Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Second Take: The Digg User Revolt

Last response: in Site Feedback
Share
May 4, 2007 12:50:22 PM

"Second Take: The Digg User Revolt

Ben Meyer and Rob Wright of TwitchGuru discuss the fallout from the user revolt over hacked HD-DVD codes on news site Digg.com."

http://www.tomshardware.com/site/flash_videos/second_ta...


I really felt like the video was a loss.

Ben and Rob:
1. Stumble over words and ineffectively convey their points and contentions.
2. Demonstrated lack of authority and education on the topic. "Digital Rights Protection Act"? Give me a break. If you're going to fire some shots, you should at least have a round in the chamber.
3. Appear to have never been in front of a camera before.

The whole production was pretty much lackluster. I've heard better articulated, more in-depth discussions about the AACS encryption key while at a bar.
That either says a lot about the bar, or says a lot about how horrible the video is.

I'm leaning towards the latter.


Discuss

More about : digg user revolt

May 4, 2007 2:44:28 PM

I disagree with Rob Wright. In fact I could not disagree more. But he does have the right to say it.

This is a freedom of speech issue. This is a question of my right to free expression. And I will actively defend my rights to freely express myself whether it is a corporation or a government who tries to block it.

Digg also has the right to control what is expressed on their site. But, in essence, they have delegated that to their site's user community. So the question for them was if they should back the rights of their user community to free expression or not.

The Digg user community spoke, the Digg web ownership listened and made the right choice.
May 4, 2007 2:51:15 PM

for someone to sit there and say 'its illegal, you dont get it, it's illegal. how many times do we need to go through this? how many times do we need to go through this? how many times?"

holy crap, how many times is right. stop saying that! your argument sounds so diluted and has a childish tone. you act like you are so sure, yet when you start your argument, your at loss for words.

rob, your missing the point. it's not about getting free stuff all the time, the public is smart enough to know that dvd's are not meant to be free! the problem lies in the appearance of regulation on a website where the lack of regulation helped power it in the first place. if you stop one post from appearing, then how many more get pulled? and for what ridiculous reason? we all know our corporate government hasn't drawn the line anywhere on regulating our lives. so i'm sure this won't be any different, theres many examples of regulation ruining something great. THAT IS THE ISSUE.

the DRM code is already out there, and the more attention thats brought to it the worse it will get. in many peoples opinion, the damage is done, and DRM is out the door. the posting of this code is no different than posting of a computer hack... its a slap in the face of the corporation saying "hey, your an idiot and you did it all wrong, and this is why (followed by the exploit)"

if the corporations have a problem with the code being released, then maybe they should have done the job right in the first place. isnt that their responsibility? apparently not since they never do it right. they might as well just tell people not to pirate movies because its effectiveness is exactly the same.

yes, i would be mad if my code was posted in this manner. but what i would learn from it is this "oh, well i didn't do it right, back to the drawing board." that way i spend more money on proper research than burning money by trying to fight the internet. the internet will always win. we are the internet.

rob, your argument is diluted. atleast bring a bigger knife to the gunfight. another thing, you said you KNOW 'the mob' thinks they are entitled to free content from all these companies?

heres my diluted 2 cents to that "c'mon man, seriously."
Related resources
May 4, 2007 4:02:42 PM

Funny, would any of you fools pay for Digg's legal fees? Would you? Speak up now. Since you declare this to be about content regulation, when Digg, who is a business takes down material that could potentially facilitate them being open to multimillion dollar lawsuits not to mention a bevy of other legal resources against them, you'd think that they'd have the right to remove illegal content that I'd say 90% of the people posting have no idea how to use. Especially since they and only they would be the ones that have to deal with this while the users move on to the next big thing.

It's called breaking the Terms of Service, something that none of us who don't pay for the service have much right to complain about. Read the legal statement next time.

Seriously, a bunch of people over the internet posting a hex code does not make a revolt. Fools holding signs does not make a revolution. It only makes an ill manner, petulant, foolish mob.
May 4, 2007 4:31:59 PM

Quote:
I really felt like the video was a loss.

Sorry to hear that. But hey, at least the bloopers were funny, right?

Quote:
Ben and Rob:
1. Stumble over words and ineffectively convey their points and contentions.

Ben and I both grew up with terrible speech impediments.

Quote:
2. Demonstrated lack of authority and education on the topic. "Digital Rights Protection Act"? Give me a break. If you're going to fire some shots, you should at least have a round in the chamber.

Good call. Flubbed that one for sure.

Quote:
3. Appear to have never been in front of a camera before.

While we just started doing THG weekly videos this year, we have been in front onf the camera before; check out the THG video archive. We're obviously not polished yet, but we're trying.

Quote:
The whole production was pretty much lackluster. I've heard better articulated, more in-depth discussions about the AACS encryption key while at a bar. That either says a lot about the bar, or says a lot about how horrible the video is.

Tell us where the bar is. We can shoot the next video there. And no, I'm not kidding...
May 4, 2007 4:52:52 PM

Spot on saying what needed to be said Rob. If you do something illegal, you don't really have rights to complain about getting called to task about it.

If you move TG headquarters to New England, a lot of us could show you good bars/basements/smoky back rooms to conduct a proper video shoot.
May 4, 2007 4:54:59 PM

Quote:
rob, your missing the point. it's not about getting free stuff all the time, the public is smart enough to know that dvd's are not meant to be free!

Um, are they? I don't know if that's necessarily true, e10.

