Slashdot Mirror
Bittorrent Creator A Digital Pirate?
Alex_Ionescu writes "According to an article in Wired, the old webpage of Bram Cohen contained a manifesto stating that his goal for creating software was to 'Commit Digital Piracy'. Cohen argues that the quote is taken out of context and represents a parody. He argues having written it in 1999, 2 years before even coming up with Bittorrent. You can find the archived copy of his site at archive.org. From the article: "Cohen has never publicly encouraged piracy, and he has consistently maintained that he wrote BitTorrent as a legitimate file-distribution tool. That would seem to make him and his budding company, BitTorrent, safe under the Grokster ruling. But legal experts worry the newly discovered manifesto extolling 'digital piracy' could put him on less certain legal ground."
Cohen said he's unhappy that the Supreme Court's decision is forcing him to confront something he wrote more than five years ago.
"The way they talked about intent is so vague that it can cause people to pay attention to things that they wrote years and years ago, having nothing to do with what they're doing right now," Cohen said.
If the President of the United States, the Governor of California, and various other politicians can hold political office regardless of what they did in their past (I won't even go into the difference between actually *doing* something illegal and just writing about it), then there should be no reason why this should even be a minor concern for Cohen or BitTorrent.
My views since 2002 have changed drastically on numerous subjects including ones I speak about in daily conversation, on Slashdot, and elsewhere. My views in 1999 were even more radically and misguided. I was in my early 20s, in college, and intoxicated (in some form) about 99% of the time. I certainly do not want to be held to what I said then and I certainly don't want to be held to what I say right now 5 years from now. Lots of life changing events occur in a short time now (moving to different areas of the country, encountering new people with different viewpoints, access to more and different information from many different angles).
It disappoints me that this is even an issue at all. If we are going to make a huge deal out this then I really think that we should have taken more time to consider what ass smacking and coke snorting does to our future. Yet, the problem is that people on that level get held to a different standard than the rest of us. Sadly, the levels are exactly the opposite of what they should be.
This really is just more evidence of how careful you have to be about what you post on the Internet. Many of us first started out on the Internet back in college; back when we had the skills to post and code, but lacked the wisdom to self-moderate.
Current Internet younglings, take note. Be prepared to defend everything you ever put on a web page. I still cringe when I read some of the stuff I posted 10 years ago...
Willie
It isn't just this quote that's the problem, it's the new search engine too.
Together with the Grokster ruling -- and all happening within such a short interval -- he's just too likely of a target now. Once big media realizes that knocking down the Grokster's does NOTHING to stem the tide of wares being traded via BT, they have to go after Bram.
It really sucks that a guy who's given us so much is going to be made to suffer so, but it looks to be damn near inevitable.
Time to donate to the very-soon-to-be-needed legal defense fund.
Come to think of it someone should be Turin on trial as well
From Bram Cohen's website:
[This was written in late 1999, and is a parody of a cypherpunk's manifesto, which struck me as very dishonest manifesto claiming to solely be concerned about privacy. This screed is written in the exaggerated voice of a 'prototypical' cypherpunk, making much more direct declarations of his intent.]
I am a technological activist. I have a political agenda. I am in favor of basic human rights: to free speech, to use any information and technology, to purchase and use recreational drugs, to enjoy and purchase so-called 'vices', to be free of intruders, and to privacy.
I further my goals with technology. I build systems to disseminate information, commit digital piracy, synthesize drugs, maintain untrusted contacts, purchase anonymously, and secure machines and homes. I release my code and writings freely, and publish all of my ideas early to make them unpatentable.
Technology is not a panacea. I refuse to work on technology to track users, analyze usage patterns, watermark information, censor, detect drug use, or eavesdrop. I am not naive enough to think any of those technologies could enable a 'compromise'.
Despite my emphasis on technology, I do not view laws as inherently evil. My goals are political ones, even if my techniques are not. The only way to fundamentally succeed is by changing existing laws. If I rejected all help from the political arena I would inevitably fail.
-Bram Cohen
***
Assuming Cohen actually ascribed to this parody of the "'prototypical' cypherpunk manifesto", it sounds like bittorrent would be an expression of free speech and a form of political protest to me.
It will be interesting to say the least to see what effect the decision has on both innovation in general and the subsequent to be expected abuses by [insert your favorite copyright holder here].
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
Go ahead, RIAA / MPAA . . . shut down BitTorrent. It doesn't matter, 'cuz in less than a week, a better, more efficient and more anonymous P2P tech will get adopted.
They just don't get it, or are unwilling to concede that they get it -- the genie is out of the bottle, forever.
> his goal for creating software was to 'Commit Digital Piracy'
>(...) written it in 1999
My first thought was "so what".
I said a lot of things 6 years ago that I disagree with today.
What, aren't we allowed to state our opinions anymore without having the fear of being haunted by the past?
www.6502asm.com - Code 6502 assembly or.. DIE!!
So express yourself in public at some point, and if the thing you expressed was "wrong" then someday the law will apply differently to you.
What kind of message does this send?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Anything on the internet should really be taken with a grain of salt. Further proof that you should be careful what you say on the internet because it will probably come around to bite you in the ass someday. It kind of reminds me of the people who jokingly talk about blowing schools up. They're not serious, but at some point they have to be taken seriously.
