...you know, before they were deleted a while back? Her current DA and FA pics are different, there's none of the old stuff.

DSR1337 said:
...you know, before they were deleted a while back? Her current DA and FA pics are different, there's none of the old stuff.

actually we have all of them.

but they're hidden because thats how she wants it

ippiki_ookami said:
actually we have all of them.

but they're hidden because thats how she wants it

Schroedinger's porn. It exists, and yet it does not exist.

The porn is both live on the site and not live on the site. Only when it is observed does the waveform collapse.

... I think.

thenewthing said:
Schroedinger's porn. It exists, and yet it does not exist.

The porn is both live on the site and not live on the site. Only when it is observed does the waveform collapse.

... I think.

it exists for anyone inside of the box (all the admins and such)

Sollux said:
it exists for anyone inside of the box (all the admins and such)

The secret porn lockbox? They just don't give the key to anybody, y'know.

thenewthing said:
Schroedinger's porn. It exists, and yet it does not exist.

The porn is both live on the site and not live on the site. Only when it is observed does the waveform collapse.

... I think.

this is closer to the truth than you probably intended

ippiki_ookami said:
this is closer to the truth than you probably intended

so is there some weird coding error that while an admin is looking at a hidden image, a gateway opens allowing regular users to view it too? That would be trippy

ippiki_ookami said:
this is closer to the truth than you probably intended

I'm aware there's schrödinger's_cat, yeah. ;)

So what you're saying is all admins have access to a huge, exclusive stash of porn?

That must be why tag aliases are so backlogged.

Seven_Twenty said:
So what you're saying is all admins have access to a huge, exclusive stash of porn?

That must be why tag aliases are so backlogged.

In fairness, this is a site full of porn. If the admins had a bit more, it wouldn't make that much of a difference. It's like a sticky drop in a cum bucket.

thenewthing said:
In fairness, this is a site full of porn. If the admins had a bit more, it wouldn't make that much of a difference. It's like a sticky drop in a cum bucket.

But it's the drop with all the flavour in it! /whine :P

123easy said:
But it's the drop with all the flavour in it! /whine :P

Oh, like you wouldn't chug the whole bucket anyway. Let's be honest, here.

thenewthing said:
Oh, like you wouldn't chug the whole bucket anyway. Let's be honest, here.

I would savor each drop, so if there were drops missing I would know, all that hidden porn is a hole in my porn stomach

thenewthing said:
Oh, like you wouldn't chug the whole bucket anyway. Let's be honest, here.

Nah, I go dominant for subby girly boys, can't stand bara, and have no stomach for subbing to other males; same generally applies to intersexed individuals. Dominant (and in general) females, on the other hand... (if we throw out power relationships for vanilla, still keep my preferences for girly and dislike of bara.)

Well this thread got weird :P

ippiki_ookami said:
actually we have all of them.

but they're hidden because thats how she wants it

That makes sense, is there another site where I could see them again? My DA fav folder now has a lot of blanks...

DSR1337 said:
That makes sense, is there another site where I could see them again? My DA fav folder now has a lot of blanks...

If they won't post it on the main site itself, they probably won't allow for links to the content. Sorry. :(

thenewthing said:
If they won't post it on the main site itself, they probably won't allow for links to the content. Sorry. :(

I don't even need that. Just a clue, maybe? Or post URL then delete? SOMETHING?

123easy said:
I can't stand bara

Aw, did I cause that?

ippiki_ookami said:
this is closer to the truth than you probably intended

Indeed. It's called deepnet.

https://e621.net/mod_action?moderator=&body=&type=deleted_post

https://e621.net/mod_action?moderator=&body=&type=destroyed_post

Azazial said:
https://e621.net/mod_action?moderator=&body=&type=deleted_post

https://e621.net/mod_action?moderator=&body=&type=destroyed_post

Ah! So deleted posts are visible to mods/admins only, and destroyed posts are purged from the site entirely? That makes sense, in a way.

Azazial said:
https://e621.net/mod_action?moderator=&body=&type=deleted_post

https://e621.net/mod_action?moderator=&body=&type=destroyed_post

Not all her DA stuff obviously, but this is glorious (NSFW).
Technically this^ is NOT on our site, so the URL is not too problematic to have here.

thenewthing said:
Ah! So deleted posts are visible to mods/admins only, and destroyed posts are purged from the site entirely? That makes sense, in a way.

