Top 10 Most Pirated TV Shows on BitTorrent
Written by Ernesto on January 22, 2009TV shows are by far the most wanted files on BitTorrent, and according to some, it’s becoming the modern day TiVo. But what are all those people downloading?
24 is back after a year of absence, and the show is leading this week’s chart followed by Desperate Housewives and Smallville. .
The data for the most recent TV episodes are collected by TorrentFreak from a representative sample of BitTorrent sites and is for informational and educational reference only. A list of the most pirated TV-shows of 2008 was published in December.
Thanks to ShowInsider we now also include a list based on the total number of downloads (not only recent episodes) of all shows in the past week.
Top Downloads (Recent Episodes)
| Ranking | (last week) | TV-show | |
|---|---|---|---|
| torrentfreak.com | |||
| 1 | (…) | 24 | |
| 2 | (1) | Desperate Housewives | |
| 3 | (…) | Smallville | |
| 4 | (…) | Battlestar Galactica | |
| 5 | (…) | The Big Bang Theory | |
| 6 | (…) | How I Met Your Mother | |
| 7 | (2) | Gossip Girl | |
| 8 | (5) | Grey’s Anatomy | |
| 9 | (4) | One Tree Hill | |
| 10 | (3) | Scrubs | |
Top Downloads (All Episodes)
| Ranking | (last week) | TV-show | |
|---|---|---|---|
| showinsider.com | |||
| 1 | (2) | Prison Break | |
| 2 | (50) | 24 | |
| 4 | (1) | Heroes | |
| 3 | (3) | Dexter | |
| 5 | (5) | Gossip Girl | |
| 6 | (8) | Desperate Housewives | |
| 7 | (4) | Californication | |
| 8 | (9) | Grey’s Anatomy | |
| 9 | (6) | House M.D. | |
| 10 | (11) | Stargate Atlantis | |
Previously: Mininova Welcomes 1000th Premium Publisher
Next: The Pirate Bay Calls For Designs on a Brighter Future
71 Responses
Fair enough, you think some stuff is childish. But brainwashing? Gimme a break. I suppose you think that people that watch 24 have their views on torture altered or something right?
People aren't that simple mate. It's like saying people who watch violent films are prone to being more violent – sure, a small proportion may well be, as evidenced by studies, however the vast majority are able to seperate fact from fiction and avoid confusing the two.
@5 Why? These shows have to appeal to a wide audience or the
production $$ just isn’t there, understand? It’s a miracle we get shows as intelligent as we do actually. BSG and Dexter are watchable…
LOST will indeed crush all testicles next week.
The new season of 24 is sooo cool :D
Lost crashed EZTV servers.
Yeh wait for Lost. Boom 2 mil DL's
so childish is this crap, it makes me sad. get a life folks.
Except 24 (16.5), that is authoritarian brainwasher.
why are all these shows so mindless.. its like they insult my intelligence.
LOST is going to soon be making it's way back onto these charts.
So watch something else, no ones forcing you to watch it.
He/she isn't saying that he/she is being forced. He/she is saying that it is very insulting to his/her intelligence for being given this kind of stuff. It is true that the commenter could watch something else if he/she desired, but I believe that he/she was talking about the fact that the people who made these shows made them mindless as if they expected their audience to be dumb.
He/she isn't saying that he/she is being forced. He/she is saying that it is very insulting to his/her intelligence for being given this kind of stuff. It is true that the commenter could watch something else if he/she desired, but I believe that he/she was talking about the fact that the people who made these shows made them mindless as if they expected their audience to be dumb – thus making it insulting, even if one did not watch it.
Now, I shall not comment on how "mindless" these shows are. But I do say that these shows are not good for the general intellect of culture and society. It is simple: they are not genuine, but fake; they are not borne of any desire to create, but rather merely to satisfy and entertain people just so that they could make money.
Cause, they just don't care. None of their "art" (if you could call it that) are not a bit genuine. You think that they are in the business of doing anything other than making money? If they can do something just to attract attention and entertain people in stupid ways to make money, then they will do so. It's similar to pornography, really.
house is where its at, simple as that.
Well Prison Break is cancelled until something like March?
Family Guy is being delayed over and over.
There's two damn good shows there.
Reaper is returning soon too! Excited!
