TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Could Quantum Computing Kill Copyright?

The basis of copyright law is individuality and creativity. Yet ever increasing computing power and storage space could mean that in just a few short years, computing could throw copyright into chaos.

The relationship between technology and law is a difficult one. Law attempts to put rigid walls around society, to define can and cannot. Technology, on the other hand, attempts to turn cannot into can.

Making it even harder is the reality that laws tend to lag about a decade behind technology. It took 10 years for the legality of the video cassette to be decided, and even now new laws are being written to deal with P2P, a decade after BitTorrent was first debuted.

While these two technologies have caused problems for copyright owners, by disrupting the status-quo around distribution, the incredibly fast growth in both computing power and storage could soon lead to a fundamental shake-up in copyright.

As it stands in US law (and remember, US law rules throughout the world,  even if it’s legal, or you’ve not been there in decades) the creator of a picture is the copyright holder. Even if you drop the resolution, or reduce the number of colours to simpler shades, it is still considered by many to be under the original copyright.

So, what if you could create every possible picture? What if you took a fairly low resolution (say 500×500) and a reasonably low colour mix (say 256 colours) and tried to create every single image? What then would be the state of copyright? It’s the visual equivalent of the infinite monkey theorem.

If you could do it, then the project would own all the copyrights, to every image not already copyrighted. Furthermore, since it’s an independent creation with no outside reference to draw upon, works and images similar to those already copyrighted are not infringing.

There is that word though – ‘if‘. 500×500 with 256 colours might seem like a small, grainy picture now, but it’s a massive field of data. 250,000 pixels, each with 256 possible shades comes to 9.802 *10602059 and that’s a large number; 9 with six hundred thousand zeros after it!

“You would pretty much need a quantum computer and massive storage space for this to become even slightly feasible,” says Stephen Brooks, head of the Muon1 DPAD project based at the RAL near Oxford.

The problem is clear. At present the distributed.net RC5-72 brute force effort has been going on for 8½ years, and is only 1.7% done.

“Creating an image is faster than cracking an RC5 key but not that much, and there’s still space issues,” says Brooks. “You could easily fill 1Gb per hour, per user.”

However, while it’s not feasible now, 20 years down the line it may well be possible. Already some strong progress has been made towards quantum computing and with technological progress as rapid as ever in this field, it’s a question of sooner, rather than later.

In a very real sense, technology might kill copyright in our lifetime.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • http://twitter.com/bboissin Benoit Boissinot

    Every time I read some article like that it reminds me of the famous “What colour are your bits” article: http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23

    • Jkenah

      the good shopping place

      please input our website

      {w w w }{jordanforworld}{com}

      YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!

      thank you!!!

      {w w w }{jordanforworld}{com}

      Believe you will love it.

      {w w w }{jordanforworld}{com}

  • exscape

    “You would pretty much need a quantum computer and massive storage space for this to become even slightly feasible”

    Hmm. “Massive storage space” doesn’t cut it. Without compression, the images would take (at 256 colors = 8 bits / 1 byte per pixel) 500 * 500* 1 * 9.802 * 10^602059 bytes of space. Divide that by 2^20 to get in megabytes, and we get… 2.33 * 10^602059 [sic, the exponent turned out the same].

    If you’re not used to scientific notation, it’s hard to explain how EXTREMELY large that number is. It CANNOT be stored byte for byte in our universe – even if you could squeeze in 1 *terabyte* of storage per ATOM in the visible universe, you still need 10^601967 times as many universes, at this already impossible storage density (by orders of magnitude).
    Writing that number (how many more universes we need) on paper at ~0.3 cm per digit would make that line 2 kilometers long.

    • matthew smith

      You’re either cocky or autistic, either way…nice work!

    • Friend of the People

      So if my understanding is right, it’s not a real-world concern, even if it may be interesting as a hypothetical philosophical dilemma.

      • Chris Darby

        I’m sure 40 years ago having a device that fits in your hand, has 100,000 times the storage and thousands of times the speed of anything available at the time, plays high definition full colour video, makes phone calls, can play graphically intense games, access a global network of virtually unlimited information, all running from a battery was in 1970 not a real world concern either… give it time…

        • Friend of the People

          We can give things time, but if the calculations he made are to be believed (I don’t know if they can be or not), then it’s not physically possible due to issues of storage. There are some things that we can reasonably say won’t happen based on our understanding of scientific laws (like finding an element with half a proton or watching a Pauly Shore movie that doesn’t suck). If I’m understanding what he’s saying correctly, then we may be able to put this into that category. It’s still possible, but unlikely.

