Print 66 comment(s) - last by Adonlude.. on Nov 13 at 7:21 PM

Canadian-hosted torrent site is the next to fall in a series of takedowns

The world-wide crackdown on torrent sites has brought down another major torrent hub. After being forced to close its doors to Canadian users in September due to pressure from the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA), survived for only slightly more than a month before being having forced offline entirely today.

The previously bustling homepage has been replaced by a single line of text; bereft of much in the way of details, but leaving little doubt as to the fate of the website:

The CRIA threatened the company renting the servers to us, and because of this it is not possible to keep the site online. Sorry for the inconvenience and thanks for your understanding.

The Demonoid tracker and website outage in September was explained as a server rebuild.  With the CRIA now going after the hosts in question, it is unlikely that Demonoid will find a new host within Canada willing to defend themselves.

"Upstream takedown," as its dubbed, is a page right from the U.S. Digital Millenium Copyright Act takedown procedure

After the Interpol takedown of the UK-based site OiNK on October 23rd, many OiNK users were warned that "a criminal investigation" would continue into the site and its users.

No such warning has been posted yet. It may be that Demonoid did not store any information, that the CRIA may have opted to simply remove the site rather than attempt to prosecute the end-users or that it may be a waiting game to determine if the operators will attempt to bring their site back online.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Not really a surprise....
By ajira99 on 11/9/2007 12:22:34 PM , Rating: 5
However, I wish that the government would apply the same zeal to healthcare, border security and anti-terrorism as they do to copyright protection.

RE: Not really a surprise....
By ninjit on 11/9/2007 12:56:03 PM , Rating: 5
Is border-security a problem in Canada?
All those damn narwhals stealing your fish and your women...

RE: Not really a surprise....
By barjebus on 11/9/2007 1:20:04 PM , Rating: 2
Haha, no, it's those pesky American's that someone keeps letting in ;)

RE: Not really a surprise....
By Ringold on 11/9/07, Rating: 0
RE: Not really a surprise....
By barjebus on 11/9/2007 4:20:02 PM , Rating: 2
1.) You say you have no power to stop terrorists at our border.
2.) 6 years later, we've made no progress....and yet, there's been no terrorist attacks in the U.S. from Canada? Hmmmmmmmm....

RE: Not really a surprise....
By Ringold on 11/9/2007 4:33:52 PM , Rating: 2
We don't have any such power.

1) If we stopped them at border crossings, what's to stop them from crossing anywhere else across the thousands of miles of open land? My understand is none of it is actively monitored. A few days camping trip and hello Colorado!

2) Do you think they're reporting all the plots they've foiled or people they're tracking? The 9/11 crew was here for quite a long time before trying anything. Given the number of plots we do know that have been foiled,not just here but throughout Europe as well, to think they've just given up simply because they havent been successful smacks of Chamberlain like thinking.

RE: Not really a surprise....
By barjebus on 11/9/2007 4:40:03 PM , Rating: 2
I never said they've given up, all I've insinuated was that according to you, Canada's immigration security policies are still unchanged since 9/11, and therefore presents a danger to the U.S. in the form of terrorist attacks.

And then I stated how there have been no terrorist attacks in the U.S. or in Canada in those 6 years. "Foiled plots"? We've had one big one, and that was the terrorist cell in Toronto that involved like 13 people, of which a few have already been let go for not being involved, or if so, they played marginal roles.

All I'm saying is that if it were so easy to get into Canada and cross the border around the great lakes to blow up half of New York city, I wonder why no one hasn't done it yet? Or been caught trying it?

RE: Not really a surprise....
By Ringold on 11/9/2007 4:56:14 PM , Rating: 3
If you were a terrorist, and wanted to enter the US, would cross the US-Mexico border, which gets harder by the day?

Or would you cross this virgin place: (That's insane) (First paragraph says it all) (Thats got a solid collection of links) (Gangs are making it in, but terrorists, no?) (review of a relevant book)

Again, just because it hasn't already happened doesn't mean it can't or isn't in motion. Fooling people such as yourself in a sense of security is exactly why this movement has been slow and methodical over what,two or three decades now? It wasn't exactly a rapid succession from African embassy bombings, to the USS Cole, to the WTC.

