From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Demo Noid?[edit]

On the Demonoid forums, a thread was started on "the meaning of Demonoid". A moderator said that name was meant to be demo-noid (not demon-oid),as the site was originally meant for sharing demos. And I quote:

It was originally created to share demos. It is demo-noid, not demon-oid.

Two other moderators confirmed this, and then Umlauf said:

Deimos created the site. Deimos' hobby was to create community websites. Game related, activity related, whatever. At some point he created demo-noid, a community for unsigned heavy metal bands, where they could share their demo tapes. The same domain was used later for this site

The logo came later. Beryllium (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course, forums aren't a reliable source. But here's the topic thread anyway Beryllium (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments[edit]

Like I said: No, the bittorrent tracker is one of the most visited sites on the entire internet. The band is practically unknown.

And it's a 2 way disambig, which are usually disambigued with the "This article is about the BitTorrent tracker. For the metal band, see Demonoid (band)" tag. And in this case when there's such a ridiculous margin of notability, demonoid clearly should not be a 2 entry disambiguation page but rather be the actual page for the tracker.

I just made this a REDIRECT to preserve the edit history, I'll let the admins merge and mop up, etc. Demonoid (BitTorrent) should be moved to Demonoid. --frotht 02:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This page is more active than the other page demonoid. Do you think that this should be named Demonoid or should there be a disambiguation?  Xeysz  ☼  23:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Unambiguously disambiguousely disambiguous... probably. Cowicide 12:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Does this article really need that enormous image of the entire home page? It seems a little ridiculous dystopianray 01:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


See Talk:Demonoid re naming issues --frotht 02:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

False references[edit]

Most of the supposed citations in this article point to unreliable sources from uncredited organizations or anonymous bloggers. This is hardly considered a legitimate source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


Perhaps the quality of demonoid's torrents should be noted here. I've heard that their albums are mislabeled, in the best case being all lowercase letters, in the worst, poorly spelled and misdated. Anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Haha, obviously you're either terribly misled or willyfully misleading. People often even post FLAC copies with .cue files and all, can't get much more complete than that. Maybe you're just self-righteously attacking piracy, and there are arguments to be made there sure, but you're not exactly helping your cause with blatantly false accusations. Then again, I guess I only download GOOD music. Maybe if you're downloading the new Simple Plan album the 9-year-old that posted it didn't tag it properly, I dunno. Phil Urich 04:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I know this is the discussion page and all, but can we refrain from providing opinions on things that don't have any bearing on the subject at hand (i.e. whether or not Simple Plan is "good music.") Harts4Life 05:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, saying "their albums" is incorrect. Tons of different people post torrents on Demonoid, and the quality/organization of files thus varies (and changes over time as users leave/join). MrVibrating 20:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm a member of and other than bit rate consistency, album uploads on both are pretty much the same. It's not that big of a problem because most people like to tag and name their files their own way. Bit rates though, are a problem. You can't change the bit rate, which is why and those other prestigious private music trackers adhere to super-strict standards. LuckyDucky (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


People are using this as some sort of forum, I have just reverted a forum like sentence, please lock the article from people or at least put a warning up!. I'm too new at it to put a warning up. LOTRrules 20:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

<snipped forum-like post> (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

How the mighty have fallen[edit]

If anyone has any information about demonoid going offline, do us a favor and post it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC) is reporting on their site the following November 9th, "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 site appears to have been closed down again. I have not edited the main page, as I am not experienced in editing. (G Sinclair 09:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)) is reporting that the Canadian Recording Industry Association has taken the site and trackers offline. Demonoid was operating out of Canada. Article here: [1] Leahzero 21:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not what demonoid IRC and a statement on The CircuitBox has to say...
"Ok folks, here it is. Demonoid is down. It has been for around 1 day 2 hours. The reason is down is unkown. It hasnt been RAIDed, shutdown, terminated, deleted, burned, mamed, or thrown under a bridge. There have been speculation as whereabouts. Well the rurmors are false. A no name site in Netherlands has a blog about being down. As I don't speak douche, I can not translate. However TorrentFreak Decided upon there own free will to further spread this and rumors. Torrent freak has known to be a sleazy site they post false rumors and hope they turn out true. They do this in order for money and popularity. Quite sad isn't it. To prove this is quite easy..." - [The Circuit Box] ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ talk 13:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
According to, "'Supposedly "major server failures" were to blame and not the CRIA, meaning that Demonoid should be back very soon.'" The link is here, but for some reason, the article is missing. --John R. Sellers 06:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

After coming back up, the site has just gone down again for me (I'm in the UK). Tuwile 19:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The site went offline on June 4, 2008. It was under construction. All that was displayed was "Installing some hardware - We'll be back." But as of the time of typing this comment, the site is back up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrorist96 (talkcontribs) 23:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Current shutdown section[edit]

For more information on the shutdown, go to the Demonoid IRC Channel

Server: Channel: #demonoid

People keep re-adding this section, the section does not state reliable sources, albeit it states sources, but not reliable ones, it is pure speculation nothing set in stone. If people want to add this section again, my only suggestion is to rewrite it, find reliable sources and don't make it look like its an update service. ScorpO 01:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed most of the section, leaving only what has been reported by, and have requested semi-protection for the article until things blow over. Sfacets 01:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I just went to the CRIA website and it says nothing about the recent shutdown of demonoid. Should this be mentioned, that they are not gloating? Stargate70 01:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

