Demonoid Busted As A Gift To The United States Government

http://torrentfreak.com/demonoid-busted-as-a-gift-to-the-united-states-government-120806/

by rkudeshi • 14 years ago

141 181 14 years ago

torrentfreak.com

stephengillie• 14 years ago

Torrentfreak is blocked where I work (again).

Here's another comment thread on the Gizmodo article: http://gizmodo.com/5932143/ukraine-officials-shut-down-demon...

cleverjake• 14 years ago

Alternativly - https://173.193.242.225/demonoid-busted-as-a-gift-to-the-uni...

ianstallings2• 14 years ago

This is unfortunate. I see an end to sharing in general if the powers that be have their way.

citricsquid7• 14 years ago

I assume you mean "their way" as in: an end to all illegal sharing. If so, why is it unfortunate, surely no illegal sharing is a good thing?

ianstallings2• 14 years ago

You're assuming that all sharing is illegal sharing. That's the same argument "they", the people working to shut down torrent sites, use.

GFischer2• 14 years ago

Illegal and immoral are not the same thing.

It could be illegal but moral in some cases (ok, torrents are mostly used for copyright infringement, I admit, but they do have moral and legal uses).

Furthermore, it's not even illegal in every country (but we'll get the US laws applied anyways).

Dystopian• 14 years ago

I don't. I see a beginning of decentralized sharing and an influx of more anonymous, secure, internet usage.

w1ntermute• 14 years ago

That's highly unlikely. People said similar things when Oink was raided. And as Wikipedia notes, "Alan Ellis was tried for conspiracy to defraud at Teesside Crown court, the first person in the UK to be prosecuted for illegal file-sharing, and found not guilty on 15 January 2010."

But now we have What.CD, which is infinitely better than Oink in terms of features and content. From What.CD, we also have Project Gazelle, which has made setting up new torrent sites much easier by providing up-to-date private torrent site software (what runs What.CD) under the GPL. And the What.CD admins have learned from Ellis's mistakes and set up the site in such a way that it can't be taken down so easily.

maratd• 14 years ago

It takes all of 10 minutes to setup a site/tracker like Demonoid. These sort of actions will continue to drive people toward private trackers.

Want to combat piracy? Fix your damn business models. I don't want to pay per song, per album, per movie, per game, per book, per whatever! I am willing to pay a minor monthly subscription to get access to a library of content.

There are companies out there that get that. Most, however, do not.

rayiner4• 14 years ago

I agree the business models need work, but "let me get access to more product at lower prices or else I'll steal it" does't seem like a very defensible position.

kaonashi• 14 years ago

tomjen32• 14 years ago

Well call it trustbusting if you want.

rmc6• 14 years ago

Don't forget to add "Sell my content even if I'm not in USA". Seriously, piracy is the only way to get some content outside the USA.

com2kid3• 14 years ago

The reverse is also true. There are albums that I just cannot buy in the US. Eventually if I do find someone selling the imported CD I'll go ahead and buy it, but sometimes that never happens.

On the plus side, this is happening less and less often, bands I couldn't even find search results for a few years back now have people selling their albums on Amazon marketplace.

I've also talked to guys on the other side of this though, who are trying to get material to market in many different countries at once. It isn't easy, often times some stupid "international distribution agreement" is signed in the far off past with some company that about 5 minutes later decided they didn't want to have anything to do with the band thereafter.

Or music labels in different countries want different agreements that would degrade the user experience, or would upset distributors in other countries that have already signed on, or one of a million other stupid things.

Launching anything internationally isn't easy.

debacle3• 14 years ago

I do want to pay per album, per movie, per game, per book, etc.

I just want to pay 1/5th of the current cost. Distribution is now free, so why are we still paying for it?

wtvanhest2• 14 years ago

Because, the price isn't determined by cost. Each artist is its own Monopoly, so pricing is determined by what people will pay for access to that monopoly product.

There are plenty of artists who are coming up who charge much less.

cageface6• 14 years ago

I want the product of whatever it is you do for a living, but at 1/5th of the price you're wiling to sell it for. Ok?

rprasad• 14 years ago

Because good editors and typesetters cost money, just like good programmers and designers.

The marginal cost of printing a book is in the pennies because the cost is spread out over millions of books (across multiple titles). Materials only add a dollar or two more in costs. The majority of the cost of a book is in fixed costs prior to printing, i.e., proofreading.