The Supreme Court decided Grokster is liable for its users criminal abuses, because Grokster "promoted" criminal abuse. They decided that Grokster promoted abuse, because someone in Grokster sent someone else in Grokster a memo saying that they needed abuse for sufficient traffic, and because Grokster targeted old Napster users to use Grokster. So the standards for "promotion" are very vague, a very low bar: "intent" and "benefit" are apparently required, but "action" is not necessarily required.
The same court decided that the government cannot "promote" a religion, by hanging a paper copy of the 10 Commandments in a frame in a courthouse. But a 5 ton rock carving of the 10 Commandments on a courthouse lawn is not "promotion".
I suppose that when you're a million years old, your word is literally the law, and have a job for life, the meaning of "promotion" might be a little beyond your grasp.
--
make install -not war
Cohen has never publicly encouraged piracy, and he has consistently maintained that he wrote BitTorrent as a legitimate file-distribution tool.
For a while there, under a "where can I find stuff to download" type link, he linked to two sites which consistently had lots of copyright material available for bittorrent download on their front pages.
These two now seem to be clean.
And yet, look at the pasts of our political leaders. Look at the pasts of our corporate masters. Look at the reprehensible things which are all shrugged off as "well, those times were different."
[
... despite it's a ridiculous claim, and obviously written with tongue-in-cheek. As Cohen has said in his defense -- does this mean that anything you say can be used against you years later regardless of what context it was said in now, and what context it's used in now? He wasn't even working on BitTorrent when he wrote that.
"I further my goals with technology. I build systems to disseminate information, commit digital piracy, synthesize drugs, maintain untrusted contacts, purchase anonymously, and secure machines and homes. I release my code and writings freely, and publish all of my ideas early to make them unpatentable."
If they're going to take his commitment to digital piracy as an indication of what he intended to do with BT, does that mean BT's purpose is also to synthesize drugs? Does it even mean he have plans to start a production plant to synthesize drugs?
Seriously, this case is so hollow that it stinks, but the scary part is that lawyers can make these claims and be taken seriously, and even that there's a real risk of him getting busted for it.
Bah...
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Sadly, it may not matter when he made the statement, or what his original intention was. All they have to do is go after him; even if they lose, they win. That the mere stigma of accusation itself is damaging may motivate them to go after him to establish to others that even if they can't win in a lawsuit, the MPAA can hurt anyone thinking of building decentralize file distribution systems to discourage future such efforts. I hope I'm wrong.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
Of course if you RTFA and follow the link Bram's Page http://web.archive.org/web/20010710021553/http://b itconjurer.org/index.html> then you will see that this Technological Activist's manifesto is under the heading Musings, an obvious joke...
On his revealed website: "Aargh, they be digging up me buried treasure."
For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.
Yeah, which explains why we don't have an ex-cocain addict running the whitehouse. Oh. Yeah.
Yeah, which explains why we don't have an ex-marijuana addict / womanizer running the whitehouse. Oh. Yeah.
Be prepared to defend everything you ever put on a web page.
I hope it's also OK to just admit that you were naive and wrong. You are allowed to learn new things in ten years, and change your opinions. At least I would hope so.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
However, there is no evidence that he ever "marketed" Bittorrent as a tool for piracy, and considerable evidence that he has done quite the opposite. This is a non-starter, in terms of the Grokster ruling.
Which is not to say that someone might try to use it against him, of course; it's just that the relevant facts in this case are miles removed from those in the Grokster case.
a cut copy from the site.
A Cypherpunk's Manifesto
by Eric Hughes
Privacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic age. Privacy is not secrecy. A private matter is something one doesn't want the whole world to know, but a secret matter is something one doesn't want anybody to know. Privacy is the power to selectively reveal oneself to the world.
If two parties have some sort of dealings, then each has a memory of their interaction. Each party can speak about their own memory of this; how could anyone prevent it? One could pass laws against it, but the freedom of speech, even more than privacy, is fundamental to an open society; we seek not to restrict any speech at all. If many parties speak together in the same forum, each can speak to all the others and aggregate together knowledge about individuals and other parties. The power of electronic communications has enabled such group speech, and it will not go away merely because we might want it to.
Since we desire privacy, we must ensure that each party to a transaction have knowledge only of that which is directly necessary for that transaction. Since any information can be spoken of, we must ensure that we reveal as little as possible. In most cases personal identity is not salient. When I purchase a magazine at a store and hand cash to the clerk, there is no need to know who I am. When I ask my electronic mail provider to send and receive messages, my provider need not know to whom I am speaking or what I am saying or what others are saying to me; my provider only need know how to get the message there and how much I owe them in fees. When my identity is revealed by the underlying mechanism of the transaction, I have no privacy. I cannot here selectively reveal myself; I must always reveal myself.
Therefore, privacy in an open society requires anonymous transaction systems. Until now, cash has been the primary such system. An anonymous transaction system is not a secret transaction system. An anonymous system empowers individuals to reveal their identity when desired and only when desired; this is the essence of privacy.
Privacy in an open society also requires cryptography. If I say something, I want it heard only by those for whom I intend it. If the content of my speech is available to the world, I have no privacy. To encrypt is to indicate the desire for privacy, and to encrypt with weak cryptography is to indicate not too much desire for privacy. Furthermore, to reveal one's identity with assurance when the default is anonymity requires the cryptographic signature.
