Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Monolith
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.
SkaAgent11- 2008 diggs
- digg it
- tempusrob, on 10/12/2007, -21/+12Two words: "Derivaitve work."
This is going to be interesting...- JesusFaction, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29he responds to this at the end of the page
- tempusrob, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24Quite right. That's what I get for not RTFA.
- goblindegook, on 10/12/2007, -16/+8Just because it's obfuscated (or, more accurately, encrypted) doesn't mean it isn't derivative work. If you know one component of the munged file (say, the first 800 characters of the Bible), then you can easily reverse the algorithm and obtain the other half.
- 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.
- 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. - tocksin, on 10/12/2007, -41/+5Two words: "spell checker"
- 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. - 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. - 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.
- 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 : - drigz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2ziks - his point is that, by using a range of Basis files, you can create any .mono file - thus, by your argument, Britney Spears owns the copyright to all files ever, as they are potential derivatives of her work.
- samstr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Totally.
I can't wait for RIAA to throw a mencap about this and start demanding money from orphans.
-------------------------------
http://www.wirah.com - Wyzard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"ziks - his point is that, by using a range of Basis files, you can create any .mono file - thus, by your argument, Britney Spears owns the copyright to all files ever, as they are potential derivatives of her work."
In the case where the Basis file is one that already existed (such as the wav file distributed on the website), the .mono file is a derived work of the copyrighted Element file.
But in the case where the .mono file is one that already existed (this is the case involved in this "any file could be produced argument), the Basis file does *not* already exist -- you're choosing it such that it provides the desired output when combined with a given Element file, and therefore the Basis file in this case is a derived work of the copyrighted Element file.
In either case, one of the two files (Basis or output) did not exist beforehand, and is derived from the copyrighted input. Seems simple enough to me. - osbjmg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Hare brained indeed. It's just data encryption.
- Spidey99, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9very very interesting, will have to play around and see what it can do.
- VadimKatchkakov, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Is not such fascination for when download of any file first is in forms of non consequitive packets when only finally is bring together into original file as result of original intents. Even more is so when compression or the encryptions being involved. Bottom of the line is of resulting usages and of provision of potentials to do it.
- 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?- 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.
- 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.' - 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
- 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)... - 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. - JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"This is just plain and simple encryption."
Yes, strip away all the obfuscation and what's left is encryption. Makes it harder to detect but it does NOT remove any copyright. I wouldn't count on making much headway in court with his argument. - jtcm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"This is just plain and simple encryption."
Exactly. It's a One-Time Pad or, more correctly, a Vernam Cipher since the key is used more than once.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernam_cipher
The article is very well written and explained certain advanced concepts in easy to understand terms, and for that I Digg it.
I just wonder if the author thinks that ROT13 would save a person from pirating e-books, or putting a password on that .zip file will keeps the feds away...
I know! You can use PGP on all your warez and then just hand out your private key! Genius! - jtcm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"This is just plain and simple encryption."
Indeed. It's a One-Time Pad or, more correctly, a Vernam Cipher since the key is used more than once.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernam_cipher
The article is very well written and explained certain advanced concepts in easy to understand terms, and for that I Digg it.
I just wonder if the author thinks that ROT13 would save a person from pirating e-books, or putting a password on that .zip file will keeps the feds away...
I know! You can use PGP on all your warez and then just hand out your private key! Genius!
- monolith, on 10/12/2007, -10/+53I digg for obvios shallow reasons.
- GTPBearSuit, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5El oh el. +digg to that.
- webbunny, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Very interesting. I don't think the courts could rule against this, as in theory there is nothing illegal about it. But probably if you're distributing the mono file and the element file together then it could just be called a fancy way of encrypting the copyright file.
- 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. - johndi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I continue to be amazed by what the courts rules. They don't know the word can't, or even shouldn't. Even if it gets by the courts expect congress, the NSA, CIA, and FBI to be screaming their little heads off.
- asplodzor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21"in theory there is nothing illegal about it"
- 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.- 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.
- Olle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5However, the public key that he is providing is a copyrighted file with exactly the same legal protection as the file itself.
- Metal_Hurlant, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1> This is just plain and simple encryption. What the author calls "element" is the plain-text, and what he calls "basis" is the key.
Except without the encryption part.
If the "key file" is less than half the size of the "encrypted" data, you can rebuild the original data without knowing the key.
Quick step-by-step:
1: Know the length L of the "key file" (if you don't, a for(l=0;l - punkdigerati, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Olle:
He states that the file he distributes for use as the base file, aka public key is in the public domain
- uptown, on 10/12/2007, -13/+8You could argue that since applications and movies are distributed as ZIP files ... in an encoded form, they're unrecognizable as their original form either. Doesn't change the fact that you're distributing something that can be reconstituted into a copyrighted entity.
- longman2g, on 10/12/2007, -17/+11anybody else think of southpark when they saw the word mung?
- Brian48216, on 10/12/2007, -8/+17Dugg for the use of the word "munged"
- WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1yeah...I briefly thought of Southpark when I saw the word MUNG...but, kept thinking of Suthpark during the discussion of legality and the MPAA / RIAA, as I kept recalling the record company exec. in Southpark who was shouting:"I am above the law"
Thus it would likely be, in the real world, when they go after someone who uses this particular kind of encryption.
Of course, the entire problem would not occur if the basis file (encryption key) was simply kept secret, and was NOT a named file, well known, in public domain.
Thuis guy was onto something great, but then he recomended that everyone use his published .wav file as the basis file. I guess that was just for the purpose of this demonstration, though.
Of course, since the two munged files must be the same length, one would certainly have to use other files in the real world, as the basis files.
Thus, for a given work to be 'munged', one would need another file of the same length.
We can expect that someone will start distributing these.
Then, the legal issue will be ...can you copyright a particular number of bits? LMAO
American pseudo-justice marches on!
- ken52787, 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.- Rickz0rz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Not really. The idea here is that this file is useless without the key. You can play an XviD movie in any player that supports that format. You don't need a key or password to play the movie.
Moreso, the keys to be used are recommended to be in the public domain, and contrary to what I'm reading in this, they (the basis (key) and element (original) files) DON'T need to be equal lengths.
The file is completely scrambled at the end of the day, and unless your movie player can find a magical password, then it's not the same thing. This is just a test of the copyright system, to see if a completely scrambled, useless file will be called off as derivative work.
- Rickz0rz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Not really. The idea here is that this file is useless without the key. You can play an XviD movie in any player that supports that format. You don't need a key or password to play the movie.
- fatlip, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5absolute genius
- brandonhines, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2But then you're changing a copyrighted work into something else which falls into the same realm as illegal music sampling. One of the sources was still copyrighted at the start and even though the resulting file is "different", you still didn't pay for the right to use the source. And I don't think fair use covers this.
It seems like the author is trying to poke the copyright holders of the world to see if they poke back when we all know that they do. - 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?"
- 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.
- Smily, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Heh, I was just listening today about XOR encryption on Security Now! :)
- goosedotnu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9What's wrong with Security Now?
- jmonty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Here's what's wrong with Security Now - Steve Gibson is a sensationalist and "SELF" proclaimed securtiy expert. He is NOT recognized by his peers in the industry as a security expert. Just read over his web site - its sensationalist, and all marketing driven - his goal is to drive people to use his products, free or not. The "technical" language on his web site is not accurate. Spend some time on http://www.grcsucks.com/ and you'll understand what's wrong with Steve Gibson of GRC.
- 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.
- Vryz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Seems like a good way to distribute Mashups legally? You distribute the mashup as one of these, so that you need to combine it with the original source songs to extract the mashup.
- 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.
- Ilyanep, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Jeez...if he's trying to get sued it's not going to work if he's making it obvious!
- szelij, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3So it's basically like encryption then? How much processing power is needed to 'run' this thing? Is there a limit to the maximum size?
It's great to see new innovative ideas out there even though this one is based primarily to help pirate copyright stuff.- astrosmash, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3You need at least a P4 2.1 GHz machine with 800 MHz front side bus. Max file size is 4 MB.
- 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.
- NovaMonket, 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.
- scaaven2, on 10/12/2007, -18/+6This is retarded
- aoeu, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Haha, quite a funny idea to form an essee on, as he did. So encrypting (a.k.a. combining in this case) something makes it totally different, which is no long a copyrighted piece of data, definitely debatable, yet has a point.
- 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. :-)- WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"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. :-)"
well, you could take the third, copyrighted work, and 'subtract' a publicly available work of the same length, used as the basis file, and then --
publish the resultant file, so that there now are two public files of the same length, albeit one of them a trash file, or a really weird piece of graphic art, and these two files 'add up', when 'munged together', to form the third, copyrighted work. We can expect to see a lot of weird graphic art files appearing, of various lengths, if this program takes off.
HAA HA
Fark the AAs!
- WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"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. :-)"
- pseudojd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8he's using good logic to get around laws drawn up by simple humans. it's good stuff.
- 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...
- 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.- 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 - goblindegook, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1sintaks: "Clearly the resulting file is garbage without the "key" file, so it's not a violation, neh?"
So is an MP3 file without the necessary codec, but that doesn't stop people from being sued left and right for sharing them over P2P. Claiming you don't have a codec installed to play MP3s won't get you off the hook in case you're taken to court. They just need to prove you're sharing a munged file known to be based on copyrighted material.
BTW, I'm not supporting existing copyright law, I'm just saying it like it is: until those laws are changed to prevent the kind of abuse we see today, preferrably while still protecting creators from being ripped off, what "ought to be" will hardly help you against a lawsuit.
- deut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7EXACTLY!
- paulyche, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Dugg for making me laugh. Britney's Toxic is crytographically (?) indistiguishable from Genesis. Well not really - but way to make a point.
- 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.
- 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 :)
- 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 - deut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's unlikely you could actually copyright "100010111010101". You'd be better off registering it a trademark. :-))))
- 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!
- savmac, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Its a good thing you typed :) and not :-( because that would be trademark infringement.
- 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?
- deut, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3nope sorry, cause the RIAA would argue why would you want to decrypt a bitstream with a copyright work to obtain a public domain work when that public domain work is already freely available, unencrypted. (Plus, you obviously have to go to far more trouble to obtain it!)
They would argue probable cause that your real intention was to do this the other way around in order to obtain a copyright work.
I think this needs to be tested in court, anyone fancy setting up a mono tracker for bittorrent? USA based webmasters only please! :-) - WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"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?"
That is just silly, becase it can be argued that using the copyrighted file as an encryption/ decryption key for a public file-- is still using that file.
- deut, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3nope sorry, cause the RIAA would argue why would you want to decrypt a bitstream with a copyright work to obtain a public domain work when that public domain work is already freely available, unencrypted. (Plus, you obviously have to go to far more trouble to obtain it!)
- hutchy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4wow, thats a very well written and informative article.
- 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?
- 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.
- 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....
- NYCpeon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The question is enforcement! Not whether or not reconstituting the original work is illegal. Of course it is. Without carte blanche to look at our file systems, however, the law is essentially unenforceable. Nobody every got arrested for home taping and that is the point of the article.
- 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.
- WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"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."
I think you meant 'INTELLIGENCE' people. Not intelligent people. In fact, many of them are educated fools.
- WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"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."
- drphilngood, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Just curious; how is this different from using an encryption method such as TrueCrypt and a key-file to encrypt the data?
edit: Just as I posted this, the similar post by Saon came up so nevermind. - MediaShipper, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If the courts let corporations copyright genes, then why not let corporations copyright binary code strings!
- Spazkake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I don't fully understand what practical aplications this has but I like the debate it arouses.
- Opanoid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I see what he is getting at (I think) if he takes a copyrighted article, and takes his (or the persons own) copyrighted article and distribute it for people to download what happens.
