monolith.sourceforge.net — "Things get interesting when you apply Monolith to copyrighted files. For example, munging two copyrighted files will produce a completely new file that, in most cases, contains no information from either file." Sounds like the RIAA and MPAA are going to throw a hissy fit.
Mar 26, 2006 View in Crawl 4
lordcatMar 27, 2006
It's like a zip file with an encryption password...'back in the day' I did a brute force attack on an encrypted zip file that pkzip put out as a 'contest'... and while I was able to eventually unzip it, I didn't get the correct file/result that I was supposed to get with the correct key... I had found a key that would cause the file to unzip but not be the original file...Similarly... you find multiple 'key' files that will create a playable music file, but only the correct key would give you the 'original music file'...It is a form of encryption that happens to allow you to try and decrypt with any key (not just the correct key)...
bussMar 27, 2006
But then it can't really be considered the same movie as you would see in a theater. Think of all the lossy compression. Assuming it was argued that the original movie and the divx files have the same audio/visual output, that is clearly not the case: the xvid file is encoded with lossy compression as you will see technically (though not necessarily discernably) two different movies. The industries own the rights to the idea and the presentation, not the physical file. The bits are just a transport method for the movie, and it really doesn't matter how the bits are arranged.
skaagent11Mar 27, 2006Submitter
Well like you said, isn't recapturing the piece of audio the only illegal thing? Therefore, this allows people to distribute these files, while the end user is ultimately the one doing the illegal thing. What is the RIAA going to argue on a case like this? That it is assumed because you downloaded a file that is POSSIBLE to generate a copyrighted work from that you are in violation of the law because it is assumed that you will reclaim this work? Is it not possible that you download public works on a daily basis that copywrited works may be generated by some algorithm? There would be no legal grounds to prosecute the distributor or the reciever.
waterdragonMar 27, 2006
"It's not a derivative work, because the original //sounds// are not "rearranged, remixed, or otherwise altered in sequence or quality". The sounds are still derivable from the file; you simply have to perform the xor on the product with the appropriate key in order to produce the sounds from it."And furthermore, a given XORed file can be de-XORed in to ANY file of the same length.So, a file of a certain lengty that can be 'decrypted' using monolith, can be transformed into ANY file that you like, of the same length. given the appropriate key. After all, the key is just making a comparison , bit by bit, and merely stipulating the instruction to make the new bit SAME or DIFFERENT. and since we are using binary code, that can only men a zero or a one. Thus, a given 'munged' file is decodable into every possible file of that same length, depending on what custom decoding file is 'subtracted' from it. Therefore, an individual file can't be said to be derivative of a particular work, while a combination of two files CAN be demonstrated to be derivative. Fascinating stuff.
nonyazMar 27, 2006
Anyone else having problems getting the program to process files? Im getting the standard "Monolith.exe has encountered a problem and needs to close" type error on x64 and x86 version of xp. I wanted to hear that britney spears song.....
StarphyshMar 27, 2006
Monolith - An Uninteresting Experiment in Copyright<a class="user" href="http://copyfight.corante.com/archives/004291.html">http://copyfight.corante.com/archives/004291.html</a>2yr old, dead debate.
papauMar 28, 2006
Well not that this will be read or commented on but. From what I get here is are any sequence of a binary sets able to be copyright under current laws . I think not since the ability to code and or encrypt the data prior to the break down of a binary sequence occurs thus creating a endless amount of combinations . However the act of breaking down the original data in to a totally diff rent data owned by the second creator is the question . Basically it was my painting or my song until you changed it and sold it as yours. Sure that's legal .But wait there is a twist if I remove this or add that I can now own the original . Well does the artist have a right to prevent change of original content prior to sale if the change can be undone to remake the original. This is the true question needing to be answered.
robotcitizenMar 29, 2006
I think people are missing the point. The courts seem to be deciding these P2P cases by what the intent appears to be, not the technicalities of what is done. It doesn't matter how the file is encrypted or munged or dispersed in chunks over a distributed network. For example, torrent files are just pointers, but that hasn't stopped a lot of tracker sites from getting nailed. It's all about what the intent appears to be.