RE: Not really a surprise....
By barjebus on 11/9/2007 5:25:57 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you about Sikh terrorists finding asylum here (I can't believe the Air India inquiry found those guys not guilty :S).

I agree that it can and probably will happen down the line...but by proving that the Canadian immigration system is so insecure, you're actually eroding your own position. If 90% of all people from Afghanistan and Pakistan can get in unscreened, then what's stopping them currently? Why haven't they moved yet? The numbers are so outrageous concerning how few people actually get screened that there is essentially no stopping someone from just walking in and blowing something up, YET IT HASN'T HAPPENED. Why would we turn away 30,000 people a year who may or may not be being tortured or persecuted in their own countries just to stop one terrorist attack that MAY happen, but HASN'T in the course of 6 years???

RE: Not really a surprise....
By bangmal on 11/10/2007 12:50:15 PM , Rating: 2
You are a typical stupid american only good at blame shifting and finger pointing.

How about stop killing , looting and raping around the world? The best way to prevent terroists is to be nice.

RE: Not really a surprise....
By kontorotsui on 11/12/2007 11:21:31 AM , Rating: 2
Being nice with Hitler would have helped?

RE: Not really a surprise....
By Adonlude on 11/13/2007 7:21:28 PM , Rating: 2
Give us back our Americans and please take all our Mexicans!

RE: Not really a surprise....
By JonnyDough on 11/10/2007 6:25:45 AM , Rating: 2
Can you please rate the above two posts up to a "6." If anyone else agrees with me on that, please feel free to rank THIS post up. Thanks.

RE: Not really a surprise....
By aos007 on 11/9/2007 2:15:45 PM , Rating: 3
Border security? Like having border agents delaying shoppers returning from US on purpose for "not contributing to Canadian economy" is not giving them enough power already (read on CBC)? They are already running arrogant and unchecked, last thing we need is more "border security". Likewise with "anti-terrorism". I'm more afraid of the fresh cops that taser sick people left and right leaving trails of death than some potential terrorist who is willing to die for their cause and will find a way to kill you no matter what anyway.

RE: Not really a surprise....
By barjebus on 11/9/2007 3:59:10 PM , Rating: 3
Agree'd, I am not a fan of giving up liberties to save peoples lives. We all gotta die sometime, and if that happens to be me who dies in an explosion in the middle of an outdoor cafe, then so be it.

The whole torture thing in the U.S. is getting out of hand as well and I can see Canada stumbling down the same foolish path with Harper leading us. I don't want much TV these days, but is the media actually calling Bush on the torture thing much these days? Like pointing out that if he was doing these things to American citizen's that he'd be impeached on the spot and thrown out of office? And that if you can't do it to American citizen's, then why do "human rights" (notice how it's not "American rights") not apply to the rest of humanity?

RE: Not really a surprise....
By Ringold on 11/9/2007 4:15:44 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see how border security, or having to show a valid license as proof of citizenship on election day (a current issue in the US), is an infringement of liberties. People at the border either have a right to enter or they do not. That would be protecting your liberties from dilution, er, so to speak.

The OP didn't say "I wish our governments would crack down and listen to all our phone calls!"

RE: Not really a surprise....
By barjebus on 11/9/2007 4:21:52 PM , Rating: 2
Likewise with "anti-terrorism". I'm more afraid of the fresh cops that taser sick people left and right leaving trails of death than some potential terrorist who is willing to die for their cause and will find a way to kill you no matter what anyway.

That's all I was referring to. Showing valid ID at the border makes sense, and requiring passports also makes sense. I'm referring to the infringement of other civil liberties rather than border security bullying.

RE: Not really a surprise....
By Ringold on 11/9/2007 4:37:02 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, I took that cops tasering people thing as some sort of humor or exaggeration.

We've had some taser-happy cops here, but thus far is mostly been more amusing then anything. I didn't see the specter of Big Brother there.

That guy at the University of Florida was begging for it..

Better than the 90s and previous decades. They just used to beat the crap out of you then. :P

RE: Not really a surprise....
By barjebus on 11/9/2007 4:42:41 PM , Rating: 1
It was humor, but people do lose eyes, or die once in awhile as well from tasers. Has that happened from terrorists in North America? Not since 9/11....