We cannot expect governments, corporations, or other large, faceless organizations to grant us privacy out of their beneficence. It is to their advantage to speak of us, and we should expect that they will speak. To try to prevent their speech is to fight against the realities of information. Information does not just want to be free, it longs to be free. Information expands to fill the available storage space. Information is Rumor's younger, stronger cousin; Information is fleeter of foot, has more eyes, knows more, and understands less than Rumor.
We must defend our own privacy if we expect to have any. We must come together and create systems which allow anonymous transactions to take place. People have been defending their own privacy for centuries with whispers, darkness, envelopes, closed doors, secret handshakes, and couriers. The technologies of the past did not allow for strong privacy, but electronic technologies do.
We the Cypherpunks are dedicated to building anonymous systems. We are defending our privacy with cryptography, with anonymous mail forwarding systems, with digital signatures, and with electronic money.
Cypherpunks write code. We know that someone has to write software to defend privacy, and since we can't get privacy unless we all do, we're going to write it. We publish our code so that our fellow Cypherpunks may practice and play with it. Our code is free for all to use, worldwide.
Check journal for info on Anti-TextBook, an idea by me.
Just goes to show, if you're going to post anything risky, post as Anonymous Coward ;).
Oh no... it's the future.
Have you or have you not, ever been a pirate?
This was written in late 1999, and is a parody of a cypherpunk's manifesto, which struck me as very dishonest manifesto claiming to solely be concerned about privacy.
Hmm...
"It is wrong to accept terrorism." -- George W. Bush
Okay, now watch this.
"Accept terrorism." -- George W. Bush
Oh my God, George W. Bush supports terrorism!
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
"I am... in favor of... intruders... to privacy."
"I... track users... not naive enough to think..."
"Despite my emphasis on... evil... my goals are... fundamentally... changing existing laws..."
Being funny is my sig nature.
From Bram's archive.org site:u rer.org/a_torturers_account.html
...
...
http://web.archive.org/web/20010812035637/bitconj
"I like the Isolation torture technique best. It crushes 'em every time.
I stand in a big open field. The girl's flown in with a helicopter. It's big and noisy in there, so she's real scared. Or maybe she likes it. She's getting fucked anyway.
Sometimes she runs and I get to fight her. Sometimes she stands there and makes it easy.
One.
Two
Life is good."
Could stories like this one be used as proof that his website was all "fantasy" and he wasn't expressing ideas he truely would act upon?
Go ahead, RIAA / MPAA . . . shut down BitTorrent. It doesn't matter, 'cuz in less than a week, a better, more efficient and more anonymous P2P tech will get adopted.
Repeat after me: You can't sue a protocol. Even if "they" (**AA) tried to shut down BT/Bram, they'd have a hard time in the courts because of substantial non-infringing uses of the BT protocol.
When he made that statement there wernt laws in place at the time saying that he couldn't make a program for the sole purpose of distributing pirated software. Right? (Im not sure really)
Just recently it was detirmented that it is illegal to have a P2P program that specificly is used to distrubute pirated files... therefor as long as ur not telling people to do it you cant get in trouble.
So wouldnt he be protected by Ex Post Facto laws? So unless he starts advocating software piracy or other kinds of digital piracy using his software in the future he can't get in trouble. Unless I misunderstood somthing.
"Yeah, which explains why we don't have an ex-marijuana addict / womanizer running the whitehouse."
:)
Well, duh, that's because marijuana isn't addictive! Oh, you were trying to make another point
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Legally speaking, Cohen is as guilty as a gun manufacturer. He simply provided the way to others commit a crime. If people using BitTorrent are supposed to make unautorized copies of copyrighted material, then people having a gun are supposed to kill.
But the reality is much more complex then justice would like it to be. RIAA and MPAA are lobbying so heavily that Cohen will be considered guilty and will pay for crimes that he didn't commited. In RIAA/MPAA conception he must sue the users.
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
I am not a native English speaker but I wanted to know how else the statement...[...]"...his goal for creating software was to 'Commit Digital Piracy..." can be interpreted.
It's up to you (us) /.ers to make sure he doesn't have his ass dragged through the mud. Who gives a flying fuck about his motivations, political leanings, religous beliefs or deli meat preferences. Bram is Bram, Bittorrent is what it is. We love it, we use it, we know the history of its creator is totally irrelevant. If the MSM, the MPAA, the RIAA and Joe Pissnut Politician try to make him their new whipping boy tell everyone who will listen that P2P is the story --- NOT Sean, NOT Bram NOT the next creator/victim. RATM!
I thought Wired was on "our side". Why are they dragging this shit out of the past?
my sig's at the bottom of the page.
Will it be as famous as Bill's has become? Here's a few Bram could choose from.
bad_outlook
--
Is this vague enough for you?
Rumor has it that he originally wanted to call it Bitt-ARRRRRR-ent.
http://web.archive.org/web/20010710021853/bitconju rer.org/a_torturers_account.html
He also wrote that. He was pretty fucked up. But that doesn't make his software bad.
Sorry to bubble burst
Does it say somewhere in that you can't be held liable for something which was not illegal at the time of commiting the act?
Yeah, and neither is alcohol or coffee, right? It's debatable whether or not it is acknowledged as an addictive drug, but yeah, you're spot on that I was equating Bush's "cocain" addiction (of which there's no credible evidence) with Clinton's pot smoking and ass-grabbing (of which there's a ton of solid, indisputable evidence).