Quote:
the problem lies in the appearance of regulation on a website where the lack of regulation helped power it in the first place. if you stop one post from appearing, then how many more get pulled? and for what ridiculous reason?

I see your point, e10, but remember: Digg has already made it a policy to remove porn from its site as well as blatantly racist articles. So by its recent actions, Digg is essentially saying "We'll remove content that our users deem objectionable but not illegal. However, we won't remove content that is illegal but is demanded by the users." So let's take this a step further. In the U.S., the vast majority of news agencies won't print or publish the name of the victim in a rape case. But let's say there's another high profile Kobe Bryant-like case and someone blogs about the victim, publishes her name, photo and address. That's highly unethical and an extreme invasion of privacy. But let's say the Digg community demands that the info is published. Will Digg bow down to that as well? And if so, where does it end?

Quote:
This is a freedom of speech issue. This is a question of my right to free expression. And I will actively defend my rights to freely express myself whether it is a corporation or a government who tries to block it.


Hemo Jr., at first I agreed with you. But then I looked at this issue a bit closer. I disagree that this is a freedom of speech issue. The information in this case will allow people to steal copyright material. It's hard to think of big corporations as victims, so I'll frame it another way: let's say you have an ADT home security system and I craft a hack that allows anybody to disable it. Then I post the code on the Web. Now, my intention may have been to simply expose the fault in ADT's system, but nevertheless, publicizing the code will undoubtedly lead to some less scrupulous people using the hack to break into people's homes and steal their property. Now I ask you: is this freedom of speech? Is it ethical for a Web site with millions of readers to post the hack, simply because a percentage of its user base demands and because, hey, the cat's out of the bag already and plenty of other sites have posted it, too?
May 4, 2007 4:56:53 PM

I applaud the effort, and am glad to see you listen, albeit good or bad...
Keep it up! :wink: 8)
May 4, 2007 5:01:15 PM

Ok that entire video was just an appeal to authority. The first post simply flat out attacks the people in the video (not a strong argument). I agree that pirating content is illegal but on the other hand I also feel that the people that purchased the content have the right to do as they choose with it.

If you spent $50+ for a hi-def DVD you should be able to make as many back ups as you want and play it on your ipod, cellphone, or anyone of your computers. This is a huge failure of DRM. I don't think this has anything to do with sticking it to the man or whether or not a site has the right to edit the people who create it's content. If consumers were allowed to make legal copies and not simply told it is illegal since it would put a loophole in our DRM there would be much less support for this sort of DRM cracking.

If they go as far as to arrest the man for copying his own DVD so he's not out $50+ when his DVD gets a scratch we have to all take a step back and realize how insane this all is. I think the main audience wants AACS to change its policy on making copies but still not give in to mass piracy.
May 4, 2007 5:06:00 PM

hear ye hear ye... that is ideally the way it should be... and no reasonable person agrees that piracy should be practiced for profit / personal gain, but for making your own copies to use while keeping original, well original... and use the backup for the kids, travel, etc...
May 4, 2007 5:14:55 PM

Opinions are like arseholes... Everyone has one... and everyone else's stink.

Keep up the great work, the videos are definitely coming along I would recommend that you guys work on your frame cuts. They can throw the viewer off. You made some great arguments from a professional standpoint.

Best of luck.
May 4, 2007 5:56:13 PM

I registered in this forum in an attempt to clarify the events on Digg this past tuesday.
As someone who merely observed the events at Digg, not one who participated on either side, I think many sources who are reporting on the events are trying to merely focus on the catalyst for the community's outcry. From my perspective, as well as from the perspective of many participants (based on comments on digg articles), the issue was of general censorship. Most of the participants were simply using the key as a banner to unite under. What almost all of these external reports are failing to mention is that aside from the original article being deleted, the user accounts were being banned as well. Some people noticed this and began posting a few articles simply questioning why the accounts and articles were being suspended, without mention to the key itself. Many of these response articles ended up being deleted as well as the posters being banned, so more criticism articles sprang up (again, merely making reference to the number, not mentioning the key directly), which were in turn deleted with the posters accounts being suspended. I, personally, from following the event unfolding witnessed numerous comments being deleted.

The issue became general censorship as it appeared that the Digg staff were not allowing anything that either mentioned the key, or criticized the company itself, were being removed without warning, and without explanation.

When a community is so heavily based on democracy, this appearance of trying to control the people in this way, to a lot of people, violated their trust. It wasn't until after everything had escalated to such an extreme extent that Digg tried to explain the situation at all, and even then only addressed the initial reason for deleting articles. There was no mention of why accounts were being deactivated or why articles merely discussing the censorship itself were being deleted (and to my knowledge, no explanation has been put forth, nor have many accounts been reinstated).

As for my own opinion on the subject, I firmly stand by Digg itself in the initial deleting of the article containing the key, I want, just as much as everybody else, for Digg to stay around for awhile. However, in regards to the suspending of accounts and deleting of comments or articles criticizing Digg itself, while I'm sure that the Terms of Service specifically allow them to do it, it doesn't necessarily mean it's the appropriate response. I think in a community so reliant on the user, the people at Digg DO owe the people something. Not EVERYTHING, mind you, but at the very least, a real explanation. In my opinion, had Jay Adelson put his blog post up after the first article was deleted, the situation would likely have been completely avoided.

Now, I want to reiterate that i was merely an observant of the events and i can't speak for everyone involved.
May 4, 2007 6:37:42 PM

Food for thought:
If someone logged in here right now and saw their credit card numbers, bank account numbers, and home alarm security code in my sig., would you want to censor me or respect my freedom?

