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

Illegal Prime Numbers

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–109 of 109 posts

Re: Illegal Prime Numbers

#101

Post by lovelyviking »

lupire wrote: post #61
lovelyviking wrote: post #44

>it describes a computer program that bypasses the digital rights management scheme used on DVDs. Hiding number is not a proper way to address the issue. We should address the core of it - drm which should be made illegal. What is strange for me is that making digital rights management program that does who knows what and thus breaks any privacy by definition is not illegal but some number that merely describes a com…

Why should is be illegal for consenting adults to agree to use software to manage an agreement? No one is forcing you to use DRM. Ethereum is also DRM.

1. Because when you buy let's say some ice cream you do not expect and it should not imply that you give a right to the seller to visit your house whenever you take a bite or whenever he wants. The same reason. If person wish to watch some dumb movie his privacy should not be compromised.

2. Because once you allow such things then soon any seller would feel safe to add any degree of tracking/ breaking privacy to any product... Oh wait,isn't it what is happening these days?

3. If you do not understand the value of privacy for the democracy then perhaps selling kidney when you buy ice cream example would work for you. Even if it is written between the lines it should be illegal, isn't it ?

Re: Illegal Prime Numbers

#102

Post by lovelyviking »

comboy wrote: post #47
lovelyviking wrote: post #44

>it describes a computer program that bypasses the digital rights management scheme used on DVDs. Hiding number is not a proper way to address the issue. We should address the core of it - drm which should be made illegal. What is strange for me is that making digital rights management program that does who knows what and thus breaks any privacy by definition is not illegal but some number that merely describes a com…

Obviously. But the issue is not that simple. Do you think any kind of information should be protected by law? Because I can think of a few examples. Actually, I believe we are going towards information being the thing that has value, we should arrive there, assuming abundance (on a human scale of course, energy is still required to sustain any patterns), material goods being just things that can be copied. So where d…

>But the issue is not that simple.

I think actually it is very simple. Obviously when you wish to watch some movie your privacy should not be compromised to the end of your life or the life of your computer. It's too much to demand from customer.

Just like when you buy an ice cream you do not expect that seller will be granted rights to visit your home whenever he wants from now on. Very simple. No DRM no problem.

If seller sells movies he should not install DRM to the customer nor demand it nor imply it. Because in attempt to control things that are impossible to control one can endanger much more important things which can lead to loosing rights, freedom and democracy and those are much more serious problems then some additional copies of some stupid movies which cannot be prevented anyway.

Re: Illegal Prime Numbers

#103

Post by dane-pgp »

comboy wrote: post #99
dane-pgp wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So where do you draw the line? A reasonable suggestion would be to draw the line around private data. By design, DRM is intended to restrict people's use of data which the publisher wants to spread as widely as possible (on the condition that they are paid for every copy). This data is therefore not private in any sense. All your other examples work with this line: Private keys are obviously private; internal compa…

It somewhat pushes the answer into "private" definition but it does sound good. But then, if a company implements DRM using its private key and somebody steals that private key?

Well, I think that protecting "private" data should be the default but there would be exceptions (because reality is complicated, and so is the law).

For example, I don't think that all information created by a government should be given the same protections as information about individual humans, which is why we have Freedom of Information laws. I would even go so far as to say that this principle should apply to corporations, at least for information that is no longer commercially relevant.

We already have "public interest" exceptions for things like reporters exposing the private lives of politicians, and that sort of careful consideration also has to be applied to requests invoking "the right to be forgotten".

Anyway, even if a society didn't make DRM systems illegal outright, it could accept a legal judgement that "private keys" which are distributed to end user devices are not to be considered private. As a practical matter, though, if your DRM system relies on the secrecy of a key that can fit in a QR code, then you shouldn't expect the law to put that genie back in the bottle for you.

Re: Illegal Prime Numbers

#104

Post by kryogen1c »

redwall_hp wrote: post #84
snappieT wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you take copyrighted material and put it on a daycare mural, then you _intended_ to put copyrighted material on a daycare mural. It is not about intent to damage, it's just pure intent.