They are probably lying low, given that they have just annoyed millions of people. Sfacets 01:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Also "current shutdown" doesn't belong in an article. We're not a play-by-play website. If people want to report it like that, they should visit wikinews. This is a non-issue. their irc channel states its unscheduled maintenance, hardly a notable event.--Crossmr 01:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It is widely being reported that it is down because of the CRIA - can any other sources (besides what it says on the IRC (which regularly reports that the site is down for maintenance anyway) negate this? Sfacets 01:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

A dutch news site, and a blog are hardly "widely reported" if you have other sources which aren't just quoting the dutch news article feel free to provide them.--Crossmr 03:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Widely reported, as in widely circulated. Sfacets 03:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Blogs picking up a single news source doesn't make it more reliable.--Crossmr 04:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I like he way it is phrased now: "Nu, a dutch news site, has since reported this is due to legal actions from the CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association) who ordered Demonoid's ISP to shut down the site.[6]". Sfacets 04:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Because that is the appropriate source. Torrentfreak in this case is a tertiary source as its citing the news article. Whenever possible we should be citing the original source.--Crossmr 04:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
This is the (original) Dutch article, translated to English it reads:
"AMSTERDAM - The torrentsite demonoid is offline again. The controversial website has been takes offline after complaints from the CRIA, the branch organisation of the Canadian record company."
...The rest is just a general description of demoniod, the news article is extremely short and doesn't mention any source what-so-ever, I certainly wouldn't call this reliable information. torrentfreak reports:
"TorrentFreak contacted some of the Demonoid administrators, but they are not sure what happened either. It is certainly possible that Demonoid’s Canadian ISP pulled the plug after being pressured by the CRIA."
It's also possible that thye demonoid servers got hit by a meteor ... This is obviously an (educated) guess.
All other reports I've been able to find are based on these two articles.
This could (should!) be added to the article, as long as it clearly mentions that this is a rumour, NOT a fact! And (ofcoure) cites these two articles.
Note: The site's name is '', not 'nu' Carpetsmoker 04:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
You may want to see this... Yadaman 10:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
If everyone is quite done squabbling over the terms reported or not and what is or isn't a reliable news source, can anyone here post what exactly has happened to the site? TheJudge310 13:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
From what I've heard (Original research, private trackers as source), they're just having some hardware issues... I'm more inclined to believe that personally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GBobly (talkcontribs) 10:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you aware that this is an Encyclopedia? If you want gossip and rumours, try Sfacets 13:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

An Encyclopedia? Really? I had no idea. Well since I myself am uninterested in gossip and rumours, may I ask once again that when an actual fact comes out that it is posted here, instead of the rubbish currently in the article regarding it going down. TheJudge310 17:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone should update the article with a new "as of" date - its still down as of tonight (thursday midnight) not just tuesday morning or whatever it says nowdrf 04:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Remove it[edit]

Ok folks, here it is. Demonoid is down. It has been for aroun 18 hours. The reason is down is unkown. It hasnt been RAIDed, shutdown, terminated, deleted, burned, mamed, or thrown under a bridge. There have been speculation as whereabouts. Well the rumours are false, the site isnt very creditable--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 16:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't even have a Wikipedia article, few spelling errors as well. The actual site looks more like a second My Documents folder with some "funny" pictures and game stats. --Bloigen 16:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

ISP confirmation please[edit]

The article states the ISP as 'Leaseweb', a Netherlands ISP (as per Yet it is a wide known fact that Demonoid is located in Canada. Local news situated it's ISP in the city of Laval (Province of Quebec, Canada). Can anyone confirm/clarify the facts on this one? Thanks. YegLi —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

IP address:
IP country: Canada
IP address state: Quebec
IP address city: Laval
IP postcode: h7w1k6
IP latitude: 45.599998
IP longitude: -73.733299
ISP: Netelligent Hosting Services
Organization: Netelligent Hosting Services
Information from --Bloigen 18:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Same--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 19:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
They were on Leaseweb before they moved to Netelligent. Legallyillegal 12:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Some minor fixes[edit]

Since this page is fully protected, could an admin make the following minor fixes:

  • "Shutdown" should not be capitalized in the "September 2007 Shutdown" section title per WP:MSH
  • Dates shouldn't have "th" (25th, 26th, etc) PER WP:DATE, and they should also be fully linked per WP:DATE (September 25, 2007) to allow for user's preferences to kick in.
  • Also refs should go after punctuation per WP:CITE.

Thanks in advance. Aaron Bowen 21:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done Neil  07:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Canadians banned[edit]

Better put something about how trying to access Demonoid from a Canadian IP address now bumps you off to a redirect page. Also, a way around this short of emigration would be greatly appreciated. Cain the Mad 04:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

See proxy server. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 20:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a howto guide, or a forum. Please do not use it as one. Sfacets 02:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Was this meant as a comment for its own subsection, or are you responding to the above two comments by User:Cain the Mad and me? I'm not sure if you're advising people to stop using the article as a forum-style page for speculation and discussion (completely valid), or advising us to not discuss topics related to the article on its talk-page (less valid). Clarify, please? :) --PeruvianLlama(spit) 03:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The initial comment in this section is a question on howto bypass Demonoid IP checks. It has nothing to do with the article. Sfacets 04:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I take it by your response then, that your first comment was meant to advise us to not discuss topics on the talk page. Cain the Mad asked if there was a way around such "blocking" of IP ranges. Such technology exists, is widely known, and in fact has a well-written and documented Wikipedia article. I fail to see how providing a link to a Wikipedia article constitutes using the talk page as a howto guide. I appreciate that you're trying to keep things clean and functional, but your initial comment reads as being curt and dismissive, particularly given that there was no egregious breach of protocol. Cheers. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 06:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Outage discussion off-topic?[edit]