          Regardless, it’s still irrelevant. It’s not our current reality, and it’s not currently in any projections. If someone does start claiming that it’s possible and shows data backing up their assertion, then we can care. Right now, it’s a non-issue for anything beyond hypothetical discussion, which won’t help us figure out how to act in the real world.

        • Friend of the People

          We can give things time, but if the calculations he made are to be believed (I don’t know if they can be or not), then it’s not physically possible due to issues of storage. There are some things that we can reasonably say won’t happen based on our understanding of scientific laws (like finding an element with half a proton or watching a Pauly Shore movie that doesn’t suck). If I’m understanding what he’s saying correctly, then we may be able to put this into that category. It’s still possible, but unlikely.

          Regardless, it’s still irrelevant. It’s not our current reality, and it’s not currently in any projections. If someone does start claiming that it’s possible and shows data backing up their assertion, then we can care. Right now, it’s a non-issue for anything beyond hypothetical discussion, which won’t help us figure out how to act in the real world.

    • Anonymous

      Well, presumably most of the data will be stored as a superposition of parallel states. Or is it possible to only process and not store data in this way? Hmm…

    • Freaky

      Deduplication ftw!

      • Freaky

        Just an extempt from wikipedia just to save you the trouble of looking it up.

        “In computing, data deduplication is a specialized data compression technique for eliminating coarse-grained redundant data. The technique is used to improve storage utilization and can also be applied to network data transfers to reduce the number of bytes that must be sent across a link. In the deduplication process, unique chunks of data, or byte patterns, are identified and stored during a process of analysis. As the analysis continues, other chunks are compared to the stored copy and whenever a match occurs, the redundant chunk is replaced with a small reference that points to the stored chunk. Given that the same byte pattern may occur dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of times (the match frequency is a factor of the chunk size), the amount data that must be stored or transferred can be greatly reduced.”

        Give this and the fact that the process will create endless variations the space requirements will go waaaaaaay down by basicaly reducing the space requirements to the variation only instead of the whole data chunk.

        Does it get real enough for you yet?

      • Freaky

        Just an extempt from wikipedia just to save you the trouble of looking it up.

        “In computing, data deduplication is a specialized data compression technique for eliminating coarse-grained redundant data. The technique is used to improve storage utilization and can also be applied to network data transfers to reduce the number of bytes that must be sent across a link. In the deduplication process, unique chunks of data, or byte patterns, are identified and stored during a process of analysis. As the analysis continues, other chunks are compared to the stored copy and whenever a match occurs, the redundant chunk is replaced with a small reference that points to the stored chunk. Given that the same byte pattern may occur dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of times (the match frequency is a factor of the chunk size), the amount data that must be stored or transferred can be greatly reduced.”

        Give this and the fact that the process will create endless variations the space requirements will go waaaaaaay down by basicaly reducing the space requirements to the variation only instead of the whole data chunk.

        Does it get real enough for you yet?

        • http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja

          Holy processing power, Batman!

          I can see it happening though ;)

    • http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja

      Google has servers in another dimension. They can store it.

    • Scary Devil Monastery

      Ah, but M-theory does allow for an infinite number of branes to play with so we’re in luck there. :)

    • Guest

      You’re forgetting the key part – it is *trivial* to compress every single 500×500@8bpp image in existence. If it was only a randomly selected portion of these images it would have taken HUGE space but since the “algorithm” that creates all these images (given sufficient time) is the shortest way to describe all of them, one only has to store the algorithm.

      Not that it should be possible to copyright/patent an algorithm that calculates every possible permutation of a set in the first place so Ben Jones is overly concerned about something that doesn’t really matter.

    • Guest

      You’re forgetting the key part – it is *trivial* to compress every single 500×500@8bpp image in existence. If it was only a randomly selected portion of these images it would have taken HUGE space but since the “algorithm” that creates all these images (given sufficient time) is the shortest way to describe all of them, one only has to store the algorithm.

