I'll assume that you aren't a communist moron, merely you just don't know how to think for yourself. All of your examples have one thing in common. The copyright holders voluntarily witheld their own works. Whether it is because the fear of lawsuit, the fact that the orignial author sold the rights to someone else, or the author never had the right to publication in the first place, none of the actors in your story were censored by anyone but themselves.
The DMCA is a bad law, I agree. Professor Felten could have faced criminal charges under the DMCA, but there is nothing that would have prevented him from publishing the paper anonymously is there? The first ammendment does not protect you from the consequences of your speech, it only protects you from a priori censorship; so sayeth the Supreme Court.
Censorship is not about people being able to sell books or publish papers, censorship is about preventing ideas from being shared. This is not the case in any of your examples.
I couldn't find "privish" in any of the dictionaries I tried, but I assume it means "available at Amazon.com" since that's where I found the book you refered too. Here: a link I assume if you are against copyright you are against Patents too, so you'll probably want to get it from Barnes and Noble. Maybe you couldn't find it because the authors name is "Gerald" not "Gerard".
Maybe you should reread my post. I didn't make any claims about the history of copyright.
This kind of copyright never existed in the USA, because by the time the USA came into existance copyright in Britain had been changed. It was this later version which was written into the US constitution.
The post I was replying to asserted that copyright is being used as a form of censorship TODAY.
Assuming "this country" is the USA then copyright registration existed up until the 1970's, IIRC.
Registration still exists, it just isn't and has never been "required".
Registration is only a requirement for certain types of enforcement actions. If you are claiming there was once a law in the United States that made it a requirement that all publications be registered please furnish a source.
Your argument about criticism is just blatanly stupid: 1. You can still extract a clip from a tape and comment on it. You can even play a clip from a DVD and comment on it. You can film yourself watching the DVD and commenting the whole way through. Etc, etc. 2. Fair use is an exception to the exclusive rights of the copyright holder. It does not grant you any specfic rights other than the protection from the charge of Copyright Infringement.
I acknowledge in my previous post that the DMCA goes too far in the regulation of tools and behavior that CAN be used for infringement. I am still wondering how copyright can be used for censorship. Other than me "censoring" your ability to copy my work, which isn't censorship at all.
In other words, copyright was designed from the beginning to do exactly what it is becoming most famous for doing today: facilitate censorship.
Please explain how the hell copyright has anything to do with censorship? You have never been required to register copyrights in this country, so tracking down anonymous authors is out. Copyright certainly doesn't prohibit you from expressing unpopular views in your own words. Copyright only prevents you from making use in various ways of other people's creative works. The DMCA may go too far in the extention on contributory infringement, but WHAT DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH CENSORSHIP?
Not according to Apple, "Some computers, such as the iMac (Flat Panel), Power Mac G4 Cube, and certain models of Power Mac G4 (QuickSilver or later), may not have a user-accessible eject hole."
They may have an eject hole, but it isn't accesible. There are however other ways of removing the disk.
If the artist had contracted with a sign company to produce the sign and had put it up himself, it would not be art.
According to the article the "artist" makes signs for a living.
If a sign maker makes a sign and installs it himself is it art? What makes it art, the fact that he trespassed to do it, or the fact that he filmed it?
If he had done the same thing under contract with Caltran no one would call it art.
Hey Asshole. You just agreed with him. he said "There is no direct way to be removed from SPEWS."
And your quoting from the SPEWS FAQ confirms that to be correct.
Then you said, "So sort your spam problem, then post in nane once its sorted. Until then, don't expect a lot of us to accept your crap." But he already told you he doesn't SPAM. The problem is that SPEWS has blocked his entire country because they operate on the theory of putting a bunch of people in the same boat as the spammers with the (completely misguided) hope that someone else will then take care of the spammers.
This guy works for a company that can't send mail to anyone on an ISP that uses SPEWS, and yet he has no probelm with SPEWS. He just wants them to stop blocking his non-spamming netblock.
You seem to be under the impression that only spam originating netblocks are blocked by SPEWS. Consider your delusion to be corrected.
50% to the copyright holder; 45% featured artist share directly to a designated payee (artist, management company, etc.). 2.5% to AFM for non-featured musicians; and 2.5% to AFTRA for non-featured vocalists.