Do we even need discussion of outages? An encyclopedia is not a pseudo-support forum. All it should state is what Demonoid is, what it does, and so on. If it goes offline temporarily, big deal. If it goes off permanently, THEN state the date it closed down and leave it as a historic article. Does Brittanica or World Book list every closure of the Empire State Building, etc? Same principle should apply here. SJ2571 08:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems notable in that once the outage was over, all Canadian IPs were blocked from accessing the website. This is relevant to the ongoing P2P struggle between BitTorrent trackers and the RIAA/MPAA organizations. If it were just a website outage with no consequences, then I'd agree it should be removed. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 18:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Good point, I didn't consider that the outage (for now) permanently affects Canadians. SJ2571 13:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The discussion of major outages builds a history leading to the current state of the site (shut down). Once the final fate of Demonoid is known, the outage history can be made more concise. (talk) 13:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Down for the count?[edit]

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Demonoid article.

I think we'd be better informed if someone could get on their IRC channel and actually talk to some of the sites admin and get a more conclusive official statement with regards to the possibility of moving the server to a "safe zone". I personally don't have an IRC client. It would be ideal of any of you could so we can get something less ambiguous on the update. B.Soto 15:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as you know B.Soto, Wikipedia can not 'report' the news. Anything off of IRC has to be reported by a reputable source first. Remember WP:OR. --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 15:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
How silly. Clearly the word of the proprietors is more valid/authentic with regards to the status of their own site than that of secondary news sources. I'm quite certain this exception is defined without having looked atm. B.Soto 00:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Currently Demonoid is down and has been for a few days. Surely the article should therefore start with a 'Demonoid was a...' Carocat 20:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

So if the Microsoft website goes down for a day or 2, should we refer to Microsoft in the past tense too? Mrsteveman1 04:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
That's quite obviously a poor analogy. Perhaps if Microsoft had been forced to close...Theplanetsaturn 05:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. It was a perfect analogy. This has happened in the past, and will no doubt happen again. The site will be back as soon as they relocate, which should be hardly surprising to anyone who is familiar with how it's run. --Andemon 09:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Andemon, I assume you are a WikiPedia editor or at least some guy registered with this bag of nonsense, so I will type this very slowly and hope you might even.
Do you understand the concept of an analogy? Yours is imperfect because IF the Microsoft website goes down, it will not be for the same reasons. As for the rest, name one other time the site was down with an open admission to how and why it was closed. Certainly it is possible that the site may return. But it is also possible that it will not. Unless you have sourced information that contradicts the official announcement or somehow gives definitive evidence that the site will resurface, than "was" is the correct terminology.Theplanetsaturn 23:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
You still don't understand? Microsoft =/= Microsoft website. Demonoid =/= Demonoid website. The article is about Demonoid, not about the Demonoid website. Demonoid tracker is running fine at the moment, so how could you possibly refer to Demonoid in past tense? I recommend that you read the article BitTorrent tracker, and learn about the difference between trackers and indexes. Andemon 10:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Right there is your problem. Your analogy only works if you boil it down to the most simple of equations. As the only reason anyone would suggest that the Demonoid site disappearing now is likely to be a permanent state is because of context. If Microsoft's website were to vanish for a "a day or 2", the response to the future state of said website would be entirely dependent upon the context of the particular situation. And I think we can all agree that the Microsoft website will never be shut down by the CRIA. Therefore: Your analogy = Flawed logic. As for the rest, you're being pedantic. The majority of the article does not refer to the tracker exclusively. It refers specifically to the form and function of the website. Y'know, the part that's been gone now for more than "a day or 2"? Unless you want to revise the entire article to reflect the Demonoid tracker only, the proper context is the past tense.Theplanetsaturn 19:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I must agree with that, the article starts off with "Demonoid is a BitTorrent tracker set up by an anonymous Serbian known only as Deimos." That is correct: Demonoid isn't a website, it's a tracker. The current article seems to be mostly about the index, and that's far less important of the two. I'd say that the article needs major revision. In any case, the tracker also went down since my last post and has been offline for a while now. There have been no news about when it might come back online, so it'd be appropriate to revise it for now by using the past tense. Andemon 11:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

OK everyone look, You cannot say 'Demonoid Was' because it has not been shut down indefinately. They say that they will be up and running soon, so they have not been taken down, therefore you cannot say this. RPI 19:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riverpeopleinvasion (talkcontribs)

It's gone at the moment and there has been no official confirmation it will be back up or when. Therefore it's got to be 'was'. It can be changed back as soon as it's back up. carocat 21:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be under the false impression that Demonoid has somehow ceased to exist. It's still quite alive, trackers are running (most of the time) and all that. If Demonoid were shut down, then it'd be appropriate to use the past tense. However, the site simply isn't hosted at the moment, and that's far away from 'dead'. Andemon 10:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Andemon, you seem to be a WikiPedia Editor or at least a person registered with this bag of what-have-you, so I will type this very slowly and hope it kind of filters through your head and into your brain. The trackers went the moment Demonoid went, what is alive is the swarm, and there are a lot of people keeping it alive. So please look-up the bittorrent site (not the WikiPedia page about torrent, which is wild), and figure what a swarm is all about. And I am betting more and more people will find ways of hosting their torrents in discussion groups like WikiPedia, and Google owned blogs, and do some true torrenting which CRIA can never touch without bringing down WikiPedia itself.

