"Way to use that slippery slope fallacy, Sparky. ... The demo is going to be free in a short amount of time anyway."
And which logical fallacy is "it'll be free in a short amount of time anyway"? Irony, sweet irony...
As of today, it's not free, it's only available for sale, hence it's being made illegally available for download. Today. Tomorrow EA may say, "Okay, no problem, download away," or they may decide to say, "Um, take it down before we sue you for violating the distribution agreement contained in the demo". (Which I've not seen as I haven't seen the demo, and it may give full distribution approval.)
"Like Frans said, it's the job of this site to report the news. The news is that the demo was leaked out and available for download."
Yes, it is. Reporting on a demo's existence is one thing, and totally legitimate, but HOSTING IT is completely different. Yhey're not just reporting the news, they've become an active participant in the news, which if you know anything about journalism and news reporting is a big no-no.
"Last time I checked, downloading demos wasn't illegal."
Nope, but the copyright holder gets to determine how a copyrighted work is distributed. And if EA gave approval to a magazine, but didn't give approval to Blue's News, then Blue's News is violating their copyright by making it available for download. The law is very clear on this.
"Is EA going to be mad that I played the demo early and I now want to buy their game? The bottom line is that this is free publicity for EA, 2015, and their purdy little game."
Nope, which is why it's unlikely that anyone will throw a fit. Unless amazon.com decides to throw a fit at EA, which will then throw a fit to avoid pissing off amazon.
Alternately, the magazines could, in theory, go after the websites.