4 ms·

Apparently 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

by aes256 14y ago

Apparently 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 ago
Let 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 ago
  Okay, 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.
      - nathan_long 14y ago
        >> Say I put all the resulting files up for download on an FTP server 128kilobits per second * 30 seconds = (128 * 1000 * 30) = 3,840,000 bits per file. There are 2 to the 3,840,000 possible combinations of that many bits. Ignoring the fact that many of those won't be valid mp3s, each of those is about a 0.46 megabyte file. I'm guessing you don't have enough hard drive space to put all those mp3s up. :) Assuming you did, the RIAA would have a tough time crawling all that content for infringement. It would make an interesting test for the theory that "linking isn't infringing," since the link would be the only thing distinguishing a song from random noise.

by aes256 14y ago

wmf 14y ago

Let 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 ago
Okay, 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.
    - nathan_long 14y ago
      >> Say I put all the resulting files up for download on an FTP server 128kilobits per second * 30 seconds = (128 * 1000 * 30) = 3,840,000 bits per file. There are 2 to the 3,840,000 possible combinations of that many bits. Ignoring the fact that many of those won't be valid mp3s, each of those is about a 0.46 megabyte file. I'm guessing you don't have enough hard drive space to put all those mp3s up. :) Assuming you did, the RIAA would have a tough time crawling all that content for infringement. It would make an interesting test for the theory that "linking isn't infringing," since the link would be the only thing distinguishing a song from random noise.