Up for deletion?[edit]

Who put it up for deletion, and why? El Paulio 22:42, 13 November 2007 (GMT)

69..110.65.250 did, with the edit summary "Weasel Wording. Spam. Vandalism. Accuracy. Take your pick. This page needs to be deleted." Not exactly following SOP, if you ask me. It's not "Advertising or other spam without relevant content", Vandalism of an article is not grounds for deletion, nor is inaccuracy - both are grounds for fixing. - 23:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I reverted the AfD. Let's see if is up for a debate rather than an edit war. -Cohen the Bavarian 23:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately it would appear as if they are not up for debate, they reverted it, I'm not entirely sure this person understands the rules by the aforementioned edit summary. Revrant 04:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I did reverted an AfD earlier yesterday from the same ip. However, the grounds are that it's malformed, as it's up to an AfD to decide whether the page should or should not be deleted. So, if the IP nominate it again, this time in the proper form, don't revert it. Let me know if there are any news (not monitoring the page much). Happy editing everybody, Snowolf How can I help? 07:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
CRIA PUT IT UP FOR DELETION, WHO ELSE? (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Where are you getting that information from? AND WHY ARE YOU WRITING LIKE THIS? Jason2gs (talk) 08:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Embedding a "real time" tracker status on parent wiki page?[edit]

Not only would it solve 95+% of users queries/visits to the entry, but it's definitely a key resource for any Wiki entry pertaining to a website, server, etc... Future thoughts: References/URLs to mirrored/archived torrents off parent site, ban RIAA/CRIA affiliated "users" from viewing entry, especially banning Canadians. 09:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I completely understand you. You mean write something to check periodically if Demonoid is up or not? Jason2gs (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that's what is being asked for, which to me seems fairly ridiculous. Not only would it be server intensive for wikipedia and demonoid, but would at best provide updates only a few hours ahead of how fast wikipedians could update the article. I'm sure if Demonoid went down again (or back up, or whatever) the first people to find out will jump to Wikipedia to see if it's up to date or not. dimo414 (talk) 08:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference to legality of music sharing in Canada[edit]

In regards to the relationship between CRIA and the current shutdown of demonoid, at least two people have claimed in this article that online music sharing currently "is legal" in canada. that is misinformation - please see File sharing in Canada. I am undoing the last edit to this section, and will continue to edit any comments claiming that file sharing "is legal" in canada. -- (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It is legal - "The court further found that both downloading music and putting it in a shared folder available to other people online were legal in Canada."---- (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
What's the source for this claim? Given another edit from the same IP at about the same time ([2]) please excuse a little skepticism. -- Kablammo (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
to User: - please read the File sharing in Canada article. that 2004 ruling was invalidated by the appeals court in 2005. -- (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
"the question of the legality of peer-to-peer file sharing must be decided in a future case." that means it is still legal; they just need to discuss it at a later date.-- (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Leaving the question of legality unanswered does not equate to file sharing being legal. Furthermore, the state of file sharing in Canada as it pertains to Demonoid is irrelevant. The 2004/2005 ruling was specifically in regard to music. Demonoid encompassed much more than music.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
If the law does not define the legality, then it is neither legal or illegal, and naturally people will decide for themselves and do what they want. They can't be held accountable for what a future ruling might bring. If the laws are inconsistent between countries and provinces, that confuses the matter also, and people will be discontent and do what they want. If laws are considered stupid, unclear, ill-defined, or ambiguous, people tend to ignore them understandably. In my area it is illegal to change a lightbulb, as it is considered an electrician's job, and some may be too dumb to do it properly they imply. We do the best we can, but in a grey area we decide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
If it is determined that protections are guaranteed by pre-existing copyright laws, then an individual who had been engaging in illicit behavior can potentially be held accountable.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it is quite relevant to note the state of file sharing in Canada, and the court rulings, because the demonoid site claims to have been shut down due to threats from the CRIA. the CRIA (representing BMG et al) was the plaintiff in the 2004 case. the CRIA only represents the interests of music record labels. if CRIA in fact is involved in closing demonoid, it can only be in relation to music files. so i do think it is relevant to note that it's possible that demonoid was closed due to pressure from the CRIA, over an activity that might well be found to be completely legal in Canada if it was challenged in a court case. IamNotU (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem with it being relevant in a fact based article is that it MIGHT be found legal IF it were challenged in a court case. As seen by the rapid turn over of the 2004/2005 ruling, we can see that what is and is not legal can change when challenged in a court of law. However, about the rest you are correct. It is a music related issue because of the CRIA's involvment.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 04:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a third possibility beyond "what is and is not legal", and that is "unknown". the 2004 decision making music file sharing legal was not "overturned" by the appeals court, but "set aside" because it was made at an inappropriate point in the proceedings. there's a big difference. it is a fact, supported by the citations, that it is unclear under Canadian law whether demonoid's activities with respect to music file sharing are legal. since the demonoid web page claims it was shut down due to legal threats over those exact activities, i think that it is a very relevant fact to include in the article. IamNotU (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Not really. Previous Canadian copyright decisions found it legal to download music, but not to upload it. The 2004/2005 ruling briefly changed this, and the appeal process has rendered that decision nonexistent. Yes, the question of legality is debatable. And perhaps that will be answered some day in a court of law. Until that point, it is entirely sufficient to leave this open ended question to the Canadian file sharing page where it belongs.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Not really. the decision to which you must be refering was an opinion issued by the Copyright Board of Canada, which is not a court and has no authority to make law. but you're right, discussion of this belongs on the file sharing in Canada page, not here. so:
1. it is a FACT that the legality of p2p music sharing in Canada is "an open ended question". that's in contrast to other places like the USA where p2p music sharing is *clearly illegal*. if anyone disputes this, then please take any further discussion on that to the file sharing in Canada page.
2. demonoid has allegedly been shut down because of legal threats from the CRIA over p2p music file sharing. if anyone contends that the FACT (that p2p music file sharing is actually not clearly illegal) has no relevance to this situation and should be removed from the article, please continue the discussion below. IamNotU (talk) 23:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

