🔒 Locked

Piracy question

Started by DaWanderer Jul 13, 2004 at 2:02 PM 5 replies 1.1k views

Original Post

Jul 13, 2004 at 2:02 PM

I had an idea the other day that I don't plan to actually implement, but I was curious about the legality of it. Earlier this year, I stopped downloading MP3s and the like after receiving an e-mail from my ISP threatening to shut down my account. It appears as though they would be liable for my piracy and would promply cut my service off to avoid penalties. This has made me curious about the exact laws in place and if there would be a way to get around it. Let's say I had an MP3 on a server. Using a simple algorithm and a numeric key, I "corrupt" the file (like adding 5 to every byte and mod-ing it by 255 where 5 would be the key). Now, on a client machine, I download the "corrupted" data and a separate file containing the key. On the client, I use a program to "uncorrupt" the file (subtract 5 from every byte and mod by 255). During transit, the file was garbage data. Therefore, I would assume that an ISP would not be liable. However, the client machine may. What does everyone think? Please note that I do not endorse piracy; I am simply curious about this.

Spoonbender

Jul 13, 2004 at 2:09 PM

You downloaded mp3's until earlier this year, but you don't endorse piracy? :)

Anyway, only a few days ago, I read about a similar program some people were making. Wish I could remember the name... But anyway, the basic idea was this: You take a copyrighted file, and using this algorithm, "mix" it with another, perfectly harmless file, and get some apparent garbage. Only if you possess the second file, can you extract the copyrighted file.

To me, it sounds like you might as well use ordinary encryption. I'm not sure what the rules are, but I'd imagine that as long as it represents the copyrighted file, it's illegal. WAV is one format, MP3 is another, and MP3-with-5-added-to-each-byte as you suggested, is just a third format. I doubt it will become any more legal for that.

etothex

Jul 13, 2004 at 2:14 PM

I think the ISP would stop it anyway because:

1. You're still transfering the music, although corrupting it first.
2. The legalities are vague. The ISP may not be liable per se, because they have a committment to you to protect your privacy. OTOH, your isp may wish to avoid the fight and simply ask to cease the service. The worst that can happen to an ISP if you keep downloading is they would get subpeonaed and would be forced to give your customer file to the riaa. Often an ISP wants to protect your privacy and their trustworthiness(they keep their records locked down), so they send the letter first.

DaWanderer

Jul 13, 2004 at 2:16 PM

I figured it'd be different from encryption or simply changing the format since it's an unknown format. I remember a Dilbert comic once that illustrated the point. Wally is being chastised for keeping porn on the server, but his argument is "I simply stored harmless 0's and 1's on the server. It was IT's fault to activate those 0's and 1's in such a way as to display those awful images...by the way...can I have my 0's and 1's back?". The point is, of course, that data is meaningless until interpreted. Perhaps using copyrighted material as a starting point could be considered illegal?

ChaoticCanuck

Jul 13, 2004 at 2:50 PM

Quote:
Original post by DaWanderer
I figured it'd be different from encryption or simply changing the format since it's an unknown format. I remember a Dilbert comic once that illustrated the point. Wally is being chastised for keeping porn on the server, but his argument is "I simply stored harmless 0's and 1's on the server. It was IT's fault to activate those 0's and 1's in such a way as to display those awful images...by the way...can I have my 0's and 1's back?". The point is, of course, that data is meaningless until interpreted. Perhaps using copyrighted material as a starting point could be considered illegal?

Using any mechanism to create an illegal duplicate of a copyrighted material regards of the level of knowledge, or ownership of the mechanism is the step which makes the action illegal. You are deliberately committing a specific violation. If you are taking deliberate actions to conceal the infraction you only stengthen the volume of evidence against you; attempting to conceal an illegal act very strongly implies guilt.

acraig

Jul 13, 2004 at 2:56 PM

Quote:
Original post by DaWanderer
Let's say I had an MP3 on a server. Using a simple algorithm and a numeric key, I "corrupt" the file (like adding 5 to every byte and mod-ing it by 255 where 5 would be the key).

Hmm, I'm not a lawyer but this may be considered a 'derivative work'.

Quote:

`derivative work'' is a work based upon one or more pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a `derivative work''.

In this case many restrict the use of derivative works so by just adding 5 to every byte would still be illegal.

=========
Andrew

trzy

Jul 13, 2004 at 3:16 PM

Essentially the same thing is done with certain kinds of encrypted arcade ROMs (Capcom CPS-2.) The decryption algorithm hasn't been worked out but it is possible to extract the unencrypted data by running a trojan program on the original board. A set of XOR mask files complementary to the original encrypted ROMs are distributed (the emulators load both and obtain the decrypted program code) but it's still illegal.

Topic Locked

This topic has been locked by a moderator. New replies are not allowed.