This isn't a legal opinion and shouldn't be taken as legal advice.
Interestingly, I think New Zealand law does have this case covered. There's special mention of "computer-generated" works under Section 5[1] of the Copyright Act which states (as I read it) that the person who wrote the computer program to generate the audio is the author of the audio.
EDIT: Had another read and thought that actually it could also be the person that inputted their choices into the computer program that undertook "the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work"... Copyright is a murky section of law.
No, because you didn't create those other files, your enumerated bits won't have the right color ;)
"Bits don't have Colour; computer scientists, like computers, are Colour-blind. That is not a mistake or deficiency on our part: rather, we have worked hard to become so. Colour-blindness on the part of computer scientists helps us understand the fact that computers are also Colour-blind, and we need to be intimately familiar with that fact in order to do our jobs.
The trouble is, human beings are not in general Colour-blind. The law is not Colour-blind. It makes a difference not only what bits you have, but where they came from. [...] The law sees Colour.
Suppose you publish an article that happens to contain a sentence identical to one from this article, like "The law sees Colour." That's just four words, all of them common, and it might well occur by random chance. Maybe you were thinking about similar ideas to mine and happened to put the words together in a similar way. If so, fine. But maybe you wrote "your" article by cutting and pasting from "mine" - in that case, the words have the Colour that obligates you to follow quotation procedures and worry about "derivative work" status under copyright law and so on. Exactly the same words - represented on a computer by the same bits - can vary in Colour and have differing consequences. When you use those words without quotation marks, either you're an author or a plagiarist depending on where you got them, even though they are the same words. It matters where the bits came from." - from http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23
Basically, non-recorded metadata about how a sequence of bits was created matters too. Not just the bits themselves.
Now you've simultaneously copyright infringed all the worlds works by sharing them on the internet, AND generated all other works, making it impossible for anyone else to ever not infringe on your work.
I remember someone created a P2P file sharing system that used 'munges' of files to create blocks of data by themselves that have no meaning (a bit like http://monolith.sourceforge.net/). These blocks were then transferred around the network, and people could claim "I'm not transferring files, I'm transferring meaningless blocks of data".
Sure, but (and I'm not a lawyer), intent of law is just as important as the literal meaning of law. Cases play out this intent and add to the corpus of knowledge as case law. So if you did write a program to generate all the data in the world, I'd imagine people would look at your intent, rather than just what you literally did.
You'd run out of disk space before you even generated "Hello, World". Assuming ASCII only, that's 96 bits. In order to save every possible character combination you'd need about 9903 yottabytes [1] of storage.
If you went through and sorted those which were pleasant from those which weren't, you would own all those you sorted. Good luck getting even one picture that looked anything more than static or pure color.
Interestingly, I think New Zealand law does have this case covered. There's special mention of "computer-generated" works under Section 5[1] of the Copyright Act which states (as I read it) that the person who wrote the computer program to generate the audio is the author of the audio.
[1] http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994/0143/latest/D...
EDIT: Had another read and thought that actually it could also be the person that inputted their choices into the computer program that undertook "the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work"... Copyright is a murky section of law.