4 ms·

At best it is a way of hiding evidence, but any encryption scheme works just as well for that purpose. It doesn't change the legality of using the bits that wer

by shawnz 7y ago

At best it is a way of hiding evidence, but any encryption scheme works just as well for that purpose. It doesn't change the legality of using the bits that were derived from the copyrighted material

Chris2048 7y ago
The question is liability of hosting those bits. I have copyrighted data block A. I generate random, uncopyrighted data A1 and store on host X I XOR A1 with A and get A2, storing this on Y. Y is derived from A (and A1) but A1 is totally original random data whose generation is totally unrelated to A. So, who is hosting the derivative data? Y, possibly, but both A1 and A2 look like random data, there's no way to tell which is the random one.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- richardwhiuk 7y ago
  Y is definitely derived work. The knowledge that "A = X(A1) xor Y(A2)" is also derived work. That fact will be known by someone, and will definitely be infringing.
  - adinisom 7y ago
    "possibly" here means that while Y is hosting derived work, even the uploader doesn't know that for a fact since the software doing the uploading doesn't expose this detail. Knowledge of how to combine them being a derived work is an interesting theory. One challenge is that facts aren't typically copyrightable. On the other hand you could argue contributory infringement instead.
- shawnz 7y ago
  The hosts are protected anyway by DMCA safe harbour provisions, just like if you uploaded an encrypted copy of an infringing file to Google Drive. > So, who is hosting the derivative data? Y, possibly Y, definitely. Like you said yourself, Y's data is derived from A. > both A1 and A2 look like random data, there's no way to tell which is the random one. Any encryption scheme will cause the file to look like random data. All that means is that seeing the file contents alone is not enough to prove the crime. It doesn't mean that the file contents become free of infringement.
  - Chris2048 7y ago
    Does any host get safe harbour, or just the big ones with lawyers? In any case, encryption schemes have keys, distinct from data and generated during encryption. In this case, there are two sets of data, either of which could be key or data, and one of which could of been generated before, and independently of the other. In fact, for any data block A, and random data X - there is a block Y that combines with X to produce A - any/all A, any/all X.
    - shawnz 7y ago
      Y's data is obviously the data and X's data is obviously the key. It doesn't matter if you can tell that just by looking at the data or just by looking at the key. What you can tell just by looking at the data is irrelevant, that is what I am saying. > In fact, for any data block A, and random data X - there is a block Y that combines with X to produce A - any/all A, any/all X. That is true with basically any encryption scheme, the only peculiarity here is that key and data are the same length (which is irrelevant to the legality of the situation anyway).
      - Chris2048 7y ago
        > what you can tell just by looking at the data is irrelevant Why? hosting derivative work is illegal, hosting random data (keys) isn't, the distinction between X's data and Y's data is the distinction between liable and not-liable. If you can't tell which is which, then both are innocent under reasonable doubt. > That is true with basically any encryption scheme What's isn't true is the ease with which the A can be generated from X given Y. In other encryption schemes, key and data are distinct components - and not just by size.
        shawnz 7y ago
        Because looking at the bits themselves is just one way of many to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what someone was trying to accomplish in the first place. In fact having the bits themselves doesn't even necessarily prove anything. If someone puts a murder weapon in my possession without my knowledge, does that make me guilty? > In other encryption schemes, key and data are distinct components Key and data are distinct components here too. You said yourself you generated the key data with no knowledge of the infringing content, so that makes them distinct. Size of the key is the only difference with this scheme compared to more typical ones.

by shawnz 7y ago

At best it is a way of hiding evidence, but any encryption scheme works just as well for that purpose. It doesn't change the legality of using the bits that were derived from the copyrighted material

Chris2048 7y ago

The question is liability of hosting those bits. I have copyrighted data block A. I generate random, uncopyrighted data A1 and store on host X I XOR A1 with A and get A2, storing this on Y. Y is derived from A (and A1) but A1 is totally original random data whose generation is totally unrelated to A. So, who is hosting the derivative data? Y, possibly, but both A1 and A2 look like random data, there's no way to tell which is the random one.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
richardwhiuk 7y ago
Y is definitely derived work. The knowledge that "A = X(A1) xor Y(A2)" is also derived work. That fact will be known by someone, and will definitely be infringing.
- adinisom 7y ago
  "possibly" here means that while Y is hosting derived work, even the uploader doesn't know that for a fact since the software doing the uploading doesn't expose this detail. Knowledge of how to combine them being a derived work is an interesting theory. One challenge is that facts aren't typically copyrightable. On the other hand you could argue contributory infringement instead.
shawnz 7y ago
The hosts are protected anyway by DMCA safe harbour provisions, just like if you uploaded an encrypted copy of an infringing file to Google Drive. > So, who is hosting the derivative data? Y, possibly Y, definitely. Like you said yourself, Y's data is derived from A. > both A1 and A2 look like random data, there's no way to tell which is the random one. Any encryption scheme will cause the file to look like random data. All that means is that seeing the file contents alone is not enough to prove the crime. It doesn't mean that the file contents become free of infringement.
- Chris2048 7y ago
  Does any host get safe harbour, or just the big ones with lawyers? In any case, encryption schemes have keys, distinct from data and generated during encryption. In this case, there are two sets of data, either of which could be key or data, and one of which could of been generated before, and independently of the other. In fact, for any data block A, and random data X - there is a block Y that combines with X to produce A - any/all A, any/all X.
  - shawnz 7y ago
    Y's data is obviously the data and X's data is obviously the key. It doesn't matter if you can tell that just by looking at the data or just by looking at the key. What you can tell just by looking at the data is irrelevant, that is what I am saying. > In fact, for any data block A, and random data X - there is a block Y that combines with X to produce A - any/all A, any/all X. That is true with basically any encryption scheme, the only peculiarity here is that key and data are the same length (which is irrelevant to the legality of the situation anyway).
    - Chris2048 7y ago
      > what you can tell just by looking at the data is irrelevant Why? hosting derivative work is illegal, hosting random data (keys) isn't, the distinction between X's data and Y's data is the distinction between liable and not-liable. If you can't tell which is which, then both are innocent under reasonable doubt. > That is true with basically any encryption scheme What's isn't true is the ease with which the A can be generated from X given Y. In other encryption schemes, key and data are distinct components - and not just by size.
      - shawnz 7y ago
        Because looking at the bits themselves is just one way of many to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what someone was trying to accomplish in the first place. In fact having the bits themselves doesn't even necessarily prove anything. If someone puts a murder weapon in my possession without my knowledge, does that make me guilty? > In other encryption schemes, key and data are distinct components Key and data are distinct components here too. You said yourself you generated the key data with no knowledge of the infringing content, so that makes them distinct. Size of the key is the only difference with this scheme compared to more typical ones.