5 ms·

That would be a good analogy if they just claimed the network gives you anonymity and therefore lets you break the law with impunity. But they're making the cl

That would be a good analogy if they just claimed the network gives you anonymity and therefore lets you break the law with impunity. But they're making the claim that the system lets you share copyrighted work without breaking the law. Because they XOR'ed copyrighted bits with other copyrighted bits therefore how can anyone own the resulting garbage? This is the part that will be laughed out of the court room. Whether it can be proved that a particular node participated in the infringement is a different story, but if that is your threat model you want strong encryption not XOR.

amelius 6y ago
The allegation will be: I downloaded A from X and B from Y, XORed them together and got copyrighted work. However, X will say that Y could have manufactured B that way. And Y will say the same. > This is the part that will be laughed out of the court room. You can laugh all you want, but you can't convict anyone.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- greenshackle2 6y ago
  Great, X and Y have infringed the copyright for both A and B. I'm not convinced they don't have more legal exposure rather than less (if B is copyrighted too).
  - amelius 6y ago
    The main point is that there will be nobody in court in the first place. Assume you have published random block A. Now I claim that you have infringed copyright of a work because XORing your A with my C gives that work. I hope you can agree that I can't sue you based on that. And this is exactly how this system works.
    - Kalium 6y ago
      If I need your A in order to produce the copyrighted work, it seems likely to me that the argument will be made that it's a derivative work or another way of copying the copyrighted work. It might event work. It would certainly be expensive to find out. As a rule, trying to get clever with technology to get around the legal system rarely works well. Especially when you can't afford to defend yourself.
      - LukeShu 6y ago
        The point being made is that the system creates such deniability that it's impossible to say who the perpetrator is. Let A and B be two data blocks produced by different people, and C be a copyrighted work. It becomes known that A⊕B⇒C, and so the copyright holder of C would like to sue someone. It is obvious that either the person who produced A or the person who produced B is infringing on the copyright of C. However, it is impossible to say which one it is; it is impossible to say whether A is a derivative work of B and C (B⊕C⇒A) or if B is a derivative work of A and C (A⊕C⇒B). (Of course, good luck explaining that to a judge.) Let's iterate on that more. So A and B a blocks on the network. Yet a 3rd person publishes some freely-licensed works; they F1 and F2. In order to be stored in OFF, they get xor'ed against existing blocks, and just so happen to xor against A and B. So A⊕F1⇒A' and B⊕F2⇒B'. So someone wanting to download F1 will download A and A', then get F1 by A⊕A'⇒F1. Neither the person publishing F1 and F2 nor the person downloading them have any idea that A⊕B⇒C. So now someone lawfully downloading F1 and F2 appears to be downloading C, because the blocks they're downloading are [A, B, A', B']; and [A, B] are what it takes to infringe on C. But they had no idea that A⊕B⇒C, they were just interested in F1 and F2. So now you can't say that downloading A and B together indicates unlawfully downloading C. (Again, good luck explaining that to a judge.) So the point is to make it really hard to say who did what.
        Kalium 6y ago
        Maybe it's just me, but doesn't this make it exceptionally clear that multiple people have colluded to both do a thing and hide who was the responsible party? I think the US legal system might have tools for handling such groups of people. I'm reasonably sure this isn't unprecedented, except perhaps in the technological details. I think it might strain credulity that these "random" blocks "just happen" to have these particular properties. So much so that I doubt the argument would stand in face of the argument that F1 and F2 were deliberately crafted derivative works of C, made in an effort to allow piracy of C.
- kelnos 6y ago
  It feels like you don't really understand how the laws work, perhaps? Intent is very very important. If I'm hosting stuff for the express purpose of allowing people to download what I have, download what someone else has, and then do math with the two parts to get a copyrighted work, a judge (& jury) will have more than enough to rule against all of the people involved. > You can laugh all you want, but you can't convict anyone. That is an incredibly naive and incorrect view of how the (US, at least) legal system works. Also consider that in a civil suit, the burden of proof is much, much lower than in a criminal case. So the word "convict" does not apply here. The only thing here unique to OFFSystem is that if you have hundreds or thousands of nodes, it's (theoretically) not possible to prove who "owns" A and who owns B, so who do you take to court? But then we get back to intent. The current legal consensus is that if a tool has legitimate non-infringing uses that are actually realistically happening in practice, then it gets very muddy and a plaintiff has to work hard to prove that any particular user is responsible for infringement. But in the case of OFFSystem, its express purpose is to enable copyright infringement. That is literally the stated purpose of the entire thing. Legally, anyone who participates in that system is assumed to be there to enable copyright infringement, and can be held liable, if not for direct infringement, then contributory infringement. That's how the law actually works, for better or worse. And even if you're in the clear, do you want to be dragged through court and be responsible for legal fees, and the general uncertainty of what's going to happen to you?
Chris2048 6y ago
If the law where clear cut, yes. When the law is uncertain, it's not possible to either fully comply, or fully violate the law - avoiding "being caught" prevents legal action on an issue that may or may not be legal. That this is possible/necessary is due to the structure of the legal system. What intensives have people to risk being a legal test case? It's clear to me those with influence over the law purposefully keep things ambiguous in order to have it both ways (threaten, without risk of being threatened) - maybe the opposing sides should be able to take advantage of the ambiguity just as much - after all, privacy is the right even of those with nothing to hide.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