If all that's needed to keep bittorrent viable is a squeaky-clean developer to create a bt protocol client, I'm sure the market will provide. Hell, there are now plenty of "legitimate" corporations (Blizzard, for starters - who now employs Cohen) who have enough vested commerical interest in bt to fund such development, even if Cohen were forced out of what he started.
The Supreme Court didn't create a new law, they simply clarified interpretation of existing law.
Its troubling that people out there don't understand basic concepts about the US government.
I think his views are right. I think every thing he said in his article was completely correct and is not only our right but its our responsibility.
CyberCPU.net
Well now he's a gun maker with a seriously unfortunate mission statement.
No one has a sense of humor?
No one can get subtlety?
Must every word we write be played back in monotone, completely out of context, character, to see if it can be used against us?
Anyone who understands hacker culture, or Bram's personality, would read that and laugh.
God, I probably have something just as ridiculous saved somewhere. In fact, I know I do, and I know someone else got ahold of it and spruced it up with Photoshop and made it look like a piece of communist propaganda that I'm just about ready to print out a million copies of. I come across it every so often and laugh, and anyone who knows me would laugh if they saw it.
And a court would say that clearly this is the mind of a terrorist.
Fuck.
Bram Cohen produces software. (Without illegal. intent.)
:p
People use software to perform illegal acts.
Smith and Wesson produces guns.(Without illegal. intent.)
People use guns to perform illegal acts.
GM produces cars. (Without illegal. intent.)
People use cars to perform illegal acts.
Why is it the leadership that the people have selected to run our country seems to be forgetting that PEOPLE PERFORM ILLEGAL ACTS.
Not software
Not guns
Not cars
Not Corporations
PEOPLE.
It's time the Judicial system starting hold PEOPLE accountable for what they do not the item they used to do it.
Welcome to America, everyday closer to a Socialist Republic.
What kind of message does this send?
It sends the message that, all you anarchists and social or societal miscreants will be held to your word and if you don't want to be held to your word, you should STFU! Is that too difficult for your tiny mind to grasp?
Are you actually stupid enough to think that Cohen didn't realize that his rebellious manifesto wasn't just that, a rebellious manifesto? Are you really stupid enough to believe that Cohen didn't mean what he said at the time?
I know, I can't believe some of the stuff I posted to Eniac while working on MK Ultra... I actually admitted that I wasn't going to vote for Eisenhower in 52! Can you believe that?!?
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Actually making some kind of point or argument is unnecessary. Instead, save valuable time and effort by just describing some kind of hypothetical person with rigid yet inconsistent viewpoints. Then, point out their viewpoints are inconsistent. Congratulations, you've won!
Advanced version: Make the implication that the hypothetical person you've described speaks for the readers of Slashdot. Since mysteriously enough pretty much everyone who reads slashdot seems to hate it, this will bestow you with instant crowd appeal!
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Don't you just hate when this happens?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
There's also Bush's 30 years of alcohol addiction, of which he himself has provided confirmation.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Here's proof that Piracy was the intent all along
// bittorrent.h
// included by high.c
doubloon dblRoyalties = 0.0;
The truth is out!!
Some settling may occur during posting.
I wonder how much he'd need. Remember, Hollywood/MPAA/RIAA organizations have *MILLIONS* of dollars and they won't hesitate to throw down whatever cash they need to make their point.
Unless Warren Buffet himself decides that he's going to throw down a huge pile of cash, is it even realistic to expect that a legal defense fund is going to be much help?
Example: I had an old ISP sue me for breach of contract (they lied. Fuck you, o1) but because I could not afford to defend myself in court, next thing I knew the slimeball lawyer/collection agency they hired was telling me "This will cost you $10,000 when we're done with you." Why? They can charge whatever the hell they want.
Can Cohen/etc afford to pay these overly inflated legal fees? That's the big question, and it's yet another example of what CRAP our legal system has become.
Seems to me, mateys, that Dave Barry has done much more to encourage online piracy, arr...
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Hear that knocking? It's the Thought Police at your door. You'd better be ready with $100,000 in the bank to pay lawyers to help you defend every statement you've ever made, anywhere, anytime in your life. It doesn't matter if you're guilty or not. They'll come after you anyway, and it's going to cost years of your life and more money than you have to defend yourself against their allegations. Remember McCarthy? He's baaaack!
BTW, everything I've ever said, in print, in daily speech, or on the Web, has been a 'parody' or 'satire' of some kind. I didn't really mean it. Honest. I love Big Brother.
Serving your airship needs since 1995.
This is what I've been saying for HOW long now? People are always trying to get out of trouble and the consiquences for their actions. Especially if they're doing something illegal, not just wrong.
People need to learn to accept that what they do and say MUST be held accountable. For good or bad results. YOU CANNOT ASSUME YOU WON'T GET CAUGHT FOR SOMETHING!
HAt's off to you, Eagle'sFlight
A musing is simply a meditative thought.
Rogers Cadenhead (Web: http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench)
What do you call 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
At least the crooked politicians can get blowjobs in the oval office.
Either that, or used as evidence against him in a future rape trial.