RE: Not really a surprise....
By Missing Ghost on 11/9/2007 3:36:31 PM , Rating: 2
Healthcare isn't handled by the federal government, it's handled by each individual province. Also border security and anti-terrorism aren't important issues currently in Canada... Most people think the borders are already an hassle and there isn't a huge terrorism problem. Other issues are more important.

RE: Not really a surprise....
By Ringold on 11/9/2007 4:26:49 PM , Rating: 2
Not a problem?

Canada can have that attitude for now, as they aren't so dumb as to attack you guys at this point. These are generally pretty intelligent people running the show. An attack might cause you to crack down, and they'd be forced to rough it across the Mexican border or by sea. It's much more wise on their part to be quiet about it, so that you think "border security and anti-terrorism aren't important issues".

RE: Not really a surprise....
By Missing Ghost on 11/9/2007 4:52:15 PM , Rating: 2
If you like to live in a country where you're always treated like a criminal, do so. Canada is a pacifist state, so there isn't more effort done than what the police is doing; there won't be any crazy anti-terrorist laws like in the USA. The money should be put on healthcare, education, etc. Not anti-terrorism, border security, etc. which are similar to war and paranoia.

RE: Not really a surprise....
By rcc on 11/9/2007 6:01:35 PM , Rating: 2
Canada is a pacifist state

Fortunately you are wrong. As a pacifist state, and a pacifist person, cannot exist in nature. The fact that Canada has armed forces kinda says otherwise too.

In order for a pacifist to exist, there must be someone willing to provide protection to them. Preferably without cost to the pacifist, that way they can climb on their high horse and talk down to the cops, soldiers and nations that protect them without feeling as though they may have contributed.

Not that Canada isn't a peaceful country, and I think that's great. Despite global opinion, the US would prefer to be peaceable as well; we've just been burnt so many times that it's easier to be proactive than totally reactive.

RE: Not really a surprise....
By Missing Ghost on 11/9/2007 10:50:28 PM , Rating: 2
We have armed forces, but that doesn't mean we aren't pacifists. The armed forces are kept to a minimum and only used reluctantly. They are currently only used for missions of help and reconstruction, and to ensure our sovereignty in the North.

Nobody is providing protection for us. If I look in the streets I see no USA soldiers. We are against projects like the USA missile shield. Our protection is from diplomacy; we don't go around saying we may attack other countries, like... Iran, North Korea, Syria. Pumping money into your army at an insane rate is certainly a kind of menace too.

RE: Not really a surprise....
By mal1 on 11/10/2007 1:29:49 AM , Rating: 1
Pacifists don't make chemical/biological weapons and test them on their own citizens...

RE: Not really a surprise....
By Ringold on 11/10/2007 1:59:11 AM , Rating: 2
Our protection is from diplomacy;

In the long run, when, in history, exactly has that ever worked?

As the Cylons would say, it's happened before and shall happen again. Canada is just behind the Japanese 8 ball; they went the pacifist route (forced to by us), realized they had no significant influence in the world at the end of the day, and now look, they've got a quickly growing "Self Defense Force" doing things other than strictly "Self Defense".

Canada's defense has come from the fact Roosevelt laid it out quite plainly in the early 1940s; an attack on Canada is tantamount to an attack on the US, and virtually all US military planning involving the defense of North America includes Canada as if it were a collection of additional northern States, whether Canada likes it or not. It more or less has to be that way; we could every draft-eligible man in America and not have enough to defend that border.

RE: Not really a surprise....
By FITCamaro on 11/10/2007 11:11:46 AM , Rating: 2
It's easy to say money shouldn't be put into border security when no one really wants to go to your country for anything other than weed or cheap prescription drugs.

RE: Not really a surprise....
By barjebus on 11/9/2007 4:53:53 PM , Rating: 2
I can't even believe we are having this discussion right're upset that there's about 30,000 cases backlogged in Canada about immigration, and that they take too long to verify those peoples identity?

Wikipedia quotes from a U.S. government paper:

The United States Government Accountability Office estimates that “between 400,000 and 700,000 illegal immigrants have entered the United States each year since 1992.

And you're afraid that immigrants are going to come from CANADA? Show me this crack you're smoking, I'm sure I could get a good price for it.

RE: Not really a surprise....
By Ringold on 11/9/2007 5:04:28 PM , Rating: 2
If you look at where those immigrants to Canada are flying in from, I'd be more concerned about those than hard working Mexicans coming to seek a better life. There's a clear difference between the level of international terrorist that flows from Mexico (approximately zero) and that of the Mid East (almost all of it).

