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."
[
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.