I saw Bram speak at SXSW last year. I know Cohen has Asperger's Syndrome, but Cohen didn't seem like he cared about anything.
c ohen.lo.mp4
He didn't care what people downloaded because mainstream music and films were a waste of time. He didn't want to talk about what should or shouldn't happen with RIAA and MPAA suits.
My favorite quote, "I don't like computers... they're really annoying to deal with... they never work right... I have to use them for work, but if I could avoid them, I would...".
This guy is a software developer with the ability to fix the things he doesn't like... but doesn't.
When asked what he did care about, he responds that he's a programmer and he likes doing "networking stuff", but when someone who helped develop the UDP standard asked what he would change, he says he doesn't care.
You can watch the interview for yourself here...
http://server1.sxsw.com/sxsw2/2005_coverage/bram_
And apparently, the average slashbot can't spell "ever"
slashdot will be reponsible if some lunatic goes and kills Billy G because many say that "bill gates must die" or something?
(legal notice: I'm _NOT_ endorsing this extremist action! It's just a HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE. And no this isn't sarcasm either. I swear.)
Sheesh. The current legal system is screwed and must change (NO, i am _NOT_ endorsing terrorism against juries!
ARGH! This is insane. I'm outta here. (no, i'm _NOT_ committing nor endorsing suicide!
*head explodes* <- Legal note: This is a JOKE! I'm... ah whatever.
Because much of the law is intent in the new ruling on filesharing.
If you kill someone by hitting them with your car, you might get 200 days in jail. If you say outright that you meant to kill them purposefully, that's 50 years.
The only difference there is speech - speech that reveals intent.
If Cohen's intent is to facilitate widescale piracy, then he might be guilty of something. This might prove his intent (or, it might not). That's why this matters.
Only in America can you get prosecuted for not knowing the future.
...that I may have built "systems to disseminate information, commit digital piracy, synthesize drugs, maintain untrusted contacts, purchase anonymously, and secure machines and homes" and perhaps even worse. Not intentionally, mind you, but I have (more in the past than now) built and repaired computers for people who I barely knew. I have no clue, after the fact what those folks ever do with those computers. That old widower that I helped with computer problems last week could be a murderer or kiddie-porn freak, but I may never know. However, it's not something that I did maliciously or subversively, just helping someone out with something I know pretty well--computers--and perhaps getting paid fairly well as a younger person. Cohen may not abhorr piracy and the like, but that doesn't mean he condones it.
kinda reminds me of the McCarthy trials, where if you had been to a meeting of the communist club in junior high, then decided that you didn't like it and never went back, you were still up for suspicion of being a communist. And of course all the black-listing etc. that went along with that.
Of course, I'm far too young to remember that era, so if I've said something incorrect, please correct me.
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
Unfortunately, if you look at the Internet Archive of the website, and make your way though the various broken links to find the different vesions of the agenda, you'll see that this "parody" is not labeled as such until recently.... more recently than the archive shows, in fact. Perhaps changed after the ruling came down? Furthermore, it has been delinked from his current home page, although it used to reside under "Musings."
This leaves judging the intent problematic. While the other "musings" are not so serious as the "serious writings", they're not complete fluff either. This isn't going to be a laughing matter if it goes to court.
What becomes more important for the BitTorrent project is the extent to which Brad's demonstrated intentions may be taken as evidence for the intentions of other developers who worked with him on the project, a point which I was discussing in the followup to the case with someone.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Regarding the G8's goal to reduce world poverty:
"[Paul Martin] harshly questioned the motives of some other world leaders who have been making headline-grabbing pledges they might not meet."
"Instead of dealing with the problems the way that people ought to deal with the problems, what in fact they're doing is they're giving in to short-term political pressure, (to) get their pictures in the paper, make an announcement, go home to favourable headlines and then forget about it," he said. "Well, I'm not going to do that."
I originally heard that quote on CBC Newsworld and it seemed like quite a bold statement. Will he follow-through? This Canadian Prime Minister owns Canada Steamship Lines.
When I watch one of those crime shows on tv and the officer says "anything you say can be held against you in a court of law" I used to think then meant starting from now. I guess it's really more of just a fyi kinda thing.
It's on the same site. Surely it's a no-brainer that this is all fiction.
This is a blog entry by Mark Schultz (the legal expert Wired quotes) that came before this "discovery" and after the Grokster decision on June 28th. He talks at great length about how little BitTorrent has to fear from litigation.
This is a second entry from the same day saying pretty much what Wired magazine has just said in the article we got here on Slashdot today.
This is the blog entry by Ernest Miller, also from June 28th, which appears to be the original source for the resurfacing of Bram Cohen's little essay. He appears to be the first person in insinuate that Bram Cohen is not a good person. Thanks Ernest.
Direct away from face when opening.
The guy may _possibly_ be sued by _someone_ for saying something _seven years ago_, and this nonsence gets press coverage?!
It reminds me of plain old "celebrity talk", when magazines ruminate over insignificant facts of famous people's lives sheerly to boost sales.
I may be missing it, but I read that as he builds systems that do such.
Show me where in the article he says he writes software to do that, or that he himself actually does that.
I may build a system for a neighbor that uses it to take down NORAD.
If such were true I could say that I built the system that took down NORAD. Doesn't mean I own it, use it, or commited the crime now does it?
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
I don't think if he wasn't an officer of, or representing a company which didn't exist that this would be relevent.
