Bram Cohen has commercialized BitTorrent
MPAA president Dan Glickman appeared welcoming to Bram Cohen's ideas
Looking to provide a legitimate avenue for interested netizens to download movies
What will mean for the rest of the file-sharing world? The details will be released tomorrow.
daz2712 wrote:If this guy designed Bittorrent then does that not worry people?
He knows the software inside out so.........
I'd be inclined to take this as an worrying report.
bkman wrote:As usual people with less brains than a can of dog food start whinging about how he betrayed them, or sold out, etc.
bkman wrote:Newsflash: He didn't make Bittorrent for you to pirate movies with. Be glad he released this technology for anyone and for any use or you wouldn't be using it today, and know that he doesn't owe you anything.
Drake wrote:lol. Yes, the only people with brains are the ones who compare brains to a can of dog food.
Drake wrote:Yes, it's great that he made his protocol open source but that's beside the point. If he had always been pro entertainment industry then I wouldn't call him a sellout. However, he quickly changed his tune once he realized how many bags of cash they would throw at him. Changing positions and forgetting about what you believe in, in exchange for money equates to selling out.
SlyckTom wrote:He made BitTorrent open souce, which is an extremely valid point. Its also a point that trumps any claim that he "sold out."
SlyckTom wrote:Who did he sell out to? I'm not quite getting that. He's selling a service, which is his to begin with, to the highest paying customer. That's the way capitalism works, and is one of the foundations of America.
SlyckTom wrote:Say what you want, Bram gets the last laugh.
bkman wrote:When was he ever against the entertainment industry?
He referred to them as cartels several times. Google it.
[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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest