Hacker News Reader

Comment by ComputerGuru | Hacker News Reader

It poses the following question as its defense: if a file is broken down into blocks and a single block is used to recompose two or more different files but is itself unique from any of the actual components of either of the two files, then no one can claim copyright to it.

I don’t think that works the way they think it does, though. Just imagine analog data instead of digital, and take two copyrighted works, break them down into blocks, mix them together with some randomizers, and what do you get? A work derived from multiple copyrighted sources. No one needs to “own” the entirety of the source, if any part of it is derived from copyrighted materials in a way that isn’t exempted via eg fair use, then the entirety of the resulting work is in violation and is fair game for lawsuits, etc.

Simply moving this to the digital domain from analog doesn’t change the logic, does it?

View on HN

A simple example may be dubbing two songs on top of each other. Then you can subtract one of the songs to recover the other. Obviously the double-song is a derivative work of both.

The point is that using their algorithm, you can't prove that a block of data is derived from an existing work.

This. Any block of data can be used to reconstruct anything on the network.

Doesn't matter. At the end of the day, you used a key with intent to decrypt such data and extract the original work.

Courts don't operate on technicalities. The intent is pretty much all that matters, as long as you prove that someone intended to pirate stuff, doesn't matter what rube goldberg machine they use to actually pull it off.

Schemes like this have been tried since the 1800s, perhaps far longer, where someone smugly announces "well technically I didn't defraud them, your honor" and gets sent straight into prison.

> Courts don't operate on technicalities. The intent is pretty much all that matters, as long as you prove that someone intended to pirate stuff, doesn't matter what rube goldberg machine they use to actually pull it off.

You are absolutely right.

This is what enabled prosecuting the founders of the pirate bay, among other things.

The fact that files are hosted elsewhere, mangled, encrypted, cut in pieces is entirely irrelevant to the court.

Hoping that a technicality gets you off the hook is exercise in shortsightedness.

The point is that courts can't prove anything based on the information they get from the network.

This is in contrast to e.g. bittorrent where every seeder is in direct violation and provably so.

The same thing that takes down bittorrent users will take down this too: the network log of you typing "Pink Floyd" into OFFsystem's search bar.

This is technobabble theater by people who do not understand law nor courts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com