1. The destroyed posts are very uncommon compared to deletes. What are the circumstances that would cause a destroy?
2. Speaking of which, it's apparent the admins love their secret porn stash...

DSR1337 said:
1. The destroyed posts are very uncommon compared to deletes. What are the circumstances that would cause a destroy?
2. Speaking of which, it's apparent the admins love their secret porn stash...

Illegal material, perhaps? Stuff that might have been purged completely because of legal action, sorta thing? (No idea, just my guess)

Also, you weren't the cause of it, I just didn't know what the name of that fetish was. Now that I do, I can name it properly. I've never been a fan of the big muscle-y guys, be it gay or straight, and less so of bug muscle men on big muscle men. I like softer curves. Seeing some of those extreme bodybuilders out there actually makes me physically ill looking at them. :x

123easy said:
...I've never been a fan of the big muscle-y guys, be it gay or straight, and less so of bug muscle men on big muscle men. I like softer curves. Seeing some of those extreme bodybuilders out there actually makes me physically ill looking at them. :x

I know exactly what you mean, always felt the same. >.<

123easy said:
Illegal material, perhaps? Stuff that might have been purged completely because of legal action, sorta thing? (No idea, just my guess)

Also, you weren't the cause of it, I just didn't know what the name of that fetish was. Now that I do, I can name it properly. I've never been a fan of the big muscle-y guys, be it gay or straight, and less so of bug muscle men on big muscle men. I like softer curves. Seeing some of those extreme bodybuilders out there actually makes me physically ill looking at them. :x

Butterscotch said:
I know exactly what you mean, always felt the same. >.<

I've heard that femmes are actually underrepresented in gay porn.

DSR1337 said:
I've heard that femmes are actually underrepresented in gay porn.

Eh, considering how crap most porn is? I don't usually watch porn unless it's amateur anyways, thanks to the stilted acting being so laughably bad most of the time. Even then, I'm not that big into gay stuff to begin with, mostly preferring m/f- though, even the girlier gay stuff tends to not be quite girly enough for my tastes, so... Either way, no thank you big muscly men getting it on with each other. ._.; Now, if say, Dean and Sam got it on... I'd be interested. :> Or The Man Himself, Neil Patrick Harris, and Hugh Jackman.... *coughs, and stuffs the fantasies back into the box* >_> <_< >_> You saw nothing. NOTHING.

Am I the only one here who faps exclusively to furry porn? Not saying there aren't guys and girls irl who I'd fuck but for some reason people porn just doesn't turn me on unless its live.

Sollux said:
Am I the only one here who faps exclusively to furry porn?

^The question every user asks.
You are indeed. Only one of many.
I think that describes most people on here.

Also, http://g.e-hentai.org/g/183226/7dbac98608/. I think that has just about everything but her "Light up the sky" drawing.
The top part of this used to be on my iPhone lock screen.

DSR1337 said:
^The question every user asks.
You are indeed. Only one of many.
I think that describes most people on here.

Also, http://g.e-hentai.org/g/183226/7dbac98608/. I think that has just about everything but her "Light up the sky" drawing.
The top part of this used to be on my iPhone lock screen.

150 credits short of being able to DL the gallery as a whole. Just a bit more hentaiverse, or waiting a few more days...

123easy said:
150 credits short of being able to DL the gallery as a whole. Just a bit more hentaiverse, or waiting a few more days...

http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/54463

Thankfully the internet doesn't like waiting.

Besides that, downthemall alone should work wonders as well.

NotMeNotYou said:
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/54463

Thankfully the internet doesn't like waiting.

Besides that, downthemall alone should work wonders as well.

Unlike the internet, I have patience. Interesting script, though!

DSR1337 said:
1. The destroyed posts are very uncommon compared to deletes. What are the circumstances that would cause a destroy?
2. Speaking of which, it's apparent the admins love their secret porn stash...

Illegal material that we can't store on the server is destroyed. The reason we keep everything else is so that it prevents the same image from being uploaded again. The other reason is so we can restore deleted images and that's the reason we still have to have them tagged

Rainbow_Dash said:
Illegal material that we can't store on the server is destroyed. The reason we keep everything else is so that it prevents the same image from being uploaded again.