Somebody pays your bills. Is it the school? Contributions from the community? Wherever your money comes from you will have to get more. It's pretty simple. You want to provide an additional service, that service will have costs associated with it. This is one of those costs. Since you are non-commercial and simulcast over the Internet it would cost you $.0002 per song per listener, sorry, but that doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
I imagine a college radio station doesn't have any extreme amount of listeners, and you probably aren't playing music 24 hours a day either. You could potentionally only have to pay the $500 a year minumum.
How about an excercise for the/. crowd. Can you caluculate roughly what this licensing would actually cost your particular station? I would be surprised if you come up with more than $1,000 a year.
I don't know what math you are using, but based on my numbers a 24 hour a day listener (or three 8hour/day listeners) would cost the station $123.65/year (.0014*10*24*365)
Where exactly is that money supposed to come from?
If it's public radio that money might come from donations and/or grants, but then you'd fall under "non-commercial" and the fees would be reduced by about two thirds.
If it's commercial radio then the money comes from advertisers or subscriptions.
My example used 20min/hour of commercial loading. lets cut that in half to two 5 minute commercial breaks each hour. That's 20 30sec spots every hour. Even if you only charge $5/spot that's $100 every hour, $2,400 a day and $876,000 a year. Want more profit? You should be able to raise the ad rates if you really have that many listeners, or increase the commercial loading.
If you listen only 20 minutes a day (which would be considred good in the real radio world) you cost the staion $2.56/YEAR. That's assuming you hear 5 songs and no commercials in that 20 minutes.
I know you want this to look like the RIAA sounding the death knell for Internet radio, but the procalimers of doom need to start using some numbers that make sense.
1. These fees are for commercial broadcasters. Non-commercial broadcasters pay significantly lower fees.
2. If your favorite radio station has 5000 listeners on average 24 hours a day (which I highly doubt). They should be able to come up with $400,000 a year no problem.
A radio station with 5000 listeners shoiuld be able to charge at least $25/30sec spot, so some math for you: ($25)(40ads/hr)=$1000/hr ($1000)(24hrs)=$24 ,000/day ($24,000)(365)=$8,760,000/yr
If your radio station doesn't care about making a profit because it's a "labor of love" they could reduce the number of commericals and/or lower the ad rates.
3. If your radio station goes to a subscription model, 20,000 people paying $20 a year would cover the entire bill with zero commercials. A radio station with 5,000 people always tuned in must have at least 20,000 total listeners.
4. The original proposal by the CARP was a % of gross revenue, but the broadcaster rejected it. It was only after the deadline for coments had passed that they submitted their own % plan.
5. The only place I have found reference to retroactive payments was here on/. It would be ludicrious to implement and probably wouldn't stand up in court anyway. You can't retroactive keep records on listenership either, so what's to stop the stations from say, "We've been broadcasting for the last 3 years, but no one was listening."
Sorry, the math just doesn't ad up to these stations going out of busisness. Either the broadcasters are over estimating the number of listeners, underestimating possible revenues or both.
You are correct. However the broadcasters are blowing this way out of proportion? Does Wolf really have 5,000 active listeners 24 hours a day? If they do then a $500,000 bill at the end of the year shouldn't kill them. If this fee puts webcasters out of business it's not because CARP killed them, it they aren't making $.0014 per listener per song they are already dead and they just don't know it yet.
Would it be more fair if Internet radio stations payed ASCAP and BMI compulsory license fees based on market size? These guys have been getting a free ride for so long that now they believe they are entitled to it!
You pay ASCAP and BMI rates based on listenership in your broadcast area right? Would you be willing to include the population of the Internet in this calculation? Why not? Why not jack up the rate card for your advertisers $.05 to pay the cost of reaching a larger audience? Isn't it worth it for them?
Apparantly the royalties are actually.14cents, that's 14 hundreths of a cent each time a song is played. An Internet only radio station playing 87,600 songs a year would only have to pay the minimum $500 licensing fee.
I'm a little bit confused what everyone is bitching about.
Tha actual rates are here. A commercial Internet only radio station would pay $.14 (the site actually says.14cents, but I assume they mean 14 cents) Wolf would have to play 3,571,429 songs to owe $500,000 That's 408 songs every hour for a year.