Difference is though, Mexicans are also our own problem to deal with. Canada's immigration problems we're powerless to deal with yet vulnerable to due to the wide-open border. I could care less about any one elses immigration problems, such as Germany, since that doesn't impact me.

What I don't get is how you can dismiss it so easily. It must be grand living in Canada, where the worst apparently one has to worry about is perhaps the premature mothers having to flee to have children in American neonatal centers and getting busted. Oh, and cops with tasers versus night sticks.

RE: Not really a surprise....
By barjebus on 11/9/2007 5:18:29 PM , Rating: 2
Try not lying to the entire world and then making a fool of yourself when you're stuck in Iraq with debts piling up at astronomical rates, while corporate America sucks you dry by charging the military for non-existent goods or services that were never rendered or delivered. Have you followed any of the congressional inquiries about where BILLIONS of dollars just disappeared? I am extremely thankful that Canada did not get involved in Iraq.

Immigration security is important, I agree with you, and we do need to reform our system, but most of us as Canadians want everyone to have the best possible opportunity to come here if they are oppressed or in a hopeless situation. That's the whole point of being a developed country...helping those that aren't.

There's a clear difference between the level of international terrorist that flows from Mexico (approximately zero) and that of the Mid East (almost all of it).

I assume you're not saying that everyone from Middle East are terrorists, and that it's just that of the terrorists that do exist, most of them are from the Middle East? Well I wonder how that all started....oh YEAH! Thats right, didn't the U.S. help the Saudi's train and fly Mujahadeen fighters to Afghanistan in the 80's to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan? Riiiight, and where are those terrorists now? Fighting the U.S. military in Iraq? And why are we there again? Because the dictator the U.S. installed in Iraq turned on them after the war against Iran failed?

/rolling my eyes

RE: Not really a surprise....
By Ringold on 11/10/2007 2:10:49 AM , Rating: 2
Nice. I prod you just enough, and you explode ranting about the second Gulf war, as if thats somehow relevant to something thats been going on since at the very earliest the 80s? Very nice. I'm glad some allies didn't get in there as well; allows someone to help with diplomacy that appears neutral.

And then you admit that terrorists do in fact come from the Mid East, but then change the subject to a biased history lesson rather than current issues at hand. Our only problem was abandoning Afghanistan after we helped them to victory, directly leading to the Taliban -- which, by the way, is exactly what some of our allies want to do again. Where was Canadian moral superiority during the Rwandan genocide, hm? You guys are no better than we are. :P

I wasn't really asking for Canada to go to the moon for us. If you guys can pay nearly 50% top marginal income tax rates, ya'll can afford to screen 30k additional people a year to make sure they're at least semi-legit.

RE: Not really a surprise....
By Quiescent on 11/9/2007 5:01:46 PM , Rating: 2
That's how I feel. You know American health care is actually ranked the lowest? Same with education. It's not as bad for education, but still. The government could seriously put money elsewhere for more important things.

Our lives or our companies? Which does the government wish to choose?

RE: Not really a surprise....
By Ringold on 11/9/2007 5:08:59 PM , Rating: 2
There was a really interesting write up in The Economist last week on education.

It told you exactly what any Republican might tell you; throwing money at it has had no measurable effect for developed countries over the past decade or so. Standardized testing seems to be proven somewhat useless by the Fins. What really is needed appears to be improved training (some countries require primary school teachers to have Masters degrees), fewer teachers (to professionalize the job in the social view) and incentives to actually be a teacher such that instead of recruiting the bottom 30% of college grads, such as the US does, education snags those out of the top 10%. Also have to catch kids falling behind.

I knew throwing money at anything by the government is a waste, but head over to and see if you can find the article, the chart was really surprising. Many countries increased spending by a huge degree -- and saw negative progress!

RE: Not really a surprise....
By Quiescent on 11/9/2007 5:34:32 PM , Rating: 2
In all I don't mean throwing it at the school and saying do this and this. I see inexperienced teachers in a lot of schools here. One teacher last year didn't understand geometry, so he taught algebra. One geometry teacher I had last year knew geometry so well, but he couldn't teach it to us. Not by a long shot. I think it should be focused on more of getting good teachers. It's not 100% our faults we're failing classes. Some of us aren't failing because we're slacking off, we're failing because the teacher doesn't know how to teach.