Do you keep the md5 sums of illegal material?
(to prevent it from being uploaded again)

Munkelzahn said:
Do you keep the md5 sums of illegal material?
(to prevent it from being uploaded again)

I would imagine even having it is bad for then legally. Don't actually know obviously, just what I would think

CamKitty said:
I would imagine even having it is bad for then legally. Don't actually know obviously, just what I would think

The hash wouldn't be bad. Not like you could use them to regenerate content on standard computers yet. :3

furballs_dc said:
The hash wouldn't be bad. Not like you could use them to regenerate content on standard computers yet. :3

Or ever. Can't be done, no matter how good your computers are.

Snowy said:
Or ever. Can't be done, no matter how good your computers are.

The problem is not one of computational difficulty, but of information theory. A hash contains X bits of information. X bytes varies based on the exact algorithm, but is generally very small (<1 kilobit for all but 64-bit RadioGatún (1216 bits)). By the pigeonhole principle, if you hash inputs that are larger than the output of the hash function, there is no way to obtain a unique input given the hash value, because more than one input will produce the same hash value. So if you have a magic tool that gives you the inputs that produce a particular hash value, you would actually get an infinite set of outputs back (well, as much of that set as your computer can hold, anyway). The vast majority of these will be effectively random shit, but there will almost surely be files that are well-formed images of other things, not to mention .docs with meaningful writing inside, and so on.

Let's put some numbers to this. This site uses MD5, which produces a digest 128 bits long. That means that there are 2^128 possible hashes. Expressed directly, there are 340282366920938463463374607431768211456 possible MD5 hashes. That's a big number! But let's consider an image that is 80 KiB in size. Let's say we have a particular hash, and we know that it is the hash of a file that is exactly 80 KiB (655360 bits). There are 2^655360 possible files of that size. While MD5 has some attacks, it is not completely shit, so we can reasonably assume that the hashes are evenly distributed. That means that each hash corresponds to (2^655360 / 2^128) = 2^655232 files (considering ONLY files of exactly 655360 bits). That's 3 * 10^197244 files for each hash, a number with 197,245 digits if you write it in base 10. Now you get to find the original image! The vast majority of those 2^655232 files are random crap and can be discarded, but there will be rather more than just one well-formed image file. There will be a pile of images, any one of which could have been the original uploaded file. And that's with the rather huge bonus of knowing the exact filesize of the original image. Because if you don't? The situation gets rather worse, because you have this pile of files to sort through for every possible file size. It adds up. I guarantee you that there will be more than one image in this massive pile, and there is exactly no way to prove which one was hashed to produce the hash value you started with.

Well, given your information, it indeed can be recreated. Whether or not you can sift it is irrelevant when Furball only stated being able to regenerate it as a condition. :3

Snowy said:
Or ever. Can't be done, no matter how good your computers are.

The problem is not one of computational difficulty, but of information theory. A hash contains X bits of information. X bytes varies based on the exact algorithm, but is generally very small (<1 kilobit for all but 64-bit RadioGatún (1216 bits)). By the pigeonhole principle, if you hash inputs that are larger than the output of the hash function, there is no way to obtain a unique input given the hash value, because more than one input will produce the same hash value. So if you have a magic tool that gives you the inputs that produce a particular hash value, you would actually get an infinite set of outputs back (well, as much of that set as your computer can hold, anyway). The vast majority of these will be effectively random shit, but there will almost surely be files that are well-formed images of other things, not to mention .docs with meaningful writing inside, and so on.

Let's put some numbers to this. This site uses MD5, which produces a digest 128 bits long. That means that there are 2^128 possible hashes. Expressed directly, there are 340282366920938463463374607431768211456 possible MD5 hashes. That's a big number! But let's consider an image that is 80 KiB in size. Let's say we have a particular hash, and we know that it is the hash of a file that is exactly 80 KiB (655360 bits). There are 2^655360 possible files of that size. While MD5 has some attacks, it is not completely shit, so we can reasonably assume that the hashes are evenly distributed. That means that each hash corresponds to (2^655360 / 2^128) = 2^655232 files (considering ONLY files of exactly 655360 bits). That's 3 * 10^197244 files for each hash, a number with 197,245 digits if you write it in base 10. Now you get to find the original image! The vast majority of those 2^655232 files are random crap and can be discarded, but there will be rather more than just one well-formed image file. There will be a pile of images, any one of which could have been the original uploaded file. And that's with the rather huge bonus of knowing the exact filesize of the original image. Because if you don't? The situation gets rather worse, because you have this pile of files to sort through for every possible file size. It adds up. I guarantee you that there will be more than one image in this massive pile, and there is exactly no way to prove which one was hashed to produce the hash value you started with.

