<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><A
href="http://monolith.sourceforge.net/">http://monolith.sourceforge.net/</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<H2>Copyright ==> ?</H2>Things get interesting when you apply Monolith to
copyrighted files. For example, munging two copyrighted files will produce a
completely new file that, in most cases, contains no information from either
file. In other words, the resulting Mono file is not "owned" by the original
copyright holders (if owned at all, it would be owned by the person who did the
munging). Given that the Mono file can be combined with either of the original,
copyrighted files to reconstruct the other copyrighted file, this lack of Mono
ownership may be seem hard to believe.<BR><BR>Consider this simple fact: for a
given Element file and any other file of the same length (call it <I>fileA</I>),
it is possible to choose a Basis file that, when munged with the Element, will
produce fileA as the resulting Mono file. Therefore, if a copyright holder
claims that she owns the information in all Mono files that are munged from her
work, she is also claiming copyright over <I>all possible binary files</I> that
are the same length as her work. For example, suppose that fileA is an MP3 of a
Beatles song, and the Element file is an MP3 of a Britney Spears song
copyrighted by Jive Records. It is possible to find a Basis file that, when
munged with the Spears song, will produce the Beatles song as the Mono file.
Jive Records certainly cannot claim copyright over the Beatles song (which is
copyrighted by Apple Records), nor can they claim copyright over any other Mono
files munged from MP3s of their songs.<BR><BR>What does this mean? This means
that Mono files can be freely distributed.<BR><BR>So what? Mono files are
useless without their corresponding Basis files, right? And the Basis files are
copyrighted too, so they cannot be freely distributed, right? There is one more
twist to this idea. What happens when we use Basis files that <I>are</I> freely
distributable? For example, we could use a Basis file that is in the public
domain or one that is licensed for free distribution. Now we are getting
somewhere.<BR><BR>None of the aforementioned properties of Mono files change
when we use freely distributable Basis files, since the same arguments hold.
Mono files are still not copyrighted by the people who hold the copyrights over
the corresponding Element files. Now we can freely distribute Mono files and
Basis files.<BR><BR>Interesting? Not really. But what you can do <I>with</I>
these files, in the privacy of your own home, might be interesting, depending on
your proclivities. For example, you can use the Mono files and the Basis files
to reconstruct the Element files. </FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>