      Not that it should be possible to copyright/patent an algorithm that calculates every possible permutation of a set in the first place so Ben Jones is overly concerned about something that doesn’t really matter.

      • Anonymous

        That makes no sense. A human is capable of creating any image that could ever exist. Because I’m a human, does that mean I own the copyright to every image? No, because I didn’t actually create every image, I’m simply capable of it.

        100 people might come up with the same idea for a product, image, piece of music, etc. But it’s the first one that does it and can show proof to properly secure a copyright that matters.

        I can’t claim ownership of every patent or copyright that hasn’t existed yet simply because I own a human mind which can create/describe all of these patents and copyrights if given the opportunity and time.

  • Dan

    Probably important to note, as the previous poster was mentioning, that there are less than 10^100 particles in the entire universe.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FCNK7C55CBUYFVSC5LNWKB322E Buglord

      and may I ask, HOW do you know that? how can you claim that anyone you have ever heard about knows that?

    • Guest

      Correction: there are 10^100 (10^83, it’s usually claimed) elementary particles in the OBSERVABLE universe.

      • http://twitter.com/davester13 D R

        I claim all the particles hiding behind the moon…

    • Anonymous

      True, but quantum computing is based on processing data in parallel (superposition of states, which some say are in parallel universes of the multiverse), so that’s no problem.

      • meeeeh!!

        Hmm most people here seems to be smarter than me! So time for some stupid questions. Can data be stored in these superpositions? and if they are truly in a paralell universe will that stored data be in my possesion in the eyes of the law?

        • Scary Devil Monastery

          “Can data be stored in these superpositions?”

          Empirical trials says it can. Retrieving it is another matter entirely.

  • Jonny290

    I’m unsubscribing from Torrentfreak’s RSS due to the massive stupidity contained in this post. Sorry, guys.

    • DarknezzMadnezz

      stupid people usually dont understand smart people lingo… to put it in lay-mens terms for ya.

      • Zzzz

        Stupid people see some things as smart even when thay aren’t.
        This explains why Stephen Fry is accepted as an intellectual.

      • Guest

        Idiot.

      • PK

        Stupid people would make the mistake of misspelling “layman’s” as “lay-mens”.

      • Nick

        And here we only suspected you were a moron until you opened your mouth and removed all doubt.

  • http://torrentfreak.com/ Rob8urcakes

    Copywrong law is as good as dead today anyway, and for all the reasons Ben put in the article.

    The copywrong cartel are simply fighting a losing battle by taking grannies, children and ISP’s to Court. Technoloy, human ingenuity and development will eventually stamp out the legal barriers these stupid, archaic and selfish vultures currently practice to hold us all back from our future and our children’s future too.

    • Guest

      The problem then is, how much more damage is going to be done before that happens?

      • Wellisntthatspecial

        lets start asking that after tuesday when they dont fix there debt issues

  • Brett Cooper

    At the same time as displaying every possible image, it would also make images that look like text that could contain message the simple enplane the meaning of life in a rainbow of colour.

    • Pialx

      Except, even if such a meaning exists and can be explained objectively, it would also create ones which explain the meaning wrongly and you would be no closer to knowing the truth.

      • Anonymous

        There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

        There is another theory which states that this has already happened

        (You and Brett Cooper rock. Because you both gave me an opening to respond with and quote The Hitchhiker’s Guide.)

    • Pialx

      Except, even if such a meaning exists and can be explained objectively, it would also create ones which explain the meaning wrongly and you would be no closer to knowing the truth.

    • Anonymous

      The answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything is… 42. However, only when you know the question will you know what the answer means.

      All hail the mighty Deep Thought!

  • Elisa ? Knockout™

    I’m a quantum child.

  • Vpsirc

    But with compression, you should be able to get that down to… 100 bytes…

    With the right algorithm

  • Rjogf

    If the author of this article had any real understanding of quantum computing he’d have realised that it as close to reality as, say, colonising Mars. In fact, Mars is more likely to happen.

    Any takers on when?

    I thought not.

    • Anonymous

      You’re right, I’m not a quantum physicist, Funnily enough, though, Mars colonisation IS an interest of mine.