Edit: Oops, reading more carefully I see Rob already made that point.
May 4, 2007 6:54:44 PM

What communist country did you grow up in Rob?

What you said is absolutely inexcusable as an American. I'm disguisted to know we share the same land, you vile example of the current bend over and take it consumer.

What was posted was a number, which is fundamentally no different than any other integer, such as C0D1E2, or 6. There is no way that any integer is illegal to post, share, or discuss. Take 153 for example, it's the first 3 digit number where the sum of the cubes of the digits turns out to be the number itself. Like it? Looks cool. Don't use it, I'll claim intellectual property rights on that number, and use the DMCA to sue you for cease and desist and take down THG. What's different between that idiotic nonsense and the AACS? Absolutely nothing.

Remember the DeCSS issue? Why was it first posted? Because DVD support under Linux didn't exist, so the Linux community, being open source, came up with a workaround. In the process they just happened to break CSS "protection" and the MPAA got all upset.

What HD-DVD support does Linux have now? Oh, yea, none. Why not? Nobody thinks its important, or does nobody want to offer an open source HD DVD player? Well, the Linux community can finally build themselves an HD DVD Linux player with this code.

Is it illegal to run Linux, Rob? Do we have to run Windows, under penalty of law? Hell no, so why should the Linux community not be able to watch HD DVDs they bought with HD DVD drives they bought using money they earned?

This number itself is not a crack. It is a key. You need to find a way to way to write the program and use the key in some aspect to get around some protection. Apparently the protection isn't hard if they were dumb enough to build in a master key. Which leads me to another point:

The AACS knew from the start that it would be a matter of time before the protection was cracked. They deliberately wasted time and money building a failed scheme, but rationalized it by saying the money they saved over building an actual protection could be used to sue crackers. This is not right. It's a failed business strategy.

As an example, I built a little PHP program for a small group of people at my work to use, interfacing with MySQL. There's an administrator account that has complete control. If someone were to hack into MySQL they could easily steal the password, which is represented as an alphanumeric value in MySQL under the 'password' command. Would it be a good idea for me to sue the hacker under the DMCA because that alphanumeric value was intellectual property that I authored and created? I'd probably just alter my administration schema, though. In the end, the project is so small that only a few people know about it and none of them are technologically inclined.

I would very much like to continue pwning any further comments you may wish to post in an attempt to get your IQ up to triple digits.
May 4, 2007 7:18:45 PM

Just for once I would like to see this issue portrayed not as some "Users think they have the right to blah vs big mean corporate empire". That isn't the real lesson here. Time and time again I kept hearing "It's the law!!!" as if the digital millenium copyright act was handed down by GOD himself. The notion that every single law that works its way out of Congress is somehow some sacrosanct piece of the bible is outrageous. What exactly happened on Digg? Users everywhere stood up as one and said in no uncertain terms: "THE LAW IS WRONG". That is what happened. And before anyone gets all teary eyed over our proud "democracy" and how this flies in the face of the founders or whatever answer me a simple question... did you or anyone you know vote on this law? Of course not an "elected official" did after making dozens of back room deals with other politicians from other places and all of them signed it while on the payroll of big media inc. in the form of huge campaign contributions. This law was passed by a corrupt legislature under the influence of many large powerful well healed companies. Anyone want to argue that what I described didn't go on during the passage of the bill? Is that the sacred vision America was supposed to be based on? Is this the best that we should expect? Are we supposed to be satisfied being ruled over by a purchased kleptocracy where challenging anything they vomit forth is somehow morally wrong?

Where exactly in the Constitution does the federal government gain any right to legislate on issues of copyright anyway? I must have missed that especially in light of the 10th amendment which states that the power to make laws about anything not explicitly listed belongs to the states or to the people themselves. In other words if it isn't written down in the Constitution as something Congress can decide upon, they can't. The fact that they *do* and send out legions of jack boots as enforcers does not make it legitimate and certainly takes away the justification for any moral shield they might have used stating that it's "the law". It's the law... So what? The law is wrong and it isn't the first time. This can and does happen and rather a lot. Anybody remember the fugitive slave law of 1850? Nice piece of history there. Juries made up of the people REFUSED to issue guilty pleas and the law just sort of died out and was finally repealled in 1864. So for 14 years this was "moral" to enforce this law? How about separate but equal? How about whatever your hot button issue is? I would love to see the same degree of civil disobedience that happen with hundreds of laws, juries refusing to prosecute in defiance of the judges orders. And if that isn't possible then YES by all means the best method to overthrowing stupid laws is for everyone as one to stand up and challenge the jack boots to arrest us all. Lets see how many 10's of millions of people they can throw in jail at a cost of 40x the present national debt before the whole system collapses.

Our present system of passing laws based on campaign contributions, perks, pork to localities, and corruption breeds this stuff and the only avenue the average joe has is to do exactly what the folks at DIGG did. Dumping tea into the Boston harbor was "illegal" also but I am rather glad it happened. Hell if you'll excuse the exaggerated comparison being Jewish in Germany was illegal but I would still have hidden Anne Frank. The best way to defeat this ridiculous law? Don't obey it, period. Our country was based and founded on people applying the conscience of the community to their leaders NOT knuckling under to whatever outrage happens to sleeze it's way through Congress.
May 4, 2007 7:24:10 PM

You're debating on whether something that is illegal should be, but are still avoiding the point that Digg had to remove the articles to protect its investment as well as the fact that they banned users not for simply speaking out, but being belligerent, spamming, abusive and beyond vulgar (i.e F*ck you Kevin Rose u commie bastard).

You're jumping from a freedom issue to whether or not Linux users have the right to break copy protection. No one is asserting its illegal to run Linux but there are legal channels to go thru that don't involve breaking the law or acting like a bunch of scolded children.

Please, drop the righteous indignation, and don't attempt to talk about IQ after using the word "Pwned".
May 4, 2007 7:29:24 PM

There IS NO DEBATE. It is NOT ILLEGAL. The DMCA letters they sent to Digg and Google were UNFOUNDED and ILLEGAL. I'm not debating whether or not Digg should have deleted posts and banned users. I'm debating whether or not it is legal for AACS to have claimed DMCA, and it's very clear they were wrong.

And, yes I can pwn your IQ.
May 4, 2007 7:35:51 PM

Rob, I have to admit, my points were rather Ad Hominem in nature.
However, I feel the chosen method of communication really failed to express what you were striving to display. I don't even have to tell you that I feel you are much more eloquent when you're communicating via your keyboard, I'm positive that you're already aware of this.

I feel there are people who aren't camera-friendly. I feel like both of you are those kinds of people. Hell, I'm one of those people too.


Aside from the contents of the video itself:
This was a BRILLIANT way to get coverage. I don't think anything has ever struck a nerve with diggers as much as the AACS key takedown, and you pretty much guaranteed coverage by capitalizing on it and posting the video.


My thoughts on the issue?
There are pictures on the internet of bump keys. Bump keys will open any lock they can fit into.
Does a picture of a bump key violate lock mfg's patents and/or trade secrets?
No.
Does a hex representation of a 128-bit crypto key violate the AACS patents and/or trade secrets?
No.
Did the decss source violate patents and/or trade secrets?
Yes, because it actually incorporated trade secrets that had been discovered via reverse engineering.


Unless that crypto key was specifically included in the patent application (and it wasn't,) they don't have a leg to stand on.
It's a key. Nothing more.
May 4, 2007 7:43:20 PM

Quote:
What communist country did you grow up in Rob? What you said is absolutely inexcusable as an American. I'm disguisted to know we share the same land, you vile example of the current bend over and take it consumer.


I grew in up Massachusetts, not China (though some folks consider Cambridge to a communist state). Which brings me to my point: how am I advocating communism? I believe I'm arguing the opposite: the right to have your intellectual property and copyright material protected under the law in a capitalist society, instead of having people take what they want without paying for it. In America I have the right to create content and earn money from that content, and the government protects that right when people break the measures that I've put in place to prevent the illegal copying of that content. That's capitalism, not communism.

Quote:
What was posted was a number, which is fundamentally no different than any other integer, such as C0D1E2, or 6. There is no way that any integer is illegal to post, share, or discuss. Take 153 for example, it's the first 3 digit number where the sum of the cubes of the digits turns out to be the number itself. Like it? Looks cool. Don't use it, I'll claim intellectual property rights on that number, and use the DMCA to sue you for cease and desist and take down THG. What's different between that idiotic nonsense and the AACS? Absolutely nothing.


You're being unreasonable. The number 153 has no value in this case. Now, if 153 was the combination to your locker at your local gym and I posted on a blog that I cracked your combination and then published the number, and then someone stole your gym gear, you'd be pretty ticked off. Again, this goes back to my example about the home security system above. Arguing that "hey, this is just a number" simply doesn't hold water when everyone knows what the number is for.

Quote:
Is it illegal to run Linux, Rob? Do we have to run Windows, under penalty of law? Hell no, so why should the Linux community not be able to watch HD DVDs they bought with HD DVD drives they bought using money they earned?

Joex44, I actually sympathize with you on this point -- even though you called me a "bend over and take it consumer" -- because I'm in a similar situation. No, it's not illegal to run Linux and yes, we should have more choices for consumers beyond Windows. This is why I supported the DOJ case against Microsoft. Sadly, that didn't do much to change things. My point here is, just because you and other law-abiding Linux users would use that code for a reasonable purpose, that doesn't guarantee that others won't use the code to copy HD-DVDs and sell them. In fact, I'm guessing most people will do the latter rather than the former.
May 4, 2007 7:47:54 PM

Under communism, when the government issues a law, the citizens obey it like Jesus himself told them personally what to do.

In America, we have the right to evaluate whether or not a law is just, and whether or not it is being used as intended. Now, at this time the DMCA is the law, and it needs to be obeyed or else there are consequences. See: Juror nullification.

However, as I've already said, the DMCA protects artists and copyright holders for their WORK. NOT for the protection scheme the AACS implemented. There is absolute nothing creative about the key, it represnts a piece of technobabble that very very few people have any idea what to do with. I couldn't write a program based on knowing that number.

If someone were to use this code to copy HD DVDs and sell them, that is on the street, we have laws against that completly seperate from the DMCA issue the AACS has raised. There will ALWAYS be a group of people trying to avoid paying for anything. Sometimes you can literally steal the item, other times you can simply copy it. Whatever you can do to anything, someone will do it. You can't legislate against the majority for what a minority may be doing. It is not fair use to sell your HD DVD copies. It is fair use to have a backup. In order to have a backup, you need to copy.

BTW, has anyone actually verified if this number even works? If it doesn't then the AACS truly is arguing over 153.