Ah, interesting. What about SHA-1?

http://fail0verflow.com/blog/2014/console-hacking-2013-omake.html

:3

furballs_dc said:
Ah, interesting. What about sh-1?

SHA-1 has a digest size of 160 bits, so there are 2^160 possible values. That's 2^32 (4294967296) times as many possible values, which is a lot more, but again: files are many thousands of bytes (and a byte is 8 bits). The hash function that produces the largest digest that I'm aware of is the 64-bit version of RadioGatún, which produces a digest 1216 bits long. That's a bit more than an eighth of a kilobyte.

Any hash has this problem, because by definition a hash function takes an input of any size and produces an output of a fixed size. You could make a hash function that produces digests that are as long as you please, and I can simply feed it inputs that are longer than the digest, ensuring the existence of collisions (this is the pigeonhole principle: if you have 10 pigeonholes and more than 10 pigeons, some of those pigeons are going to have roommates).

Snowy said:
SHA-1 has a digest size of 160 bits, so there are 2^160 possible values. That's 2^32 (4294967296) times as many possible values, which is a lot more, but again: files are many thousands of bytes (and a byte is 8 bits). The hash function that produces the largest digest that I'm aware of is the 64-bit version of RadioGatún, which produces a digest 1216 bits long. That's a bit more than an eighth of a kilobyte.

Any hash has this problem, because by definition a hash function takes an input of any size and produces an output of a fixed size. You could make a hash function that produces digests that are as long as you please, and I can simply feed it inputs that are longer than the digest, ensuring the existence of collisions (this is the pigeonhole principle: if you have 10 pigeonholes and more than 10 pigeons, some of those pigeons are going to have roommates).

Huh. Interesting. =^.^=

furballs_dc said:
The hash wouldn't be bad. Not like you could use them to regenerate content on standard computers yet. :3

Actually, sometimes even the possession of small fraction of copyrighted or illegal material is already a bad thing.
As an example, not really applicable in this case because different laws, but in germany there had been quite a few successful lawsuits against people who only downloaded the torrent header files, which only contained a couple hashes of the original files but there still treated like they downloaded the full software.

But I think they actually stopped doing that some time ago.

NotMeNotYou said:
Actually, sometimes even the possession of small fraction of copyrighted or illegal material is already a bad thing.
As an example, not really applicable in this case because different laws, but in germany there had been quite a few successful lawsuits against people who only downloaded the torrent header files, which only contained a couple hashes of the original files but there still treated like they downloaded the full software.

But I think they actually stopped doing that some time ago.

Odd. =O.o=

Munkelzahn said:
Do you keep the md5 sums of illegal material?
(to prevent it from being uploaded again)

Eh, not to go off topic but I think these so called hidden/deleted images can still be accessed if you know the proper url....I sorta accidentally found one once :V

Conker said:
Eh, not to go off topic but I think these so called hidden/deleted images can still be accessed if you know the proper url....I sorta accidentally found one once :V

It was a 3d model of a small nude man standing on the floor near a dragon, who was standing next to another tall nude man...I dont even

direct links never go unless the post is destroyed

About deleted and destroyed posts. Megaupload saved publicly hidden or removed content to conserve storage space and perhaps bandwidth, and that was part of the reason, or evidence, used to justify raiding and shutting them down. This was an issue because access to knowingly infringing content was not always deleted or fully disabled as suggested by their takedown tool. Only unique URLs specifically submitted via their takedown tool were removed from public access, but each duplicate content upload received a unique URL (so unspecified URLs linking to the same content were not disabled). However, I'm not quite sure where responsibilities and requirements for removing copyrighted content begin and end (e.g., deleting, removing access to, or removing public access to infringing files).

abadbird said:
About deleted and destroyed posts. Megaupload saved publicly hidden or removed content to conserve storage space and perhaps bandwidth, and that was part of the reason, or evidence, used to justify raiding and shutting them down. This was an issue because access to knowingly infringing content was not always deleted or fully disabled as suggested by their takedown tool. Only unique URLs specifically submitted via their takedown tool were removed from public access, but each duplicate content upload received a unique URL (so unspecified URLs linking to the same content were not disabled). However, I'm not quite sure where responsibilities and requirements for removing copyrighted content begin and end (e.g., deleting, removing access to, or removing public access to infringing files).

Granted, but we're not looking to pirate something paywalled/locked/etc. in this case, I'm trying to find images Inuki posted publicly to her DeviantArt gallery, which also means the images had a download link like most things posted to DA. Her answer to me, that you can find her old stuff on non-e621 sites, seems to indicate the artist does not necessarily intend to have the images sealed off forever and inaccessible to everyone.

DSR1337 said:
Granted, but we're not looking to pirate something paywalled/locked/etc. in this case, I'm trying to find images Inuki posted publicly to her DeviantArt gallery, which also means the images had a download link like most things posted to DA. Her answer to me, that you can find her old stuff on non-e621 sites, seems to indicate the artist does not necessarily intend to have the images sealed off forever and inaccessible to everyone.

The yearly and single massive album GE Hentai links seem to contain what you want.

123easy said:
The yearly and single massive album GE Hentai links seem to contain what you want.

If that were the case, I would never have started this forum topic, obviously.
They seem to have everything but the image I'm looking for.

123easy said:
I've never been a fan of the big muscle-y guys, be it gay or straight, and less so of bug muscle men on big muscle men. I like softer curves. Seeing some of those extreme bodybuilders out there actually makes me physically ill looking at them. :x

Butterscotch said:
I know exactly what you mean, always felt the same. >.<

You know why this makes sense? The steroid fetish may not actually be typical, considering how good many of the posts here are.

DSR1337 said:
You know why this makes sense? The steroid fetish may not actually be typical, considering how good many of the posts here are.

Lean muscle (TakeSomeCrime youtube channel, mnf) is gorgeous. Bulky muscle is ugly. Iunno why, but yeah. Complete opposite of my fat preferences (I can't stand people who are so thin you can count their ribs, and much prefer them to have enough padding to be soft. Such thing as too much padding, but you usually only see that with Hyper).

Re: That ONE image- Thought you just wanted images from that time period, not a specific image. Everything said until then implied you just wanted Inuki's older works. What was the image, anyways?

123easy said:
Lean muscle (TakeSomeCrime youtube channel, mnf) is gorgeous. Bulky muscle is ugly. Iunno why, but yeah. Complete opposite of my fat preferences (I can't stand people who are so thin you can count their ribs, and much prefer them to have enough padding to be soft. Such thing as too much padding, but you usually only see that with Hyper).

Re: That ONE image- Thought you just wanted images from that time period, not a specific image. Everything said until then implied you just wanted Inuki's older works. What was the image, anyways?

Off the top of my head: SFW. "Light Up the Sky" by Yellowcard was cited as inspiration. Lit-up, fireworks-y background (by that I mean probably night time, probably had fireworks, maybe had lit buildings). Featured a solo, female character drinking from a straw. Possibly Inuki's fursona, I could be wrong about that part.

123easy said:
Lean muscle (TakeSomeCrime youtube channel, mnf) is gorgeous. Bulky muscle is ugly. Iunno why, but yeah. Complete opposite of my fat preferences (I can't stand people who are so thin you can count their ribs, and much prefer them to have enough padding to be soft. Such thing as too much padding, but you usually only see that with Hyper).

By the way, right on.

DSR1337 said:
By the way, right on.

Try not to bump threads which are over a year old just to socialize. If you feel the urge to agree with a year old thread post, then link to it in a blip instead of bumping the thread for something like this. Ok?

NotMeNotYou said:
Actually, sometimes even the possession of small fraction of copyrighted or illegal material is already a bad thing.
As an example, not really applicable in this case because different laws, but in germany there had been quite a few successful lawsuits against people who only downloaded the torrent header files, which only contained a couple hashes of the original files but there still treated like they downloaded the full software.

But I think they actually stopped doing that some time ago.

Okay, now that this is brought to my attention, I feel the need to point out: A hash of a copyrighted work is not any 'fraction of' a copyrighted work, in much the same way that if I assign a number to every character in your user id (eg. a=97, b=98, etc ) and add all characters together arriving at 1105, 1105 is not 'a small fraction of your userid'. It's not any fraction of the work, it's just a type of 'fingerprint' -- it can be used to -identify- whether this is not X work (if the fingerprint is not the same, this is definitely not X work), but cannot be used to generate X work, a part of X work, or even to determine definitively that this -is- X work. You could compare it to a chunk of DNA.

