1. Install the P2P software du jour.
2. Download some infringing content.
3. Notice what IP addresses the software talks to. (e.g. using Wireshark)
4. Send "pre-settlement" extortion letters to the people behind those IP addresses.
5. Profit. (Seriously.)
Also, any P2P system that downloads a significant amount of extra data won't become popular anyway, since it will be slower than non-deniable P2P. Freenet suffered from this, since all the pirates switched to the more efficient BitTorrent.
The claim is not that the file has no Colour. The claim is that there is no way to distinguish it from one that has no Colour. I am not convinced about the implications, this way or another. Just saying that it is not as simple as in the quote above.
> Under the lawyer's rules, Colour is not a mathematical function of the bits that you can determine by examining the bits. It matters where the bits came from.
Unless one end of the bits source is from blackbox countries, like China. If you finally get some international cooperation done perhaps the work is already unpopular and no one really cares. Enforcement takes time, and technically in today's unpefect world copyright can be dragged to an unworthy degree.
I wrote a new section called "Possible Extensions" under that article, including a subsection for the "Plausible Deniability" angle that cookingrobot came up with!
> it’d be strange for Firefox to be found guilty in any way
How could they be? They are completely uninvolved. Take another example: if you film [maliciously] someone being, say, raped using a Sony camcorder are Sony party to the offence? (the metaphor isn't quite right but I cant think of a better one off hand, it serves)
The other mistake, I think, is in believing the data in it's particular form is what means he is breaking the law. Because I'm sure every sane person agree's it is impossible to impose laws on a specific string of bits - if you happened to randomly "type" the bits that, when parsed as an MP3, sounded exactly like the Lady GaGa song would you call that a violation?
However the intent to provide the copyrighted material to someone whatever the form you hand it out in is what's important. right?
(I make no comment on whether such law is right/wrong etc.)
 Note that while either file on its own is technically random in a statistical sense, they are not independently random. Even if you XOR in Firefox, the data is only pairwise-independently random, not completely-independently random. So the random argument actually falls on its face.
[N] It also made me think of this, even if it's not directly related: http://xkcd.com/538/
I asked a similar question on #askreddit the other day, what if I put the odd bits of a movie on a server in Ukraine and the even bits on a server in Sweden, a special kind of media player live steam the content, reassemble small chunks in memory on the fly and playback it on a monitor directly? Technically I am not pirating the movie unless I was caught watching it right now.
The #askreddit people suggested me consulting a lawyer :)
Distributing half of a copyrighted work is probably still infringement, so whoever is operating those servers would be in trouble.
Which leads to a natural but important question: to what degree of information means copying? Does 1's and 0's also means part of copyrighted work so nobody can use binary?
Also, mathematically, can we build something like probability of copyright?
If you only show part of the solution, it looks like you've unlocked it and the result is harmless.
I added your idea to an edit I made on the Monolith wikipedia page, which now describes three variations of the Monolith protocol: Pseudorandom Basis Files, Lawsuit Denial of Service, and Plausible Deniability.
here's the scenario: What if some deductive programs (like prolog) happens to compile another piece of code to your code?
First you can't sue a system like prolog (assume the system itself is copyright free)
Secondly you can't sue some deductive code since it's totally different thing, which went through some process and happens to be the exact same as your code.
A perfect example to make myself clear: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=911331
This applies to music as well. Let's talk about .midi files first. I have a sequence of notes which is still playable music, went through a magical convert formula, and produce the exact same midi as copyrighted ones, which step is liable?
In one word, copyright just a label, for a certain static combination of information. And this static state can be generated by infinite alternative legal means, which is why copyright system is ridiculous. The only thing copyrighted in this universe is time. You can't reverse time (at least for now).
So copyright is really a moral issue. People are doing you a favor for your copyrighted works' publicity.
If you have a copy of Copyright File A and through some actions cause another copy of it to be simultaneously possessed by someone else, then you distributed it.
It is theoretically legal for me to write an article about a song, and include a ten second clip of that song. It is also legal for another person to do the same thing, but with a different part of the song.
At some point, the entire song becomes downloadable, but without any party distributing it outside of their fair use rights.
If I recall correctly, files are split up, passed around and encrypted so you don't know what your serving up