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.
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!!
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
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...
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.
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.
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!?
That's what journalism is about!
No wait, did you say it was Wired?...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Rumor has it that he originally wanted to call it Bitt-ARRRRRR-ent.
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.
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
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.
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_
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.
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 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
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!
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.