November 15th "update"[edit]

The information being reported regarding Nov 15th is not the same as what now appears on the demonoid website, at least this bit about backing up servers and anticipated re-openings. No clue if this is false or reflective of yet another update. Further, I've no idea whether this warrants any editing or additional information. Neutralitybias (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted said information, which I assume to be wishful thinking. The anon responsible is welcome to reinsert the claim once the website actually reflects it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by CohenTheBavarian (talkcontribs) 01:57, 20 November 2007

December 2007[edit]

On December 25 2007 Deimos posted the following on Subdemon stating the site will come back online soon.

"If everything goes correct and right I should be able to have a new host soon. The site should be open around Jan. 10 2008 but no guaranties."

I've removed the above as the forum topic is no longer available and I couldn't find anything else on Subdemon. carocat (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

As of today (Dec 28) I tried accessing Demonoid and it could not be reached. I remember a similar thing happening when it came back in the end of September. Perhaps Deimos has things set up and is planning a comeback? Arc88 (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

That may well be, but as there are no sources for it, it's nothing for Wikipedia. carocat (talk) 04:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

January 2008[edit]

I visited the site yesterday and noticed a change in their message. They both 'said' basically the same thing, but this message was worded a little differently. It's still just circumstantial, but it's something. Jason2gs (talk) 08:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Tracker is back up too. Sebastian32 (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

How long was Wikipedia w/o the Demonoid article?[edit]

Because it was voted down for deletion at least once, when I tried to look it up (2007-07-11) - I'm curious as to how long there was no article at Demonoid. Give info on who deleted it, since that information goes away from the deletion logs. ~ender 2008-02-11 02:49:AM MST

It was deleted, it was nominated for deletion where the discussion kept it. carocat (talk) 09:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Demonoid.jpeg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Demonoid.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

March 2008[edit]

The tracker is currently working right now (04:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)). Just thought I'd note that. Edited to reflect update with citation. Arc88 (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Many links in the References section are dead because is down. What now? Urashimataro (talk) 04:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a few hours after Deimos stepped down, the Demonoid RSS feed is loading again. Arc88 (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Where is the server hosted now ? Do we have any more info on the Apr-2008 change? It would be good information to add to the wiki. -Unsigned
Server is hosted in Ukraine, Google can reveal more details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


Let's put an end to the revert wars over downtime and outages. Demonoid is a popular site, and as such, is subject to outages at times. Wikipedia is NOT a place to document such outages. WP documents if the site is completely down or taken off-line. If there is an issue with certain regions of the world not being able to access it, then that is notable. But, that must also be cited from an outside resource (per WP:OR), not from your own experiences. This is to ensure that the problem is really because of the site or legislature, and not just because of a broken DNS server somewhere. Due to the nature of this site, many believe that just because a server goes down then it must be because of a government conspiracy or some other nonsense. This should not be reflected in this article until a non-biased statement is made to that effect from a citable source. Rurik (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I just gave a source and you can see months of replies with people from many countries with the same problem. I hope people don't ask the source to be from NY Times or something like that or the entire document wouldn't exist by now. Lucyu2 (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Lucyu2, that is a good source. Up until this point, many people had no clue which countries were being blocked. I'm sure that now people can find other sources to cite that will be in English for this article, but that source does back up the article entry that you made. Thank you. Rurik (talk) 02:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


Can someone insert this for me? I don't know the right formatting and am too lazy to do the research. Ludjer (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Insert what? Rurik (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe Ludjer is referring to Image:Demonoid.jpg, which was just uploaded. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


over here in Australia i can certify that is working and accessible if more info is required just query me back —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Category Shutdown by a Legal Challenge[edit]

Is Demonoid still shutdown by a legal challenge? Does this category mean 'once upon a time' or 'currently'? The Wurdalak (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

"Semi public tracker" is not an accurate description[edit]

In the first paragraph of the general description, Demonoid is referred to as a semi-public tracker.

The tracker Demonoid uses is entirely public. Anyone with a Demonoid torrent file can load it up and use it.

The website and the forums are private because they require membership to access them.