    • Blah

      Within the next 300 years, I’d say.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay

      Mars is actually feasible now to colonize. We can grow the resources and have experiments running every two years if need be. I just wish the US government would do more with their space program than twiddle their thumbs and think that copyright infringement is worth more to pursue than exploring space.

      • A.Nonymous

        there was actually a nuclear powered rocket engine in development(@ Area 51) during the Kennedy administration, (Very early 1960′s) that was designed to move an office building sized ship round trip to mars, in around 120 days…(it worked BTW, but would never be allowed under today’s environmental laws)

        • Anonymous

          Yes, NPP (nuclear pulse propulsion) in the guise of Project Orion.

          while early versions would obviously fall afoul of environmental laws, later designs used NPP only after it passed the magnetosphere.

        • Scary Devil Monastery

          “it worked BTW, but would never be allowed under today’s environmental laws”

          I don’t think any laws, at any time would have allowed for the Orion project. Detonating tactical nuclear weapons against a solid steel backplate in order to generate thrusting power would create the occasional bias against the traveller at any time in history…

        • Rui Fung Yip

          ah… nuclear engines, just don’t turn one on while your still on earth.

    • Anonymous

      I keep updated on quantum computing and they are getting closer and closer to making it happen all the time. All parts they need can be made so all about getting things working better and putting it all together.

      Many years away still but it is coming.

    • http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja

      I wonder what the ppl would reply in 1940 if you asked me “how long do you think man will take to go to the moon?”

      My bets are for 30-50 years from now if the environment doesn’t fuck us up (literally and financially speaking). No, global warming has nothing to do with it. If you believe in all the rhetoric about global warming be ashamed, it’s not even the real environmental problem.

  • Filler

    “The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide”

    and filler articles abound….

    • http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja

      Actually, if you think that everything is a sequence of 0′s and 1′s (nowadays) he has a point. If, by any chance, I can copyright what is discussed in this article I’ll virtually own the copyright to everything, including Mount Rushmore.

      I’ll be retrieving these heads with a court order, excuse me. Heh.

  • getoffayaweebassa

    us law means just that, us law. french law means french law, and so on. you are confusing all these copywrong lawsuits with general law abroad from the us. we don’t all bow the oh so superior americans and to think so is a dangerous path to tread.

  • Wellisntthatspecial

    and a broke USA = not much law

  • Jeff Bekcer

    They’ll fight it like every other technology that negativity effects their profit margins. I don’t know about you, I’ll be sitting on various anonymized darknets and watch the usa crumble away from retardation. See ya guys, it was fun… well…. no. It wasn’t.

  • Chimel31

    What a stupid article. Even if computation and storage were possible, which it is not and clearly will never be, generating all kinds of shapes and colors (well, not ‘all’, just a very limited 500x500x256 subset) using a simple algorithm has nothing to do with creativity, and therefore cannot be copyrighted.

    • Anon

      You’d think so, wouldn’t you. Have you SEEN the idiocy of the copywrong cartel? They will copyright it and sue you till the end of the universe if it protects their profit margin.

    • Sam

      The practical issues are still there, but the lack of creativity is kind of the point.

    • http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja

      You can still patent it if copyright doesn’t cover the results and sue the heck out of everyone ;)

    • mark

      creativity is impossible to avoid in any context.

  • http://twitter.com/ntheknoinfo nthekno

    great article, enjoyed reading it :D

  • Wootzy

    When the day comes that we could store such a huge amount of data, would anyone even need it outside of this particular project?

    • ben

      Yes, for 10^600000 dimensional porn

      • http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja

        Windows would say “your program performed an illegal operation and needs to be closed” or something like.