amelius 6y ago

The allegation will be: I downloaded A from X and B from Y, XORed them together and got copyrighted work. However, X will say that Y could have manufactured B that way. And Y will say the same. > This is the part that will be laughed out of the court room. You can laugh all you want, but you can't convict anyone.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
greenshackle2 6y ago
Great, X and Y have infringed the copyright for both A and B. I'm not convinced they don't have more legal exposure rather than less (if B is copyrighted too).
- amelius 6y ago
  The main point is that there will be nobody in court in the first place. Assume you have published random block A. Now I claim that you have infringed copyright of a work because XORing your A with my C gives that work. I hope you can agree that I can't sue you based on that. And this is exactly how this system works.
  - Kalium 6y ago
    If I need your A in order to produce the copyrighted work, it seems likely to me that the argument will be made that it's a derivative work or another way of copying the copyrighted work. It might event work. It would certainly be expensive to find out. As a rule, trying to get clever with technology to get around the legal system rarely works well. Especially when you can't afford to defend yourself.
    - LukeShu 6y ago
      The point being made is that the system creates such deniability that it's impossible to say who the perpetrator is. Let A and B be two data blocks produced by different people, and C be a copyrighted work. It becomes known that A⊕B⇒C, and so the copyright holder of C would like to sue someone. It is obvious that either the person who produced A or the person who produced B is infringing on the copyright of C. However, it is impossible to say which one it is; it is impossible to say whether A is a derivative work of B and C (B⊕C⇒A) or if B is a derivative work of A and C (A⊕C⇒B). (Of course, good luck explaining that to a judge.) Let's iterate on that more. So A and B a blocks on the network. Yet a 3rd person publishes some freely-licensed works; they F1 and F2. In order to be stored in OFF, they get xor'ed against existing blocks, and just so happen to xor against A and B. So A⊕F1⇒A' and B⊕F2⇒B'. So someone wanting to download F1 will download A and A', then get F1 by A⊕A'⇒F1. Neither the person publishing F1 and F2 nor the person downloading them have any idea that A⊕B⇒C. So now someone lawfully downloading F1 and F2 appears to be downloading C, because the blocks they're downloading are [A, B, A', B']; and [A, B] are what it takes to infringe on C. But they had no idea that A⊕B⇒C, they were just interested in F1 and F2. So now you can't say that downloading A and B together indicates unlawfully downloading C. (Again, good luck explaining that to a judge.) So the point is to make it really hard to say who did what.
      - Kalium 6y ago
        Maybe it's just me, but doesn't this make it exceptionally clear that multiple people have colluded to both do a thing and hide who was the responsible party? I think the US legal system might have tools for handling such groups of people. I'm reasonably sure this isn't unprecedented, except perhaps in the technological details. I think it might strain credulity that these "random" blocks "just happen" to have these particular properties. So much so that I doubt the argument would stand in face of the argument that F1 and F2 were deliberately crafted derivative works of C, made in an effort to allow piracy of C.
kelnos 6y ago
It feels like you don't really understand how the laws work, perhaps? Intent is very very important. If I'm hosting stuff for the express purpose of allowing people to download what I have, download what someone else has, and then do math with the two parts to get a copyrighted work, a judge (& jury) will have more than enough to rule against all of the people involved. > You can laugh all you want, but you can't convict anyone. That is an incredibly naive and incorrect view of how the (US, at least) legal system works. Also consider that in a civil suit, the burden of proof is much, much lower than in a criminal case. So the word "convict" does not apply here. The only thing here unique to OFFSystem is that if you have hundreds or thousands of nodes, it's (theoretically) not possible to prove who "owns" A and who owns B, so who do you take to court? But then we get back to intent. The current legal consensus is that if a tool has legitimate non-infringing uses that are actually realistically happening in practice, then it gets very muddy and a plaintiff has to work hard to prove that any particular user is responsible for infringement. But in the case of OFFSystem, its express purpose is to enable copyright infringement. That is literally the stated purpose of the entire thing. Legally, anyone who participates in that system is assumed to be there to enable copyright infringement, and can be held liable, if not for direct infringement, then contributory infringement. That's how the law actually works, for better or worse. And even if you're in the clear, do you want to be dragged through court and be responsible for legal fees, and the general uncertainty of what's going to happen to you?

Chris2048 6y ago

If the law where clear cut, yes. When the law is uncertain, it's not possible to either fully comply, or fully violate the law - avoiding "being caught" prevents legal action on an issue that may or may not be legal. That this is possible/necessary is due to the structure of the legal system. What intensives have people to risk being a legal test case? It's clear to me those with influence over the law purposefully keep things ambiguous in order to have it both ways (threaten, without risk of being threatened) - maybe the opposing sides should be able to take advantage of the ambiguity just as much - after all, privacy is the right even of those with nothing to hide.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]