Moreover, distribution costs real money (unless you also own the pipes).

nikcub• 14 years ago

It might take only 10 minutes to setup a site, but the database of torrents and magnet links at demonoid was one of the best on the web. I hope somebody has a backup ..

tedunangst3• 14 years ago

wait, wait, wait. We want a subscription model now? I thought we were tired of renting things and wanted to own them. Somebody please make up their mind and tell me what to think.

freehunter2• 14 years ago

Why not have the best of both worlds? All you can eat music downloads for a low monthly cost, but DRM free. It doesn't exist in a necessarily easy to consume product right now, but it does exist. I could imagine using something like the Zune Pass plus Tunebite giving you this exploiting the "analog hole". Tunebite plays the music files from a virtual audio output and records it in a virtual audio input. Similar to taping songs off the radio, or playing a CD and recording it to tape. The file would go from a protected WMA to an unprotected MP3 (or ogg, or flac, etc), and all you're doing is playing your legal copy of the song.

That way you can burn it to a CD to listen to in your car or put it on your iPod Nano to take to the gym with you, and the file can't be revoked just because Microsoft changed the license. These are completely legitimate use cases. I'm sure such a hypothetical situation would work with Rhapsody or other music subscription services. Various services may embed a code in the file to tie it back to you if it winds up on a sharing site. I don't know if this method would remove that, so I would suggest keeping these files purely for your own benefit.

tsahyt• 14 years ago

That sort of business model is not for everyone though. I'm perfectly fine with paying per album as long as the album is actually mine after purchase without any limitations on what to do with it. Period. I'd even rather have that than a "flatrate".

What I'll be "finest" with though is paying the artist directly, even at the same rate. I have no interest whatsoever in sponsoring the music industry, as in corporations. I want the artist to receive my money, not some manager, business executive or whatever, because the product I'm interested in is the music itself, not it's promotion.

Morally speaking I'd rather pirate and then paypal some money to the artist to support the good work.

thronemonkey• 14 years ago

I agree completely, so I try to buy music on bandcamp as much as possible. I basically see it as a donation to the artist and to a service (bandcamp) which I think does a good thing.

rektide4• 14 years ago

> It takes all of 10 minutes to setup a site/tracker like Demonoid.

"10 minutes" to set up the site and half a decade of fostering, seeding trust and a community of people who laboriously upload and seed content, and then five years of fighting ISPs, world politics and DDoS attacks to stay running.

kevhsu• 14 years ago

Perfectly willing to pay per song, per album, per movie, per game, etc. What matters is the method and timeliness of delivery. If I can pay for this new episode of HIMYM and start streaming it within 3 minutes on my phone, tablet, etc. I'm perfectly happy.

Plenty of people would be willing to pay $10-20 per episode of Game of Thrones to be able to watch it legitimately without Cable+HBO at the same time as cable subscribers. $10-20 seems like a lot, but the series is extremely popular, and the 100-200 per season of GoT still costs the end user less money than cable contract + HBO. Also probably leads to more money in HBO's pockets I'd imagine.

I would pay NBC $60 for a pass to have legitimate access to their Olympic streams and coverage, but instead they require cable login information that I don't have access to because cable and internet are included in my lease.

forlorn• 14 years ago

Is it possible to dump magnet-links and launch on another tracker?

StavrosK• 14 years ago

Even if it is, it's not possible to dump the community.

pudquick• 14 years ago

Only if the torrent is marked public inside the torrent file itself.

The magnet link is derived from a hash of a portion of the torrent file which includes the public flag/setting - which controls whether DHT/similar "trackerless" methods can be used for transmitting.

Without the public flag set, a magnet link for that torret is pretty much useless to a torrent client since it won't be able to discover any other peers.

Setting it will change the hash / magnet link.

ojbyrne• 14 years ago

"Tribute" seems like a better word choice than "gift".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribute

alan_cx• 14 years ago

Remind me, how many media companies have gone bust due to so called "piracy"? Sony? Warners? Fox? Any?

Any artists gone bust provably down to "piracy"? In fact many really awful "artists" make millions, seemingly supported by draconian acts of government. I mean, would some one like Rhianna be happy to see her fans potentially get fined or even jailed? Ironically if you fine people they have less cash to spend on these muppets.