If a commercial Internet only station plays 10 songs an hour (average 4 minute songs 10 minutes of commercials each half hour) and broadcasts 24 hours a day 365 days a year they would play 87,600 songs a year. Their licensing bill would be a _whopping_ $12,264. A non-commercial station broadcasting 8 hours a day would pay $2,190. That seems quite fair to me.
Simulcast stations pay less because they are already paying licensing fees on their broadcasts.
The fact that "everybody knows" that whatever the lottery funds (usually schools) gets it's "normal" budget cut (which came from tax revenues) makes it a tax.
No it really doesn't.
A lottery like the state run ones is something that it is illegal for private organizations to do. A special legal exception had to be made, the most common justification for this is to fund schools.
Talk about your sweeping and incorrect generalizations. Do you realize that in some places gambling an lotteries are legal? Ever been to Nevada? Atlantic city?
Our entire income tax system is based on this concept. I would counter -- It's ok to take the same amount of money from people below the poverty line as from a multimillionaire? of course it's not.
Our entire income tax system is wrong. The current system is based on the premise that it is OK to tkae my moeny at gunpoint and give it to someone else. Is that fair? Of course not. And those below the poverty line do not pay taxes, they do however get checks from the government. Where are you under the impression that money comes from?
Kinda like winner-takes-all in electoral votes, just dumb in hindsight
Only someone who voted for Gore in the last election, and puts way too much stock in what they see on CNN thinks the Electoral College is a bad idea. The people who actually understand pretty much agree we'd be screwed without it.
Lottery revenue in some states is earmarked for education. On the face of it, this is an effective idea: tax stupid people to fund education to make more smart people. Unfortunately, in practice this tends to make the legeslatures allocate correspondingly less from the general fund to education.
So what you are saying is that "Education" gets as much money as they always got, but instead of coming out of my always climbing property taxes, it's being funding by a completely voluntary "game" that gives ordinary people the real chance to win hundreds of millions of dollars.
At least, with socialism, the State takes care of the charities and everyone gets his share, fashionable or not.
You should really read a history book. In a Socialist society non-productive members are worthless to the state. In the practical sense worthless==dead.
Socialist state taking care of the charities? Is that what you call "euthanising" retarded children and old people? Cancer patients and homeless people are "taken care of" alright, just not the way they might choose -- if they had a choice that is. What, you're upset about the 60% of your salary going to the (conpletely uncorrupt and non-wasteful) government and you don't want to work anymore? They have a special place for lazy ass wealfare addicts like you, its called Siberia.
And greed? Forget about it. The state will make sure you don't have anything your neighbor doesn't, so what incentive do you have to work hard or save? Remove the association of individual acheivement and reward and you start down the spiral of complete economic collapse. USSR anyone?
Amazon does not sell used books. Amazon acts as a middle man for the "Marketplace Sellers" who do sell used and new books. Amazon gets a 15% fee on the sale of these books. Since the individual seller sets the price on these items, Amazon has no control over the "markup". The Authors Guild is upset that Amazon is listing these books for sale on the pages with the new books.
The law was passed to stop the NRAs and EPAs from dropping exspensive, sometimes decietful ads right before the election when no one can do anything about them.
You seem to be misinformed. The NRA is one group that will not be affected by the recent unconstitutional law. You see, regardless of what your have been told the NRA doesn't spend member's dues or corporate donations on these kinds of things. The NRA does have a special fund for political action, but the monies are kept seperate, and therefore won't be affected by this legislation.
Nice troll Bork. While one of the defendants was indeed a Candian citizen he was an executive of a US company living in PA. Also, of the 20 counts he was convicted of only 7 of the counts covered activities he did while in Canada. Perhaps you should read the article again?
This gets back to the problem of a new pad having to be exchanged for *every* transaction. Where- if that's possible, then you must already have some secure means of communication and don't need to encrypt anything in the first place.
If I am a spy we can exchange the pad before I leave spy headquarters and then use it to transmit secret messages while I am in the field.
Please explain how you use a one-way hash to send large amounts of data. My understanding of one-way hash functions is they are usefull for comparing information like passwords or digital signatures, but not encryption. If you hash a message and send it to me, I can't un-hash it (because it's a one-way hash) I'd have to guess what the data was and then hash my guess to see if I was right.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll assume that you aren't a communist moron, merely you just don't know how to think for yourself. All of your examples have one thing in common. The copyright holders voluntarily witheld their own works. Whether it is because the fear of lawsuit, the fact that the orignial author sold the rights to someone else, or the author never had the right to publication in the first place, none of the actors in your story were censored by anyone but themselves.
