4 ms·
I may not be on the same wavelength as rolux here, but compression would be one example. Create B (a series of compressed files) and C (a decompressor), both un
by aes256 14y ago
I may not be on the same wavelength as rolux here, but compression would be one example. Create B (a series of compressed files) and C (a decompressor), both unique creations in their own right, that when combined create the original work of another person, A.
Now I'm no expert on compression, but there are surely a vast, if not infinite, number of possible pairs B and C that could combine to form the original copyrighted work.
Thus, with copyright law in its current state, we are not simply granting copyright holders the exclusive rights to a particular sequencing of 1s and 0s, but also rights over any method of creating that sequence.
If there are an infinite number of methods of creating that sequence — that is to say, any B, if combined with a suitable C could form A — then aren't we in effect granting rights over everything to the copyright holder? Where do we draw the line?
The 1s and 0s that make up this post could, with suitable decompression, form an exact copy of a hit blockbuster, but neither this post nor the decompressor would resemble the blockbuster on their own.
Edit: Interesting idea time. If I uploaded a series of files alleging they are encrypted copies of blockbuster films, but resolved not to release the encryption keys to any of the files for 12 months, would the copyright holders have the right to have the encrypted files taken down in the meantime?
They can't actually prove that the files are infringing without the encryption key. Is the mere suggestion that a file may potentially, with some manipulation (i.e. decryption with the appropriate key), resemble a copyrighted work, sufficient to have it taken down?
- wmf 14y agoAgain, that can only work if either B or C is a derivative of A.
- aes256 14y agoApparently what I was describing here has already been put into practice in the shape of Monolith [1] In the case I describe, as in the case of 'munging' using Monolith, neither B nor C bears any resemblance to A except when the two are combined. In my view, at least, you cannot say either is a derivative of A. To do so would bind you to declare everything a derivative of A, because any B when combined with an appropriate C can form A. If I take your post here as B, you will likely deny it is a derivative of any copyrighted work, but if I make the text of the post the encryption key to another file (C) which, when decrypted, becomes copyrighted work A, is your post itself derivative of a copyrighted work? What makes your post non-derivative and the encrypted file I create derivative? They are both nothing in themselves, and yet a copyrighted work when combined with the other. [1] http://monolith.sourceforge.net/ http://monolith.sourceforge.net/ Edit: Reading through the article on the color of bits it seems this exact argument prompted the article in the first place. I guess I should finish reading this!
- wmf 14y agoLet me put it a different way. If A = decompress(B), then necessarily B = compress(A), so B is obviously a derivative of A. Introducing xor does not change anything; one of the parts must be a derivative of the original.
- aes256 14y agoOkay, let me propose an alternative procedure. I set a series of random number generators going, and with each set of results, I apply randomly generated XOR to create a new sequence of numbers. I perform this process over and over. Eventually, it produces (give or take a few bits) a copy of an MP3 file of a copyrighted work. Now, once we've eliminated any procedure of creating B and C that includes A, would you still say one of B or C are derivative of A? Should my random number generator be banned? Perhaps more importantly, do I acquire copyright to all the files it creates? I could quite easily create every possible variation of an MP3 file of a given length. Does that mean any musician who, using a different procedure, produces one of these files is infringing on my copyright?
- nathan_long 14y ago>> Eventually, it produces (give or take a few bits) a copy of an MP3 file of a copyrighted work. ...which you recognize by having a copy of that work and specifically matching for it. If I were a copyright lawyer, I'd argue that your algorithm for plucking this value out of the stream of randomness was the infringement. >> I could quite easily create every possible variation of an MP3 file of a given length. If you're prepared to pay $35 each to register the copyright on all of those, knock yourself out. I'll enjoy not paying taxes anymore.
- aes256 14y ago> ...which you recognize by having a copy of that work and specifically matching for it. If I were a copyright lawyer, I'd argue that your algorithm for plucking this value out of the stream of randomness was the infringement. I don't have to recognize it myself. Say I put all the resulting files up for download on an FTP server, and the RIAA stumble across the collection. Within, say, a collection of every possible 30 second long MP3 file encoded at 128kbps, I'd probably be infringing on a few thousand copyrighted works. For each infringement there'd be many, many more 'infringing' files (i.e. every slight variation on a work that a copyright lawyer would deem indistinguishable from the original work) > If you're prepared to pay $35 each to register the copyright on all of those, knock yourself out. I'll enjoy not paying taxes anymore. Apparently you can register copyright for music tracks in bulk. In any case, where I live you don't have to register copyrights.