add &dlm=0 to the end of the 'your download is starting' page url..

1 go to a program's page
2. click download now
3. do not download the file that starts cnet_ or cnet2_ (if it doesn't start with cnet it's ok)
4. add the &dlm=0 to the url in the address bar after the spi=whatever junk

enjoy the direct download.. and go to the source next time..or try filehippo or softpedia (either one with your adblocker running)

You can always choose not to offer your downloads through download.com.

Sorry but this is old new and why most of us builders have been avoiding CNet like the clap for awhile. I'd loved to see their before and after website visits stats because i wouldn't be surprised if many are doing like me and the instant they see the article is on CNet closing the tab.

For those that need that "80%" software, the stuff you pretty much install on every system? Let old Hairy introduce to a really nice place with a weird name...Ninite [ninite.com]. it has all the latest versions of the software everyone installs, your flash, codec packs, VLC, LibreOffice, several AV and antimal to choose from, and NO TOOLBARS are allowed, no crapware, just the program you want pre-packaged as an unattended installer that's as simple as "clicky clicky" and let her run. great for not only new builds but when you need to help someone who lives a good distance away who is having trouble or doesn't know where to find the above basics.

I used to swing by CNet all the time back in the day but since i don't support spammers and spyware pushers they can go pound sand. With ninite all the basics are covered and if you can think of others you'd like just drop their name in the suggestion box and they'll add the most popular choices to the list. I suggested Klite with MPC and voila! There it is, and more popular apps are being added all the time. Enjoy folks!

If anybody else wants to remove their software as well then you need to contact support to delist from Download.com/Upload.com
They will respond with something like:

But if you insist they will remove your listing. Fucking scammers!

If your logo or name is a trademark, yes. That's why no distribution can redistribute a modified Firefox with the same name & logo.

Pick mediafire then. Zero wait, over 1MB/sec download speed.

Megaupload usually saturates my 2.2MB/sec download bandwidth, but it has wait time.

Cnet is only bundling their adware with programs uploaded since they started bundling.

I've got a program listed there, its not bundled.

If I upload a new version they are going to bundle it with their crapware.

So I'm not uploading a new version, ever.

They told uploaders what they were going to do with their program, they don't agree to your terms and conditions, you agree to theirs.

Remove your program from their site and go elsewhere.

1) if they actually do something, it means the many worlds hypothesis is true, and the divergent timeline occurs in a different quantum universe.

2) if the get the message, and do nothing, then you could have created a closed timelike curve, and doomed your own universe to experience the exact timeline you are reporting on. This closed timelike curve would be an indelible part of that universe's history, both present, past and future. (The time after the event creates the preceeding event, which causes the event to happen. Rinse, repeate until dizzy.) (It could also simply be another instance of the many worlds hypothesis being true though.)

3) attempts at bidirectional communication would be systematically prevented by quantum collapse. All attempts to talk to 1999 on the other end of the call would mysteriously fail 100% of the time, even if the theory behind such a transmission seems sound.

4) 1999 calls us using a one way temporal transmission device. (Like an ordinary metal time capsule.) Communication is received, but no reply can be sent.

Of these 4 options, 4 and 3 are the most likely scenarios for "1999 called, they want...." happening. #4 being the most likely.

Causality, it's a bitch.

Thank you for Ninite. It will unsuck my life considerably.

I'm part of the ScummVM group, a cross platform software for playing various classic adventure games, and the question of Download.com came up when we released the next version of our software. There were some arguments for including it on such sites, such as giving greater visibility to the project. However, the issue of the bundled 'crapware' was considered too big a downside. We weren't that desperate for wider coverage of our software, and we certainly didn't want people to adversely associate our software with malware.

These days I wouldn't touch download.com even if you paid me.

The new installer is a "derivative work", and you can specify that derivative works must not use the original trademarks. Mozilla and RedHat are both very strict about this: the source is open and free and all but you keep their name out of your modified stuff.

No, they have not always done this. It just started this year. As a software author who publishes on CNet in addition to many other sites and my own, I was horrified to be notified this year that this was going to take place. They completely repackage the software, wrapping it with their adware crap. I immediately fired off a vehement email telling them not to do this with my software, but CNet does what they want to do and getting them to do anything without giving them money is a process that usually takes about 6 to 12 months (they pissed me off years ago and it took FOREVER to get de-listed). They are essentially abusing their power they have over software authors who need to publish on CNet (by far the most high traffic DL site on the net). I don't really need to publish on CNet but it used to be a badge of honor and a sign of credibility to be published there. I don't consider it as such any more.

It's full of errors. Especially the spiel about alignment. In 64-bit mode you don't have to align everything to 64-bits for best performance, only 64-bit-sized values (including memory pointers). The example 16-bit value actually only needs 16-bit alignment for best performance, which is no different to the 32-bit version of the program.

2: The increase in the memory use of pointers doesn't explain Windows x64's extra 300MB of memory use. My bet is on it loading both 64-bit and 32-bit versions of a bunch of libraries in order to support various components of Windows that are still 32-bit (as well as any 32-bit software you run).

3: Saying that a 64-bit version of a program won't be faster... Two things are actually in favour of it being faster: 64-bit mode exposes more and larger registers to use, and also guarantees certain instruction set enhancements exist (SSE2). The latter especially is a huge speedup if you take advantage of it.

If you're on Brothersoft as well, you'd best contact them to "unwrap" your software too - unlike download.com they won't charge you to do that though, and will do it for you.