What is Digg?83 Comments
- latova, on 10/12/2007, -0/+63If anything bad were to happen to bittorrent, everyone would just switch to another meduim.
- joliesimonds, on 10/12/2007, -0/+32Not quite. :-) The protocol and algorithm are open source. That won't change. What's changing is that future improvements to BitTorrent by Cohen won't be open source. This is disappointing, but won't stop the OS community from improving on BT in their own way.
As for concerns about "tracking illegal downloads", that's technically trivial now. Popular torrents are tracked by various "anti-piracy" organisations -- many people have had their ISPs contacted by the MPAA/RIAA.
There's nothing to worry about for existing BT users. :-) - NoOneButMe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+32It's not like any of the major advances in Bittorrent have come from Bram anyway - Encryption was created by uTorrent and Azureus devs. DHT was created by Azureus devs.
- Mejogid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+31@revtom
Actually, due to the many open source bittorrent clients, this would be impossible. All information that a non-spyware (or whatever you want to call it) bittorrent app will send and recieve is from the tracker (a third party containing information about peers), and the peers, who are actually sending you bits of the file.
"By definition, the program knows who you are and who you are talking to."
Sure, the program does, but (atleast in open source clients), it has no way of informing anyone else of that information without your knowledge. And if a close source client like uTorrent suddenly had a sky rocket in the number of users being caught by the **AA, they'd probably use all their users pretty quickly. - MonkeyFit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23Am I the only one who thought that the first paragraph sounded like complete BS from a guy who only has a very very vague idea of what he's talking about? "...BitTorrent was the bad-boy online video site"? BitTorrent was a ***** filesharing protocol. You had to go to "one of the pirate sites powered by its technology" to get the torrent files. And even then, it's always been legit. Blaming Cohen for the copyrighted material is like blaming the developers of FTP for any copyrighted works being downloaded via that protocol. It's still one of the most viable ways to get linux distros and other large files that are free to distribute but too much for the original creators to serve on their own. It's sad that the "official" updates won't be open source, but we'll see what the rest of the community comes up with.
- EmileVictor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22@latova
Either that or the current torrent clients would just branch off and continue developing the open-source bittorrent client. The industry would remain having little control over the medium. - noreturn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20Dude, don't worry. In essence, the "legit" incarnation of BitTorrent may as well be considered a new protocol. There's no way for them to retroactively implement any sort of anti-piracy measures the studios want into code that already exists. You can call it the same name, but you're not going to get the P2P community -- the real greatness of BT -- to switch over to a Nazi-enforced P2P system.
- r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19"the development is now going to fork and there may be incompatibilities between the official and third party releases."
I don't see many people fussed by that. Who wants their BT client to be compatible with the MPAA's client? - ers35, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17When was Bittorrent not legit? It's like calling the ability to share files illegal.
- Chordonblue, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16Call this, 'Bram gets paid'. It's not like Cohen got anything but recognition for all those petabytes of data that have been transferred. He can afford to sell out now, and as 'noonebutme' said, a lot of the best improvements have been made without him. I don't see why anything needs to change.
You know what it's like? Think of BT being included in the equivilent of iTunes only instead of the clients pulling down all of the data off the servers, the servers become seeders and the users help with the bandwidth load. It's a shift that, if done right, could unseat Apple, but isn't going to affect piracy in any meaningful way in and of itself. - ksgant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15This is a non-issue. All the bittorrent clients that are out there now are using the code that's open source. The code is out there, it's under the (can't remember) either the GPL or MIT License and it's safe. He can't just take away bittorrent all of a sudden because he says so. Just like Linus couldn't just say "I don't want there to be a Linux anymore so I'm taking away all the kernel code out there and making it closed source".
utorrent and Azureus and all the others are safe. If Bram wants to challenge the Licence, then go for it. - PYREX, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14it doesnt matter. the only thing they can do is try to sue open source clients like azereus.
if they do, someone else will simply make another program which works just like bittorrent but is just different enough not to infringe on copyright.
the MPAA & RIAA are slow giants, programers are flying F-15s - eurleif, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12If the service passed its bandwidth savings on to the users by having a significantly lower price than Apple, it could work. Most normal people value money a lot more than bandwidth.
- MonkeyFit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10I need to remember to stay away from the piles of ***** that Sarah Lacy writes. And probably away from Business Week in general.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@ doctorsax
What this boils down to is the creator of BitTorrent pissing his pants because he created an application that could be used for illegal purposes in an age where companies combine to form legal powerhouses to go after the general public and the creators of different file sharing mediums. In an attempt to cover his ass from a law suit spanking, he struck deals with the MPAA and stopped giving out his code.
