez hound with friends with Demonoid accounts, or you actually have 0-days, you can get an account there. Otherwise, who cares about a private tracker that nobody can access or use unless they are an active scene member. For 99.9% of people out there, Demonoid is irrelevant, just because of the elitism involved.
I follow your point. In that vein, I assume you'd recommend I use some technical means such as Demonoid to circumvent the current copyright law in the hope that doing so will somehow get copyright law changed. Should I apply the same technique to my stoplight?
Do you believe that waiting for a traffic light to change when absolutely no one is around is wrong? If so, then go ahead. I know lots of people who do just that at desserted intersections. I've driven through a few towns that have taken that into account and set lights like that to flashing yellow after midnight.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Wow, so you're saying that large corporations might use their massive resources and logistical might to outcompete smaller up and coming competitors? Holy shit, that's nothing at all like what we have today.
Until police realised that red light cameras make the most money for them in just that situation.
It's widely rumored, and probably true, that many cities actually shortened the yellow phase in order to increase accidential red-light violations. More fines that way.
Does that include the WoW updater? It's a torrent client, but Blizzard doesn't label it as such. Presumably they don't want to be associated with 'shady' technology like torrents.
The scope of that case was greatly lowered by a subsequent one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,_Ltd.
I've done that once, on some code that infringes a software patent. Such things don't bother me here in the UK, but I didn't want to attach a license granting rights to what is likely illegal in the US.
It's one of the most popular programs I've written - probably because Microsoft later released a utility of similar purpose under the same name. I'm sure most of the people coming to the website for it are looking for the Microsoft one. It's got more functionality.
There are legitimate uses for torrents, but demonoid wasn't about distributing Linux iso's or other open source projects. It was about pirating movies and music.
Actually... based on WHY people download movies and music, it's about circumventing geodiscrimination and format-monopolies. If I want to see the latest episode of a tv-show for instance, I have no legitimate way of doing so short of travelling to the US and watch it on tv. I could sign up to a streaming service using a fake name and address and use a VPN service to watch it, but that's grey area at best.
Why won't they allow me to buy a downloadable episode? - I want to buy! - I have the money right here! - But no, they won't sell.
Okay then, so I pirate the thing! - You refused my money so now you get nothing!
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
No, because they dont want to admit that they are offloading the cost of distribution to the customers who are paying for it.
I thought we were talking about the media demonizing a ostensibly innocent protocol, not where the law stands.
Torrenting has legitimate use, but Demonoid was truly for pirating.
Wut? Have you even ever used the site, it's where the bottom feeding 99.9% goes.
By your beliefs, black people should just get back to being slaves already, and women should get their asses back into the kitchen where the belong, and all those gays should be executed. Your argument makes no sense. Laws are not followed by the same people who make the laws, laws are not followed by the same people who enforce the laws. Disobedience is exactly what you're supposed to do when you disagree with a law to get it changed. You have failed civics class for the day. Also you've probably failed Monopoly as well, because you don't get to pass go or collect 200 dollars(Okay I just really wanted to say that line, because it's fun to say.) But real point is as I stated, you're not supposed to follow laws you disagree with, as a juror you're not supposed to punish people who break laws you disagree with, it's called jury nullification. At least if you're in the US. Other countries have different rules.
Sarcasm noted... But copyright, reasonably, should be neutral to the size of a company or power of the individual that owns it. In such a case as what I commented on, it would only offer the most protection to those with the resources to do so. At least right now we *do* have plenty of independent content makers who get recognized for their contributions, under that kind of scenario, there would be dramatically fewer.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
But it still feels like being raped.
Have you actually been raped? If not, I'm not sure why you presume to know what it feels like, and I'm not at all sure why you'd think it feels like "someone failing to hand me money I believe I've earned". (Engaging a prostitute, taking advantage of their services, then refusing to pay, is the closest sex-related analogy I can come up with. And of course that's not rape, so I'm not sure why you'd expect it to feel the same.)
Or is this one of those things where someone can't persuade people's rational minds with logic, and thus has to resort to hyperbolic rhetoric in hopes of bypassing rationality with an emotional reaction?
Anyway, what it "feels like" is irrelevant. Making laws based on how people feel is just a bad mess all around, and if we're to do that for copyright law, how do we decide whether to go by your feelings that copying == rape, or by someone else's feelings that copyright == rape?
If you actually hope to persuade anyone who doesn't already agree with you, you might try arguing that, integrated across society, copyright has more benefit by incentivizing new works than harm by curtailing everyone's natural freedom to copy what they like (y'know, the theory under which modern copyright was originally introduced in 1710). Or something like that. Not complaining that copying makes you feel bad.
(If you're just letting off steam, without trying to persuade anyone, then I guess coming off as an entitled jerk is an acceptable side-effect.)
I couldn't agree more. Seems like all the advocates of copyright infringement are those who've never created anything worth paying for.
Reply
Share
It seems those who resort to presuming things [and misconstruing arguments being made are compensating for a lack of good counter-arguments. Granted, there is that possibility that those who DO outright advocate it are in such a position, but I would be careful, as you gotta assume that there is the possibility that this is untue, and you also gotta make sure the people you reply to are actually advocating copyright infringement - too often I see it made against people who are arguing for toned down - not eliminated - copyright laws, and whose extent of advocating infringement at most if any is towards stuff still under copyright but not marketed in forever - a far cry from those advocating full all over infringement unrestricted.