Also, I'd very much like to see the US implement a system similar to Canada. If the US made P2P file sharing legal, and implemented a levy on blank CD, DVD, recorable HD-DVD and BluRay, it would allow for compensation to the copyright holders of that media. How they figured out exactly who gets what? Up to them, they just receive a pool of money from the sale of media. It would also cut down on the legislation thats not going to trial, just wasting everyone's time. This levy would represent 100% profit for the copyright holders, they have actually sold no physical media, so there is no expense associated with it. They didn't use their bandwidth, they don't even need to pay for Internet hosting (like iTunes does). Anyone else support this idea?
May 4, 2007 8:28:28 PM

So, according to Rob we should outlaw all guns because having any guns could possibly mean that someone will commit a gun crime. Let's revoke freedoms to prevent a few crimes.

Clearly the posting of the key is not illegal. Those that use the key to commit crime are the ones that need to be punished. I'm not too familiar with the recent laws governing copyrighted material, but I seem to remember that you use to be able to make personal copies for personal use, is that not the case with the latest laws? If it is not the case, then preventing me from making personal copies because you are "guessing" that there are more people trying to distribute the material illegally than there are those of us that would like to store it or back it up on a HTPC or other media, does sound rather communistic.
May 4, 2007 8:42:23 PM

A tax on media is not the answer in my opinion. Digital watermarking to identify what PC and user a copy came from is the answer. If the majority of users can use their content how they feel, the motivation to remove the watermark is removed. At that point, anyone removing it is obviously doing so to prevent being caught doing something wrong. All Linux, fair use, etc... arguments become null and void. Privacy issues would be the likely alternative to these arguments, but if it's not in the open for everyone to see, it's not relevant either.

I don't know what the contents of the original post were, but I do know how the key was originally discovered and the key wasn't derived in a manner that violated the DMCA. Therefore, posting the key alone is not breaking the law either. This IS a free speech issue regardless of the DMCA. It is perfectly legal for me to tell you how to make a bomb with ammonium nitrate so long as I don't suggest what you do with that bomb. Just take a look at the Anarchists Cookbook some day if you don't believe it. Most book stores won't carry the book for moral reasons, but it's not illegal to publish or distribute it. Do I want every Tom Dick and Harry making bombs? No, but it's there right to learn how and this is where the DMCA act is flawed. Reverse engineering things/software for one's own self interest/use is legal without the DMCA. What's illegal is using information gained from that activity to prosper off someone else's copyrighted/patented work. The DMCA is nothing more than Corporate America buying legislation to make their job easier. What I don't get is why more of an outcry hasn't been put forth by law abiding citizens that are harmfully affected by this legislation. Mark my words, if this legislation doesn't get repealed, it is merely a bridge to legislation down the road which puts us further under Corporate America's control.

Do I want you to post how to disable my security system? Certainly not, but that's your right and it's mine and the security company's responsibility to see that that information is not used to my detriment. Just as it's the AACS's responsibility to use the system they developed and revoke the compromised key. What they are upset about is that the timeline they felt the keys would hold up for has failed and Corporate confidence in their product is shaken. Now they may lose a large chunk of money due to promises they made to their customers so they have to put on a show in an attempt to reassure their customers that they've "got it under control."

I could go on further, but this will do for now. Have fun!
May 4, 2007 8:54:13 PM

Quote:
So, according to Rob we should outlaw all guns because having any guns could possibly mean that someone will commit a gun crime. Let's revoke freedoms to prevent a few crimes.


Oh please. Guns are legal in the U.S., Templinc. The analogy is almost as bad at Balroggie's disastrous Anne Frank comparison.

Quote:
Clearly the posting of the key is not illegal.


I'm not sure why people keep arguing this point. Guys, please read the DMCA. In short, the law makes it illegal to produce or distribute any technology, tools or information that are used, even partially, to break DRM. Hence, someone may send the HD-DVD code around to his or her friends simply so they can back up their copies of their HD-DVDs, and according to the DMCA, it's still illegal. There have alreayd been a few major court cases about the DMCA; remember the case with the magazine in 2000 with the DVD encryption story? All the magazine did was offer people access to the software that could break the DVD encryption. The magazine never published the actual method, but they still got sued -- and they lost.

Please don't confuse me stating the letter of the law and case history here for me advocating every aspect of the DMCA and DRM. To a certain extent, I agree that these policies are wrong, and a lot of DRM is excessive and misses the point. But I firmly believe in protecting copyright and patented material (which, I reiterate, is hardly a communist tenet).

And here's the thing: we're acting like it's our God-given right to have backups of HD-DVDs. I'd love to have the ability to do that now legally, but it's not there. Maybe in a few years, just as with DVDs, we'll have cheap HD-DVD recorders to do the job. If you're pissed off about the DRM issues with HD-DVDs, then:
1) don't buy them and stick with DVDs. After all, the HD-DVDs aren't that much better.
3) petition the companies to drop the DRM or market an affordable recorder.
3) write your congressman and start an anti-DRM coalition. Seriously, you'll get plenty of people on this forum to join you, which would be a good start.

However, what I won't advocate is the distribution of a key that will allow people to steal copyright material, even if certain people believe in their heart of hearts that the majority of people won't use it for unscrupulous purposes. Copying HD-DVDs instead of paying for them is no better than petty shoplifting from your local Best Buy. And that will only lead to more DRM, higher prices for HD-DVDs, and more corporate control over the content we consume.
May 4, 2007 9:39:27 PM

Rob, people keep arguing the fact that it is legal to post the HD DVD number because it is legal. It's no different that the 486 that Intel had and AMD used. Fundamentally, it is a hexadecimal number. Nothing more.