This does not make it a semi-public tracker.

Further, the citation for this in the article itself doesn't even mention this "semi-public" description.

Frankiecaps (talk) 06:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


Just because there's a comment telling everyone what to do doesn't mean we need to follow it, and doesn't mean we can't change it. I think in addition to a permanent shutdown, the status can and should reflect significant extended downtime, such as the multiple days Demonoid has been down recently. This clearly isn't routine maintenance, and who knows when it'll be back up? This seems like a significant event and should be reflected in the article, and if the site isn't accessible and hasn't been for days, it shouldn't be shown as "online". Equazcion (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. I originally updated it before but some bitch "corrected" it. Yes, because the world is black and white, online or off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 09:43, 21 September 2009

Hey, somehow my 16gb torrent finished downloading. HOW!? The site is down but are the trackers up? Someone please check and update the page.

Could it have been DHT/peer exchange or something? mine's not connecting.

There's life at Demonoid!

Tonite, Nov 5th 2009, the Demonoid tracker started working for a torrent I've been waiting on for almost 2 months. And it's the tracker, not DHT/PEX (which are not allowed for this particular torrent).

List of trackers[edit]

Ok, do we really need to have a list of alternative trackers in the article? If somebody can find their way to Wikipedia, he/she can easily find their way to Demonoid's website where he/she can find said list of trackers.

Furthermore, I'm leaning toward removing everything after "The website went offline to all regions on September 14, 2009, and was still down on October 9th." based on the same reasoning as above. In my opinion there's no need to repeat on Wiki what's clearly printed on Demonoid's website. Darry2385 (talk) 03:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree with you. I think the website should be represented as it is. Wikipedia is a website based on pure fact. I think that the list of open trackers should be listed as part of the documentation. Clearly, people can find things on the internet if they can find it on Wikipedia, but the whole POINT of Wikipedia is to be a collection of this data. This isn't a scavenger hunt. Therefore, the items represented on a Wikipedia page should (particularly Demonoid) should be a representation of that data represented on the website. If you look at any other wikipedia page about another website, Quotes are not cut off or shortened in any way. We must represent data completely on Wikipedia. Therefore, I am putting back the list of alternative trackers back on this Wikipedia page just in case a problem arises with Demonoid's website and a user of these trackers would like this to see or use the list again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked in Germany[edit]

  • "500 internal server error" doesn't mean it was blocked. There could be a technical problem.
  • Some customers in Germany seem to be able to access the site.
  • A forum is not a reliable source.

As such, I'm removing the Germany block notice again, until someone can find a reliable source for it. Equazcion (talk) 15:15, 4 Feb 2010 (UTC)

no need for source if it is for weeks now inaccessible...!!! apparently they are on a german blocklist given to providers. might be, that some smaller providers didn´t notice.

how else do you explain it? it is accessible through proxies... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

There's always a need for a source, at least if you want to say the site is "blocked". You don't know it's blocked until a source says so. The forum originally referenced has some users from Germany saying it's accessible. If it weren't for that, I'd say we could add that the site is simply "not accessible from Germany", but that doesn't seem to be the case. To say "some German users are reporting that the site is inaccessible," when there's no source, is too much original research (WP:OR), in my opinion. Equazcion (talk) 18:22, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

well, 50.000 results on google for "demonoid blocked germany". of course you won´t get an official source - if it comes to p2p, politics or sick porn, no authority will tell you, oh yeah, this i.p. is on an unofficial ban-list issued to german providers. the only one who could provide us with official "blocking stats" could therefor be demonoid itself - but they won´t advertise the fact that they are on a ban-list, or even blocking germans themselves for any (legal or non-legal) cause - or simply don´t give a damn. either way - there are no other references than the users complaining about inaccesibility.

in my opinion.

and since there ARE legal downloads and torrents as well on demonoid, i would say this is a first step to internet censorship in germany. welcome to the new world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It's the other way round. Demonoid is blocking german users. When Demonoid is down for maintenance the page telling you this becomes visible. It seem a bit complicated to unblock them every time they do maintenance. Plus the tracker is always reachable from germany. Problem is, the people at Demonoid who know something do not answer and the people who answer (forum mods) don't know what and why the site blocks german users. -- (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Since the blocking of German ISP subnets is a policy enforced from the part of Demonoid and there exists currently no enforced policy for DNS blacklisting in Germany, I have moved the "In Germany" subsection into the "Policies" section. -- (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about Germany but I am in Kiev, Ukraine where the site is hosted and it is blocked here. 100% blocked from any Ukrainian IP address from what I can tell. This should be noted as well. It works fine in any other nearby countries I have noticed. (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Should be noted if there are reliable sources to confirm it. Rehevkor 14:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Outages,Status,regional blocking[edit]

reports and references of issue here are splintered. it would be better to have them unified,listed by date, and time. sucessive reports of outages (when no 'site back up' reports are inbetween) would not be nessary.(i.e. 1pm down from ip..,2pm down from ip..,3pm down from ip..,)