Snowy covered the more technical side of why this is, but perhaps it could be explained more simply. The hash alone won't get you shit. This is the md5 hash of a 5-byte file I just created: 014835e36358e38c7f7897d6571e4529

That -is- reconstructable, because it's very small:

• an md5 hash is 128 bits, whereas my 5-byte file is only (5*8)=40 bits long. So, it's practically certain that for a given hash, there will be only one possible input of that length corresponding to it. That means we probably won't have to look through options and pick the correct one.
• Since we know the input is 5 bytes, and this is small enough to just brute-force, we can iterate over all possibilities and hash them until we get what we want. This may take up to 2^40 iterations -- quite feasible on a modern CPU, especially with parallelization.

But, even so, it is only reconstructable because we know the length in advance. If we didn't, we'd have to iterate over every possible option of every possible length, from 0 bytes to infinity bytes, producing roughly (infinity / (2^128)) candidates, from which you would then have to pick the correct one.
Obviously, this is computationally infeasible, and humanly infeasible besides.

Consider an example of a image that was exactly 1mb in size, we haven't got this image, we only know the hash and that it was exactly 1mb. How many possibilities would we have to check? Roughly 2^(1048576*8), of which about 2^((1048576*8) - 128) would have the correct hash.

Even for a piddly 10kb image that we know is 10kb, we'd have to check 2^(10240*8) options, 2^((10240*8)-128) of which would have the correct hash. (FYI, even 2^((10240*8)-128) is a number with 24,622 digits.)

TL;DR: even theoretically reconstructing a file from its hash is a ridiculous proposition for any file larger than about 128 bytes. Ridiculous for two reasons: a) ludicrous amounts of processing power needed, and b) every file has one possible hash, but every hash has 2^((bytelength*8) - 128) possible files (so, ludicrous amounts of human-power -- selecting the correct file -- would also be needed.)

It might get up in court, but only through ignorance of math so extreme it should be deemed a crime against humanity.

Actually, a really, really simple way to explain it is: suppose I take a 4000x4000 image, and downscale it to 4x4 pixels. Is the resulting image in any meaningful way a 'fraction of' or 'derivative of' the original image, keeping in mind that we have just destroyed 99.999899999999997% [ 1 ] of the information of the original image?

[ 1 ] == 100 * (1 - ((4*4) / (4000 * 4000))

savageorange said:

It might get up in court, but only through ignorance of math so extreme it should be deemed a crime against humanity.

I think what you're missing is that it's not an ignorance of math, it's an ignorance of computing (i.e., what a hash file is) and how it's probably more about intent to download than anything.

"She started downloading it, see. Hash file. What are hash files Mr. Johnson, computer expert?"
"They're one of the things sent along with the download used to verify the contents of the files."
"So she started downloading the files. I rest my case."

parasprite said:
I think what you're missing is that it's not an ignorance of math, it's an ignorance of computing (i.e., what a hash file is) and how it's probably more about intent to download than anything.

"She started downloading it, see. Hash file. What are hash files Mr. Johnson, computer expert?"
"They're one of the things sent along with the download used to verify the contents of the files."
"So she started downloading the files. I rest my case."

An intent-based prosecution could be quite valid IMO. But it would have to show a cause-and-effect chain like you wrote, otherwise eg. if an image is uploaded to e621, I view it and it is subsequently removed due to being commercial content, I could be liable for the fact that the url to that image is in my browser history, because the url includes the full md5sum, even though the image itself no longer exists anywhere on my computer and I had no awareness that it was commercial content. That was the absurdity in NMNY's post that I felt I had to illustrate.

Begone, begone, ye threads of yon'
Back to the past for which ye fawn

Furrin_Gok said:
Begone, begone, ye threads of yon'
Back to the past for which ye fawn

You have no necromance in your soul :>[

savageorange said:
Okay, now that this is brought to my attention, I feel the need to point out: A hash of a copyrighted work is not any 'fraction of' a copyrighted work

You know this, I know this, most of the people who use a computer for more than Fb know this, but not the lawyers and judges in my country, who probably break out into cold sweat every time the computer installs a Windows update.

The argumentation was literally that torrent headers contain a very tiny fraction of copyrighted material, and that got them into trouble.

NotMeNotYou said:
You know this, I know this, most of the people who use a computer for more than Fb know this, but not the lawyers and judges in my country, who probably break out into cold sweat every time the computer installs a Windows update.

The argumentation was literally that torrent headers contain a very tiny fraction of copyrighted material, and that got them into trouble.

Thanks for the clarification, that makes more sense.