It also doesn't work on any HD-DVDs produced after 4/23/07.

As it appears this number was not obtained through reverse engineering (which AFAIK, *IS* illegal in the US, but not in other countries [see: Russia]), then it is a freedom of information that allows the number to be spread.

I think that a lot of people are being lead through a series of wrong implications:

1) Number -> Software -> Internet Piracy. Well, first of all, HD-DVD copies are already on the P2P networks. Whether or not they work on HD-DVD players IDK, but they certainly would work on an HTPC.
2) Number -> HD-DVD Copies -> Street Piracy. Seperate issue, selling street copies is already illegal, DMCA doesn't need to apply.
3) Backup copies -> File distribution. Most people don't have any desire to share their backups.
4) People are claiming the need for backups as a way to disguise their pirate activities. Umm.. Well, I had a 5 CD changer once die on me. I couldn't open the carousel anymore and was unable to extract the CDs out of the device. Kinda sucks that because my CD player died I lost 5 legally purchased $15-$20 CDs. If I had the foresight to make a backup of it, I would've only lost the copy. Then I had to repurchase a 5 CD changer and the 5 CDs, so I was out $200. There's no reason the RIAA should have made 2 sales to 1 person of 1 item and that person keeps 1 item. Now, I backup everything I buy - CD, DVD, Software - and use the backups knowing the originals are safe and there in case. There is a need for backups, ask anyone who has children. How easy it for a kid to lose a CD? Get some stupid junk on it, like peanut butter? Play frisbee with it and get it scratched. They're kids, they don't know anything about money and where money comes from.

Saying you aren't allowed to make a backup because you could pirate it makes the implication that the average consumer could be a pirate. While certainly possible, in that most pirated material came from a retail source, it's not likely your average user will be pirating the latest DVD release.

Things like this would need to be taken into account for my proposed hypothetical blank media levy. It would need to be calculated how much of sold media is used for non-infringing material: backups, personal documents, free software [Linux install discs, etc.], even something like a demo CD of your own band. I have no idea what percent this would amount to, in all likelyhood I'd say its between 30-45%.

While this HD-DVD number implies piracy, it also implies backups. AFAIK, backups are not possible at this time that would play on a regular HD-DVD player. However, as I already stated, HD-DVD copies are already on P2P that would work with a HTPC. So, look, you're trying to prevent people from downloading 25GB ISOs, when they already have video files floating around. Up till now, it's Pirates 1 Consumers 0. The number would allow backups.
May 4, 2007 11:15:03 PM

Quote:
There IS NO DEBATE. It is NOT ILLEGAL. The DMCA letters they sent to Digg and Google were UNFOUNDED and ILLEGAL. I'm not debating whether or not Digg should have deleted posts and banned users. I'm debating whether or not it is legal for AACS to have claimed DMCA, and it's very clear they were wrong.

And, yes I can own your IQ.

Bullshit. DMCA cease and desist letters are legal documents. Its called copyright law, fully protected by the US government. If you feel someone is jeopardizing the terms of your copyright, you have the ability to challenge said infringements in a court of law and to notify the infringing parties of your intentions to do so if they continue such behavior.

Get your facts straight, then try to, "pwn" me.
May 4, 2007 11:26:31 PM

DMCA letters are legal documents, true.

However, what I said is that the DMCA letters AACS sent out were unfounded, meaning that if they were to proceed to a court environment the AACS would lose.

They certainly have the right to try to claim "DMCA, DMCA, DMCA!!!" but in this case, the AACS is absolutely wrong.

Are you pwnt yet?
May 4, 2007 11:45:40 PM

Its funny that you claim to have a higher IQ than someone else here, then:

Use words like "pwn", it's spelled own if you want to be taken seriously in the adult world, not to mention that you sound like a child anytime you say "my xxx owns/pwns yours".Incorrectly refer to communism as the ubiquitous totalitarian evil of the world. Under a true communist system, there would be no need for laws like this, since the IP would be for the good of the people, and therefore owned by the people alreadyAct like an ass to anyone that disagrees with youAnd finally, you claim to be some genius, but when your 5-disk changer broke, you were too dumb to figure out how to take it apart and get your CDs out?

You got me convinced. And yeah, I'll match my IQ against yours anytime.

Now, on to the issue at hand. It could be debatable whether the posting of a number is illegal, and it probably wouldn't be IF it was a coincidental posting. However, when the Hex Key was posted as the HD-DVD Key, it fell under the DMCA, and became illegal. I think there are also other laws that were possibly in violation which relate to attempts to break encryption af any sort.

I happen to personally disagree with DRM for two reasons:
1) I think it does more harm than good
2) Its based on the assumption by the industry that all consumers (the ones who enable their existence in the first place), are crooks out to steal anything they can get their hands on.
May 5, 2007 12:04:51 AM

Dude, I'm the L377 H4X0rz pwning.
May 5, 2007 12:22:49 AM

Quote:
Dude, I'm the L377 H4X0rz pwning.
Thank you for validating my point.

Hackers don't talk like that any more, I doubt you are "elite" especially since its 1337, not L377 (lett??), and I really doubt you have ever "hacked" anything in your life. Since you are a college student, you probably "own" very little also.

Thanks for playing ladies and gentlemen, goodnight... :twisted:
May 5, 2007 12:26:52 AM

I have a question for all of those screaming "IT'S ILLEGAL!" at the top of their lungs. Proof? Can at least ONE of you bloody cite where in the DMCA it states it? All I'm seeing is a bunch of bitching back and forth with no proof. This debate would be over in a matter of seconds if you could provide it, which makes me wonder why someone hasn't yet . . . hmm?

With proof you'll be vindicated. Without it, you'll be made the fool. Simple as that.
May 5, 2007 2:28:00 AM

Does this work for you: US Copyright Office Anticircumvention rulemaking.
Quote:
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Public Law 105-304 (1998), added a new Chapter 12 to title 17 United States Code, which among other things prohibits circumvention of access control technologies employed by copyright owners to protect their works. Specifically, section 1201 provides that "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."


OR you can use the less reliable Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA
Quote:
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a United States copyright law which implements two 1996 WIPO treaties. It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services that are used to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works (commonly known as DRM) and criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, even when there is no infringement of copyright itself.


It IS debatable whether DIGG could have been held liable, based on exemptions for websites that aren't necessarily responsible for users' content. BUT, distributing the key itself WAS illegal, and DIGG was within its rights to restrict illegal activity on it's site.

The law is imperfect, and in some ways, may suck, but it IS the law.
May 5, 2007 3:11:32 AM

Quote:
You're being unreasonable. The number 153 has no value in this case. Now, if 153 was the combination to your locker at your local gym and I posted on a blog that I cracked your combination and then published the number, and then someone stole your gym gear, you'd be pretty ticked off. Again, this goes back to my example about the home security system above. Arguing that "hey, this is just a number" simply doesn't hold water when everyone knows what the number is for.


I think this illustrates the real reason why the AACS wanted them to stop, not the hex key per se. I'm not sure if the original Digg post stated that the hex value was indeed the key to decrypt HD-DVD, but I don't think AACS would even have gone that far if the nature of the hex was not disclosed.

Take for example if I posted all possible 16 digit numbers on some forum and claim them to be credit card numbers. I don't think I'd be arrested for credit card fraud or any sort of theft just because they are, in your words, just numbers. Some of those may definitely be valid numbers. Some may even be yours or mine. But like Rob pointed out, unless i specify which of those numbers can be used for what, no one will be bothering me for that.

Hell, i could probably plaster nuke launch codes on the walls of the white house and be arrested for vandalism only if i don't tell anyone they're nuke codes. What would be interesting is if they'll brand me a terrorist for posting some random number as nuke codes.. Maybe i'll give it a shot....

AB CD EF -> this hex number will enable you to activate any nuke in the world.

1111-1111-1111-1111 -> this is someone's credit card number with more than a million dollar credit limit.

00 11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 99 00 AA BB CC DD EE FF -> this is the new HD-DVD key the AACS will use to replace the compromised one.

:twisted:
May 5, 2007 3:13:31 AM

btw, if you don't hear from me again, one of those three is probably right... 8O
May 5, 2007 3:15:46 AM

Reported [/dispatch alert]
May 5, 2007 3:24:06 AM

Quote:
btw, if you don't hear from me again, one of those three is probably right... 8O
Now you gotta go live up on a mountain somewhere for at least 5 years...
May 5, 2007 3:24:32 AM

Quote:
. . . BUT, distributing the key itself WAS illegal, and DIGG was within its rights to restrict illegal activity on it's site.

The law is imperfect, and in some ways, may suck, but it IS the law.


What you quoted has in no way, shape or form shown the key breaking the law. The key itself is not able to circumvent a technological measure or enforces that it actually be done, and there's no proof of reversing engineering to obtain said key either. If we take the law in a very contextual sense, nothing unlawful has been comitted yet, or even can (because the only piece of information was simply the key). If the key was obtained without reverse engineering and whatnot, then the key should be legal. It may suck for the DRM camp, but as you're so fond of saying "it's the law".

Of course, this is based on what you have provided.

Quote:
. . . DIGG was within its rights to restrict illegal activity on it's site.


At this point, I'm going to consider the legality of it more than scewed. As for Digg (note, not all caps) removing activity that's one-hundred percent their choice. It's their site and as such they could remove materials they see unfit regardless.

Quote:
The law is imperfect, and in some ways, may suck, but it IS the law.


Until you actually prove it in contextual sense to what you have or will provide as a source I'll remain skeptical.
May 5, 2007 3:46:08 AM

The law in and of itself in most cases doesn't allow for context (outside of self defense and such). Context is getting into the realm of lawyers, and thats why they argue the cases.

According to the letter of the law, which is all we can use in this case, ANY attempt to circumvent the protections in place, whether partial or full, successful or not, COULD be construed as an illegal activity.

The fact is the key was posted (regardless of how it was obtained) as the encryption key, and therefore could be a partial attempt at circumventing the protections in place.

Whether, in the context of this situation, it was an illegal act or not would be up to the courts and lawyers (the place where context comes into the law).
May 5, 2007 3:47:48 AM

BTW, you've lurked here for a year, and THIS is the only thing you could find worthy of posting about?
May 5, 2007 3:56:53 AM

I do not get why this is such a problem, the code itself is not illegal, it is using it to break the drm. There is absolutely nothing in any law (at least in the U.S.) that says distributing knowledge is illegal (the code is a piece of knowledge after all), it does say that violating copyright does; yet the code itself does not. Therefore there is no problem, unless digg is using the code which i seriously doubt.
May 5, 2007 3:58:34 AM

Quote:
According to the letter of the law, which is all we can use in this case, ANY attempt to circumvent the protections in place, whether partial or full, successful or not, COULD be construed as an illegal activity.