So while Bram Cohen cashes in and searches for his balls, plenty of third party applications that use the code will remain, and you can still download your pirated material. Happy thieving. - BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"BitTorrent goes legit"
"Long before anyone had heard of YouTube, BitTorrent was the bad-boy online video site"
That has to be the most retarded article I've ever seen, and the person who wrote it couldn't even be bothered to assume the *tone* of someone who knew what they were writing about, let alone extend their research to a single Google search.
The writer doesn't actually understand what BT is, or come within 100 miles of it. Reported as inaccurate. - PYREX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@hackajar
youre right that they can log the ips. but they cant track if any data was sent unless they host the tracker. simply connecting to a torrent isnt illegal. if it were they would be breaking the law just logging the ips. for all they know the ips there logging are just people logging their ip. that's the nature of BT atm. - hitman47, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13Will azureus and µTorrent continue to be around ?
- saigumi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Wow.. this whole article is misleading and innaccurate on what BT is.
I can't wait for the follow up article.
"DNS goes LEGIT!"
Known for its bad boy image of linking people to pirated material and pornography. The creators of DNS will include blocking in the next version. =D - wunch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6It will be interesting to see how the open-source version development competes with the closed-source version.
- MonkeyFit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Oh god. I didn't follow my own advice and I read some of her other articles. I'm afraid to go to sleep for fear of nightmares. I guess I'll just stay up until I forget about those articles. I hope I forget about them soon.
- wunch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5According to the article:
". . . early versions of BitTorrent's technology were open-source . . ."
". . . newer versions of the technology are closed and proprietary . . ."
To me, that reads like ONLY the newer versions will be closed and proprietary. The older versions still exit in the open-source realm. - wildmXranat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Now that that i read the article, I've noticed that its a bunch of propaganda. It mentions a survey of bit-torrent/internet users and their willingness to pay $20 for a film, $5 per TV show. That's outrageous, it sounds like they're cooking up the statistics as no one would agree to those prices or any price, as they're downloading it for free. Moot, all of it. The article author really hasn't done her homework.
- Chordonblue, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Note when I said 'iTunes' I was just using that as a model. When you are talking about downloading full length movies at 1 GB+ - high quality, all of a sudden BT makes a hell of a lot more sense. Now iTunes has only started offering video - and mostly shorts and single episodes at that. Offering full length features will require a major commitment of resources - BT can help solve that.
- asdf25, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I don't understand why Bram Cohen even gets any press attention anymore. He invented BitTorrent, and that's great, but now it's out in the open and he has no more control over it than anyone else. If there's anyone who could be said to be in control of the direction of BitTorrent it would be the development leadership of Azureus and the other popular clients.
- lovedaddy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I don't exactly see what the problem is, BT was given away for free, and the warez scene made it very very popular (to the point of being a house hold name). Without one another BT wouldn't have been a success. (lets not pretend that moving linux distros would have got to the levels it currently is).
Now he wants a little return (whilst probably trying to stay out of the firing sights of the *AA) whats the big deal. Most of the new driving force has come from people like the Azurus and uTorrent team, and lets be honest, mainline was only intended for distribution of legit apps (eg no encryption, no ratio stuff etc). If he goes and makes a closed source app for BT5+ good luck to him, hes given greatly, and I for one appreciate it.
Fingers crossed, the authors of the main apps (uTorrent, Azureus, ABC, libTorrent / rtorrent, ktorrent etc) can get their heads together, come up with a common goal and take us forward on a nice open source (cough, warez driven) p2p protocol. - steveatdownmix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4BuisnessWeek wins today's "clueless award"
"has taken their software off the open-source market"
You can't retroactively remove a MIT license from software.
"BitTorrent was the bad-boy online video site."
Except that bittorrent is a protocol, not a site. Sure, the site is there but it came later and doesn't have much to do with the protocol. - Slovenian6474, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Hahaha! i caught that too! Bittorrent has always been legit and has distributed a ton of legal files (linux iso's to name one). But i didn't know Bittorrent was a "badboy online video site". Anyone have the "video site" url?
- noreturn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You would save a few cents at best. Most of the cost of buying music comes from licensing.
- geomon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"I hope I forget about them soon."
Worry not, citizen!
I'm working hard as we....um... speak on the very technology used to erase memories in Men In Black.
It should be ready in about 30 years (or so). - raindog469, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Two things strike me about this article.
1. It's pretty annoying that the author seems to equate "legit" with "proprietary", like all the other, better, still open source clients are somehow illegitimate.
2. I assume Bram won't be writing it in Python anymore, if his new corporate buddies are so afraid of people being able to hack his client that they convinced him to change its license.