Well, I agree with you that these programmes do nothing as far as improving intellect. I don't quite understand your point about being genuine or fake… they're scripted fiction after all in the vein of superheroes, comedy and action drama.
But you seem to be indicating that there is something wrong with people being entertained. Of course they are shown by networks to make money but that's dependent on people watching it – if people aren't getting what they want from a TV show it's very, very easy for them to leave the show. These TV shows couldn't be made to the same standard (production wise: CGI, stunts, actors, carpenters etc. etc.) without money being made by the network that bough it. Money which then flows to the producers.
I don't see that money has a corrupting influence here or in most if not all scripted entertainment: people involved in making TV, theatre etc. are not doing it soley for money.
Would you rather people weren't entertained or satisfied? You know, Shakespeare ran his shows – for profit. A vast proportion of "classic" art that is considered high culture was commissioned or sold for money. I'm not trying to compare TV to high culture but rather to demonstrate that money doesn't ruin art. Art that is appreciated for whatever reason gains value and people pay for art. It's part of the system.
You know, Shakespeare ran his shows – for profit.
The running of the show may have been for profit, but not necessarily the writing of it. He could have easily ran a show written by somebody else.
I don't see that money has a corrupting influence here or in most if not all scripted entertainment: people involved in making TV, theatre etc. are not doing it soley for money.
Why, then, do the shows themselves reflect otherwise?
But you seem to be indicating that there is something wrong with people being entertained.
As I have said before, it contributes nothing positive, and affects people negatively – especially in the mind.
You know, Shakespeare ran his shows – for profit.
The running of the show may have been for profit, but not necessarily the writing of it. He could have easily ran a show written by somebody else.
I don't see that money has a corrupting influence here or in most if not all scripted entertainment: people involved in making TV, theatre etc. are not doing it soley for money.
Why, then, do the shows themselves reflect otherwise?
But you seem to be indicating that there is something wrong with people being entertained.
As I have said before, it contributes nothing positive, and affects people negatively – especially in the mind.
Of course they are shown by networks to make money but that's dependent on people watching it – if people aren't getting what they want from a TV show it's very, very easy for them to leave the show. These TV shows couldn't be made to the same standard (production wise: CGI, stunts, actors, carpenters etc. etc.) without money being made by the network that bough it. Money which then flows to the producers.
These "standards" would not matter if the end result is nothing positive.
Now we just have to wait for Lost to dominate the lists again. There's about 120,000 people on each of the 5×01 and 5×02 torrents right now (about 240,000 total) – completely excluding those that have finished, haven't started, or are using one of the other 5×02 torrents that was uploaded.
After reading Wittgenstein I find this crap really stimulating.
Prefer Freddy Nietzsche meself (bet that comes as a _real_ surprise…NOT! :P )
Scrubs is _meant_ to be mindless; switch off brain – turn on Scrubs. I find it quite relaxing & mildly amusing.
The rest is poop tho', IMHO…
"As I have said before, it contributes nothing positive, and affects people negatively – especially in the mind. "
NONE of these shows are meant to be high-art. They're entertainment, ferchrissakes – & how in hell can you judge them as being COMPLETELY negative? TV is the new opium of the masses & damn if I don't be loving them opioids…
You don't dig them? Vote with your off button – but millions obviously derive some form of comfort from them. In these troubled times, we (TINW) NEED release valves in their manifold forms. I'd much rather someone zoned out to crap TV than got drunk & smashed up the neighbourhood (for example).
=]
Even if it does not contribute to intellect, and is merely an "opium of the people," the least it could do is at least to make this opium have a positive effect on people, even if not intellectually.
Even if it does not contribute to intellect, and is merely an "opium of the people," the least it could do is at least to make this opium have a positive effect on people, even if not intellectually.
I am not concerned by what I watch, nor what others watch, but rather what is fed to society by the industry.
Even if it does not contribute to intellect, and is merely an "opium of the people," the least it could do is at least to make this opium have a positive effect on people, even if not intellectually.
I am not concerned by what I watch, nor what others watch, but rather what is fed to society by the industry.
Hmmm…this actually helps me. With The IT Crowd ending (and I have to get that through torrent as im in the USA) and Chuck delayed or whatever, ive been out of shows to watch :
The Big Bang Theory sounds good, used to watch it but then got busy with other stuff. Maybe ill look into that today.
http://bluehumor.org
Do not fret, Chingalaro . Discerning US citizens such as yourself are the sole reason there is still hope for your country.
