7 ms·

Could Quantum Computing Kill Copyright?

21 points by Garbage 15y ago

StavrosK 15y ago
Yet another article that completely misses the point of copyright. What's the article trying to say? That you can create all images, therefore you own the copyright? As a poster on that page says, this will explain it: http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23
- iwwr 15y ago
  There is an interesting IP minefield in the fledgling area of procedural generation. That is, if you can define a procedural texture that looks the same as another procedural texture (but different generating rules), are you breaking copyright? Can you patent the algorithm that generates a tree?
  - _delirium 15y ago
    I agree that that one is an interesting angle. I think the quantum-computing angle is unnecessary buzzword intrusion, though; most (all?) of the same difficulties can be posed with procedural-generation systems using classical computation.
nextparadigms 15y ago
I don't think copyright is compatible with the Internet. It's time for everyone to realize that. Times change, and some laws become obsolete. It's not the first time it has happened and it's not going to be the last. Then a couple of decades later you look back at them and realize how absurd they have been. Not all industries have copyright, and they seem to have done pretty well so far without, most likely much better than they would've done with it. These are some good videos on this, if you haven't seen them already: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q25-S7jzgs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q25-S7jzgs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Plm1ulrp2s&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Plm1ulrp2s&feature=relat... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajobYLLUstg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajobYLLUstg
- wynand 15y ago
  I have some pretty strong feelings about IP (I oppose software patents and I think copyright terms are too long) but I suspect that IP will become more sophisticated and pervasive. Robin Hansson has a post about what he calls "IP+" (http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/07/ip-like-barbed-wire.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/07/ip-like-barbed-wire.ht...). I don't like the future he paints but it is better than today's setup. A large (and growing) part of the world's population will want some kind of guarantee that they'll be compensated for their time and they'll be pushing for some kind of IP. Whether or not this will be better or worse for society, only data can tell us. But regardless of that, people want to optimize for what they think is best for themselves and their offspring and will vote on the basis of that.
  - muuh-gnu 15y ago
    > people want to optimize for what they think is best for themselves and their offspring Copyright is a form of for-profit censorship. There are always people who will vote for censorship and slavery in order to maximize the exploitation of other people fot the benefit of themselves and theif offspring. the fact that there are always people willing to support and profit from opression does not mean that everybody else should not condemn, fight and try everything they can to end it. As of now, copyright is not democratically supported. It is directed and enforced against the majority for the benefit of a influential minority, but it was never, anywhere on this planet, supported by any kind of democratic vote by the people. It originated in a dictatorship and has been spread behind closed doors and shielded by various party mechanisms from a direct popular vote, because the probable result of this vote would be a "no". The turmoil around ACTA, where even talking about the negotiations was a no-go disguised as "national security" to prevent any opposition to even form, has shown that the politics around copyright is as undemocratic as ever. I do not feel any moral obligation whatsoever to obey such a authoritarian law clearly not backed by the majority of my peers. Copying and sharing stuff is simply not wrong as long as the majority of my peers does not condemn it. I will never let a authoritarian, profit-oriented minority legislate my morals.
    - cageface 15y ago
tonfa 15y ago
No it couldn't, a judge is not a program and law does not work like engineering. I highly recommend reading this essay, it answers a very similar question. http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/colour/2004061001.php http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/colour/2004061001.php
- ZoFreX 15y ago
  This should really be required reading. Far too often geeks try to classify legal issues using technical classifiers, or even worse, to solve them with technical means. Arguments that make the assumption that the same bits produced in different ways should have identical legal status are very flawed!
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  That's a fantastic essay. I saw it when you posted it, and just got done reading it now. Thanks for sharing.
maeon3 15y ago
I can't make all possible 256x256 images, but I COULD describe the space with an algorithm that would make them all. If I walk into the patent office with the algorithm, and tell them that if a new person comes into the patent office, you have to run my algorithm to see if my algorithm hasn't already defined the picture, obviously of which it has. then I can sue them, and take them to court for infringing on my inventions. Brilliant! Someone do this please.
- mooism2 15y ago
  Patents and copyrights are different things. The linked article is about copyrights, not patents.
retube 15y ago
tl;dr : a quantum computer could create every single pixel permutation of an image, which you could then claim copyright for. However, fundamental difference: in a qc this data is represented by a super-position of states. Which is fine, but I would argue each image has not been individually created. And to write out 9.2 x 10^600,000 images is going to take a fair amount of disk space (and time). Which is what I'd imagine you'd have to do to claim copyright over them all.
- ZoFreX 15y ago
  If you create a 500x500 pixel image on your computer, you own the copyright on that image. But copyright isn't like patents or trademarks with "prior art": If I also make an image through some means (take a photograph, paint a picture, etc) that ends up being identical at 500x500 pixels, you don't own the copyright on my image.
  - retube 15y ago
    Makes sense, I'm sure you're right - which further invalidates the article's supposition!
paulgb 15y ago
Ignoring the technology bit, the legal side of the article is naive speculation.
redthrowaway 15y ago
The Law isn't just going to roll over and admit defeat. Copyright will continue to exist so long as the minority it serves is louder than the majority it hurts. If we want to protect our tubes, at some point we in the Internet industry are going to have to get our hands dirty in DC. The only way to beat them is to out-lobby them, and that's a long game. Google's taken a few tentative steps, but it will be at least a decade before the tech lobby is anywhere near as powerful as the entertainment lobby. Even then, we have to ask ourselves: Is it worth it? Do we really want tech lobbyists writing laws? Do we want Microsoft, Google, Apple, and Oracle deciding what's best for tech and encoding that in law? Or are we better off, in the long run, simply staying faster than the law and letting them legislate against whatever we were doing a year ago?
- cageface 15y ago
  The question of whether copyright serves the minority or the majority is going to depend very much on who you ask. If you ask the typical hacker, who tends to see digital works as generic stuff in the "tubes", copyright is annoying inefficiency. For people that create that content though, copyright is what makes it possible for them to put food on the table and, more importantly, focus with the attention that good work requires. If it becomes impossible for people to make a living creating digital work you're soon going to have a super-efficient network of tubes full of nothing but shit.
  - redthrowaway 15y ago
    The history of technology is one of disrupting old industries. The death of quality, be it content, hand-made goods, or mom and pop shops, has been heralded many times. Each time, somebody manages to find a way to make good products. If the movie industry refuses to sell movies that aren't on plastic, the Internet will obsolesce them. That will not spell the end of video as entertainment, as it will leave a void to be filled by somebody smarter and faster. MP3s didn't kill music, despite all the dire warnings. The news is struggling, but sites like huffpo have shown you can make money giving away news. There's no reason someone can't come up with a model whereby they can make money making good news. Copyright, as it was intended, is fine. I make something, that means I can sell it, not you. I'm okay with that. I'm not okay with limiting users, and I'm certainly not okay with suing them or charging them with crimes. The laws, as they are being written, enable copyright holders to pursue the latter course of action as an alternative to innovating and adapting. That, I am not okay with. There's nothing stopping anyone from making money with quality content on the Internet, save the confines of their own lack of imagination.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
wcoenen 15y ago
The article quotes 9.802 * 10^602059 possible images. And that storing these would require massive storage. Excuse me? The number of atoms in the observable universe is estimated to be 10^80. This idea is obviously complete nonsense, quantum computing or not. Next thing they'll be telling us that they'll find SHA256 collisions by simply trying 2^256 messages...