The DMCA is a bad law, I agree. Professor Felten could have faced criminal charges under the DMCA, but there is nothing that would have prevented him from publishing the paper anonymously is there? The first ammendment does not protect you from the consequences of your speech, it only protects you from a priori censorship; so sayeth the Supreme Court.
Censorship is not about people being able to sell books or publish papers, censorship is about preventing ideas from being shared. This is not the case in any of your examples.
I couldn't find "privish" in any of the dictionaries I tried, but I assume it means "available at Amazon.com" since that's where I found the book you refered too.
Here: a link I assume if you are against copyright you are against Patents too, so you'll probably want to get it from Barnes and Noble. Maybe you couldn't find it because the authors name is "Gerald" not "Gerard".
Maybe you should reread my post. I didn't make any claims about the history of copyright.
This kind of copyright never existed in the USA, because by the time the USA came into existance copyright in Britain had been changed. It was this later version which was written into the US constitution.
The post I was replying to asserted that copyright is being used as a form of censorship TODAY.
Assuming "this country" is the USA then copyright registration existed up until the 1970's, IIRC.
Registration still exists, it just isn't and has never been "required".
Registration is only a requirement for certain types of enforcement actions. If you are claiming there was once a law in the United States that made it a requirement that all publications be registered please furnish a source.
Your argument about criticism is just blatanly stupid:
1. You can still extract a clip from a tape and comment on it. You can even play a clip from a DVD and comment on it. You can film yourself watching the DVD and commenting the whole way through. Etc, etc.
2. Fair use is an exception to the exclusive rights of the copyright holder. It does not grant you any specfic rights other than the protection from the charge of Copyright Infringement.
I acknowledge in my previous post that the DMCA goes too far in the regulation of tools and behavior that CAN be used for infringement. I am still wondering how copyright can be used for censorship. Other than me "censoring" your ability to copy my work, which isn't censorship at all.
In other words, copyright was designed from the beginning to do exactly what it is becoming most famous for doing today: facilitate censorship.
Please explain how the hell copyright has anything to do with censorship? You have never been required to register copyrights in this country, so tracking down anonymous authors is out. Copyright certainly doesn't prohibit you from expressing unpopular views in your own words. Copyright only prevents you from making use in various ways of other people's creative works. The DMCA may go too far in the extention on contributory infringement, but WHAT DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH CENSORSHIP?
Not according to Apple, "Some computers, such as the iMac (Flat Panel), Power Mac G4 Cube, and certain models of Power Mac G4 (QuickSilver or later), may not have a user-accessible eject hole."
They may have an eject hole, but it isn't accesible. There are however other ways of removing the disk.
There's no need for the "+" in your Google search. Google always returns results with all of the terms (except for "simple words")
If the artist had contracted with a sign company to produce the sign and had put it up himself, it would not be art.
According to the article the "artist" makes signs for a living.
If a sign maker makes a sign and installs it himself is it art? What makes it art, the fact that he trespassed to do it, or the fact that he filmed it?
If he had done the same thing under contract with Caltran no one would call it art.
Hey Asshole. You just agreed with him. he said "There is no direct way to be removed from SPEWS."
And your quoting from the SPEWS FAQ confirms that to be correct.
Then you said, "So sort your spam problem, then post in nane once its sorted. Until then, don't expect a lot of us to accept your crap." But he already told you he doesn't SPAM. The problem is that SPEWS has blocked his entire country because they operate on the theory of putting a bunch of people in the same boat as the spammers with the (completely misguided) hope that someone else will then take care of the spammers.
This guy works for a company that can't send mail to anyone on an ISP that uses SPEWS, and yet he has no probelm with SPEWS. He just wants them to stop blocking his non-spamming netblock.
You seem to be under the impression that only spam originating netblocks are blocked by SPEWS. Consider your delusion to be corrected.
Here is the actual distribution of the royalties:
50% to the copyright holder;
45% featured artist share directly to a designated payee (artist, management company, etc.).
2.5% to AFM for non-featured musicians; and
2.5% to AFTRA for non-featured vocalists.
From here: http://soundexchange.com/royalty.cfm
Funny, I don't see RIAA on that list.
