-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001 22:22:11 -0000, Brian Beesley wrote:
>On 20 Mar 2001, at 13:35, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Phil Carmody's 'illegal prime')
>I take it "illegal" means that the particular number contains a
>representation in some form of language for a computer program that
>does something which transgresses the law. In this case, cracks
>DeCSS.
<nitpick> The embedded program is a version of DeCSS, a program for
cracking the CSS encryption scheme. </nitpick>
Slashdot takes a particular interest in this program because many of
their editors and members believe that CSS is an infringment of civil
rights - specifically, their right to play DVDs on the operating
system of their choice.
>Could I point out that all computer programs and databases can be
>represented as simply large integers, and that, if the
>representation of this particular program were therefore illegal, I
>could claim
>copyright of all existing and future software for all digitally
>encoded systems since I can demonstrate a method of generating every
> possible program, video, music track, ... simply by counting? The
>best defence to my copyright claim might be that the expansion of pi
> probably contains every possible finite length sequence of digits,
>whatever rational base you care to use to make the expansion, and
>that nobody "owns" pi.
Of course, (in theory) that could be seen as a disproof of all
copyright - there's nothing that does not already exist. Of course,
thinking of the number of possible English phrases - never mind
books, or images - is a fairly easy way to come up with numbers that
dwarf the Mersennes.
>Now I know the law's pretty darned silly, especially when it comes
>to deep abstract concepts like this, but really I think that it's
>not
>the integer itself which would be illegal, but its _deliberate_ use
>as a mechanism to crack DeCSS. _If_ cracking DeCSS is indeed
>illegal.
Here, at least, it is, due to a particularly idiotic law known as the
Digital Millenium Copyright Act, which essentially says that evading
copy-protection measures is itself a crime - regardless of whether
copyright is actually broken.
I might note that it's impossible to encrypt something so it cannot
be copied exactly; even now, it is very common for pirate DVD
manufacturers to simply copy the original disc byte for byte, without
even needing to crack the encryption.
>IMHO DeCSS is so badly broken that its proponents might as well give
> up now, but that's a different story.
Unfortunately for them, that 40-bit encryption is now hard-coded into
every DVD player; they can no more easily change it than they can
suddenly start selling videotapes for the Betamax VCR.
>Regards
>Brian Beesley
Nathan Russell
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOrfq1IvPBwdDF2xqEQKDdgCeJhTSRtZD3bW+im46//1Ye7hkmCcAoL4n
PFTvO4XgT1LaUfvTuSG+RBP4
=MQax
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_________________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