        Linux would say “dude, update your kernel to a multi-dimensional one”

        And I’d say “not enough porn”

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FCNK7C55CBUYFVSC5LNWKB322E Buglord

    a question, is a product, not yet produced, copyrighted to what/who will produce it?

    if yes; patent what makes the images, all images are now copyrighted to that, even if they have not been produced yet, they are made, just not produced.

    if no; “Even if you drop the resolution, or reduce the number of colours to simpler shades, it is still considered by many to be under the original copyright.” ok then, drop the resolution to 1 or 5*5, and why over 200 colors? on that color wheel, or whatever they called it, in school there are nowhere near that many colors… any more colors than that and I wouldn’t call it simple, I’d call it few, sure, but not simple..and many can still know what image it was supposed to be, even when lowered to 5*5.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FCNK7C55CBUYFVSC5LNWKB322E Buglord

      while taking a shit, I thought about another thing, how about just making a code/script/[whatever can be used] that will convert all images, maybe 250*250, 50 colors or so, into a not so extremely long value which would ONLY be a few bits per image, (at first, adding when needed) 1, all is black, 10, black with one slighly less black pixel in a corner and so on… 11, 101, 110, 111.. etc.. etc..

      but that might just be shit that came out of my ass…

  • Zzzz

    This idea is stupid and anyone who thinks otherwise is equally as stupid.

  • Lawnun

    Oy. So much wrong in this post.

    1. As much as the author obviously cares to argue otherwise, US law does not control copyright policies of the rest of the world (c.f. China, India, Russia, Belarus, etc.)
    2. Copyright does not protect ideas; it protects expression. Yes, a quantum computer could conceivably take x to the n images of all the flowers that exist, but there’s no way it can grab every image with all the various shades, contours, angles, elements etc. This latter bit is what makes up copyright-protectable works of authorship. It’s not a first-in-time kinda thing.
    3. Even if such a thing were possible, I doubt it means the end of copyright. At most, it means a decent revision (like a proviso excluding machine-created works from copyright protection on the grounds they lack the ‘modicum of creativity’ that US courts still demand).

    Bottom line is that no matter how much ya dream, the odds that torrenting copyrighted files will magically become legal is about as likely as me sprouting wings. Sorry.

    • http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja

      Redbull.

      In another news, slavery has been outlawed. Torrent might be fully legalized ;)

  • Late Again

    “1. As much as the author obviously cares to argue otherwise,…” I must insist you bring in thine sarcasm meter for repairs soon.

  • Anonymous

    If anything quantum computing would be used to enforce copyright by searching packets for infringing data. New technology is usually in the hands of the Government and large corporations first to give them control including to force people to follow the law.

    Only in later years does the technology fall into the public hands allowing the people to do whatever they want under their own control.

    • http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja

      And yet they can’t control their own noses. But I can see your point.

  • Guest

    There are 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 particles in the universe, that we can observe. :D
    Even being considerably generous, there is not enough storage in the entire (observable) Universe to hold such a tremendous amount of data.

    • Anonymous

      The Universe is much larger than the small section we can observe and maybe could even be infinite. It seems premature to compare this to something we know little about.

      Even in our known Universe we have 72% Dark Energy and 23% Dark Matter. They define their ‘Dark’ on the concept of ‘unknown’. Only 4.6% of the Universe is known to us based on all we can see and estimate.

      In other words had the Universe been a science book then only 1 out of 20 chapters would have been wrote. The other 19 chapters would be completely blank or in Internet jargon marked “WTF???”. All we know is that 14 of those chapters covers some mystery energy causing our Universe to expanded at a faster and faster rate and the other 5 chapters is some strange matter (WIMPs and more) that glues the galaxies together but what we fail to directly see.

      On the one chapter we do have a good feel for about known matter then 40.5% would cover photons, 32.5% atoms and 27% neutrinos.

    • Joska

      10^30 particles? That’s only 10 million (10^7) mols! I’m pretty sure even the Earth has more particles than that!

  • http://jeff.cutsinger.org/ Jeff Cutsinger

    I came here to go on record as calling you a moron. You are stupid.

  • Anon

    looking at how the anti-piracy movement dealt with bittorrent they have mainstream faith, strong believe despite evidence of the contrary

  • Anon

    looking at how the anti-piracy movement dealt with bittorrent they have mainstream faith, strong believe despite evidence of the contrary

  • Drunkard

    Now they will try to ban quantum computing………………………

  • george xie

    The problem is not the creation, storage, or transmission. In fact, I can do that right here and now: “every 500 by 500 byte map” or “numbers 0 to 2^(500*500*8)”. Which ever versions of pseudo code you like, anyone with enough storage can take this highly compressed version and decompress it. Or using a black box approach, it does not have to store anything, it simply need to accumulate a number when you ask next, gave you a random byte map when you ask for a random image, or translate n to the identical image when you ask for the nth image (starting from zero). This act, with moves the information form a virtual space to realty does absolutely nothing at all.

