What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
You and You and You. view!
youtube.com - You don't need to get a phone. You need a phone that gets you.
168 Comments
- trogdor282, on 10/12/2007, -0/+80The problem with the guy's reasoning is the issue of intent. For example it's legal to wave your gun around and shout "GIMME YOUR MONEY" in the comfort of your own home. It's also legal to go to a bank and leave with some money. But if you do these two things at the same time suddenly it's a felony. It's all in the intent.
Likewise if you XOR the bible with nuclear secrets and email it to osama, it's pretty clear that you're probably more likely a terrorist than an evangelist.
This is why there are things like 'judges' and 'juries' that decide if your sequence of bits is intended to be random gibberish or if it is intended to be the newest 50 Cent single...
BTW i'm pro filesharing, just a bit of devil's advocate here. - monolith, on 10/12/2007, -10/+53I digg for obvios shallow reasons.
- DeepBlueDiver, on 10/12/2007, -5/+48This is just plain and simple encryption. What the author calls "element" is the plain-text, and what he calls "basis" is the key.
You are also transforming the information if you just zip a .wav file, or if you encode it to get an .mp3, .ogg or .wma file. What's the difference here? - forgetfulca, on 10/12/2007, -1/+38This is not like zipping a file, you don't combine two files to get a result with zipping. A zipped file can be recovered just using the information contained within the archive.
The difference here is that IF you use a common enough public domain file, you only have to distribute what this person calls the mono file. The experiment is to see if the mono file *by itself* stands up as NOT being a derivative (and therefore copyrighted) file.
This reminds me of a sherlock holmes story, where the criminals were using an almanac as the dictionary and passing around coded references to words on various pages. I guess the lesson there is to pick a element file that's common but not too obvious.
Personally, I think any court is just going to say 'You have added a very clever loop, but in the end copyrighted material is recovered.' - JesusFaction, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29he responds to this at the end of the page
- asplodzor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21"in theory there is nothing illegal about it"
In theory there's nothing illegal about backing up media for your own use either, but I'm fairly certain the **AAs would have something else to say about that. - tempusrob, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24Quite right. That's what I get for not RTFA.
- jinexile, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20The way I see it people DISTRIBUTING the "munged" files are no longer doing anything that can be considered illegal... the end user that is reverse engineering the file may be though.
- Mr.Scientist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19@trogdor282:
They haven't quite figured out how to really achieve plausible deniability. Here's how: Instead of XORing just two files, use four. Take two public files A and B, one (headerlessly encrypted) secret file X and one file with truly random content K. Create C=(A xor K), L=(K xor X) and D=(B xor L). Then transmit C and K together and D and L together. These transmissions are meaningful, as they allow recipients to recreate the public files A and B respectively, because A=(C xor K) and B=(D xor L). Recipients of C and K cannot retrieve X, neither can recipients of D and L. They also can't tell if one of their parts is the truly random file K, or if it is K xor X. If X is headerlessly encrypted, recipients of all 4 parts who don't have the key to X can't tell whether A and B are the only information in the transmission or not. Now you can distribute all big files with plausible deniability. The only part that you have to keep separate is the password to the encrypted file X.
Just in case it isn't obvious: Should I choose to publish a random file K together with a file (A xor K), you can choose a file B and a file X independently and publish (X xor K) and (B xor (X xor K)). The existence of the files you created does not implicate me as I have no means of preventing you from doing that, and as said before, it is impossible to tell whether I published K and you published (K xor X) or vice versa. - SkaAgent11, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15I'm by no means an encryption or legal expert, but from what I understand what makes this legal is that given any mono file there can be a huge number of binary files XOR'd that will produce the same result, whereas its probably a little easier to argue for a zip file to be a derivative work because each file zipped would create a unique binary file, something that couldn't be recreated by zipping another file.
- ziks, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16I don't buy his claim that it's not a derivative work. If I write a program in C and then compile it the executable is a derivative work of the original (this has been established in court), even though there's probably little or no visible similarity between the source and the executable. He is wrong when he says that because you can't _see_ the similarity that it must not be derivative. It was derived from the other file so it's derivative by definition. If you derived the .mono it by running a copyrighted work through Monolith you've just made a copyrighted derivative work. So the answer is simple - your .mono files are all copyrighted.
- deut, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14gosh, this article has been on the web for at least a year. The guy who wrote it also developed MUTE an interesting anonymous p2p network client / protocol, you guys should check that out.
http://mute-net.sourceforge.net/
http://northcountrynotes.org/jason-rohrer/worklog/
As for mono, no different to simple xor encryption, the only difference being that the key is a copyright file. Like rushfan mentions, although it does raise some interesting legal and semantic argument, I'm pretty sure that most courts would agree it's still passing on a copyright work.
What would be equally interesting is if you could get two publicly available works mash them together and derive a 3rd copyright work from the result. :-) - Herolint, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Interesting indeed, although I'm sure the courts will use some slight of mouth to kill it quick enough.
Another thing I think is interesting, mainly because I thought it, is that I don't think the copyright frenzy by the RIAA, MPAA, and others has anything to do with "protecting their copyrighted works". I think it is an ownership grab for the Internet itself. I would not be surprised to find, within the next 5 years, legislation in the US aimed at privatizing the Internet. I think that is what they are after more than anything.
They want to control the distribution routes as they have always done, but the Internet is a free and open method of distribution today that threatens to bypass them, making them obsolete. I think the destruction of this free route is what they are really after. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16I don't see the logic behind this at all. If I encrypt a movie, is it no longer a copyrighted movie? Technically, the file is now completely different.
By using this logic, an xvid rip of a dvd is no longer the same movie. - lordcat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11It'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)... - ScnnrDrkly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9The people screaming "this is just encryption" or "how is this different than zipping a file" are missing the point. The "munged" file has two file states to go to. If one is copyrighted by an RIAA member and the other is a file in the public domain, then the ownership is rather ambiguous. Decypting with the latter file results in a potential copyright violation but using the former file results in a file that's in the public domain. The "munged" file now has a valid, non-infringing use. Is that enough to be legal?
- 3Den, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15This is just encryption, plain and simple. All this talk of "copyrighted files" and whatnot is just misdirection.
One file is the key to the other, or vice-versa. Not all that different from one-time pads. - goosedotnu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9What's wrong with Security Now?
- Brian48216, on 10/12/2007, -8/+17Dugg for the use of the word "munged"
- deut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9dunno, but if you also give your buddy the instructions how to reverse the process in order to reconstruct the original haiku then the answer must be a resounding YES.
- Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8The problem here is with the use of the well-known "basis". The section of copyright law he quotes states:
"...the right to duplicate the sound recording in the form of phonorecords or copies that directly or indirectly recapture the actual sounds fixed in the recording."
It seems to me that by using a well-known "basis", you are indeed indirectly recapturing the actual sounds fixed in the recording. It's *obscured from statistical ananylsis*, but as long as the basis file sticks around, it is in fact an indirect copy.
As Deep Blue Diver stated, this is, for all intents and purposes, encryption using a one-time pad (well, not precisely a one-time pad, but the same mechanism). The same thing that makes OTPs cryptographically unbreakable is the same thing that makes it possible to retrieve any sequence of bits from these "monoliths". At the same time, the thing that renders OTPs breakable - repeated use of the key/basis - is the same thing that makes monoliths derivative works. - jnosanov, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Re the xvid comment... author's point is that it is only the same movie WHEN IT IS BEING PLAYED. When the file is not being used, it is merely a series of binary digits that bear no resemblance to the original film (and, in theory, cannot be said to BE the original film or a derivative work). This lack of resemblance is what the author points to in order to ask the question "How can a series of bits be copyrighted?"
- thexder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Say there is for simplicity sake a haiku that is copyrighted..if i memorize the hiaku, then write it down. Then take a picture of it and save it as a jpeg. Then zip it, rar it, ace it, lzh it, arc it, gzip it, then encrypt it, then convert it into a prime number. If I give my friend a copy of the number, am I violating any copyright laws?
- Smily, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Heh, I was just listening today about XOR encryption on Security Now! :)
- guiswa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8theft != copyright infringement
- buss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7But 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.
- orbitalleader, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Feh, it's pretty clear no one here understands copyright law.
If you do ANYTHING with a original copyrighted work, you'll lose a copyright challenge. Period. That's why the rappers who sample -- even something as obscure as a back beat -- either need to pay a licensing fee or face the consequences. Last week the courts ordered an 11-year-old rap album off the shelves because of illegal sampling. The whole notion of derivative works is huge here: if your work -- including something running through a system like this -- is a derivative work, it's a breach of copyright law. Period. The artist owns the work; witness Prince refusing to license a sample to Elvis Costello.
We're talking summary judgement here, guys. Don't think in binary terms: it doesn't need to be an exact copy to be a copyright infringement. You can't take a novel like The Vampire Lestat, change the name of the vampire to to Thermostat, and then pass it off as being an original work. - thewise1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7ziks -- But is it a derivative work of Britney Spears or the gnu licensed wav file? :)
My guess is Britney Spears, because she can afford more lawyers : - Elranzer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Seems like people could *theoretically* mung any file with any other file, but it seems like the author wants them all to use that certain monolith_7d4.wav file. How long until someone invents a player that automatically decodes all .mono files with that Monolith_7d4.wav file? Seems no different from decoding MP3, AAC, or whatever then...
- atariby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Tomorrow i'm going to copyright 100010111010101, everyone will have to pay me to use that sequence of bits :)
- vinbot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9The real issue is whether copyright laws should even exist or not. Why should there be ANY restrictions on sharing art and ideas? Obviously, many people make a lot of money off of existing copyright paradigm, but should they? Good artists will always have patrons and will always be able to make a living, regardless of the copyright laws. One could argue that the copyright laws as they exist actually hurt many artists - far more than benefit from the status quo.
- deut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7EXACTLY!
...and don't forget this article is nearly two years old - whilst the legal waters may have been muddy back in 2004, events have moved on.