I think I'll hold my digg till someone with a clue writes an article about the situation. - MonkeyFit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3But the only way to implement DRM via bittorrent would be to either apply the DRM to the file after it has reached your computer, or to make the files only playable/openable in an application that you had to buy from them. Either way presents many problems. Or one or two very big problems.
- jer2eydevil88, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6The only downside to Bit Torrent becoming closed source is that the development is now going to fork and there may be incompatibilities between the official and third party releases.
- lxcid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I hate to see BT is now heading the wrong way. I used to support BT a lot, now I support the Open-Source BT.
- bradleyland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@eurleif
Do you honestly think that their intention is to pass anything on to the consumer? I sure don't. I think that in the industry execs' view, this is just a way to reduce costs, resulting in an increase in profit.
What they get: reduced bandwidth/infrastructure costs
What we get: the shaft - y0himba, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9Bittorrent has always been legit, it's the users that have abused the technology for non-legit purposes. This is a great thing for the creator. Kudos!
- jwhicks727, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Who even uses the actual BitTorrent client? It sucks! Just switch to Azureus if you do.
- lassel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"What's next?"
History repeats itself. The original BT falls into corporate obscurity.
Either a Free implementation of the protocol or another protocol will rise and be tomorrows bittorrent. - f1055man, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The implementation is free. This story doesn't make any sense to me. Sounds to me like the **AA offered Cohen a check to stop being "evil," and he said "thanks, I'll take that, but you're not really getting anything for your money." The **AA bought a node of the open source distributed system and thought they bought the whole damn thing? Hopefully, the **AA will keep trying this, give all the hard working coders a chance to cash out and still not do any damage to the system.
- Novagenesis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I have to disagree here. I think p2p was an awesome invention. It's overutilized in an off-the-cuff style for file-sharing that causes low exchange rates, but properly used, it allows for distributed computing evolution.
In standard distributed computing, it's processes that are split... here, internet connections can be split as well... I've seen P2P chat clients that lower the workload of servers. I've seen decentralized P2P file sharing that allows a company with a few small servers to pull off heavy send rates...etcetcetc.
P2P has a future, it just doesn't get the research money it should because of the tie-in with piracy. Imagine a future where p2p file transfers really were fast, almost 100% of the time? Perhaps...where an MMORPG exists that doesn't need a server (and therefore, no 15/mo). Just combine P2P technology with distributed computing, and it COULD be possible, if you can get past cheat potential...
Either way, yeah. P2P got a horrible rep from the whole file-sharing piracy thing. Pity, too. - CaseyB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That was my first thought too. My ISP throttles BT like a British nanny with a baby. Once ligitimate uses become more common, they won't be able to get away with it.
- chronicRick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Can someone recommend an open source P2P client? Lots of people saying they prefer open source, other people will find something else...
- dchaosdx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"taken their software off the open-source market."
that's like broadcasting a video for five years to north Korean TV on how to build nuclear devices, then pulling the video off and saying "HA, now you can't make nuclear bombs." - wildmXranat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2i would have to get more info about the business transaction , but i doubt it will hinder any file sharing. Users will fork-off a new protocol if the current one will impede in any way.
Once again, proves my point that companies will follow the 'crowd dollar' like vultures.
Bram Cohen on the other hand, deserves any and all compensation for a job well done. - wildmXranat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The moment the bit-torrent enabled hardware ships and marketers have a service running on that backbone, where does the consumer stand. Let me guess, they have an idea for paid entertainment served backed by a consumer swarm? The swarm downloading/up for large files is the main benefit for torrents, how do the studios expect to convince a consumer to serve the file as well unless the up/down ratio counts for purchase credits.
Yes, reward the users for all the bandwidth THEY pay for monthly, plus heavy usage on ISP lines that they endure as a result. Unless, they will manage to multiple mirror all content on their networks, then its a whole nother story.
The moment money exchanges hands for a product or a service, everybody deserves to get a cut, even the smallest guy. I don't see how it can exist any other way. - Daolohua, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I personally like the idea of a major distrubution company adopting a technology like BT. Its a smart move.
- felyduw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Azureus for BT. eMule for huh... whatever the protocol is. I will call it ed2k-protocol. :)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2did they really make BT non open source? if so, they should be flogged with a trout...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Don't equate the creator of the protocol selling out to the movie studios to the protocol becoming legitimate. I know that when i think "BitTorrent" i think of the 30 movies im downloading to stick it to the MPAA. God bless Canada!
- tewas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I have to agree with kelbear, 5$ per movie is all i would pay and also i would need ability to burn it on DVD.
Other than that i don't think that corporations will manage to shut down p2p downloading using BT. There is a lot of legit content moving between clients, and if I'm right, these bytes that actually gets downloaded by user aren't market as copyrighted or not. -
Show 51 - 80 of 80 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is