Any concrete proof that "piracy" is actually costing them actual real money? Is there any proof that the majority of down-loaders would have bought the "art" in the first place? Its mostly grazing.

Or is it just that they want to make even more money? All those profits not quite enough?

OK, fair enough, capitalism is capitalism, so then cant they invest rather than using government to beat on their customers?

Why does government support failing business by using the law to do so? The law is government/public money, its just like pumping cash in to failing businesses. Its stealth socialism.

I'm sorry, this whole thing is absurd. Worse still its based on a fundamental lie.

The simple truth is that people will willingly pay good money for a product they value. Its that really not enough? It certainly was for Louis CK.

citricsquid7• 14 years ago

> Remind me, how many media companies have gone bust due to so called "piracy"? Sony? Warners? Fox? Any?

Why does that matter?

> Any artists gone bust provably down to "piracy"? In fact many really awful "artists" make millions, seemingly supported by draconian acts of government. I mean, would some one like Rhianna be happy to see her fans potentially get fined or even jailed? Ironically if you fine people they have less cash to spend on these muppets.

If Rihanna wanted people to have her music for free why doesn't she go down the pay what you want route? It's a business decision that she has made (or at least, sold the rights to make that decision to others through contracts and the like). If Rihanna didn't want her fans to be breaking the law by downloading her music illegally she would not make her music illegal to download. She would make it free.

> Any concrete proof that "piracy" is actually costing them actual real money? Is there any proof that the majority of down-loaders would have bought the "art" in the first place? Its mostly grazing.

Does there need to be? People are taking something for free, something someone is trying to sell and does not want to be taken for free. Surely that is enough for illegal sharing of music to be considered bad? If an artist wants their music to be free they would make it free.

> OK, fair enough, capitalism is capitalism, so then cant they invest rather than using government to beat on their customers?

huh? Please can you elaborate on what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that the media companies should either develop DRM that can't be broken, or that they should make their product attractive enough that it won't be stolen? If so, doesn't that argument extend to cars? BMW should make a BMW so attractive post purchase ("You can only start the car using finger prints!") that nobody would steal a BMW and if they don't make that the case then they deserve for the cars to be stolen?

> Why does government support failing business by using the law to do so? The law is government/public money, its just like pumping cash in to failing businesses. Its stealth socialism.

Huh, if a business has a product and people are taking that product without agreeing to the terms set out by the business that owns the rights to that product (eg: downloading a song for free when the business wants $0.99 to download a copy) shouldn't the government protect that? Just like if any business should expect to be able to control their product (within the confines of the law)?

> The simple truth is that people will willingly pay good money for a product they value. Its that really not enough? It certainly was for Louis CK.

I'm sorry but that's a laughably misguided statement. People pirate media because they don't want to pay for it. The evidence of this is EVERYWHERE, you included an example yourself: people pirated the Louis CK special[1][3]. People pirated "World Of Goo", a DRM free PC game that had ~90% piracy rates[2]. People pirate because they don't want to pay: the only way to prevent that is to include incredibly restrictive DRM (see: Steam) masked as some sort of "extra service"[3].

[1] https://tpb.pirateparty.org.uk/torrent/6878474/Louis_ck_-_Lo...

[2] http://2dboy.com/2008/11/13/90/

[3] Even Steam games (eg: L4D) have huge piracy rates and Steam is considered a fantastic service with excellent sales (L4D has been as low as $2): http://tpb.pirateparty.org.uk/torrent/7470070/Left_4_Dead_2-...

mediocregopher• 14 years ago

>If an artist wants their music to be free they would make it free.

This isn't always the case. MGMT comes to mind as a band who wanted to release their album (Congratulations) for free download but the studio or producer or whoever wouldn't let them. This isn't always the case I'm sure, but it's also not a fair statement to say that if you can't get an album for free it's the artist who wants it that way. There's a lot of people that have their fingers in the pie.

ewillbefull3• 14 years ago

alan_cx's comment is a little silly, but I'll take your bait.

> Does there need to be? People are taking something for free, something someone is trying to sell and does not want to be taken for free. Surely that is enough for illegal sharing of music to be considered bad? If an artist wants their music to be free they would make it free.