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
The phrase "Digital Piracy" is not the same as "Copyright Piracy". "Digital Piracy" could very well and probably does imply computing as if you were Garibaldi. A swashbuckling romantic way of acting in the digital realm. It need not have anything to do with illegal activity or trafficing in ill-gotten goods. Especially if such a statement were to pre-date Napster and the upswing of copyright violation online.
Let's get this straight. Someone assumes that the Bram Cohen may possibly be sued by somebody for saying something six years ago, and this nonsense get press coverage?
/. for celebrity talk. I'm not interested in some random insignificant facts from the lives of OSS coders. If you're desperate material, feel free discuss peoples' ideals, ideas, goals in life - _stuff that matters_.
I'm not reading
just one thing to say, i dont care about the guy that wants 10 WMD's, i just care about the guy that wants one
alcohol and coffee (well, caffeine) are in fact very addictive.
Cannabis isn't, except in a phychological sense, but the nearly everything that's remotely pleasurable is addictive in that sense... TV, Computers, Slashdot, etc. so that definition of 'addictive' isn't really meanigful.
His front page listed it in a section entitled "musings", below a seperate section entitled "serious writings". Could we assume from the section titles that he wasn't being serious?
BitTorrent is small potatos in the infringment inducement game. Think about MicroSoft and some of its ad campaigns over the years. MS is by far the most egregious inducer of infringment behavior. Take for instance MediaPlayer and what the company encourages you to do with copyrighted works. And of course there is the browser cache and all thoes .bmps, .jpgs, and other copyrighted works residing on users computers begging infringers to use them.
I find this deeply disturbing, for a number of reasons. Most prominently, this seems to imply that one practical consequence of the recent Supreme Court ruling with respect to Grokster is a chilling effect on free speech. If one wants to create, one can't debate, and if one wants to debate, one can't create.
I think it's pretty clear what Bram's aim was when he was developing Bittorent. Anyone who disagrees with him being a pirate is simply naive.
Will the court recorder please note that the defendant has answered "Garrr!", indicating the affirmative?
---GEC
I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
Yesterday, federal agencies arrested J. Postel, J. Reynolds, and other key members of the RFC 959 working group. Federal spokesmembers argue that past comments about "information wants to be free", "social internet", and the existance of "0-days", "warez dumps", and "pr0n" on FTP sites around the world are clear examples of the intent of the defendants to create software for piracy.
Senator Talking Head(R) or Alabama commented, "This is a great day for freedom loving Americans everywher. Take that you commies!".
perl -e '$_=":: Qjvtug ZpQbjryy
"I build systems to disseminate information, commit digital piracy, ...."
Remember in the Grokster ruling, it was the fact that Grokster was advertised as a means to commit copy right infringement that they were ruled against. Nowhere in that statement does Cohen advertise BitTorrent specifically as a tool to commit copy right infringement. Get a grip.
step 1. Untwist Knickers :
step 2. Realise WIRED wants to sell to your f33rs
step 3. comprehend the word parody
Bram wrote a PARODY of the cypherpunk manifesto which drones on about privacy, he wittily changes it to piracy thus illustrating a reason for privacy for many.
Understand, he is mocking and criticising this cypherpunk manifesto who use privacy for piracy.
Bittorent has NO PRIVACY built in, quite the opposite.
So to sum up : WIRED needs more sales, so they twist up some facts to pour mud on a current issue - this is very shoddy journalism at its most Yellow.
P.S. IMHO bittorrent search is no different from googles filetype:torrent search.
Do they not have something else to worry about? Namely: War?
[%] Cingular Ringtones
If they convicted him using that page then they make every company to ever change an online policy liable for their previously posted online policies.
We live in a crazy society. We blame the inventor of the knife instead of blaming the person that used a knife to stub someone. There is absolutely no sense behind blaming anyone that makes P2P and file sharing programs.
Finally someone with some SENSE!!!!! Are you all morons? Everyone has this dellusional view on what Free Speech means! You can't go around saying you are going to blow up the Capital building and expect not to get detained. It shows you have intent on doing something that will break the law.
If what he wrote 5 years ago shows intention that he wanted to create a piracy revolution... Well don't think he won't be pursued, you can call it economic terrorism if you'd like. Since we use the word terrorism in anything that is harmful to our nation, now adays.
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
I am yelling, you st00pid robot
. . ..............
'According to an article in Wired, the old webpage of Bill Gates contained a manifesto stating that his goal for creating software was to 'Commit Digital Plagiarism'.Gates argues that the quote is taken out of context and represents a parody. He argues having written it in 1983, 2 years before even coming up with Windows.
Excuse me? The item wired is indicating from his website implies that the intentions may have been illegal-- or more precisely, to encourage illegal acts, which in turn in this specific instance (copyright violation) is illegal. While the statutory basis of the concept of contributory copyright infringement in the Sony case might have been weak (the law is only explicit for patents), if the legislature disagreed they have had several decades to change the law and clarify their intentions if they wished to expressly only allow direct infringement. Despite a major revision of copyright law in the 1980's and the revisiting of such issues with the DMCA, they have not done this.
As such, your analogy has run into the iceberg of a cold and contradictory fact, and behaves much like any vessel in such conditions.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
I love my country; I love what America stands for.