As to the illiterate, racist, homophobic, chicken-hawk calling for your abduction, simply point & laugh. S/H/It is an anachronism in today's world.
You keep wailing about intellect but you're just not getting it. Either that, or you're being deliberately obtuse.
1 – Entertainment need not be "intellectually positive". There's pretty-much always been an element of mindless pabulum (google 'vaudeville', 'music hall' or even 'Commedia dell'Arte' – 500-yr old crude, slapstick comedy!).
2 – TV would soon go bust if it tried to 'teach' (read 'preach to') the great unwashed.
3 – Your 'society' would NOT thank you for interfering with their leisure time, & it ain't the Evil Empire (your 'industry') deciding what's on. The people choose – via pilots, focus groups, screeners, etc.
You wanna learn, go to school – 'cos TV ain't edumacation & never will be (thank Ghod!).
You keep wailing about intellect but you're just not getting it.
Wow, talk about failing to read my comment. If you have even read the first sentence, you would know that I am talking about the social, not the intellectual, effect.
You keep wailing about intellect but you're just not getting it.
Wow, talk about failing to read my comment. If you have even read the first sentence, you would know that I am talking about the social, not the intellectual, effect. Also, the industry certainly does decide what is on.
Your words:
"insulting to his/her intelligence"
"shows made them mindless"
"not good for the general intellect"
"it contributes nothing positive [...] especially in the mind"
"does not contribute to intellect"
"even if not intellectually"
Wow right back atcha! Talk about failing to remember what you yourself _just_ wrote. Not to mention a fascinating, almost limitless, capacity to completely ignore most of the points _I_ (& others) have made.
I reiterate: if you don't like it, switch off – or jump on over to mvgroup.org; there's a wealth of edutainment just awaiting your 'intellectual' perusal.
(cont. – due to the short post-length maximum of the new system)
…
However I may agree with you that there are (so) many turds floating around on TV, I will defend to the hilt the pointy-headed retard's right to watch as much crap as they like, whenever they like. It is not for you (or I) to decide what is aesthetic or tasteful enough for general broadcast, nor to make sweeping generalisations regarding TV's impact on 'society'. (Do you also still subscribe to the outdated – & frankly ludicrous – meme that violent videogaming causes violent people?)
Television OF the people, BY the people, FOR the people.
=]
It is not by the people because people in charge are the ones who decide it.
If you have even read my comment, you would now that I am not concerned with what other people watch, but rather what is fed to people. I do not subscribe to the idea that violence in media causes violence, any more than I subscribe to the idea that reading Hamlet causes people to commit murder. However, I do say this "opium of the people," which could contribute societally/socially, does not, because those in charge do not care. I am not referring to any "message" that it is sending, but rather what they are doing in regards to what the audience does with what they feed to people – that they could encourage people, for example, to perhaps come up with their own ideas of creation, and participate in the culture by creating their own work. For example, every comic book could have brief instructions (even if not in words) on how to draw their own comic, so that anybody reading it could be encouraged to create their own. In the absence of this, it is not "of the people, by the people, for the people." It is simply, one entity as a creator, by only this one entity, of this one entity, and for their interests in making money, with the audience having no part in it.
(Note: if you want to make your comment longer than the limit, then you can post a shorter message at first, and then edit it to be the longer message. The length limit applies only to new comments, but not to the editing of old comments.)
It is not by the people because people in charge are the ones who decide it.
If you have even read my comment, you would now that I am not concerned with what other people watch, but rather what is fed to people. I do not subscribe to the idea that violence in media causes violence, any more than I subscribe to the idea that reading Hamlet causes people to commit murder. However, I do say this "opium of the people," which could contribute societally/socially, does not as of now, because those in charge simply do not care. I am not referring to any "message" that it is sending, but rather what they are doing in regards to what the audience does with what they feed to people – that they could encourage people, for example, to perhaps come up with their own ideas of creation, and participate in the culture by creating their own work. For example, every comic book could have brief instructions (even if not in words) on how to draw their own comic, so that anybody reading it could be encouraged to create their own. In the absence of this, it is not "of the people, by the people, for the people." It is simply, one entity as a creator, by only this one entity, of this one entity, and for their interests in making money, with the audience having no part in it.