Most of the pushes for these laws and raids are done by studios who insist they are losing out, big-time. "Think of the jobs!" If the pirates cannot have their narrow anecdotal evidence, nor can the studios. ;)

"People are taking something for free" simplifies the issue, and misrepresents it as well. If I made a song and priced it at three billion dollars and thousands of people "stole" it, would it be the biggest theft in the history of mankind? The terms set out by which information can be exchanged should not be exclusively in control of the creator. Copyright has generally existed under the premise that society demands a little fair use in return. That should be based on what is practical to enforce, and partially on what benefits culture the most.

Consider that almost nothing can be done about piracy without sacrificing everybody's civil liberties. This is not a crackpot theory, technologies exist _today_ which end the ability of the government to enforce copyright or any other law over information being exchanged between two parties. The Internet would have to be deeply curated. Even that wouldn't stop it.

Are you willing to go that far to enforce copyright? If not (as I hope) you should support making non-commercial filesharing legal, and expanding fair use in other ways.

chc2• 14 years ago

It doesn't seem like enough to me. Failing to conform to other people's personal preferences is not, in and of itself, bad. Some artists might prefer that their music only be played in appropriately serious and contemplative situations, but I wouldn't consider you a bad person for playing their stuff as background music while you clean — primarily because it doesn't hurt anyone.

The question of injury is very central to many people's ideas of morality. Other people's idiosyncrasies are less likely to weigh heavily in the estimation.

rickmb• 14 years ago

> Why does that matter?

It matters because the economic argument is the only marginally justifiable motivation for the heavy handed enforcement of copyright over civil rights. And I'm being very generous in using the word "justifiable".

> People pirate media because they don't want to pay for it.

People pirate media because they understand they shouldn't have to pay for it. We pay for services rendered (Netflix) or goods delivered (DVD's). Everything else is either tax or extortion.

You know, passive phrases like "owning the rights" are so insidiously misleading. Nobody "owns rights", all that actually happens is that the rights of others get limited. That's how this convoluted artificial construct works.

No, I'm not denying that that leaves us with the original problem of stimulating the creation and distribution of original work.

But millions have woken up from the shared illusion of copyright, and no amount of enforcement, DRM or just incessantly repeating the words "stealing", "pirate" etcetera is going to put them back to sleep.

TheAmazingIdiot• 14 years ago

Simply said from a capitalist point of view: copyright is barrier to free trade, and should be repealed.

paulhauggis2• 14 years ago

"I mean, would some one like Rhianna be happy to see her fans potentially get fined or even jailed? Ironically if you fine people they have less cash to spend on these muppets."

Yes, but if you allow piracy to continue, people will think it's just fine and it will eventually drive the price of music and movie down to $0. You are hurting pretty much every artists by pirating..but you just don't seem to care. You must be part of the entitlement generation.

"Any concrete proof that "piracy" is actually costing them actual real money?"

Why does the HN community get so upset when the GNU is violated and a company uses GNU code in a proprietary application (remember the wordpress thesis themes)? It's the same exact principal as pirating apps.

"It certainly was for Louis CK."

It worked once..and it may work a few more times. But, when people are used to the cheap prices, the piracy will eat up all the profits again. Ever talk to an app developer? 99 cent apps are pirated all the time...which tells me it has nothing to do with the money (IE: "it's too expensive" is a bullshit excuse).

"so then cant they invest rather than using government to beat on their customers?"

If copyright/patent laws ever get repealed, don't complain when we only have a few big companies left. I'm going to save my cash..so I can start taking a small company's ideas and use my resources (that I know they don't have) to bring it to the market and put them out of business before they even have a chance. But the truth of the matter is, people like you will still be complaining....

"Why does government support failing business by using the law to do so"

If there is no market, then why is the music even pirated? Piracy shows you the legitimacy of a business. Artists that aren't popular will not be pirated as much as the popular ones.

"I'm sorry, this whole thing is absurd."

So is your rant.

I'm not sure why so many people in the HN community wants to put themselves out of business by pushing the $ value of their craft down to $0. When this happens, don't complain and don't try to unionize: you did it to yourself.

bediger40008• 14 years ago

... wll eventually drive the price of music and movie down to $0.

Yes, yes, I went to college, I know how free-market capitalism works. In a competitive marketplace, the price of a good should end up at its marginal cost of production. Technology has changed this cost from $19.99 (or whatever) to some fraction of a cent.