They intended to make referential work to characters in our modern common culture/mythology, as people have done since time immemorial. Some rent-seekers merely think they get to own ideas now.

> Some rent-seekers merely think they get to own ideas now.

are you quite serious? Disney doesn't think they own coming of age tales or intrepid children feeling out of place. Disney thinks they own the things they paid to create during the operation of their business.

the daycares Aren't making up their own stories, theyre directly benefiting by using Disney's products without licence or permission. this is the exact opposite of seeking.

Re: Illegal Prime Numbers

#105

Post by sullyj3 »

redwall_hp wrote: post #84
snappieT wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you take copyrighted material and put it on a daycare mural, then you _intended_ to put copyrighted material on a daycare mural. It is not about intent to damage, it's just pure intent.

They intended to make referential work to characters in our modern common culture/mythology, as people have done since time immemorial. Some rent-seekers merely think they get to own ideas now.

Copyright may or may not be a good idea, but arguing its merits isn't relevant to the question of its current legality.

Re: Illegal Prime Numbers

#106

Post by feanaro »

kryogen1c wrote: post #104
redwall_hp wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They intended to make referential work to characters in our modern common culture/mythology, as people have done since time immemorial. Some rent-seekers merely think they get to own ideas now.

> Some rent-seekers merely think they get to own ideas now. are you quite serious? Disney doesn't think they own coming of age tales or intrepid children feeling out of place. Disney thinks they own the things they paid to create during the operation of their business. the daycares Aren't making up their own stories, theyre directly benefiting by using Disney's products without licence or permission. this is the exac…

The point is Disney shouldn't really be able to "own" the image of Mickey Mouse for over a hundred years just because they paid for the creation of some initial image.

Re: Illegal Prime Numbers

#107

Post by feanaro »

teddyh wrote: post #9
feanaro wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would the concept of colour be used practically in this case? Am I allowed to mention the prime number or am I not?

It depends of the color of the number. If the color is that of a simple prime number, which you mention purely for its characteristics as a number, then you would theoretically be allowed. Otherwise not.

Let's assume my intent for publishing the paper was clean and I was not attempting to subvert colour. What happens if word spreads around on the internet that the prime number in my paper is actually the illegal DeCSS prime number, making it into an efficient avenue of its dissemination and distribution?

Is my paper going to get censored or not?

Re: Illegal Prime Numbers

#108

Post by drdeca »

drdeca wrote: post #96
lostcolony wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're saying is that action = intent. Meaning intent is immaterial; the action is proof of intent. I.e., the opposite of caring about intent. To prove intent you'd have to prove the daycare knew the works were copyrighted (i.e., the distinction between public domain Snow White, and Disney's Snow White), knew the copyright law sufficiently to know this was infringing (i.e., painting on the interior of a daycare…

This isn't the intent being referred to. They aren't referring to "intent to violate copyright law". If your intent is to comment on Shakespeare, and it happens that what you produced, when run through some process, produces something under copyright, but the thing you intended to express doesn't, I don't think that would violate copyright law? Or at least, no one would convict you.

Also, my understanding is that if you can prove that your creation of something was independent of someone else’s creation of the same thing, it isn’t a copyright violation?

Re: Illegal Prime Numbers

#109

Post by teddyh »

feanaro wrote: post #107
teddyh wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends of the color of the number. If the color is that of a simple prime number, which you mention purely for its characteristics as a number, then you would theoretically be allowed. Otherwise not.

Let's assume my intent for publishing the paper was clean and I was not attempting to subvert colour. What happens if word spreads around on the internet that the prime number in my paper is actually the illegal DeCSS prime number, making it into an efficient avenue of its dissemination and distribution? Is my paper going to get censored or not?

> Is my paper going to get censored […]?

No, but that is not a problem, since that will never happen. There are too many prime numbers for you to accidentally stumble upon that prime number while doing something else. The theoretical possibility that you might is not a problem for the law, which only concerns itself with problems which occurs in practice.

Post reply on HN