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

91–98 of 98 posts

Re: Illegal Numbers

#91

Post by Dylan16807 »

wmf wrote: post #47
harshreality wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The initial example presents the same which-part-is-infringing conundrum as the more convoluted example you presented. - restricted material is X - generate Y randomly (using a typical cryptographically secure RNG or PRNG, zero-bias, with an entropy source unlikely to be observed by anyone else) - Z = X xor Y There is no way to prove that it wasn't Z generated randomly, with Y = X xor Z. It's clear that the only way…

That just encourages the powers that be to take a "shoot 'em both and let God sort it out" approach. Also, the metadata that says Z = X xor Y will be seen as infringing.

I doubt that metadata will be infringing. It doesn't have any real information content.

Re: Illegal Numbers

#92

Post by Dylan16807 »

randomdata wrote: post #67
Evbn wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Give us an actual example of b and c that are created without knowledge of a, and you may have case. But information theory says it is unlikely, if a is deeply original and not derivative of something like b and c to begin with.

If (b) and (c) can be considered derivative works, then should a low-bit hash of (a) not also be considered a derivative? If a given hashing algorithm says the hash of Metallica's latest hit is 42, have I just broken the law by posting this?

It's not just a yes/no on derivation, the amount of information present in the derivative data matters. If you hashed every 32 bits individually then you would be infringing, but one hash for the whole thing is fine.

Re: Illegal Numbers

#93

Post by Dylan16807 »

aes256 wrote: post #88
nathan_long wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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…

All you've done here is take the 'hidden in pi' argument and customized it. If you are only making a sample of random mp3s you have a statistically zero chance of infringing on anything. If you make a thorough set of X-length mp3s then the actual infringement is in the url, because a datastore that has every number is equivalent to one that has no numbers--it's really just an encryption algorithm between url data and mp3 data.

Re: Illegal Numbers

#94

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: Illegal Numbers

#95

Post by shasta »

nitrogen wrote: post #90
shasta wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 poss…

Ownership of a bicycle isn't about physically controlling the bicycle. It's about the path of the bicycle through space-time, which is exactly how color operates -- it tracks the flow of information through space-time. There is no physical aspect of a bicycle that controls ownership. It's color, just like with bits.

I'm sure we both understand well enough the trade-offs that society makes in granting copyrights. Reasonable people have differing opinions, but these trade-offs existed long before computers, which have only shifted the balance of the bargain. The fact that bits encode information as numbers is irrelevant to the discussion.

Re: Illegal Numbers

#96

Post by chii »

lmm wrote: post #60
Leszek wrote: post #54

Earlier 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.

There would be no crime in possessing such a file, nor should there be. It would and should be criminal to use it to impersonate me, or to access my emails without permission.

> There would be no crime in possessing such a file, nor should there be.

exactly. There should be no crime in mere possession of information. It may be a crime to use that information in ways you are not allowed - for example, the above file of personal information, if copied off my machine by somebody who i didn't authorize, and then that person used it to do something, i have grounds (and the state has grounds) to pursue criminal activity.

Now swap that with any information that is deemed "illegal" in society these days, and the same arguments should apply.

Re: Illegal Numbers

#97

Post by nitrogen »

shasta wrote: post #95
nitrogen wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 poss…

Ownership of a bicycle isn't about physically controlling the bicycle. It's about the path of the bicycle through space-time, which is exactly how color operates -- it tracks the flow of information through space-time. There is no physical aspect of a bicycle that controls ownership. It's color, just like with bits. I'm sure we both understand well enough the trade-offs that society makes in granting copyrights. Reas…

The important distinction is scarcity. All of our intuitive concepts of ownership depend on it, and bits don't have it.

Re: Illegal Numbers

#98

Post by nathan_long »

aes256 wrote: post #88
nathan_long wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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…

OK, I got a little help for my sorry math skills. http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/225155/how-can-i-qua...

According to Ross Millikan over there, the number of possible 3,840,000-bit files is a number with more than a million zeros. The number of atoms on the universe is only around 10 to the 80. So if you could use the entire universe as your hard drive, storing a bit on every atom, you'd need many, many universes to store those files.

You're going to have to use some serious algorithmic bias to get mp3s, much more bias to get non-static, much more to get anything resembling music and containing any English words, etc etc.

Bluntly, you won't get copyrighted works ever unless you're specifically targeting them, for any reasonable value of ever. It's theoretically possible only in the sense that it's possible for someone's DNA to spontaneously appear at a crime scene.

This is why the "songs are just numbers" argument is misguided. Yes, they can be represented as numbers. But you'd never discover them that way.

Post reply on HN