(Note: if you want to make your comment longer than the limit, then you can post a shorter message at first, and then edit it to be the longer message. The length limit applies only to new comments, but not to the editing of old comments.)
It is not by the people because people in charge are the ones who decide it.
If you have even read my comment, you would now that I am not concerned with what other people watch, but rather what is fed to people. I do not subscribe to the idea that violence in media causes violence, any more than I subscribe to the idea that reading Hamlet causes people to commit murder. However, I do say this "opium of the people," which could contribute societally/socially, does not as of now, because those in charge simply do not care. I am not referring to any "message" that it is sending, but rather what they are doing in regards to what the audience does with what they feed to people – that they could encourage people, for example, to perhaps come up with their own ideas of creation, and participate in the culture by creating their own work. For example, every comic book could have brief instructions (even if not in words) on how to draw their own comic, so that anybody reading it could be encouraged to create their own. In the absence of this, it is not "of the people, by the people, for the people." It is simply, one entity as a creator, by only this one entity, of this one entity, and for their interests in making money, with the audience having no part in it.
By "caring about their work," I do not mean preaching a message through their work, or teaching people through their work. But the fact is that, although it is an "opium," the fact is that it affects people, because people have an attachment of more than mere addiction to fiction, like the characters, or the particular emotion of the situation. By "positive effect," I probably mean having something that people could relate to, something people could feel about, something that could inspire people, perhaps even enough to drive people to create their own works based on this inspiration. These kinds of things are socially beneficial, but the current industry, of course, does not care.
(Note: if you want to make your comment longer than the limit, then you can post a shorter message at first, and then edit it to be the longer message. The length limit applies only to new comments, but not to the editing of old comments.)
If you have even paid attention, you would know that the previous comment was all about "even if not intellectually" i. e. talking about things that are not related to the intellectual effect. Perhaps you might have missed this "not" word.
It is not by the people because people in charge are the ones who decide it.
If you have even read my comment, you would now that I am not concerned with what other people watch, but rather what is fed to people. I do not subscribe to the idea that violence in media causes violence, any more than I subscribe to the idea that reading Hamlet causes people to commit murder. However, I do say this "opium of the people," which could contribute societally/socially, does not as of now, because those in charge simply do not care. I am not referring to any "message" that it is sending, but rather what they are doing in regards to what the audience does with what they feed to people – that they could encourage people, for example, to perhaps come up with their own ideas of creation, and participate in the culture by creating their own work. For example, every comic book could have brief instructions (even if not in words) on how to draw their own comic, so that anybody reading it could be encouraged to create their own. In the absence of this, it is not "of the people, by the people, for the people." It is simply, one entity as a creator, by only this one entity, of this one entity, and for their interests in making money, with the audience having no part in it.
By "caring about their work," I do not mean preaching a message through their work, or teaching people through their work. But the fact is that, although it is an "opium," the fact is that it affects people, because people have an emotional attachment of more than mere addiction to fiction, like the characters, or the particular emotion of the situation. Fiction is something by which people relate to their own lives – it is for this reason that people become emotionally attached to fiction. By "positive effect," I probably mean having something that people could relate to, something people could feel about, something that could inspire people, perhaps even enough to drive people to create their own works based on this inspiration. These kinds of things are socially beneficial, but the current industry, of course, does not care.
(Note: if you want to make your comment longer than the limit, then you can post a shorter message at first, and then edit it to be the longer message. The length limit applies only to new comments, but not to the editing of old comments.)
It is not by the people because people in charge are the ones who decide it.
If you have even read my comment, you would now that I am not concerned with what other people watch, but rather what is fed to people. I do not subscribe to the idea that violence in media causes violence, any more than I subscribe to the idea that reading Hamlet causes people to commit murder. However, I do say this "opium of the people," which could contribute societally/socially, does not as of now, because those in charge simply do not care. I am not referring to any "message" that it is sending, but rather what they are doing in regards to what the audience does with what they feed to people – that they could encourage people, for example, to perhaps come up with their own ideas of creation, and participate in the culture by creating their own work. For example, every comic book could have brief instructions (even if not in words) on how to draw their own comic, so that anybody reading it could be encouraged to create their own. In the absence of this, it is not "of the people, by the people, for the people." It is simply, one entity as a creator, by only this one entity, of this one entity, and for their interests in making money, with the audience having no part in it.
