Demonoid back online

[nekokami]

There was a lot of speculation when Demonoid went offline that they'd never be back. They are.

No further comment from me... and let's try to keep the debate about the usuals down to a low simmer.

[HarryT]

Since they have always claimed to be a "legitimate" site, let's hope that they have now implemented effective measures to prevent the distribution of copyrighted materials via their system. If they have, perhaps someone might believe their claims of legitimacy.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Since they have always claimed to be a "legitimate" site, let's hope that they have now implemented effective measures to prevent the distribution of copyrighted materials via their system. If they have, perhaps someone might believe their claims of legitimacy.

Internet providers are distributing copyrighted material via their system but that is not problem. Google helps to find copyroghted material via their system but it does not seem to be a problem.

[HarryT]

Demonoid, however, appears to have no purpose other than to assist people in finding illegally uploaded material. A site which exists purely for this purpose is very hard to justify the existance of, don't you think?

[cmbs]

If that's what it's for, why do you allow this thread on the forum at all? It doesn't include a link but it includes all you need to know to find it. Why is mobile read advertising this site?

[NatCh]

We're not, we're discussing it.

Forum policy does not, in any way shape or form, desire to keep people from discussing things like this.

The "no direct links, no detailed instructions" thing doesn't intend to hold us to a "not enough to find it via Google" standard: there wouldn't be much of anything that we could discuss at all under such a standard.

[cmbs]

Really? If you deleted threads relating to stealing copyrighted materials there would be nothing left to talk about? If that were true, I'd not come here.

I mean threads giving enough information that a person knows what site to go to to steal stuff, so that they can look it up in a search engine. I don't mean threads which discuss the topic in a more general way.

[HarryT]

If that were the case, we would not be able to say how loathsome and despicable such sites (and their users) are. One needs the freedom to be able to discuss such sites in order to condemn them - it certainly does not constitute condoning them in any way whatsoever.

[NatCh]

In this case, the name of the site is sufficient to find it. Referring to it as "The Site Which Must Not Be Named" is a bit too melodramatic for my tastes.

Besides, Demonoid needs invitations to actually get into, so that reduces the likelihood that a random person will get in because of this site. It's also how they avoided getting shut down for so long.

A surprising number of discussions at least touch on something illicit in some wise, and Google's search algorithms are way too good to try and dance around, it's just not a realistic goal. Even if it were, we're none of us interested in the time, effort, or vitriol needed to police every post at such a level.

Demonoid's return is noteworthy in that it relates to the whole e-book discussion in the area of "piracy" and publisher's fears thereof. MobileRead does a pretty good job, in my humble opinion, of making our condemnation of "piracy" pretty plain.

[cmbs]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If that were the case, we would not be able to say how loathsome and despicable such sites (and their users) are. One needs the freedom to be able to discuss such sites in order to condemn them - it certainly does not constitute condoning them in any way whatsoever.

Yes it does. You are advertising them. You are making them known to people who otherwise never would have heard of them. It is a kind of support. Even bad publicity is still publicity. A certain number of people will see this thread and learn of a new place to find illegal books, and they will go there to download some.

You could just as easily say how bad it is that there are sites like this without advertising who they are. But you don't even need to do that. You could just not discuss them at all.

If this were my site, I wouldn't allow it because it does help people find places to get illegal books. And some of the discussions where people gather together and give their lame excuses of why it's not their fault is a kind of social support, easing their minds of the guilt, convincing them it's ok. I want no part of any of it. I might not be able to stop people from abusing copyright, but I'm not going to help them, if I can avoid it. I definitely do wonder, given some of the threads here, how much mobile read is concerned about not helping with illegal activities.

Trigger the denials. But denials don't change the fact of not only this type of discussion but how about all that removing the drm business?

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by cmbs

....I definitely do wonder, given some of the threads here, how much mobile read is concerned about not helping with illegal activities.

But MobileRead is accessible globally; and what is illegal in one country may not be illegal somewhere else.
(Afghanistan, for example, has no copyright laws (as far as I'm aware).)

Imho, it's a mistake to assume one set of laws (or one moral code) is universally applicable. Therefore, discussion should be open, and people left to decide for themselves what they do in their particular circumstances.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by NatCh

Besides, Demonoid needs invitations to actually get into, so that reduces the likelihood that a random person will get in because of this site. It's also how they avoided getting shut down for so long.

I do not know about the new incarnation but the previous Demonoid was semi open. You could join without and invitation on Fridays if there were slots available and there usually was.

[NatCh]

Sorry, cmbs, but speaking for myself, the same moral code that prevents me from taking copyrighted works without paying for them, also (among other things) prevents me from trying to force everyone else to comply with that code in every wise.

MobileRead is primarily a discussion based community, that means we discuss things, and sometimes they're things that many, or even most of us don't like much, but we hold the right of free speech in pretty high regard. We would also consider forbidding the mere mention of such things (as you seem to want us to do) to be pretty firmly contrary to that freedom.

You are similarly at liberty to believe or not, as you choose, our statements that MobileRead does not condone "piracy."

We draw a line at actively distributing and openly condoning tools that only support "piracy." Could that line be drawn elsewhere? Certainly it could: it's a judgment call. We draw it, in good faith, in the best place we can, trying to balance the various abstract ideals that bear on the matter. That's something else you'll just have to decide for yourself whether you'll choose to believe or not.

[cmbs]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

But MobileRead is accessible globally; and what is illegal in one country may not be illegal somewhere else.
(Afghanistan, for example, has no copyright laws (as far as I'm aware).)

Imho, it's a mistake to assume one set of laws (or one moral code) is universally applicable. Therefore, discussion should be open, and people left to decide for themselves what they do in their particular circumstances.

Taking people's work without their permission is wrong, whether or not it's illegal. You can come up with all the excuses you want, you're not going to change the fact that it's wrong.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by cmbs

Taking people's work without their permission is wrong, whether or not it's illegal. You can come up with all the excuses you want, you're not going to change the fact that it's wrong.

Of course it is not always wrong. 2000 year after the person died there is not a problem. Taxes is taking things and if you want to take the extremist position that taxes is theft then so be it but for me that totally destroys your arguments in the case of books.