Ordinarily, we applaud this sort of thing. Laptop computers cost $300, and have more computing capability than a multi-million dollar mainframe did 20 years ago.

A decent car runs about $12,000, and gets mileage and performance that would stun consumers in 1950.

Why must we as a society treat movies and music differently? To do so distorts markets, and takes away civil liberties.

vibrunazo• 14 years ago

> I'm not sure why so many people in the HN community wants to put themselves out of business by pushing the $ value of their craft down to $0. When this happens, don't complain and don't try to unionize: you did it to yourself.

I think you're confusing saying something is true to wishing it was true. Just because you want it to be true, it doesn't make it true. There's actually a named logical fallacy for this, but I forget which. Personally, I would love if the market would to throw all their money at me because I'm pretty. But the reality is that it wont. You can either sit and whine that you wish the value of your craft wasn't heading to zero. Or you can build around it and find workable solutions. Like many software developers have done. And like the music and movie industry are taking too long to do the same.

tikhonj3• 14 years ago

>...pushing the $ value of their craft down to $0.

This isn't remotely true. Sure, the value of a copy of software might become $0. But I'm not a software copyist! I'm a programmer. (Well, sort of :P.) I do not get paid to give people copies of my software--I get paid to write the software. There is a difference!

This just means that I will not be able to make money writing software to do something somebody else has already done. After all, why pay me when they can just have a copy of the existing program? But this is a good thing! After all, since the solution already exists, it would be a waste of resources to replicate it. Instead, I would be relegated to writing software that is novel. A horrible thought indeed.

Essentially, if some business needs a program to do something, and that program does not exist (which is a rather common occurrence) they would have to hire programmers to write it. Even if it did exist, they would have to hire programmers to integrate it, add features and fix bugs. And those programmers would be more effective because they would have access to a great software commons of all the software ever written--"don't repeat yourself" would become "don't repeat anyone".

I wonder if you're going to be making the same arguments when automatic programming comes around. After all, technology like that also pushes the value of your "craft" down to $0!

jberryman• 14 years ago

> You must be part of the entitlement generation.

Ooh, I want to play! What's your birth year?

Dylan168072• 14 years ago

Why does the HN community get so upset when the GNU is violated and a company uses GNU code in a proprietary application (remember the wordpress thesis themes)?

Because they're plagiarizing and profiting off someone else's work without sharing in kind.

It's the same exact principal as pirating apps.

It's generally not.

chc2• 14 years ago

The upper echelon of artists, such as Rihanna, is not where the losses would appear. This is a bit like looking at the CEO seats at Fortune 500 companies and declaring that the job market is as strong as ever because all those guys seem to be doing just fine.

Here's a great piece by David Lowery, of Cracker and Camper Van Beethoven fame, on how the Internet is impacting the music business: http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/meet-the-new-...

rndmize• 14 years ago

I found this to be an excellent read. He highlights and breaks down several things that have bothered me for a long time, such as the share of money taken by iTunes, and provides perspective not usually heard in the labels vs. pirates/technologists debate.

Tycho• 14 years ago

The simple truth is that people will willingly pay good money for a product they value.

The biggest pirates I knew would shell out a lot of money for broadband internet access, before there was much reason to have such a thing - unless you were into torrents. Clearly they were willing to pay money to get the content they want. They're morality just wasn't very integrated with their consumption habits.

iy562• 14 years ago

Tower Records has gone out of business.

jacobquick• 14 years ago

So did Borders. Was it book piracy that did that, or digital distribution?

rmc6• 14 years ago

We need more decentralised P2P systems. Decentralisation has lots of problems that make it crap for most people (e.g. verifying that you get what you think you're getting, and slow speeds). These problems are Hard Problems™. This is chance for a real hacker to solve them.

We can beat them with technology.

kenthorvath6• 14 years ago

Junk files can be catalogued by hashes and hashes can be indexed by wiki services with an API. So, downloaded junk? The app has a report button that flags the wiki. About to download something? The app can check the wiki for you.

A wiki of file hashes would be great for cataloging things as malicious, describing the content, and cross referencing files with other versions (e.g. same content different format). Thus, we can make something really useful with a simple DB.

I've been working on something like this, and registered hashpipe.net as a potential domain for this service.