21 points by Garbage 15y ago

Yet another article that completely misses the point of copyright. What's the article trying to say? That you can create all images, therefore you own the copyright? As a poster on that page says, this will explain it: http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23

iwwr 15y ago
There is an interesting IP minefield in the fledgling area of procedural generation. That is, if you can define a procedural texture that looks the same as another procedural texture (but different generating rules), are you breaking copyright? Can you patent the algorithm that generates a tree?
- _delirium 15y ago
  I agree that that one is an interesting angle. I think the quantum-computing angle is unnecessary buzzword intrusion, though; most (all?) of the same difficulties can be posed with procedural-generation systems using classical computation.

nextparadigms 15y ago

I don't think copyright is compatible with the Internet. It's time for everyone to realize that. Times change, and some laws become obsolete. It's not the first time it has happened and it's not going to be the last. Then a couple of decades later you look back at them and realize how absurd they have been. Not all industries have copyright, and they seem to have done pretty well so far without, most likely much better than they would've done with it. These are some good videos on this, if you haven't seen them already: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q25-S7jzgs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q25-S7jzgs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Plm1ulrp2s&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Plm1ulrp2s&feature=relat... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajobYLLUstg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajobYLLUstg

wynand 15y ago
I have some pretty strong feelings about IP (I oppose software patents and I think copyright terms are too long) but I suspect that IP will become more sophisticated and pervasive. Robin Hansson has a post about what he calls "IP+" (http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/07/ip-like-barbed-wire.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/07/ip-like-barbed-wire.ht...). I don't like the future he paints but it is better than today's setup. A large (and growing) part of the world's population will want some kind of guarantee that they'll be compensated for their time and they'll be pushing for some kind of IP. Whether or not this will be better or worse for society, only data can tell us. But regardless of that, people want to optimize for what they think is best for themselves and their offspring and will vote on the basis of that.
- muuh-gnu 15y ago
  > people want to optimize for what they think is best for themselves and their offspring Copyright is a form of for-profit censorship. There are always people who will vote for censorship and slavery in order to maximize the exploitation of other people fot the benefit of themselves and theif offspring. the fact that there are always people willing to support and profit from opression does not mean that everybody else should not condemn, fight and try everything they can to end it. As of now, copyright is not democratically supported. It is directed and enforced against the majority for the benefit of a influential minority, but it was never, anywhere on this planet, supported by any kind of democratic vote by the people. It originated in a dictatorship and has been spread behind closed doors and shielded by various party mechanisms from a direct popular vote, because the probable result of this vote would be a "no". The turmoil around ACTA, where even talking about the negotiations was a no-go disguised as "national security" to prevent any opposition to even form, has shown that the politics around copyright is as undemocratic as ever. I do not feel any moral obligation whatsoever to obey such a authoritarian law clearly not backed by the majority of my peers. Copying and sharing stuff is simply not wrong as long as the majority of my peers does not condemn it. I will never let a authoritarian, profit-oriented minority legislate my morals.
  - cageface 15y ago

