Are people trying to say the context in which something happens shouldn't have legal bearing?
People are trying to say that criminalization of the possession of or trafficking in so-called circumvention tools is absurd.
Illegal Numbers
71–80 of 98 posts
Re: Illegal Numbers
#72This is an interesting problem that we, as a society, need to deal with. HN's readership would be predominantly from a tech background with probably a reasonable basis in mathematics and the sciences. As such we can recognize some of the absurdities of the legal system, like how you can't patent a mathematical formula but you can patent software, which is ultimately indistinguishable from a formula in many (if not al…
I just want to mention every movie ever translated to a digital format, every song rendered as an mp3, and every image or sound ever made digital is in effect a very long number in binary form that can be interpreted by decoders to produce copyrighted material. Are all those numbers illegal to distribute, or even copy if you already have an instance of such a number? That is a lot of numbers. Big numbers too.
Owning a number seems weird, but the truth is all information can be seen as numbers.
Re: Illegal Numbers
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the few bits about lawyers not understanding the limitations of metadata weren't the thrust of the article. I do agree that the two viewpoints there aren't opposed, but that point about metadata is not the same as the wrong headed one being made by people using the phrase "illegal number."
The only thing that makes the "illegal number" view wrong headed is a belief that the law as currently on the books has the final say on what is ethically/factually/morally/intellectually right and wrong. I believe you are too hard on those who disagree with you, as you don't seem to acknowledge that those who disagree with the law's desire to stamp a color on everything have valid reasons for their disagreement.
Can you point me to a coherent presentation of the alternative possibility? The only alternatives I see are that either A) there are legally protected (uncolored) numbers, or B) there is no legally protected information at all.
I don't think option A is coherent. In fact most use of the phrase "illegal number" is by people who are attempting a reductio ad absurdum argument against the legal system (but don't understand color). But note that as a practical matter, we do have protected numbers. Good luck convincing a court that you produced an identical text to the last Harry Potter novel through any means other than copying.
Option B, the anarchistic approach, is no doubt consistent but would be a radical change from our present form of copyright.
Re: Illegal Numbers
#74This is an interesting problem that we, as a society, need to deal with. HN's readership would be predominantly from a tech background with probably a reasonable basis in mathematics and the sciences. As such we can recognize some of the absurdities of the legal system, like how you can't patent a mathematical formula but you can patent software, which is ultimately indistinguishable from a formula in many (if not al…
> While I sympathize with these arguments, this isn't how the legal system works. The law doesn't work on absolutely provable certainty. It works on reasonable doubt, intent and (hopefully) facts.
Hah, you still think that the legal system makes an ounce of sense. Read the below, weep, weep again and then ask yourself how you didn't realise that you were living in the dark ages up until now.
http://alwaysfamilycenter.com/2011/08/26/justice-is-blind-an...
But that's just the tip of the iceberg. If you care to know, read up on the reoffending rates of prisoners and the types of systems which have particularly low ones. Look around you at all of the seemingly civilized people who call for blood when their sensibilities are offended strongly enough.
Where we now stand, in this aspect, is not at the heart of civilization but on the very fringe of it - and hardly anyone has noticed the fact. The legal system, just like everything else to do with humanity, is solidly anchored in emotion, not logic.
Re: Illegal Numbers
#75This is an interesting problem that we, as a society, need to deal with. HN's readership would be predominantly from a tech background with probably a reasonable basis in mathematics and the sciences. As such we can recognize some of the absurdities of the legal system, like how you can't patent a mathematical formula but you can patent software, which is ultimately indistinguishable from a formula in many (if not al…
This topic is explored more in GEB[0], with the point made that in general the information exists neither only on storage device, nor in the reading device alone; in fact the information is encoded on both of them together. [0] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_Bach
While people may not grasp this technical point, I think the common-sense reaction conforms to it.
For example, if I started publishing a sequence of all the binary numbers between 0 and (something huge), I don't think anyone would argue that I'm violating copyrights.