Somebody pays your bills. Is it the school? Contributions from the community? Wherever your money comes from you will have to get more. It's pretty simple. You want to provide an additional service, that service will have costs associated with it. This is one of those costs. Since you are non-commercial and simulcast over the Internet it would cost you $.0002 per song per listener, sorry, but that doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
/. crowd. Can you caluculate roughly what this licensing would actually cost your particular station? I would be surprised if you come up with more than $1,000 a year.
I imagine a college radio station doesn't have any extreme amount of listeners, and you probably aren't playing music 24 hours a day either. You could potentionally only have to pay the $500 a year minumum.
How about an excercise for the
I don't know what math you are using, but based on my numbers a 24 hour a day listener (or three 8hour/day listeners) would cost the station $123.65/year (.0014*10*24*365)
Where exactly is that money supposed to come from?
If it's public radio that money might come from donations and/or grants, but then you'd fall under "non-commercial" and the fees would be reduced by about two thirds.
If it's commercial radio then the money comes from advertisers or subscriptions.
My example used 20min/hour of commercial loading. lets cut that in half to two 5 minute commercial breaks each hour. That's 20 30sec spots every hour. Even if you only charge $5/spot that's $100 every hour, $2,400 a day and $876,000 a year. Want more profit? You should be able to raise the ad rates if you really have that many listeners, or increase the commercial loading.
If you listen only 20 minutes a day (which would be considred good in the real radio world) you cost the staion $2.56/YEAR. That's assuming you hear 5 songs and no commercials in that 20 minutes.
I know you want this to look like the RIAA sounding the death knell for Internet radio, but the procalimers of doom need to start using some numbers that make sense.
1. These fees are for commercial broadcasters. Non-commercial broadcasters pay significantly lower fees.
4 ,000/day
/. It would be ludicrious to implement and probably wouldn't stand up in court anyway. You can't retroactive keep records on listenership either, so what's to stop the stations from say, "We've been broadcasting for the last 3 years, but no one was listening."
2. If your favorite radio station has 5000 listeners on average 24 hours a day (which I highly doubt). They should be able to come up with $400,000 a year no problem.
A radio station with 5000 listeners shoiuld be able to charge at least $25/30sec spot, so some math for you:
($25)(40ads/hr)=$1000/hr
($1000)(24hrs)=$2
($24,000)(365)=$8,760,000/yr
If your radio station doesn't care about making a profit because it's a "labor of love" they could reduce the number of commericals and/or lower the ad rates.
3. If your radio station goes to a subscription model, 20,000 people paying $20 a year would cover the entire bill with zero commercials. A radio station with 5,000 people always tuned in must have at least 20,000 total listeners.
4. The original proposal by the CARP was a % of gross revenue, but the broadcaster rejected it. It was only after the deadline for coments had passed that they submitted their own % plan.
5. The only place I have found reference to retroactive payments was here on
Sorry, the math just doesn't ad up to these stations going out of busisness. Either the broadcasters are over estimating the number of listeners, underestimating possible revenues or both.
Are you under the impression that the "'Native American' variety of Indian" is without government?
You are correct. However the broadcasters are blowing this way out of proportion? Does Wolf really have 5,000 active listeners 24 hours a day? If they do then a $500,000 bill at the end of the year shouldn't kill them. If this fee puts webcasters out of business it's not because CARP killed them, it they aren't making $.0014 per listener per song they are already dead and they just don't know it yet.
Would it be more fair if Internet radio stations payed ASCAP and BMI compulsory license fees based on market size? These guys have been getting a free ride for so long that now they believe they are entitled to it!
You pay ASCAP and BMI rates based on listenership in your broadcast area right? Would you be willing to include the population of the Internet in this calculation? Why not? Why not jack up the rate card for your advertisers $.05 to pay the cost of reaching a larger audience? Isn't it worth it for them?
Replying to my own post...
.14cents, that's 14 hundreths of a cent each time a song is played. An Internet only radio station playing 87,600 songs a year would only have to pay the minimum $500 licensing fee.
Apparantly the royalties are actually
I'm a little bit confused what everyone is bitching about.
The parent post is not inforamtive, it is wrong.
.14cents, but I assume they mean 14 cents) Wolf would have to play 3,571,429 songs to owe $500,000 That's 408 songs every hour for a year.
