Slashdot Mirror
Own Your Own 128-Bit Integer
Byte Swapper writes "After all the fuss over the AACS trying to censor a certain 128-bit number that now has something over two million hits on Google, the folks at Freedom to Tinker would like to point out that you too can own your own integer. They've set up a script that will generate a random number, encrypt a copyrighted haiku with it, and then deed the number back to you. You won't get a copyright on the number or the haiku, but your number has become an illegal circumvention device under the DMCA, such that anyone subject to US law caught distributing it can be punished under the DMCA's anti-trafficking section, for which the DMCA's Safe Harbor provisions do not apply. So F9090211749D5BE341D8C5565663C088 is truly mine now, and you can pry it out of my cold, dead fingers!"
If I use your number (F9090211749D5BE341D8C5565663C088) in this reply, I guess slashdot will have to remove my comment if you file a complaint with the DMCA. Go ahead and try it, I'd like to see what happens with my posting of your number F9090211749D5BE341D8C5565663C088. There I said it again! Ha!
Why not create a system where ANY 128bit number can decrypt the haiku. Then you can go after anyone distributing any 128bit number. Say, like using IPv6.
Being a criminal means infringing on someone's rights. Rights are defined as to determine how scarce resources are to be controlled. Information is not a scarce resource, by copying music from someone, I am not invading anyone's property, or if you prefer infringing on anyone's right.
\u262D = \u5350
Making fun of the RIAA and the DMCA to justify pirating music. You are all criminals.
First off, we're talking about DVD's and movies, not music.
Secondly then if you want to live in a world where a corporation has the power to determine IF you are allowed to watch a movie you purchased, how many times, and on what equipment - then so be it. Most of us resent the very thought, much less this feeble and poorly thought out attempt at implementation.
Thirdly, copyright infringement has only recently been made a "crime", in the US. In many other countries it's a civil matter. You know, I have never driven under the speed limit - mostly I have driven 15 to 20% over. Should I go to jail for that, too?
I go to movies. I pay to go to the movies. Why do I have to sit through a 5 minute sermon on how evil piracy is when I paid to get there? Then again, when I buy a DVD, why the hell should I be FORCED to watch trailers and nowadays even ads? So I rip it, and get my right of choice back.
While this code can be used to rip things and publish them on the internet, it's useful to me mostly to be able to see the movies I bought in the format I want. Call me a criminal if you will. I will call you a mindless consumer. Take what you're given and shut up. Leave those of us who want to DO something about the situation alone - when the REAL information revolution happens you'll have us to thank.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Why wouldn't you just use the text of the DMCA itself as the key? Then the government can't publish it!
Pasting the text of this page into a word processor, I learn that it is 177,926 characters long, with spaces. That's a 1,423,408-bit key.
Better get started.
For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
This has been done before with the DeCSS algorithm, for the express purpose of proving that it's stupid to restrict it's distribution as, supposedly, you can't prevent a prime number with interesting property to be published in press.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Information may not be a scarce resource, but good music is. The number of good songs in the world is (from the perspective of most people) much smaller than the number of bad songs. So someone who writes a good song thus has ownership rights to something that could reasonably be considered a scarce resource, and as such, by copying music from someone, you are indeed infringing upon the songwriter's right (by your definition, at least).
You can turn your own, personal 128 bits into an image here: http://robots.org.uk/itii/
Even better, make it illegal for anyone to write "Advanced Access Content System"!
----
The ASCII string "Advanced Access Content System" can be represented as a sequence of bytes.
Those bytes represent the integer:
115575102057
That number, in hex, is:
1A E8 D0 1A 69
That number, padded appropriately, is
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 1A E8 D0 1A 69
Now I've used "00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 1A E8 D0 1A 69" as a key. They must remove the name of their own product from all of their documentation and legal notices or else it constitutes a violation of my rights under the DMCA!
If anyone wants to take up my case for me, feel free.
--Darien Hager
I never thought there would *actually* be a campaign to use up all the GUIDs.
Why encrypt? US courts ruled in the Adobe case that Rot13 was a form of copy protection. Just do a diff between the "protected" text and the DMCA, and you're all set.
The ______ Agenda
Google seriously overestimates the number of results it returns.
For example, on page 1:
Results 1 - 10 of about 417,000 for 5D 09 7F B4 60 B8 FB BD D0 2B 6A A3 F2 F6 AB CA
But clicking to the end:
This isn't as obvious in other queries when the engine won't let you go past 1000 results, but in queries such as this, it's very telling.Results 471 - 473 of 473 for 5D 09 7F B4 60 B8 FB BD D0 2B 6A A3 F2 F6 AB CA
Actually, let's say it's not rot13, but rather, rot128 -- that is, every byte xor'd against 0x80. (I think, I'm a little fuzzy on binary and hex now.) That should make it nice and universal, symmetric, and something easy enough for everyone to know.
.rot13 extension -- so you're not really revealing your key, but everyone knows what you mean -- and distribute it via P2P.
For safety's sake, the following should be done on an encrypted partition, and you should still shred the files afterwards.
Go take your favorite movie (DVD is easy, but high def if you can), rip it -- doesn't matter much how, raw bits would be especially insulting, but re-encode if you like. Take your shiny new DVD rip, add a note saying "Enjoy! And if anyone from the MPAA is reading, HOW DO YOU LIKE YOUR DMCA NOW, YOU CUNTS? IT'S ILLEGAL TO READ THIS, I'LL SEE YOU IN COURT!!"
Zip/rar it all up, so it's one file, to make it simple, and run that one file through rot0x80. Save the shiny new crypted file on your hard drive somewhere, maybe give it a
Now, if everyone takes equal care when playing the movie -- and I imagine we could add rot0x80 support to mplayer/vlc, if you only did it on the media file itself -- then while I am not a laywer, I don't see how they could legally get any kind of conviction against you. Simply don't put the "key" in the players, and require the person to input it every time they play -- then, you can claim you didn't know (since the file was legal to redistribute, just not legal to open), and if they accuse you of piracy, you can immediately turn it around and accuse them of DMCA violations.
Not really an original idea, mind you. I can't point to the person who first used it to encrypt The Number, thus making it illegal for the MPAA to stop its spread. But the point here is, legally, I don't see a way out of this unless they subpeona (which is why all the disk encryption), and you can get around that easily enough -- simply use a temporary partition/filesystem, and throw away the key when you're done with that particular disc. In fact, leave the machine on and generate a random number, so you can truthfully say that you never did know the key, meaning they have absolutely no evidence you did something wrong, except the glaringly obvious bit that they're not allowed to use.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
No, the purpose of copyright law in the United States is explicitly stated in the Constitution: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries..." It's to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. The DMCA definitely does not do this, and thus isn't Constitutional to begin with. Notice also the "limited times" provision. It's definitely not ownership if it just evaporates after a certain time. Furthermore, you can argue you own the copyright, but even then, you don't own the data and you don't own the content. You merely "own" a partial ability to dictate when others can copy it. If you owned it, you'd be able to take it away from them after they copied it, etc. That's not how copyright law is supposed to work.
That said, some people, such as the RIAA and friends, do seem to view data ownership as the purpose of copyright law. They're just wrong from both a moral and Constitutional basis.
--sabre86