Slashdot Mirror
Bram Cohen on BitTorrent's Future
Last week, BitTorrent creator Bram Cohen was rumored to be leaving the company he co-founded -- just as it landed big distribution deals with Hollywood. Can the rumors be true? What's in store for online file-sharing? According to the response, Cohen is not leaving; the piece goes on to talk in more detail about some of BT's recent announcements.
I believe you're referring to this:
For your ears, the answer would be something along the lines of:
I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
It's like if the RIAA took the source code for Firefox and made a new browser called "Lamefox", which was highly restritive. They are using the HTTP protocol, but they will have almost zero impact on the current and future users of firefox.
Remember, BT is a protocol, not just a program. Azureus is (IMO) a very good BitTorrent program, that's open source as well.
---FourChannel---
I would just like to take the opportunity to state for posterity my sworn belief that Bram Cohen will never do anything else of note no matter how long he lives.
He will join the legions of people that came up with one brilliant invention and then spent the rest of their lives trying to come up with something to match it and failing in the most spectacular way.
See Clive Sinclair.
I don't have any evidence at all. I just have a very strong feeling about this.
They intend to associate the word Bittorrent with a legal source of content to shift people over to paying for their media. The problem for them is that there is this uncontrollable protocol that makes mass distribution of large files easy. They cant make the protocol itself illegal, so they have to obfuscate it's function in the mind of your average joe.
That's a bad idea on their part then (which isn't surprising in and of itself). I mean, if the average Joe associates Bittorrent and legal, then hears some p2p network advertising bittorrent and free, then he's going to be mightily swayed by the free thing. "Reclaiming" Bittorrent only works if the name isn't being used by other programs that are more popular.
I mean, it seems to take forever to get simple messages into some people. I have only now impressed upon my roommate: "CHR* music, free, legal - pick two". (CHR is "contemporary hit radio", like the RIAA songs you hear on the radio).
The same could be said of the name "Napster." When you said the word to a teenager five or six years ago, they would have immediately thought of Shawn Fanning's piracy tool. Roxio bought the Napster name and logos for their PressPlay service precisely to capitalize on the original MP3 share's popularity, and it seems to be working well for them so far.
It's not every day you can rebrand your own legit offering with a name that every kid already knows and wears the t-shirt for, regardless of the dubious nature of that brand's popular use. The term is already embedded in most Internet users' minds. Slap it on a paid service, and that equals instant "cool." All tech issues aside, Cohen is sitting on a goldmine just with the name. If he wasn't already running a company caled BitTorrent Inc. to do it himself, everyone else would be intensely competing to buy the name off Cohen and call their paid movie service "BitTorrent" regardless of the tech that actually runs the things.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
How would this newer sort of BT experience jibe with those of us who access BT resources against the wishes of our ISPs?
I, for example, am obliged to use Rogers Hi-Speed for my broadband connectivity. In my village in rural Canada I have no other alternative. And, currently, it's a bloody arms race between Rogers and I to keep my BT transfer happening.
I'm randomly switching ports, encrypting traffic, muttering voodoo incantations -- I shudder to think what can of a dance I'll have to do in six months time.
So, if BT has this new, legitimate face will providers like Rogers make peace? Or will movies over BT be a legal use of bandwidth Roger and his ilk decide I'm too irresponsible to be allowed to use?
These stories are free but worth money.
That is correct and I was aware of it. But my point is actually how purchasing these files changes people's perception of community. There was a day-care nursery in Israel some years ago that had a few problems with parents not picking their children up on time. Someone always had to stay on a little longer to dispatch the last child. So they introduced a fine system in which if you were late, it cost you a few pounds more (or equivalent). The result was an instant increase in both the number of late parents and how late they were. The logic is obvious in retrospect - people no longer cared about putting people out, they were paying for the service. And what is more, when the nursery reverted to the old system, the lateness of parents didn't change back. They had lost it for good.
What I am saying is that for me, and I hope for others, there has always been something kind of nice about the co-operative spirit of the Bit Torrent protocol and I've been willing to donate bandwidth to give something back. A distribution model like this removes this spirit. It is something small and hard to notice, but it is there. Why should anyone do more than is necessary to download a DRM'd movie when they're paying for it? Why should anyone have to pay for the download above and beyond the cost of the movie anyway? This is a big saving for the media companies. Essentially, they are inviting the customer to replace all the packaging, delivery, storage and display costs themselves. Will there be a like saving passed on to the customer? I expect not. The DRM will probably lead to cost rises because you'll start to see pay-per-view models rather than buy to own.
Truth to tell, I think everyone should take a stand against DRM and I'm disappointed when someone in a position to make a fuss sells out.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.