Anyone interesting in helping out is welcome to contact me.

rmc6• 14 years ago

But then the wiki is the central source that can be shut down? And how do you prevent people changing the wiki to say that their junk file is legit?

tomjen32• 14 years ago

Not really. To verify what you get you just need to have the groups sign the content. Doesn't have to be from anywhere official (that would be counterproductive), but given time you would learn to trust a specific signature, based on past actions/releases. Then it wouldn't matter where you got them from.

cookiecaper2• 14 years ago

When you're against conglomerates like Comcast, Time Warner, etc., whose interest heavily leans toward draconian copyright enforcement, and who not only control the pipes but also have purchased most of Congress, any filesharing protocol is going to be an arms race just as BitTorrent has been. BitTorrent has easily won and been very successful, and a "harder-to-kill" protocol might end up that way too and give a bit more resilience, but if we want things like this to really stop, we have to fix it at a social level.

rmc6• 14 years ago

Yes laws need to change, but it's also good to have a backup and redundant system. After all if the laws can change for the better, they could change for the worse later.

kenthorvath6• 14 years ago

Demonoid, while great, is last gen file sharing technology. The convenience and community is what made it great, but that same convenience of having a central server is what allowed it to be targetted in this way.

There are other next generation file sharing and discovery tools available, and the only question is which ones will take hold and be embraced by the community? (Please reply with your favorite next-gen suggestion…)

P2P will never go away, and there will always be a counterculture movement pushing it forward.

You can't simultaneously have a free and open Internet and lock it down to file sharing.

At this stage the only reason we are having this battle is because the copyright industry believes they can still quash these services at a sufficient rate compared to the rate at which new services are created and embraced.

That may or may not be true today - but it certainly won't be true forever. Encryption and anonymization protocols are well established, and the end game is in sight for a file sharing service that is both anonymous, decentralized, fast, and resistant to junk-flood attacks.

Five years from now, take downs like this won't even be newsworthy - and the industry will have adapted their business models accordingly.

Five years from now, producers will be marketing their content direct-to-consumers over Apple TV, Netflix, Hulu, whatever.

aw3c2• 14 years ago

Name one next-gen p2p solution.

kenthorvath6• 14 years ago

https://torrentfreak.com/anonymous-decentralized-and-uncenso...

rektide4• 14 years ago

I'd like you to offer your own suggestions for in-use next gen technology, in return for having read all the above. Whatever you have your world stage set with, your assumed knowledge about the state of play that you use to project forwards, is not commonly held. Get off the fucking soapbox and present a damned case, man.

Tribler, http://www.tribler.org/ is, to my knowledge, nearly the only assemblage advancing p2p & which is in use at the current moment. It's half academic stomping ground, one quarter experiment, and one quarter earnest direct directed software, yet this loose assemblage of different interests is, as far as I know, the only ones doing anything like what you're talking about, making systems where for example even search can be done p2p. They call this 4G P2P: http://www.tribler.org/trac/wiki/4thGenerationP2P .

kenthorvath6• 14 years ago

Tribler was one of the services I had in mind, though I couldn't remember its name and I have limited access to search for such things where I work.

But, yes, thanks for the share and the response.

I also remember reading about something called CryptoSphere on HN a week back. While it's also still in development and not currently useable, my point is that the technologies for strong crypto and decentralization have already been established (e.g. FreeNet, TOR, etc). Now it's a matter of finding creative ways to use these technologies to serve P2P's purposes.

It's not that far off, and with takedowns like these becoming more common I think it will only serve to catalyze next-gen development. Five years is an eternity in technology. The iPhone just turned 5, for instance. I can barely remember how I lived before I had a smart phone.

runn1ng• 14 years ago

Have you actually tried using Tribler, though?

It is not very usable, compared to just going to the piratebay/torrentz/demonoid/just reguralry googling your thing.

jmsduran• 14 years ago

One tracker down, dozens more will pop up overnight. No matter what side of this issue you are on, fact is, you cannot stop people from file sharing or pirating.

Media companies need to realize this and fundamentally change their business models. That is the only viable solution to discourage pirating.

Monotoko• 14 years ago

You're all arguing over nothing, you can't reverse the trend the internet has set without severely restricting it. Data at the end of the day is 1s and 0s, nothing more. There will always be people who want things for free, just because they can then get something more tangible with the money.

Demonoid Busted As A Gift To The United States Government

Related Stories