By "caring about their work," I do not mean preaching a message through their work, or teaching people through their work. But the fact is that, although it is an "opium," the fact is that it affects people, because people have an emotional attachment of more than mere addiction to fiction, like the characters, or the particular emotion of the situation. Fiction is something by which people relate to their own lives – it is for this reason that people become emotionally attached to fiction. By "positive effect," I probably mean having something that people could relate to, something people could feel about, something that could inspire people, perhaps even enough to drive people to create their own works based on this inspiration. These kinds of things are socially and culturally beneficial, but the current industry, of course, does not care.
(Note: if you want to make your comment longer than the limit, then you can post a shorter message at first, and then edit it to be the longer message. The length limit applies only to new comments, but not to the editing of old comments.)
Yeahhhh, Stargate Atlantis! =)
I'm missing »My Name Is Earl« or »Arrested Development« in the top ten.
YES!! I knew 24 would be at the top! Jack Bauer ROCKS!
http://www.privacy-web.us.tc
How can it be considered pirating when the shows are on broadcast tv?
This list makes me embarrassed to be an American. Not that I needed another reason…
and youre also gay. go somewhere else if you arent happy here.
I was expecting to see Top Gear on the list. :(
Dexter!!!
Many thanks for the information regarding post length. I found it to be societally positive & intellectually stimulating. It inspired me to create my own post in response.
=]
Many thanks for the information regarding post length. I found it to be societally positive & intellectually stimulating. It inspired me to create my own post in response.
So much better than the 'low-brow' drivel everyone else seems to be foisting upon us (TINU) against our will & driving down the moral standards of TorrentFreak's 'populace'.
=]
It's quite possible I missed it. Over-exposure to deliberately-inane TV shows has all but destroyed my higher functions; my attention-span is now that of a budgerigar.
Either that, or it's the shit they put in the water…
=]
Do not fret. Discerning US Americans such as yourself are the sole reason there is still hope for your country…
Do not fret, Chingalaro . Discerning US Americans such as yourself are the sole reason there is still hope for your country.
As to the illiterate, racist, homophobic, rednecked chicken-hawk calling for your abduction, simply point & laugh. S/H/It is an anachronism in today's world.
24 is awesome but it does have an agenda like someone said above.
Lost, lost it's touch when polar bears came …
April. PB comes back in April
Too bad Entourage is having a "break". Great show :)
…The polar bears were kept in cages by the Dharma Initiative for experiments. The first one encountered in the series just managed to escape – what's wrong with that?
Why have polar bears on an tropic island in the first place?
I think we are getting off the point here the point is money is important these networks can't make such big shows for free nor can they air them for free without commercials and all so my point is that some shows are good and some shows are bad and it depends a lot on the taste of people too who are watching so you just can't rate people watching other shows as psychos they may think same of you.
Hahahaha
Indeed, the measure of success of a cultural work should be measured more in terms of how many other works it inspires in its turn, rather than how large the audience is, or how much money it makes.
Not entirely so: it actually depends more on what the industry wants.
We still don't know everything the Dharma Initiative was doing – nor what the Others who replaced them were doing. The D.I. may have been experimenting with polar bears living in that climate for all we know.
Enjoy your tinfoil hat my friend.
Speak what you will, but leave Prison Break alone.
desperate housewives – cool tv show, but last episode :( was bad – writer has no more good ideas for last one ;)
prison break , yes, first and second episode
heroes – cool
other top listed I've never seen…
Scrubs is awesome.. I don't care what any of you have to say about it.
=3
6 out of 10 is on the list…
Definitely surprised to see 24 on the top of the charts after having a 1 year hiatus. Must have definitely hyped some people up for Season 7!
the problem is your not intelligent.
this doesnt evn take into acocunt the number of people streaming these same shows in complete seasons from mega libraries like http://3click.tv and still others sites streaming random episode to thousands like http://hulu.com.
People will eventually replace TV this way- the same as most people dont really go and buy CD’s at the record shop.
2 references to this post
Responses are closed
All remaining responses will continue to be archived. Use the TorrentFreak forums if you want to discuss something.