tonfa 15y ago

No it couldn't, a judge is not a program and law does not work like engineering. I highly recommend reading this essay, it answers a very similar question. http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/colour/2004061001.php http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/colour/2004061001.php

ZoFreX 15y ago
This should really be required reading. Far too often geeks try to classify legal issues using technical classifiers, or even worse, to solve them with technical means. Arguments that make the assumption that the same bits produced in different ways should have identical legal status are very flawed!
redthrowaway 15y ago
That's a fantastic essay. I saw it when you posted it, and just got done reading it now. Thanks for sharing.

maeon3 15y ago

I can't make all possible 256x256 images, but I COULD describe the space with an algorithm that would make them all. If I walk into the patent office with the algorithm, and tell them that if a new person comes into the patent office, you have to run my algorithm to see if my algorithm hasn't already defined the picture, obviously of which it has. then I can sue them, and take them to court for infringing on my inventions. Brilliant! Someone do this please.

mooism2 15y ago
Patents and copyrights are different things. The linked article is about copyrights, not patents.

retube 15y ago

tl;dr : a quantum computer could create every single pixel permutation of an image, which you could then claim copyright for. However, fundamental difference: in a qc this data is represented by a super-position of states. Which is fine, but I would argue each image has not been individually created. And to write out 9.2 x 10^600,000 images is going to take a fair amount of disk space (and time). Which is what I'd imagine you'd have to do to claim copyright over them all.

ZoFreX 15y ago
If you create a 500x500 pixel image on your computer, you own the copyright on that image. But copyright isn't like patents or trademarks with "prior art": If I also make an image through some means (take a photograph, paint a picture, etc) that ends up being identical at 500x500 pixels, you don't own the copyright on my image.
- retube 15y ago
  Makes sense, I'm sure you're right - which further invalidates the article's supposition!

paulgb 15y ago

Ignoring the technology bit, the legal side of the article is naive speculation.

redthrowaway 15y ago

The Law isn't just going to roll over and admit defeat. Copyright will continue to exist so long as the minority it serves is louder than the majority it hurts. If we want to protect our tubes, at some point we in the Internet industry are going to have to get our hands dirty in DC. The only way to beat them is to out-lobby them, and that's a long game. Google's taken a few tentative steps, but it will be at least a decade before the tech lobby is anywhere near as powerful as the entertainment lobby. Even then, we have to ask ourselves: Is it worth it? Do we really want tech lobbyists writing laws? Do we want Microsoft, Google, Apple, and Oracle deciding what's best for tech and encoding that in law? Or are we better off, in the long run, simply staying faster than the law and letting them legislate against whatever we were doing a year ago?

cageface 15y ago
The question of whether copyright serves the minority or the majority is going to depend very much on who you ask. If you ask the typical hacker, who tends to see digital works as generic stuff in the "tubes", copyright is annoying inefficiency. For people that create that content though, copyright is what makes it possible for them to put food on the table and, more importantly, focus with the attention that good work requires. If it becomes impossible for people to make a living creating digital work you're soon going to have a super-efficient network of tubes full of nothing but shit.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  The history of technology is one of disrupting old industries. The death of quality, be it content, hand-made goods, or mom and pop shops, has been heralded many times. Each time, somebody manages to find a way to make good products. If the movie industry refuses to sell movies that aren't on plastic, the Internet will obsolesce them. That will not spell the end of video as entertainment, as it will leave a void to be filled by somebody smarter and faster. MP3s didn't kill music, despite all the dire warnings. The news is struggling, but sites like huffpo have shown you can make money giving away news. There's no reason someone can't come up with a model whereby they can make money making good news. Copyright, as it was intended, is fine. I make something, that means I can sell it, not you. I'm okay with that. I'm not okay with limiting users, and I'm certainly not okay with suing them or charging them with crimes. The laws, as they are being written, enable copyright holders to pursue the latter course of action as an alternative to innovating and adapting. That, I am not okay with. There's nothing stopping anyone from making money with quality content on the Internet, save the confines of their own lack of imagination.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

wcoenen 15y ago

The article quotes 9.802 * 10^602059 possible images. And that storing these would require massive storage. Excuse me? The number of atoms in the observable universe is estimated to be 10^80. This idea is obviously complete nonsense, quantum computing or not. Next thing they'll be telling us that they'll find SHA256 collisions by simply trying 2^256 messages...