As far as financial aid goes, your parents could be making 80k a year, but they still won't be able to afford college for you. The economy is kind of screwy. I don't want to be stuck with student loan bills, and I know I will.

It doesn't matter if a high percentage of the state's money goes to education. It's not going into the right place. They haven't figured that out yet, either.

RE: Not really a surprise....
By barjebus on 11/9/2007 5:46:44 PM , Rating: 2
I think when it comes to post-secondary education that throwing money can help. Cutting tuition costs by paying for portions of students tuitions and making it very easy for everyone to have the ability to obtain a post secondary education allows for the poorer classes to understand that just because they don't have money, that they still have a possible future. Too often it's kids who know they will never go to University, so what's the point of doing well in Highschool? On the flipside, middle class and upper class kids often get a feeling of entitlement, or that for whatever reason, education is onerous.

I'm really not sure how you could change that entitlement mindset :S

RE: Not really a surprise....
By Quiescent on 11/9/2007 7:09:57 PM , Rating: 2
My family is considered mid-class. But even as being mid-class, we still have a bunch of stuff to pay off. Even with the nice insurance we have because my dad works for Cessna, we still have to pay for certain things. I mean like I said before, on the user-side of the economy, it feels like it's completely out of whack. $3 for a gallon of milk here is pretty expensive. You also must figure gas, groceries, and other bills.

I see it as a possibility, but also for the fact that I may be ending up paying a majority of the tuition and other fees because 80k a year may seem like a lot of money. It's really not.

RE: Not really a surprise....
By Ringold on 11/10/2007 2:20:40 AM , Rating: 2
The only problems with throwing (government) money at post-secondary is that, as we've seen in America with heavily subsidized sacred-cow student loans, it encourages wild price inflation. Students become insensitive to cost, universities spend more. The other problem is that "free" or "nearly free" college seems to lead to the next socialist goal; a French sort of system that isn't at all competitive for students, leading to lackluster universities. Sarkozy knows it and is trying to reform it now.

The US universities are the best in the world, so I'd caution against any large changes. That said, in my home state of Florida, college is "free" based on a meritocracy; Bright Futures Scholarships of 75% of tuition is given to anyone who hardly bothers in High School, 100% to those that really try (its still not all that difficult), and then even more aid is available at the community college level. Most people I knew from high school ended up making money by attending college.. I made about $600 per semester, a girlfriend at the time made over $2000. Except for those that slacked off and lost it (a certain GPA must be maintained). I think it works pretty well; those that want it can get it, those that don't want it don't have money wasted on them.

I don't personally view it as insensitive to say not everyone is meant to go to college.

RE: Not really a surprise....
By FITCamaro on 11/10/2007 11:32:35 AM , Rating: 2
Teachers need to be properly trained yes. But the large majority of the reason kids are failing these days is the parents. There is almost no emphasis on an education coming from parents. Parent's bitch and moan about their kid not doing well. But the parents aren't even making sure their kid has their homework done or studies for tests.

A lot of the reason is the degradation of the family today. It's perfectly acceptable to a lot of people for a woman to be a single mother because she wasn't smart enough to make sure the guy used a condom. I mean we've got f*cking 15 and 16 year olds with kids.

The girl I'm starting to date now is finishing up her masters and will be doing her final semester in student teaching this spring. She's already started teaching and she's got students who are 17 and have kids. What kind of values is someone who's a parent at 17 going to teach their own kid?

Yes the schools are primarily teaching abstinence these days because they get federal funding if they do so but its the parents job to provide information on sex as well, not just the schools. If you haven't talked to your kid about sex by the time they're in 8th grade these days, you're not doing your job. That's why we're having to start handing out birth control to f*cking middle school students now.

Parents complain about video games showing sex and violence but then let their 10 year old watch TV shows like Nip/Tuck, Sex and the City, etc. And who's fault is it when a parent buys their kid said video game and its got things in it the parent doesn't want their kid seeing? The video game companies of course. Couldn't possibly be the parents fault for buying them the f*cking game in the first place.

And if you don't want to be stuck with student loan bills, you better start doing well so you get scholarships. And pick a field that isn't over-saturated with people. Try an engineering field.

"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki