http://monolith.sourceforge.net/
"Monolith is a simple tool that takes two arbitrary binary files (called a Basis file and an Element file) and "munges" them together to produce a Mono binary file (with a .mono extension). Monolith can also reconstruct an Element file from a Basis file and a Mono file."When a colleague at work first notified me of this, the subject line of his email read: "Get your head around this…" After reading what I initially expected to be technical documentation, I wrote back, "what is this?" Unfortunately, other factors at work prevented us from carrying the discussion any further, but I am now prepared to answer my own question.
A tract in theoretical mathematics. A generally fascinating case study in the atomization of cultural artifacts, complete with downloadable executables. An inquiry into the problems of representation, interpretation, and embodiment. A meditation on loss -- I think… consider the implications of this statement:
"Digitization, therefore, is the process of deciding what to keep and what to throw away. Of course, an infinite amount of information must be discarded in this process, and there are clearly an infinite number of ways to do this."A story about a possible world in which encryption does not protect digital content, but sets it free. Quite possibly, the apparatus of another file-sharing revolution.
I most fascinated by the implications of three of the author's (Jason Rohrer's) claims.
1) "Copyrightable entities are inherently analog. Music, painting, sculpture, writing---all of these must be presented in the physical realm to be consumed by a human audience. Even mediums that are always created and represented digitally, such as digital photography, must be translated into the physical realm (for example, into a lighted display on an LCD monitor) to be consumed. The bits (the 'ones and zeros') used in the representation mean nothing to us by themselves---we cannot experience or otherwise consume them."
Is this true? Or is the author simply ignoring the work of human coders and the role of human invention in the creation of systems of coding in order to further his claims about the universality of binary code? Or is he correct? Would a claim that one intellectually owns a given binary sequence be as absurd as the claim that one owns English grammar? And are there or are there not are some artists, active in some field, who create works of art whose content is expressed in unique combinations of ones and zeros?
2) "Mono files, given that they contain no information from the original Element files, are not explicit representations. The binary data in a Mono file cannot be directly interpreted to produce a presentation of the copyrighted content, so they cannot be seen as representational at all. [emphasis mine] Mono files take the data a step beyond any explicit representations, and I claim that this step goes far enough to leave copyright behind."
This is a matter of taste, isn't it? I know the author does not mean to position himself at the center of the figuration vs. abstraction debate, but "representation", even when used legalistically, is a word as loaded as any Roman candle, so we will have to live with the fire hazard that goes with the fun. I can imagine someone inspecting the results of the Book of Genesis / The Crying Of Lot 49 "munge" produced near the end of this essay and locating something aesthetically pleasing within its patterns, shapes, suggested vocal sounds, etc. As such, I'm not thoroughly convinced this is a point that can be adjudicated per se. Surely these files represent something, even if it is what the author elsewhere calls "garbled content". Like energy in Newtonian physics, content in the Monolith universe is neither created nor destroyed, only transmutable.
3) "However, this feature of Mono files is hard to understand fully for sound recordings, since the resulting Mono file is not even a playable sound file at all (the munging completely obliterates the MP3 header information that would be necessary to even interpret the bits as audio)." [emphasis mine]
Now this strikes me as proposing an area of worthy aesthetic exploration. What if we start cracking other digital files down to their most basic encoding, wrapping them in audio file formats, and running them through a digital audio player? How would Donkey Kong sound if subjected to this treatment? A TIFF of Guston's Zoning? A PDF of the complete Great Gatsby? An SPSS-produced analysis of poverty data? A MARC cataloging record for the publication Iran-Contra Investigation: Joint Hearings Before The House Select Committee To Investigate Covert Arms Transactions With Iran And The Senate Select Committee On Secret Military Assistance To Iran And The Nicaraguan Opposition, 100th Congress, 1st Session (1987)? Are there sound artists currently working with the "corruption" of digital materials in this manner?
The possibilities may not stretch into infinity. Then again, maybe infinity is over-rated.
"'Mono files take the data a step beyond any explicit representations, and I claim that this step goes far enough to leave copyright behind.'
This is a matter of taste, isn't it?"
Actually, I don't think either his claim or anybody's (except some judge's) particular taste matters much here. Rather, it's likely a matter that the courts will end up deciding (in whatever probably crazed way they will).
When I was working on my book (since I quote from a bunch of sources, including those not yet in the public domain), I read over a dozen "leading" American copyright cases in order to determine my obligations to publisher pursuant to the "fair use doctrine": I'm sorry to report that there's not too much uniformity in these decisions. (I particularly the case (involving what's basically a text xeroxing firm in Michigan and, I believe Princeton U. Press) that the same appellate court decided both ways on two occasions. That was a treat.
Walter -- interesting anecdote.
This was referred to me at work afer a long discussion in which much anguish was shed (?) over how best to proceed with investigating copyright over wire service photos that were included -- and credited -- in U. S. government publications from the mid-1940's. A complicated matter, not just becuase tracking intellectual ownership of photographic images is a nightmare (how does one describe a photograph for inventory purposes?), but also becuase, technically speaking, all publications of the United States government are in the public domain. As government publications are paid for with tax dollars, presumably yours and mine, they are "our" property, and the government only acts as a steward of that content.
Monolith does not offer us any solutions, and I am facing a mountain of research, but, as a "thought experiment", I kind of dug where this author was coming from. Even if I believe that something any person creates is *always* representational in some sense. And it seemed interesting to me to see this word used as a legal wedge, when, aesthetically, it is a very loosely-jointed term.
Finally, the derivation issue is an interesting one. Perhaps one could even claim that these (hypothetical) .mono files are Constitutionally protected "parodies" of the original content (thank you 2 Live Crew.)?
http://www.benedict.com/Audio/crew/crew.aspx
Posted by: Joe Milazzo at June 16, 2004 8:09 AMTesting...
Posted by: Random Reader at June 17, 2004 11:28 AMMy Call Notes frequently records the digital (?) noise that is a transmitted fax looking for decoding and printing. Frequently, these faxes are supposed to be for my wife's eyes only, being medical text for patients she has been referred by (usually) a local hospital. Though we share information about some of these patients in the privacy of the home, it's against the law to disseminate private information about any patient to anyone not permitted to hear or see this info.
Is it also against the law for me to hear these clicks and hisses and bleeps that ultimately mean something but are stuck somewhere Pre-decoding? And if I use these beeps and squiggly notes in my next CD and don't claim them as samples, will the RIAA come after me and my pressing plant, because I'm sure you know that more and more the RIAA is muscling the pressing plants to not allow any samples to be used in the production of music CD's{?}.
Is the result actually a diembodied fax, or a piece of music, if I choose to hear it as such...many now claim that such noises represent a whole new genre of music, and therefore, I would be a "found" musician, even if I'd never played or studied an instrument in my life.
What do you play? Illegal un-decoded fax bleeps. Which axe do you use? The HP3421-fax/printer/copier/scanner. You are under arrest. Boo hoo. Boo hoo hoo. I'm sad.
Posted by: Dennis Gonzalez at June 21, 2004 2:17 PMSigh. It's all about context, isn't it?
Reading back through Joe's comments ('twas I that sent the fateful link to him...), I was struck by one of the passages that he quoted and suddenly made a connection. Without the context provided through the decoding process, the "unmunging" if you will, the zeros and ones HAVE NO CONTEXT and are thus bereft of analog (and by Jason Rohrer's argument) have no "meaning."
Indeed, it IS the "Music of the Spheres" if properly decoded...now where is that Magic Decoder Ring when I really need it?
It is analogous to the role of the archivist when presenting a box of materials to a researcher: while it may appear to be a random assortment of letters, envelopes and photographs, the archivist's job is to provide the historical context of the materials that then renders them meaningful. Thus with Monolith...
Posted by: Dennis Moser at June 22, 2004 1:53 PMAlchemy is NOT dead.
Posted by: Joe Milazzo at July 22, 2004 11:54 AM.................................................. © 2003 - 2006 bagatellen ..................................................