    Even if I have such a machine, and I want a image of mickey mouse. If I don’t know what mickey looks like, I can search every image including countless images that resemble mickey and not find it. Only if I already know what mickey looks like, can I find it. Or I can find a image that appeal to me and calling it mickey, but it is much easier if I draw want ever I like without the help of the machine.

  • Noah C.

    I think many of you are interpreting the article wrongly. First of all, the article isn’t by one of TorrentFreaks admins, from what I understand (Enigmax, Ernesto, or common columnist Rickard Falkvinge). Secondly, it the point of the article is to give a first hand glimpse at the insanity of interpretation of the Copy(wrong) law and it’s constant failure to keep up to date with today’s technology. Thirdly, we all know that a 500×500 of every possible image ever created would not be feasible. We ALL know that. But the point is not that. The point of the article is to articulate the obsolescence of of the Copy(wrong) laws in both the United States and elsewhere, although it also proves the point that the United States seems to be the sole interpreter of the Copy(wrong) laws.

    • Anonymous

      Oh, I’m one of the ‘admins’, and have been here since 2007. Check the ‘about‘ page.

      You’re right about the point of the article though, it was to point out how changes in technology can shake things up fundamentally.

      • Noah C.

        I didn’t check it. I apologize, sincerely! You’re just not exactly one of the more outspoken admins, from what I see, and I consider myself a veteran member of TorrentFreak. I’m really sorry!

        • Anonymous

          That’s ok, I stay in the background a lot more, I’m not a quick a writer as Enigmax or Ernesto, and am more the engineer type.

        • Noah C.

          Understood. I do appreciate the article, and at least I interpret it correctly, unlike some of the readers who take it too literally. Good luck on writing more columns in the future!

    • http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja

      That. But discussing the theory behind is also fun ;)

  • Noah C.

    Also, I’ve done a bit of research. One 500×500 basic image (.jpg file) is approximately 75kb. That’s approximately 76,800 bytes.

    Now, just how do we do the calculation?

    The technical equation would be 76,800 x (9.802 x 10^602059). Whoa. That’s a big number. This wasn’t easy. I had one calculator give me infinity. Basically, only logical thinking can solve this problem.

    9.802 x 10^602059 is 9.8 with 600,000 zeros on the end, apparently. I’m not doing this calculation part. That was already read. So, we take 6,000,000 (yes, six million, because if I’m reading correct, the man claims 9 WITH six hundred thousand zeros on the end of it) x 76,800. The number of bytes: 460 800 000 000 with six hundred thousand zeros after THAT. What can we sum that up to in storage space? Oh dear…

    We have 429GB with the number 460,800,000,000. So, we take that number, times six hundred thousand. We get up to the number 30.5PB (petabytes), which is 30,000 terabytes, etc. etc. etc.

    If my logic is flawed, someone let me know. I don’t expect to be right on this one. Feel free to correct me, but do it in a non-aggressive, non-flaming way, or I will report you. I’m not exactly good at math.

    • Guest

      You don’t multiply by 600,000, you multiply by 10^600,000.

      Given that there is ~ 1000 bytes between each ‘step up’ on the storage labelling scheme – kilo x1000 -> mega x1000 -> giga x1000 -> tera… and so on, that would be a difference in the magnitude of ~10^3 between steps.

      According to Wikipedia, the highest unit prefix in use today is the yobibyte, accounting for sizes in the magnitude of X * ~1000^8 bytes. Think another 199,992 ‘steps’ up from that and you will be in the region of the amount of storage this would require.

      • http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja

        That.

        10^602059 means multiplying 10x10x10(…) till you have 602059 10 in your multiplication. That’s an insanely huge number. Then you multiply the rest.

        Chuck Norris can do it.

  • Copyright Attorney

    IAAL. The fundamental flaw of this whole article is its misunderstanding of U.S. copyright law. In order to prove infringement, you must prove that a work was copied. If two people independently come up with works that are the same, neither one has infringed the copyright of the other. (This is to say nothing of the requirements that a work contain some modicum of creativity. A machine that simply spits out every possible combination imaginable arguably lacks sufficient human influence to render the output “creative” for purposes of copyright law.) Contrast with patents, where the protection extends to the object/method/process regardless of whether it was copied.