Tha actual rates are here. A commercial Internet only radio station would pay $.14 (the site actually says
If a commercial Internet only station plays 10 songs an hour (average 4 minute songs 10 minutes of commercials each half hour) and broadcasts 24 hours a day 365 days a year they would play 87,600 songs a year. Their licensing bill would be a _whopping_ $12,264. A non-commercial station broadcasting 8 hours a day would pay $2,190. That seems quite fair to me.
Simulcast stations pay less because they are already paying licensing fees on their broadcasts.
The fact that "everybody knows" that whatever the lottery funds (usually schools) gets it's "normal" budget cut (which came from tax revenues) makes it a tax.
No it really doesn't.
A lottery like the state run ones is something that it is illegal for private organizations to do. A special legal exception had to be made, the most common justification for this is to fund schools.
Talk about your sweeping and incorrect generalizations. Do you realize that in some places gambling an lotteries are legal? Ever been to Nevada? Atlantic city?
Our entire income tax system is based on this concept. I would counter -- It's ok to take the same amount of money from people below the poverty line as from a multimillionaire? of course it's not.
Our entire income tax system is wrong. The current system is based on the premise that it is OK to tkae my moeny at gunpoint and give it to someone else. Is that fair? Of course not. And those below the poverty line do not pay taxes, they do however get checks from the government. Where are you under the impression that money comes from?
Kinda like winner-takes-all in electoral votes, just dumb in hindsight
Only someone who voted for Gore in the last election, and puts way too much stock in what they see on CNN thinks the Electoral College is a bad idea. The people who actually understand pretty much agree we'd be screwed without it.
Lottery revenue in some states is earmarked for education. On the face of it, this is an effective idea: tax stupid people to fund education to make more smart people. Unfortunately, in practice this tends to make the legeslatures allocate correspondingly less from the general fund to education.
So what you are saying is that "Education" gets as much money as they always got, but instead of coming out of my always climbing property taxes, it's being funding by a completely voluntary "game" that gives ordinary people the real chance to win hundreds of millions of dollars.
Please explain why this is "bad".
At least, with socialism, the State takes care of the charities and everyone gets his share, fashionable or not.
You should really read a history book. In a Socialist society non-productive members are worthless to the state. In the practical sense worthless==dead.
Socialist state taking care of the charities? Is that what you call "euthanising" retarded children and old people? Cancer patients and homeless people are "taken care of" alright, just not the way they might choose -- if they had a choice that is. What, you're upset about the 60% of your salary going to the (conpletely uncorrupt and non-wasteful) government and you don't want to work anymore? They have a special place for lazy ass wealfare addicts like you, its called Siberia.
And greed? Forget about it. The state will make sure you don't have anything your neighbor doesn't, so what incentive do you have to work hard or save? Remove the association of individual acheivement and reward and you start down the spiral of complete economic collapse. USSR anyone?
Amazon does not sell used books. Amazon acts as a middle man for the "Marketplace Sellers" who do sell used and new books. Amazon gets a 15% fee on the sale of these books. Since the individual seller sets the price on these items, Amazon has no control over the "markup". The Authors Guild is upset that Amazon is listing these books for sale on the pages with the new books.
The law was passed to stop the NRAs and EPAs from dropping exspensive, sometimes decietful ads right before the election when no one can do anything about them.
You seem to be misinformed. The NRA is one group that will not be affected by the recent unconstitutional law. You see, regardless of what your have been told the NRA doesn't spend member's dues or corporate donations on these kinds of things. The NRA does have a special fund for political action, but the monies are kept seperate, and therefore won't be affected by this legislation.
Nice troll Bork. While one of the defendants was indeed a Candian citizen he was an executive of a US company living in PA. Also, of the 20 counts he was convicted of only 7 of the counts covered activities he did while in Canada. Perhaps you should read the article again?
Where- if that's possible, then you must already have some secure means of communication and don't need to encrypt anything in the first place.
If I am a spy we can exchange the pad before I leave spy headquarters and then use it to transmit secret messages while I am in the field.
Please explain how you use a one-way hash to send large amounts of data.
My understanding of one-way hash functions is they are usefull for comparing information like passwords or digital signatures, but not encryption. If you hash a message and send it to me, I can't un-hash it (because it's a one-way hash) I'd have to guess what the data was and then hash my guess to see if I was right.