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."

Comments

We are held to different standards?

[garcia]

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.

Re:We are held to different standards?

[AKAImBatman]

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, then there should be no reason why this should even be a minor concern for Cohen or BitTorrent.

Arguably, there's nothing preventing Mr. Cohen from continuing his work. And in fact, it's still likely that a court would find in his favor considering the materials that have been published relevant to the case. (Which is to say, any and all promotional materials about BitTorrent.) The key is that Mr. Cohen is now a public figure, and just like Presidents and Senators who get their pasts drug out as a "reward" for being in the public eye, journalists are also dragging out Mr. Cohen's past.

Just sit tight. This entire thing will blow over and life will be fine and dandy again. Unfortunately, Mr. Cohen will need to stay on his guard about what he says or does, because there are quite a few people who'd like to see him shut down even though a lot of us users DO use BT for legal purposes. :-/

Re:We are held to different standards?

[h4rm0ny]

He should just say it was a typo and he meant digital privacy ;-)

I may be missing something here but what does it matter what he said? Bittorrent is what it is independently of his expressed beliefs. Is he going to be prosecuted for what he did or what he thought?

Watch what you print....

[Willie_the_Wimp]

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

Screwed or not . . . doesn't matter

[PeeAitchPee]

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.

So what

[skurk]

> 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?

Re:So what

[Deinhard]

What, aren't we allowed to state our opinions anymore without having the fear of being haunted by the past?

For the majority of us, this is the case. However, when someone comes or is brought into the public spotlight, that light becomes very narrowly focused.

Through the years there have been uncounted examples of public figures and politicians that have had their careers cut short because someone with a diametrically opposed agenda when searching for something to use against them. If you look hard enough, you'll find something to use against all of us.

In most cases, it seems, most of these seemingly innocuous comments are racially or politically motivated. Someone once had negative feelings toward a particular race (and made those feelings public) or perhaps supported a particular cause that was different than the cause de jure. Whether that person's comments were made as a joke or he/she has simply changed their attitude toward a cause, someone will use those past comments against him.

I have no idea if Cohen actually meant these comments in jest or as satirical comment, but you can rest (un)assured) that they will be used against him.

cleaner than a politician's past

[Speare]

It's a sad day when a software developer needs to keep their private writings as squeaky clean as a federal candidate. You're inviting lawsuits by cracking jokes, you're in danger of losing your job for mentioning something six years ago, you're seen as corrupt on the say-so of some usenet posting.

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."

No freedom without PERSONAL responsibility

[Eagle'sFlight]

Bram Cohen produces software. (Without illegal. intent.)
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. :p

Re:No freedom without PERSONAL responsibility

[debest]

Easy answer as to why there is a difference in your examples (why Bram will likely be hit much harder than either a gun or car manufacturer):

BitTorrent - product made by an individual, victimizes large corporations.

Smith & Wesson / GM - products made by large corporations, victimizes individuals.

See the difference?

It matters what he said because...

[Ieshan]

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...

[derEikopf]

Only in America can you get prosecuted for not knowing the future.