    • Noah C.

      The purpose of the copyright is for one person/organization to have the sole rights to copy a certain material. Therefore, I could put a copyright on 500,000 images in my name. It would be illegal to distribute it or copyright it unless I give permission to do so. Whether or not you are technically right or not, this is the way it is interpreted and used. Copyright is basically a patent on images, music, and movies in the modern day. Hence, the illogical 120+ years of copyright life on modern music and movies. It’s disgusting. I would call the methods of the RIAA at their feeble attempts of creating “music” machine-like an uncopyrightable.

      • Patent Lawyer

        I am a patent lawyer, and the “copyright attorney” posting is correct. Copyright doesn’t extend to independent creations of similar works that are made without access to the original. Creating every conceivable image would only matter if someone 1) viewed a particular image, and 2) then chose to copy it.

        This article is an interesting thought experiment, but ultimately relies upon a misunderstanding of copyright law.

  • Quantum Confused

    I fail to see how quantum computation is relevant here. As far as I know quantum computers are no faster at creating images than classical digital computers. Is there something I’m missing?

    • Noah C.

      Quantum is being used as an adjective to describe the massiveness of it, although it’s real meaning is quite the opposite, but it’s how we interpret it. Most people interpret “quantum” as “crazy”, “insane,” “Einstein,” and “big,” when it means the minimal requirement of energy, from what I understand.

    • Alvaro Castañeda Mendoza

      A quantum algorithm would help with speed, but a classical computer can, theoretically, accomplish the task.

      I like to ask students if it is possible to have all of the programs a computer could run. They thing for a while, then we start talking about creating an alphabet, then some words, then take a simple and small computer and calculate all of the possible programs which that computer could run, being useful or not. Then we talk about states. So yes, if we take any computer, even a quantum one, it is finite, and we can start filling its memory with sequences, like 000……0, then 000….01, then 000…10, and so on. At the end of our large journey we will have all of the possible states where a computer could be (some people would like to say “could have”). After some time I am sure we will have our computer with a bug free windows version, or a computer just like the one you are sitting in front, but with one pixel black, and the next state with another pixel black, and so on.

      So, although I understand this article pretends to talk about flaws in copyright law, I just intended to clarify some theoretical nuisances, and make it clear the fact that a quantum computer is not necessarily the only one capable of calculating all of the 500×500 pictures. These same theoretical nuisances are the ones which tell us a program is juts a mathematical algorithm, therefore not patentable.

      And for the record, if someone calls me stupid, be in the know that word has a transition energy different from the one I have, sot it will be told in vain.

      For a really understandable and informative lecture search for a David DiVicenzo paper on quantum computers. Another site is qubit.org.

      SALUDOS
      ALVARO

  • James

    Would somebody care to do the storage calculations for, say, a 200×200 monochrome image? This is more feasible and could lead to problems if a corporate logo or similar were to be generated.

    • Anonymous

      2^40000 permutations, 40,000 bits per image, comes to 6.3*10^12045 bits, or 7.55×10^12038 megabytes, assuming I’ve done my maths right (it’s been a long day)

  • nox

    i would say capitalism and not doing anything for free is an even worse enemy of progress than government. the government is protecting financial interests, interests that we all have in our own lives too. if businesses cannot make money they go under. the government is a side effect of a capitalistic society (and the other way around in some aspects), gotta change the underlying system if you want to change the state of things

    • Noah C.

      You go out and work for 8 hours a day, in a field, not being fed hardly ever, and having the crops you DO grow taken from you to a bigger city and then watch your people die, get murdered, and eliminated from the face of the earth, and then the commanding people claim it’s “your fault” for not producing enough grain.