However, the direction we (speaking from a US-centric position) are going is not very wise, and so I would have to agree with you--it is true. Now, I'm probably going to be modded down for what I am about to say, but I think that a lot of it is relevant to this case. Let's review a few things that have happened in the passed year or less that is dangerous to the USA and her allies.
1) The Schiavo case. It's insignificant to most
This isn't to say that the Schiavo case is even remotely similar. However, it has certainly opened a pandora's box that I think has the potential to be very bad.
2) New London, Connecticut property seizures. While the Fifth Amendment allows government to seize property "for public use," it does not allow for private property to be seized and granted to other private property owners--not until now. In today's USA, property (read: wealth) redistribution can legally occur upwards. What this means is that wealthier entities can now seize the property of less wealthy entities and the action is sanctioned by the government. God help you if you live on ocean front property or other "prime real estate" locations.
3) Chip Salzenberg has a legal problem along similar lines. Admittedly, he shouldn't have threatened legal action against the company--big mistake--but his property was unjustly seized (IMO) based upon fraudulent claims. I would think this should be a violation of the Fourth Amendment, particularly if the company were responsible for forging documents (I don't know their side of the story, so my opinion on this is likely to change).
And now...
4) Something written, potentially in jest and very likely taken out of context, can affect the outcome of a legal battle years and years down the road? The ramifications of this are absurd--does this imply that, if an ex of mine said "I wish you'd just die" and I die ten years down the road, my parents would be able to file suit against her in a potential murder case? Come on. I realize this is incredibly out of context, but frankly, given the idiotic nature of recent rulings, I can't say as I would be surprised.
So in short, I would agree. The US has problems--big problems. Perhaps I'm overreacting, perhaps I'm reading too far into this mess, but let's be honest here. The rest of the world is scratching its head after the last week's news coming out of the USA thinking we've lost our marbles. "Seizing private property and awarding it to a company? What is WRONG with the Americans?"
It's our courts. The people can't vote on issues like this--they are decided by people who are appointed. Our legal system has its benefits, but in recent months, I'm begining to wonder if its design isn't almost entirely broken. Or may we're dragging too many decisions into the courts when they should be decided by a vote at the community level?
He who has no
Absolutely nothing. So I'll repeat myself AGAIN. If you're going to develope "risky" software, if you're going to be a whistle-blower, if you're going to expose weaknesses in...whatever, then there is only ONE way to protect yourself. Do it ANONYMOUSLY!!! To hell with the attributions! The only thing you're going to get is retribution. Get your act together, people. When software patents hit the streets, you're either going to use Microsoft, or your going to be illegal. And if you're going to take the high road, then leave your damn name off. Otherwise you're only looking for trouble. Damn! I swear. This exactly like trying to remind the pilot to, most importantly, fly the plane when something goes wrong. All to often, the entire crew is trying to fix a burned out bulb while the plane is flying into the ground. And it happens over and over again as if nobody ever heard the warning.
What?
- Is he now, or has he ever been, a living breathing human being?
If the answer to that question is yes, he's a digital pirate.IANAL... But I play one on
There certainly is a law against being accessory to a crime, and this is the spirit of the Supreme Court ruling on filesharing.
Gun Makers aren't allowed to market their products as "the best way to murder and maim innocents!" They can market themselves as self-defense, hunting, and a variety of *legal* uses, but not as a way to commit a crime.
I don't really see why this is so complicated. This statement may or may not prove his intent. But if someone can convince a jury that it does, he may be guilty of being accessory to thousands upon thousands of infringements.
I had a feeling somehow archive.org could be used to screw someone. That manifesto is pretty clear. I don't see what's out of context. And it's not surprising that he started a project such as BitTorrent after reading it. Nothing wrong with starting a project for political reasons though :)
XML UI Browser/Platform
The jury system and the courts in general would work a hell of a lot better if people wouldn't weasel out of jury duty.
That is part of why innocent people get convicted and the court system fails so much.
Doing your part as a citizen for a few days is more important than the next 10K lines of code you'll write, for sure.
When all the courts have for a jury pool is whoever is left after people have weasel out, it is no wonder things go the way they do.
We need techie on juries. Else if you go to court, you won't have a jury of your peers, you'll have a jury of former jocks, bullies, preppies and cheerleaders.
That's why you have a much better chance if you are accused of a non-techie crime - since most technical issues are beyond most jurors.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
First...
...and then later...
... wow... journalism at it's finest.
Please ignore any obvious problems in this post.
"I think my intention was good, don't arrest me!" "We're sorry we have to give you a mind probe to see if you're telling the truth."
Am I alone here in thinking it's ridiculous to consider 'intentions'? Apply the law on a case by case basis, don't feed me horse sh*t about intentions.
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
Bram is a hero and inspiration to software engineers and technologists across the world. The opinions he expresses in his manifesto are represent enlightened thought (though I don't agree 100% with all of them). Technologists represent a vanguard front against the entrenched, oppressive corporate and political interests and we need to actively acknowledge and assume this role.
If they come after him, we owe him united support with our voices and our wallets.
You totally misunderstand the nature of the problem. Mr. Cohen is in no danger of being locked up for anything, least of all his expressed opinion on digital piracy. Your accusations are laughably unfounded.