Shocking, I know.
inferno.demonoid.com points to d2.vu
Do you believe that waiting for a traffic light to change when absolutely no one is around is wrong? If so, then go ahead. I know lots of people who do just that at desserted intersections.
Like what, covered in cherry pie and ice cream?? O.o
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
"Torrenting has legitimate use, but Demonoid was truly for pirating."
Nope. I happen to know that Demonoid carried legal content, because I personally used it for such.
And please get your terminology straight. Copying for personal use is NOT "piracy". Piracy is a legal term, and it involves copyright infringement for profit.
"The scope of that case was greatly lowered by a subsequent one:"
I disagree. That case was about inducement to infringe, not the legality of copying.
I think this might count as a straw man argument, but I'll bite anyway.
If you do not agree with the idea of stoplights, then by all means you may consider ignoring them an option. I've seen many people do this at night when they think no one else is around. The problem, however, is in your reasoning for why the stoplight may not be necessary.
Take, for example, the above statement-- that I've seen people go through lights when they "thought" no one was around. I was there to see them. I was around, but they didn't see me, so they thought it was fine to go through the red light. If I wasn't paying attention, I'd likely have been hit by someone ignoring the law long before now.
The issue here is that you are comparing laws created for very different purposes.
Copyright law exists to protect an individuals ability to profit from hard work or innovation. There are grey area situations where the protection of that individual right may interfere with the common good (fair use for education is one example). Where the public good is seen to outweigh private gain, the US has (or at least used to) side with the public. As this is a matter of some subjectivity there will always be argument and therefore civil disobedience (downloading technically illegal material that you feel should be out of copyright) while not legal, could be justifiable. The same could be said of smoking pot. The law currently is there to protect the public good, but individuals feel that asserting their right does not harm the public and so do so, and it seems that they are mostly correct. The public is little harmed by pot smoking-- at least according to some states.
The laws of the road are, similarly, there to balance private gain (speedy travel) with public good (safety and other peoples right to speedy travel). A stoplight is not there to prevent accidents where all people are driving in an ideal manner, it is there to account for human imperfection.
Imagine four perfect drivers. They see everything, all the time, they always recognize who got to an intersection first, always, to the plank-second. They can drive as fast as the like and maintain perfect control, seeing hazards on the road ahead always with enough time and ability to slow down and evade accident. These drivers upon getting to an intersection do not need a stoplight. They will see each other coming, they determine which individual is traveling at the speed and distance to arrive first, second, third and fourth, they will slow down and or stop as necessary to allow traffic to flow the smoothest, all without a word from each other. Were they the only drivers on the road, no stop signs, speed limits or signals would ever be necessary.
Now imagine four normal people. Each one determines that a different person will arrive there first, or one person decides he wants to get their first and speeds up and creates and issue for the other two. Or maybe two of them do this and refuse to back down. Maybe all three notice each other and slow down but one person spilled coffee on themselves and didn't even notice the other three, careening into them. Maybe they really are perfect drivers, but none of them notice the old man crossing the street, who subsequently is hit and killed when the perform their otherwise perfect driving routine.
The stop light isn't there to stop you when "no one is around" it's there to stop you precisely because there might be someone around that you didn't see. It's there to ensure that everyone has a chance to go, but will do so in a manner organized to minimize danger, even if you happen to not notice a pedestrian, or a car with their lights off, or whatever it happens to be.
The argument you may have is that your speedy travel is being impaired by the lights and that the common good will not be harmed by ignoring stop lights. I think you will find, very quickly, that public good IS in fact harmed by ignoring stop lights. In addition, unlike smoking Pot in the privacy of your own home, or downloa
Piracy is a colloquial term that is thrown about and as im not in a legal context I dont care terribly whether you term it infringement, theft, or piracy. Fact is that the vast majority of the content on demonoid was there without the approval of its rights holder.
I really dont have stomach for people who try to defend behavior thats about on the same level as shoplifting candy bars by saying "but no look Ubuntu is on demonoid too!"
so uh, get this you get the the light as it changes to red. it stays red for 3-4min. absolutely no one goes through the intersection. your only option is to make a left hand turn (new zealand here, we drive on the left) the oncoming road is oneway. multiple lanes of non existent traffic to your left and right. the windows are down and all you can hear is your engine and the chirping of cicadas https://www.google.co.nz/maps/preview#!q=242+Moorhouse+Ave%2C+Waltham+8011&data=!1m4!1m3!1d1023!2d172.6338703!3d-43.5401286!2m1!1e3!4m15!2m14!1m13!1s0x6d318a113bcffa37%3A0xaf1fe118d9cae3d1!3m8!1m3!1d372!2d172.6335436!3d-43.5403895!3m2!1i1680!2i950!4f35!4m2!3d-43.5401286!4d172.6338703&fid=7 this intersection when traveling north
It isn't rumored. It has been proven many times. Hell, I've seen lights that are unusually quick plenty of times.
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
When you use the term "piracy" improperly, you do the copyright trolls' work for them.
"I really dont have stomach for people who try to defend behavior thats about on the same level as shoplifting candy bars by saying "but no look Ubuntu is on demonoid too!""
I'm not trying to "defend" behavior. But on the other hand, I'm not trying to conflate non-criminal behavior with criminal behavior, as you are doing.