Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Illegal Numbers

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 98 posts

Re: Illegal Numbers

#81

Post by takluyver »

derekp7 wrote: post #29
takluyver wrote: post #10

I'm intrigued by how the law would handle one time pad cryptography in such a case. You could produce two numbers of similar length, each on its own bearing no relationship to the 'illegal' number, but which can be combined to give that number. Then post them separately. Could either of them legally be taken down?

The only way to produce such a pair of numbers is by using the restricted material as a source -- therefore the numbers would be a derivative work. This is already covered under copyright law. Now there is a twist to this concept -- plausible deny-ability. Let's say Bob posts a non-infringing work encrypted with a one time pad (randomly generated), and also posts the one time pad too. Both files would appear to be ra…

I think my case is essentially identical to yours. One of my two numbers (the 'key' of the one time pad) is randomly generated, so it can't be a derivative work. But there's no way of telling which that is.

Re: Illegal Numbers

#82

Post by shasta »

nitrogen wrote: post #79
shasta wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 volun…

Even your use of the phrase "... the legal fiction that bits have color ..." sounds silly to me. Compare that phrase to "... the legal fiction that bicycles have an invisible ownership property ..." to see why. The entirety of the law is about similar fictions.

Re: Illegal Numbers

#83

Post by aes256 »

nathan_long wrote: post #77
aes256 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

> ...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.

Re: Illegal Numbers

#84

Post by derekp7 »

takluyver wrote: post #81
derekp7 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only way to produce such a pair of numbers is by using the restricted material as a source -- therefore the numbers would be a derivative work. This is already covered under copyright law. Now there is a twist to this concept -- plausible deny-ability. Let's say Bob posts a non-infringing work encrypted with a one time pad (randomly generated), and also posts the one time pad too. Both files would appear to be ra…

I think my case is essentially identical to yours. One of my two numbers (the 'key' of the one time pad) is randomly generated, so it can't be a derivative work. But there's no way of telling which that is.

The main difference is that the case I presented, although it may seem to be a stretch, there is a plausible reason for the two random-looking files to be present on one site (or the other). Whereas if each site only had one random-looking file, in neither case was there a plausible reason for that file to be there.

Re: Illegal Numbers

#85

Post by randomdata »

aes256 wrote: post #76
randomdata wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

1) I think that's fair, but legal arguments are not always logical. I'm reminded of the Illegal Numbers topic that was on here in the last day or so.

2) Many times I think people forget what laws were originally intended to resolve and they get updated and twisted throughout the years. Not unlike the drug laws. Who even knows why they are illegal anymore? Especially when so many other drugs with the same social/economic problems are perfectly legal.

Re: Illegal Numbers

#86

Post by nathan_long »

aes256 wrote: post #83
nathan_long wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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'…

> ...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…

>> 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.

Re: Illegal Numbers

#87

Post by zanny »

diminish wrote: post #72
zanny wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Owning information seems weird to me. It is intangible. I am all for property ownership, but not the ownership of ideas.

Re: Illegal Numbers

#88

Post by aes256 »

nathan_long wrote: post #86
aes256 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...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…

>> 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…

Obviously I'd set the random generator up such that it operates within the rules of the mp3 specification and only creates valid mp3 files; I don't think that detracts from the experiment.

Storage space is the only major limitation here. With current computing power I could easily have random mp3 files spat out at an alarming rate, such that it wouldn't take too long (I'm guessing a matter of months) until I managed to produce an infringing file this way.

I could probably speed the process up by teaching the 'random' mp3 generator certain patterns to pursue; fade-ins and fade-outs, repetition, etc. Again, I don't think these detract from the substance of the experiment.

It's kind of like teaching someone to play a sport; you show them the rules of the game, and a bunch of 'patterns' that players tend to adhere to. Eventually, they'll make a sequence of movements, lasting 30 seconds or so, near enough identical to that performed by a famous sports star.

Re: Illegal Numbers

#89

Post by diminish »

zanny wrote: post #87
diminish wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Owning a number seems weird, but the truth is all information can be seen as numbers.

Owning information seems weird to me. It is intangible. I am all for property ownership, but not the ownership of ideas.

When more and more everything is digitized, it seems like pro-property-ownership will mean pro-idea-ownership and vice versa. Finally Nous of Anaxagoras becomes true.

Re: Illegal Numbers

#90

Post by nitrogen »

shasta wrote: post #82
nitrogen wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 volun…

Even your use of the phrase "... the legal fiction that bits have color ..." sounds silly to me. Compare that phrase to "... the legal fiction that bicycles have an invisible ownership property ..." to see why. The entirety of the law is about similar fictions.

The idea that someone owns the part of my brain that has been indelibly imprinted with their copyrighted expression sounds silly to me.

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. -Thomas Jefferson

Ideas are fundamentally different from bicycles. One cannot share a bicycle indefinitely without each user having proportionally less access. One can share bits and ideas. Show me where in silicon the color of a bit is stored. The entire concept of colorful bits is a fabricatiion of the human imagination, not a fundamental property of the universe. The atoms comprising a bicycle, on the other hand, can indeed be under the control of the atoms comprising a human being, to the physical exclusion of others.

Post reply on HN