From the author's site, "Thus, it is the act of playing an MP3 of an unlicensed song that is actually illegal under a true-spirited interpretation of copyright law. Downloading or otherwise exchanging the bit sequence surely cannot be illegal, unless the copyright holders are ready to lay ownership claims upon an infinite number of different bit sequences for each copyrighted song."
But this is exactly what is happening in 2006, whether the bitstream be a mp3, ogg, wav, xvid, divx, mpeg or indeed a mono, thousands of people using p2p ARE being sued as we all know.
Interesting, none-the-less - NiLeS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"Rabbit Season"
"Duck Season"
"Rabbit Season"
"Rabbit Season"
"Duck Season...Shoot!"
*BAM* - saon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6This is simple xoring encryption, which is essentially a one-time pad (bar key repeating). There are multiple similar methods that allow you to do the same thing. A useful property is that you can create a key such that the encrypted file isn't even just random junk. It can be another legitimate file. Intelligent people have been using stuff like this for quite some time. Have innocuous text files or data files laying around, keep your keys hidden somewhere. When you need the secret data, process your files along with the keys and the real data is revealed. I'm not saying monolith is a bad idea, it's just not some new revolution that digg seems to think it is.
- savmac, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Its a good thing you typed :) and not :-( because that would be trademark infringement.
http://despair.com/frasqu.html#product10 - pseudojd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8he's using good logic to get around laws drawn up by simple humans. it's good stuff.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11This is brilliant. S/he brings up a great dose of logic, which in my opinion could easily stand in court. Mono FTW.
- WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5But Micro$oft has already copyrighted the one, and the zero....so you would be preparing a derivative work!
- sintaks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5So... if "munged" files were considered something different from "encrypted" files, and these "munged" files were then hosted on a server, or transfered P2P, what would happen? Clearly the resulting file is garbage without the "key" file, so it's not a violation, neh?
... but then, it's all semantics. This would be the same as if you only transfered PGP encrypted files via P2P, and then had your key publically available for download in a separate location. You're just changing the form of the file, and if the process is reversible, then it is still considered a "derived" work. - enderu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Haha, it XORs the two files. One of the simplest things for a computer to do. The file size is limited (at least in the mac os x application implementation, possibly not purposefully) by the size of the Basis file.
- PurpleMeteor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6to SkaAgent11: you have a huge number of combinations but that does not prevent the RIAA from shutting down BitTorrent trackers, there is still an infinite number of bit combinations which will give you the same SHA-1 found in your torrent :p
- togelius, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10The best idea I've seen in a long time. As someone said above, absolute genius. So simple, yet so powerful. So when is someone going to develop a full fledged P2P program based on this? One way you could do it would be to send the seed of a random number generator to the sending program, and the same random number would be generated at both the sending and receiving end and used for munging the file. Then, the file could be transmitted over the network without ever being really transmitted, and only intelligible to the receiver.
- jdepp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5A typical copyright disclaimer on a CD reads:
"...no part of this record may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system..."
(presumably including that message).
The act of encoding with monolith and distributing the "munged" file is as an act of
storing in a retrieval system, and so prohibited.
If you posted SHA1 hashes of music files, that's probably OK, since you can't
retrieve the original. Funny there is no slashdot project to do that one yet. - definiteform, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6As we arrive at Espace I'm on the verge of tears as I'm certain we won't get a decent table. But we do; relief washes over me in an awesome wave. -American Psycho
That's the feeling I got when I read this article. =) - dtfinch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5In the end, it's still illegal copying, no matter what tricks you come up with to disguise it. It may look alright on paper, but no judge or jury will be fooled by it.
- compgeek275, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8And the standard .wav file he provides is just a public key. The real story here is just the legal questions he brings up, but those apply to every type of encryption. That aspect at least is somewhat interesting.
- rushfan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I don't think this will ever work. Like forgetfulca mentioned above, the courts will rule that, in the end, it just the distributing of copyright materials. I mean, I could also password protect a zip archive. Sure, distributing it is no good to anybody, but what if I make the PW obvious, such as "digg". I'll still get busted.
- weaszel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5This whole idea is just overcomplication... He's working under the assumption that the RIAA or MPAA or the original content creators even owns any file on my hard drive. The only thing that any of them actually own is the physical CD and any materials it comes with... as soon as I buy that CD and that jewel case and that shrinkwrap, they become mine, with which I can do whatever I please. When I encode a song from a CD into an MP3 file, do they own that MP3? Of course not. That file certainly wasn't on the CD when I bought it, so who are they to tell me what I may or may not do with it? It's no different from me going to an art exhibit, going home, drawing something I saw there, and giving it to a friend; I drew it with my pencils and used my paper. The artist owns nothing which I'm giving to my friend.
We'd all be better off if people used common sense instead of letting organizations like the RIAA write our laws. - Spazkake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I don't fully understand what practical aplications this has but I like the debate it arouses.
- syphonist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4IMHO yes, if you provide the means to re-create the original, plus you are transfering IP from one medium to another without the original owners permisson. Unless of course you are the original copyright holder and in that case I would ask, why did you even ask that question....
-
Show 51 - 100 of 168 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is