2010.04.29 1645 and not avilable

also would include a reference to area in the official forum of site where other users report on the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Would need to be a reliable, independent source to address the notability of the outage. Rehevkor 22:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
and where would about any 'reliable, independent source' get that info from?
from reports made by users posting that same infomation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
I don't know. But forums are not reliable sources and cannot be used. This is why temp downtimes are not covered here, it's trivial, and near impossible to source. Rehevkor 22:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
i do understand that post of up to date,current regional blocking & outages could and would in time get lengthy and in more time be more historical.
where the artical list "current status" could be references as to where on the net this is discussed, along with any reference to where this is discussed, when any user cannot access posting hosted by demonoid's own sites.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a website directory. No sources, no go. Rehevkor 23:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is much more than an encyclopedia. It is a nexus of knowledge. If you came here, as many, many do, to find out what's going on, I know this- Demonoid's page currently reads: "Ongoing denial of service attack. There is a denial of service attack in progress that is causing extreme slowness. We are currently working on solving the issue. Thanks for your understanding" (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

See WP:NOT Rehevkor 00:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Or, to put it more succintly, just because many people may come here looking for the info, doesn't mean it's what Wikipedia is supposed to provide. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Currently: "Maintenance mode"[edit]

July 27, 2010 (at least the time when I checked): Demonoid has switched from a shiny white page to a "Currently in maintenance mode" screen. Could be back on soon. No, I won't mess with the article yet. The info has been forwarded here, so that's sufficient for me. -andy (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Per the section above, we don't mention downtimes or maintenance such as this unless it is otherwise notable. Rehevkor 12:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Seems to be normal now anyway. This is why changing the article is pointless. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It does that on a daily basis, and it lasts about an hour. Only the main site is down as it updates torrent data. The forums and tracker both still function normally, but you need to use the direct link to the forums to get there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I've figured this out meanwhile, but I can only enter in WAP2 mode, actually made for mobile phones. Once I try to remove the ";wap2" suffix from the direct forum links, I get redirected to some "account.php" which leaves me behind a white page. But yes, the forum servers are up, though operating behind curtains. -andy (talk) 03:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Article badly out of date[edit]

1. As of January 16, 2011: The Pirate Bay is up, operational, and #1 in traffic according to 2. Demonoid is surpassed in traffic by TPB, Torrentz, iosHunt, and 3 other sites, according to the same Wikipedia comparison article in point 1. (talk) 03:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

New domain extension?[edit]

Today I noticed that is now redirecting to — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion[edit]

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) -- (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The site is busted... no more Demonoid ?[edit]

according to this the site is busted in it's current hosting... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

TorrentFreak is hardly a reliable source, and there is no other original source that confirms the accusation of a raid by the government. — (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Until the Admins release a statement all other information should be considered as speculation, remember Demonoid has gone down for long periods of time before, until more information is avalible we should not change the page. -- Spazturtle !DERP/3/PiM Talk 22:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course Demonoid might come back, in the same sense that Pan Am might come back. But based on the preponderance of evidence at the moment, it appears unlikely. Ceteris paribus, how many weeks should pass before Demonoid should be referred to in past tense, pending a revival?

While previous shutdowns have been temporary, they were also accompanied by at least some information which could fuel reasonable optimism. Not this time. This time, an objective observer might well see an amount of unjustified optimism in the reticence to change the tense of the article to reflect the current state of reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's your glimmer of optimism :) krisCrash 23:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Its done and over, It was said on this very site is shut down indefinately. When Demios ran the site we never had these long waits. But ,thus, we must accept that it may never return. I am sad but I will live on I am firmly confident of this. The site is busted and it will never return. The site has been down now for more than 3 months now as sad as it is to say we must now accept the cold hard fact that this site is gone. 2 October, 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Demonoid trackers back online[edit]

See: Torrentfreak. Freaky Fries (talk) 13:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[edit]

... what's that? is that part of the demonoid file sharing or something else? (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It's quite possible people have pounced on 'demonoid' domain names and are setting up fake sites for one reason or other; be cautious and suspicious of anything like this that you run across. If Demonoid returns for real, you will hear about it. Until then, there's nothing to really report in the Wikipedia article. —mjb (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[edit]

Apparently was redirecting to, and TorrentFreak readers are assuming this means that Demonoid is coming back to life at this new domain. In support of this, there is the apparent fact that the tracker, when it sort-of came back to life, was based in Hong Kong at an IP address in the same range. However...

  • This Wikipedia article is not the Breaking News About Demonoid site. Try to consider what's actually important to report. We have a higher threshold here than TorrentFreak does. See WP:RECENT.
  • The and registrations both switched on Jan. 7, 2013 to a privacy protection service based in Brasilia, Brazil.
  • There isn't anything actually running at except a web server which just returns a 403 Forbidden response. There's no tracker running.
  • The domain was registered 5 days after's Aug. 7, 2012 shutdown, but unlike the and domains, the domain was registered to Sublime Technology Limited, a Hong Kong company based in an apartment building in Hong Kong. Sublime has registered over 1700 domains via Instra, a Melbourne based company run by Antonio Frank "Tony" Lentino. Do a Google search for Sublime's address—813 "610 Nathan Road" "Hong Kong"—and you will see that dozens of companies operate out of there. This doesn't seem like a legit home for Demonoid.
  • All three domains seem to be related, in that when they resolve, they point to the same set of IP addresses in or near China. The nameservers are also configured to return info for, if asked. Regardless, there has been no word from anyone connected to Demonoid since July 2012; we just don't know if any of these domains are under the control of the original admins. Nothing about these domains can be assumed to be "official".