The crux of Mr. Cohen's problem is that the U.S. Supreme Court recently decided that individuals or corporations which produce software that is deliberately intended to be used for piracy are liable in civil court for their actions. That is, they may be sued by industry organizations like the RIAA or BSA, and made to pay financial compensation for contributing to software or music piracy, but only if there is proof of intent to evade the law. Hence Mr. Cohen's predicament, as this old document from his Web site seems pretty clearly to show such an intent. The only question is whether it is admissible in court.
This is not a criminal case, and in fact there is not even any criminal statute under which he could possibly be charged, unless he himself actually downloaded pirate copies of music or software.
American citizens, this is why the rest of the world has problems with your country.
How comical. You equate us with the Soviets and Nazis on a mere shoestring of ill-informed speculation and conjecture. It's obvious that you have not the slightest idea what you are talking about.
A visit to any American college campus or anti-war rally would show you that even the most robust and controversial free speech is in no danger whatsoever in this country. I am sure that freedom of speech is safer in America than in Europe and Canada, where you certainly can be locked up for speaking your sincerely held opinions about race relations or homosexuality.
Americans are said to be ignorant about the rest of the world, but it seems clear that's a two-way street.
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
What is wrong with that statement? It is a perfectly arguable position.
His old site beats the crap out of ninnies like Paul Graham, who sucks ass.
Stop buying Music and DVDS!! They are a money-powered machine, not any one person or group of people. If you take away the power that feeds the machine, it stops.
:)
It's really quite simple. DON'T BUY CDs. DON'T BUY VIDEOS. DON'T GO TO THE MOVIE THEATER. And make all your friends do the same.
Then we'll have what's called a "movement". "We don't need your products enough to bow down to political pressure to restrict our freedoms."
It's not like you're DYING for something, you're just saying you're not willing to support an evil, corrupt industry any more. Very easy, think about it, think about what you're losing (crappy stuff), then do it.
Cheers.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
in robots.txt put: User-agent: ia_archiver Disallow: / According to the archive.org policies page: http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/research/conferences/ aps/removal-policy.html
this will not only keep them from indexing your sites but remove all content they have archived. Seeing how archive.org is most likely going to get Bram in trouble it got me to think about my adult websites I run that used to have more questionable material before the bush administration, time to add that to all my robots.txt files since the war on porn has recently started via alberto gonzales passing the new 2257 regulations that require ANYONE who uploads a pic/vid/whatever that is "sexually explicit" to have IN HAND model id's, release forms (even though the forms already exist at the original production studio), all alphabetically indexed available 40hours a week for inspection (5 years in prison if your documents aren't up to snuff) of course many parts of this law are blatantly unconstitutional and it is being challened in court by the free speech coalition http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/ .
Bram Cohen writes a beautiful piece of social bandwidth-balancing software and of course the music and film industry tears him down like any other thing that could vaguely perceivably harm their bottom line.
His software is a significant step forward in helping to balance information load-sharing. Distribution of information will never move forward if big business is allowed to clamp down on clever individuals.
There's my rant.
what strikes me as entertaining in all these 'debates' is how the geeks believe themselves to be untouchable. they seem to have convinced themselves that the police state thats being assembled around them will never affect them. ill be interested to see your reactions once the department of fatherl er homeland security begins functioning as it was actually intended, although many of you will be drafted into 'national service' by then.
you people just dont get it. the technology doesnt matter anymore. the man has decided to use its strength and power of force. what needs to happen is a universal comprehension that the 'war on terror' itself is bogus, because until then you people are just moving towards the designation of "technological terrorist". and eventually you will be treated like a murderer for breaking technology 'rules'. you think you are going to get away with it because you are so clever. how quaint.
mark my words.
Can anyone find anything else suggesting this predated 2001?
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
> it sounds like bittorrent would be an expression
> of free speech and a form of political protest to
> me.
Good point. It means that the quote can be used as a public character assasination, but not as part of legal case. If they use this quote in a court, they admit they believe bittorrent is protected speech.
> ... it indexes everything alike. ...
A step further would be to enable people to prefer content that is legally permitted to use.
What might make it possible is an open protocol to communicate permissions (such as GPL/Crative commons license). Something like extra headers that specify such data. Then search engines/file sharing software could allow a user to filter/prioritize search results by permisions.
One good side effect would be that content providers would be motivated to provide at least some versions of what they have with free use permissions, if they want to be found on search engines, because this model would discriminate against content that have no explicit permisions policy.
Another benefit is that by making default options tend towards locating files that are legal to use creators of sharing software can defnd themselves in court by showinf that ythey are actively discouraging "piracy" (regardless of what they have said in public in the past).
I think it is important to have a working model that allows people TO CHOOSE, before the dominant model becomes one (or many) that take these rights away (closed protocol DRM).
It's getting a similar stage as Mr. Kaneko (developer of P2P application Winny, mainly used in Japan), though in his case, he got caught by police for making a p2p app program and since it's used to spread copyrighted material, now he's the guilty one, and he said he wrote the program to try to destroy the current copyright mechanism by flooding out the problem everywhere, spread and share the files.
He's still under trials, but Bram's case look much lighter, he can even say, my friend wrote that page, I didn't know... If that's what they're after...
What, are you still here bonch? Still protesting the fact that billg actually *did* say the 640K quote (the fact that he denies it now notwithstanding)? Still sticking up for all things Microsoft? Why? Everybody knows about your shenanigans.