      This is the world of Communism, or at least Stalinism. Marxism, at it’s core, is a good idea, but is not practical, because this calls for people to throw away their natural instincts, which is competition, and is so in nearly ever other species on earth, give or take a few, but even at their core, for example Bees, is a competition based society in which one has to triumph over the other. Communism does not work. Capitalism DOES, but has some unnecessary evils. Capitalism does not equal greed, it merely means working for your food and family. Communism means working for the state in hopes that they feed you and your family. You can argue this is too harsh for modern communism, but very few communist states worked. China and Cuba are the exception. The rest fell because frankly the couldn’t control their people anymore, because they’re people were attempting to be people with natural instincts and OBEY those instincts, which is always a good idea. Capitalism has worked in the United States for 300 years, and will for the next 300 years, given that we survive the debt crisis, which is an example of what attempted Socialism will give you when attempted in an un-checked, ignorant, and Blind presidency and Congress.

      • Schminky

        Copyright monopolies are anti-capitalist. There’s no honest rationale for them in a capitalist system, they completely undermine the free market.

        http://mises.org/against.pdf

        • Lawnun

          (Limited) copyright monopolies aren’t anti-capitalist at all. When they were originally envisioned (protecting for a scant 28 years), they did so with the intent _to_ encourage capitalistic enterprise in the first place. Copyright (and patent law) are what encourage people to go out and create, to put the ‘sweat’ into things. Think pre-internet (back when we were writing books and pamphlets and such) and it becomes a pretty easy thing to grok.

          The key word of course, is _limited_. And reasonable people have and do disagree on whether or not we’re even in the limited stage anymore.

      • Schminky

        Copyright monopolies are anti-capitalist. There’s no honest rationale for them in a capitalist system, they completely undermine the free market.

        http://mises.org/against.pdf

  • Pingback: Could Quantum Computing Kill Copyright? | TorrentFreak | NotSoCrazyNews BETA

  • Robttwo
  • Torture

    Maybe not quantum computing, but net speeds and storage capacity incremental increases really help. Few years back I could not imagine that I would by able to buy 3 pieces of 3TB HDD for less than 400$ and download in 10MB/sec
    Few years from now it is very likely that a 100TB HDD will be very affordable and you can easily download or just copy more than 2000 720p movies from the HDD of a friend.
    Hell, you can probably download all the music from TPB for couple of days.

  • Pingback: business247.co.zw » Boot up: LulzSec hacker named, Foxconn ‘to replace workers with robots’, and more

  • Pingback: The Technology Blog: Couldquantumcomputingkillcopyright

  • NPIversen

    Not even remotely interesting. Copyright can’t be given to machine or animal, not even the machines user or the animals trainer. So if one could prove that a famous painting had been made by a machine years before there’d be no issue in relation to the copyright laws.

  • Pingback: MakinMo's Tech Blog

  • Pingback: Could-quantum-computing-kill-copyright - anacristina's posterous

  • Nano Marble

    There is a serious case for a thing called ‘Head blag’ which some people of mediocre size craniums suffer from, it doesn’t mean they are stupid but that they just do not have the internal bio capacity for storage and thus their brains cannot process it….

    It could also mean someone here is a smart arse and i need some sleep…i’m just surprised that one of you haven’t broken it down to an on screen visual equation by now and seriously it took ages to read to the bottom of the page…

    I’m very disappointed and so i will check back in oooh 8 hrs or so after some rem sleep and see who can break it down and print it as an equation…

    ps : great to see a thread where no trolls have tried to take over for once, congrats guys and gals :)

  • Pingback: Boot up: LulzSec hacker named, Foxconn ‘to replace workers with robots’, and more | dailywebday.com

  • Pingback: renaissance chambara | Ged Carroll - Links of the day | ?????

  • Pingback: Could Quantum Computing Kill Copyright? | Torrents & File Sharing News

  • John Gottschalk

    Still doesn’t cover upscaling an image, because it would have more detail, so you’d only cover images under 500×500, anything larger can’t be covered, so it’s hardly even an issue because most artists work larger than that to begin with.

  • http://profiles.google.com/jacob.valenta Jacob Valenta

    Do you realize that if ever image is made, You would have any picture (i know that is a stupid sentance but think about it) You could find an image of yourself at niagra falls, a magnificent sunset, your child when he grown up, your own grave. In a sense, this could open up a kind of creepy time/place travel.

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • The Pirate Bay Isn’t Down Completely, Just Having a Few Issues

    Twitter and Facebook, not to mention the TorrentFreak inbox, are currently alive with complaints that The...

  • Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

    Freedom of speech is a highly valued commodity, but should people be allowed to say whatever...

  • Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.