The problem is, it still contains the original copyrighted material and you are legally distributing works that is not allowed, although it does make it slightly more interesting in the court of law.
I still think p2p or bit torrent have a more steady ground in distribution (ie the person doesnt have to have viewed/etc the content to distribute it). It's a bit of shady area that I'm sure a new law will be passed soon to cover it (unfortunaltly/ or foruntaly depending on how you look at it). - 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. =) - 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. - 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. - NovaScotian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think the essence of this is in two parts:
1) It is the act of listening without having purchased that violates the copyright - that remains true for the reconstituted file.
2) This renders the file undetectable to an eavesdropper who has no way of knowing what the file might contain - or even that it is music or a movie. It is truly just a bit torrent and no standard decoder (zip, mp3/4, etc.) will recognize it. - pvginkel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Just one thing I was wondering: are movie / music titles copyrighted? I know people are sued over using movie names. We will always need these to do anything usefull with P2P.
- NYCpeon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Many people here seem to be missing the point. The people who are currently being prosecuted are being prosecuted for sharing copyrighted files. The copyright code itself defines as a derivative work one which actually or approximately captures the sound of the original. So, mono files, since they do not capture the sound of the original, are not subject to copyright. Even if constituting a copyrighted song from a Mono file, this would be done in the privacy of a person's home, on their computer, in a non-shared directory, which, like tape-recording, is legal. By not sharing copyrighted files on the Internet, there is no enforceable law against doing this. The only plausible situation is if law-enforcement became active in prosecuting this sort of thing and used the presence of like-titled mono files as probable cause for a search warrant of the activity on your computer; also, the law could be changed. Right now, as far as I can tell, this all sounds perfectly legal, given that the sharing is what's against the law.
- deut, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Ok, so I take my britney spears cd and rar it with a stong password and send it to you. By your argument, I am not able to be prosecuted because the bitstream i sent you is clearly a rambled jumble of bits and most certainly does not capture the sound of the original in this form.
What happens when i tell you the key to decrypt that file? still legal?
Like I say, wanna test this out in court, post a load of mono files to your website and let's see what happens? My bet is that you'll get your ass sued.
Christ, they are suing bt trackers that only publish torrent files containing hashes and ip addresses for goodness sake. They aren't illegal by your definition either but unfortunately the courts of the USA do not agree with you.
- deut, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Ok, so I take my britney spears cd and rar it with a stong password and send it to you. By your argument, I am not able to be prosecuted because the bitstream i sent you is clearly a rambled jumble of bits and most certainly does not capture the sound of the original in this form.
- SoulMaster2, on 10/12/2007, -17/+2---
- SoulMaster2, on 10/12/2007, -18/+1---
- 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.
- Metal_Hurlant, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4XOR-ing a mp3 with a key and distributing the key separately doesn't shield out from copyright laws. That should be pretty obvious.
A more interesting example would be to convert an mp3 file to, say, a poem, or a piece of source code that compiles, or a flash animation that would render in sync with the original mp3. And all those output format could be used to regenerate the original file.
Still irrelevant from a "let's circumvent copyrights" standpoint, but the cool factor would be way up. - Slipdisc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3the prime purpose for this is to steal music. Any judge in the US would give you the instant smackdown.
Don't forget kids, the RIAA reads digg, SD, neowin and tons of other sites. So don't fool yourself into thinking you just found the perfect way to get free music.- guiswa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8theft != copyright infringement
- NiLeS, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2copyright infringement == theft
(usually)
- eigh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2now even though its not proven in a court of law, the practical application that this thing claims to have is the ability to share any content with legally. if you change the bit sequence of a copyrighted file according to a simple calculation.
if you share the file that was changed, then you should be off the hook.
or so we think........ - 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. - bal8664, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Can't people just pay for music and not worry about coming up with ridiculous schemes to make pirating it "legal"? It's really not that expensive...
- deut, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I agree, i use allofmp3 all the time. It's rather good and very affordable. ;-)
- TheOtherGuy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2queue argument on the legality of allofmp3.com....
-
Show 51 - 92 of 92 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by