But if I added to that data stream a statement like "take the Nth number from this series and feed it through Encoder X and you'll get Movie Y", I'd argue that's both the additional information and the intentionality needed to make it a copyright violation.
Re: Illegal Numbers
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never really understood the child pornography thing. Criminalizing mere possession of such images seems like a roundabout, largely ineffective, and perhaps even counterproductive, way of tackling the real issue; the sexual abuse of children. It blurs the very real and very important distinction between those who are sexually attracted to children and those who will act on that attraction to sexually abuse a chil…
The idea, however misguided, is that the consumption of child pornography creates a market demand. If nobody wants the images, nobody will be compelled to create them in the first place thereby eliminating the actual abuse.
There are two issues with this:
1) The causal link described remains a matter of dispute, with evidence supporting both sides; a plausible argument can be made for the opposite case that wider access to child pornography, and making more 'efficient' use of existing images, could quell demand for the creation of new images, and thus reduce new abuse cases;
2) Legislation prohibiting child pornography often extends its reach beyond cases of serious abuse; in many countries it encompasses 'softcore' images, even semi-nude images if they are sexually suggestive. These kind of images (the kind that you would find on /r/jailbait over on reddit) are often created by the subjects themselves, and one could argue that their creation caused no harm to anyone.
Re: Illegal Numbers
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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 stil…
>> 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.
Re: Illegal Numbers
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fine, replace child pornography with a text file containing your name, birthday, social security number, credit card details, email password and mother's maiden name, the argument is the same.
As lmm says, I don't have any issue with someone possessing that info. Security through obscurity is folly, and it is only as a result of incompetent security procedures that someone could cause harm with these pieces of information.
Could you please post all that info in a reply to this message then please?
Re: Illegal Numbers
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only thing that makes the "illegal number" view wrong headed is a belief that the law as currently on the books has the final say on what is ethically/factually/morally/intellectually right and wrong. I believe you are too hard on those who disagree with you, as you don't seem to acknowledge that those who disagree with the law's desire to stamp a color on everything have valid reasons for their disagreement.
Can you point me to a coherent presentation of the alternative possibility? The only alternatives I see are that either A) there are legally protected (uncolored) numbers, or B) there is no legally protected information at all. I don't think option A is coherent. In fact most use of the phrase "illegal number" is by people who are attempting a reductio ad absurdum argument against the legal system (but don't understa…
It's my understanding from watching the DeCSS fiasco unfold that the "illegal number" phrase was coined to mock the DMCA's criminalization of circumvention tools, and the first illegal numbers described were various representations of DeCSS. I don't think that position is unreasonable or wrong headed at all.
You are right that, when applied to actual copyrighted materials, the only obvious options are A: "We'll voluntarily submit to the legal fiction that bits have color (or at least shades of gray) in the form of copyright law, because we can see some benefit to doing so," and B: "We believe that a society whose rules can be fully justified by concrete logic, evolutionary morality, and the laws of physics is preferable to a society founded upon legal fictions, and abolition of the concept of intellectual property follows from this."
However, I believe a good number of people hold position C: "We believe copyright law has significantly overstepped its useful bounds, and will pretend to hold position B in order to achieve a reasonable compromise."
Re: Illegal Numbers
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
As lmm says, I don't have any issue with someone possessing that info. Security through obscurity is folly, and it is only as a result of incompetent security procedures that someone could cause harm with these pieces of information.
Could you please post all that info in a reply to this message then please?
There is a significant difference between someone else possessing this information, and actively distributing the information myself.
I would prefer not to have people possess the information (because I am beholden to institutions that, unfortunately, rely on security through obscurity and have abysmal security procedures) but I don't support criminal sanctions against people if they do happen to come into possession of it.
The criminal sanctions should only cover abuse of the information. If you possess my credit card information and do nothing with it, then I don't have a problem with that. If you use it to make unauthorized purchases, or use the information to blackmail or harass me, then you should face criminal sanctions for the harm caused by those actions.
Simply possessing the information doesn't cause me any harm.