Adding a "(2004)" to the title might be an idea. This article came after the range of controversies related to the Dmitry Sklyarov case (he was pursued for his role in creating software to bypass Adobes e-book DRM) as well as DeCSS, that prompted a number of attempts to engineer systems to "bypass" copyright, one of which was Monolith - mentioned in the article - which basically xor's random data with a copyrighted work, which the authors then believed might somehow make someone distributing the files separately immune to copyright infringement claims.
It does lead to an interesting plausible deniability claim. If ten people come forward with chunks that XOR to a copyrighted file, they can all show to 90% certainty that they aren't the one with the derived/infringing chunk.
Dealing with the conspiracy claims would be tricky, though.
> Dealing with the conspiracy claims would be tricky, though.
That's exactly why conspiracy laws were set up. Engineers/information activists aren't the first people to have these ideas - you can probably find ideas like that going all way back to the beginning of human storytelling.
Using this scheme to evade copyright law is relatively recent but breaking things apart to create plausible deniability is ancient.