Taking all this into consideration, I feel we should not be implying that is in any way legit, or even worth mentioning, until we have info that's more definitive and useful. If we send people to a fake site or honeypot, that would be rather irresponsible, don't you think? —mjb (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC) [updated 25 Jan 2013]

29th jan 2013 is now up a a torrent tracker site. A shadow of it's former self, but it is there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I still think we should wait until it's confirmed to be Demonoid. Anyone can set up a tracker. —mjb (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree, until we get notable references we cannot be sure that is the real deal.—Epicurus B. (Not my talk page) 15:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[edit]

See discussion of, above. Or perhaps just read the TorrentFreak article about how it's apparently another fake site trying to capitalize on the Demonoid name. —mjb (talk) 09:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Possible comeback[edit]

Just got an email saying that demonoid was coming back. Not sure if legit. content posted here. The domain shows under construction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Already established to be fake, distributing malware, and suspended by their hosting service (US-based!).[3]mjb (talk) 07:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Update: The malware distribution was probably due to a banner ad, according to their hosting service, which has un-suspended the site. However, d2's admins have stated that the site is unofficial, not run or sanctioned by Demonoid personnel; it's just based on Demonoid's old user and torrent databases, and has no tracker or forums. We can talk about d2 in the article, but we need to make it clear that it's not Demonoid. I've gone ahead and made some edits to this effect. —mjb (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Most popular torrent site/tracker[edit]

A few reverts on a lead sentence declaring Demonoid to be the second most popular torrent [site/tracker] in 2007. The reference very clearly says tracker, not site as the sentence originally said, but I had since changed. The IP, who seems to be taking a strangely combative approach, has removed it twice -- first including a link to top torrent sites in the edit summary and next time with a summary of "maybe before undoing changes you could actually read the newly referenced material. Between this link and the last one demonoid clearly wasn't the second most popular anything," apparently not "actually reading" the reference which he/she removed, which the new link does not contradict. (Tracker is not the same as site and even if it were, the fact that you have a reference that says otherwise doesn't mean you get to simply remove the other one, especially when the other one is a reliable source. But again, they don't contradict each other because they're two separate statistics). I reverted again not because I'm pushing a particular direction but because you replaced a referenced statement with a reference that is now completely irrelevant to the sentence it appears at the end of. --Rhododendrites (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Rhododentrites listed the situation much more concisely. The IP editor has reverted three times - anymore is edit warring and in violation of the 3 Revert Rule. and accurately than I would have.Caidh (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Note: The IP editor keeps reverting. If he would read the source he is using which 'contradicts', he would note that the article is about "Torrent Sites" - most of which given are search/index sites - not trackers. The current reference is about "Torrent Trackers". The text in the article is correct and perfectly matches the reference. Additionally, the source the IP editor is attempting to use,, is a blog site (personal site of one individual) and does not qualify as a WP:RS anyway. Caidh (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]

TorrentFreak's latest report has an optimistic headline ("Demonoid Will Come Back Soon, Rebuild in Progress").

The report actually doesn't confirm that claim at all, though. Here's what it says:

  • The and domains are now under the control of the same person (or group).
  • Both domains point to the same website, which is up and currently shows the Demonoid logo, "We will rebuild! Coming back soon, please check back later. Thanks for your visit!", and a Bitcoin donation link.
  • TorrentFreak (Ernesto, I assume) corresponded with someone answering email at the .com domain.
  • This mystery person said "I can’t give you any specifics at the moment, but yeah, we are planning to bring the site back".
  • This mystery person did not respond to a follow-up request for more details and for whether any of the old site's administrators were involved.

If that's not fishy enough, I see that the website is using an SSL certificate with the wrong domain name,, which does not bode well. The domain registration details are private, but if you take a look at the blog on the website of that domain, you'll see that we're probably not dealing with anyone connected to the original Demonoid.

So I don't think we can say that Demonoid's status is still anything other than "Offline". As far as I can tell, this is just some guy who pounced on the domains, loves weed, and wants people to send him Bitcoins. —mjb (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Demonoid is back[edit]

Demonoid is back. was -> is, and add to the article about this.

Online at (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

All that has happened is the temporary site has been replaced with a forum of questionable functionality and a torrent database based on an out-of-date backup. It still has all the problems the temporary site had, like nonexistent/misconfigured HTTPS service, an open non-UDP tracker, a suspicious Bitcoin donation fund... it's clearly not being run by the same people as before; it's someone who got lucky with a domain snipe and is trying to capitalize on the naivete of fanboys who keep trying to use this Wikipedia article as an echo chamber for the TorrentFreak blog's hype.
I'm no longer monitoring the article. Some advice for anyone left who cares: Write with some wiggle room in case you are wrong. Write as if whoever was running the site prior to this latest resurrection may one day come forward and say, in a credible publication, that the new site is a fake. —mjb (talk) 07:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I would agree with Mjb - I've gotten a half dozen AVG warnings, pop-ups to other sites, and attempts to install fake Java code since I tried to log in to my old account. I was hopeful, since zXcv is closing down, that demonoid was really returning. But it doesn't look legit. CleverTitania (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Demonoid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC) ?[edit] redirected me to just now. Does anyone know the details? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD0E:D410:24A6:61B8:C079:B836 (talk) 11:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC) there's definetly something wrong with the site, it wont work properly telling you to turn off adblockers and antimalware. all really sus — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoraineWilliams (talkcontribs) 01:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Demonoid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)