The fact that it must be "construed" as illegal activity makes me even more weary of this in legal terms. It's not outright illegal yet, because it hasn't been tried for it. Thus, I guess we could say that as of yet, it isn't. Besides, the key in itself was not an actual ATTEMPT at breaking it. Nice try though :wink:

Quote:
The fact is the key was posted (regardless of how it was obtained) as the encryption key, and therefore could be a partial attempt at circumventing the protections in place.


Once again though, burden of proof would be on lawyers. Since you're wanting to tell everyone it's illegal, you're helping shoulder burden of proof. So prove it. If you can't, nothing you have offered up to this point could be interpreted as more than simple minded speculation. Really, the least you could do is cite legal precedent or something of the sort. Maybe then you would have some grounds.

Quote:
BTW, you've lurked here for a year, and THIS is the only thing you could find worthy of posting about?


Hm, deviating from the topic at hand are we? Cute.
May 5, 2007 4:21:09 AM

Quote:
According to the letter of the law, which is all we can use in this case, ANY attempt to circumvent the protections in place, whether partial or full, successful or not, COULD be construed as an illegal activity.

Quote:
The fact that it must be "construed" as illegal activity makes me even more weary of this in legal terms. It's not outright illegal yet, because it hasn't been tried for it. Thus, I guess we could say that as of yet, it isn't. Besides, the key in itself was not an actual ATTEMPT at breaking it. Nice try though :wink:
Wrong. You do NOT have to be tried for an act in order for that act to be illegal. You only need to be tried in order to be found GUILTY. There is a difference. If I kill someone, its ILLEGAL, whether I am tried or not. Even if I get away with it, it doesn't make the act of killing someone any less illegal.

Further, the Key itself was not an attempt at anything. The key is just a number. The POSTING of the key, however, could be an attempt to break the encryption, and that IS illegal. As I pointed out before, whether that applies in this case would be up to the lawyers.

Quote:
The fact is the key was posted (regardless of how it was obtained) as the encryption key, and therefore could be a partial attempt at circumventing the protections in place.

Quote:
Once again though, burden of proof would be on lawyers. Since you're wanting to tell everyone it's illegal, you're helping shoulder burden of proof. So prove it. If you can't, nothing you have offered up to this point could be interpreted as more than simple minded speculation. Really, the least you could do is cite legal precedent or something of the sort. Maybe then you would have some grounds.
Its not up to me to prove, I merely stated that there IS a law saying that any attempt to circumvent the protections is illegal, and that this act COULD be considered such an attempt. You asked where the DMCA states that this could be illegal, I gave it to you, and you chose to argue.

Quote:
BTW, you've lurked here for a year, and THIS is the only thing you could find worthy of posting about?


Quote:
Hm, deviating from the topic at hand are we? Cute.
Actually no, its called asking a question. Thats why I posted it in a separate post. I was just curious what took you so long to actually contribute to our little community. If you take offense, then fine. I won't try to communicate with you other than to debate the topic at hand.
May 5, 2007 4:23:22 AM

Quote:
I do not get why this is such a problem, the code itself is not illegal, it is using it to break the drm. There is absolutely nothing in any law (at least in the U.S.) that says distributing knowledge is illegal (the code is a piece of knowledge after all), it does say that violating copyright does; yet the code itself does not. Therefore there is no problem, unless digg is using the code which i seriously doubt.
Actually, when that knowledge is someone else's Intellectual Property, there are laws that prevent sharing said knowledge. Thats the whole basis of patents and copyrights in the first place.

For the Record, I DON'T think Digg did anything illegal. The posts of some of the users MAY have been illegal, though.
May 5, 2007 4:34:30 AM

Quote:
Wrong. You do NOT have to be tried for an act in order for that act to be illegal. You only need to be tried in order to be found GUILTY. There is a difference. If I kill someone, its ILLEGAL, whether I am tried or not. Even if I get away with it, it doesn't make the act of killing someone any less illegal.


Actually, you're missing part of the post which is called precedant. A crime must be committed to be made a crime first, and then it can be made to law. In this case, interpretation of the law would have to be made with possible amendments (or, this could be set merely as precedent).

Quote:
Further, the Key itself was not an attempt at anything. The key is just a number. The POSTING of the key, however, could be an attempt to break the encryption


How does posting = attempt. I'm just dieing to hear your explanation of that one.

Quote:
and that IS illegal.


What, the posting or the attempted breaking? Your bouncing back and forth so much your argument seems cluttered.

Quote:
As I pointed out before, whether that applies in this case would be up to the lawyers.


See, you keep on bouncing between "It's the lawyers that decide" but your original conclusion was "IT IS ILLEGAL". Make up your mind . . . seriously, you wouldn't be schizophrenic by chance would you?

Quote:
Its not up to me to prove, I merely stated that there IS a law saying that any attempt to circumvent the protections is illegal, and that this act COULD be considered such an attempt. You asked where the DMCA states that this could be illegal, I gave it to you, and you chose to argue.


It is up to you to prove, since you're telling everyone it's illegal. In a debate, burden of proof is on YOU. That's like me saying "Jesus lives", but when questioned I just say "Nah, go find him yourself".

Quote:
The posts of some of the users MAY have been illegal, though.


See, once again you're jumping back to this "may" business. Yet you seemed so sure to shove that it was illegal down others throats before :roll:

Why anyone would bother taking your debate seriously anymore is beyond me. One second it's proof positive then the next is quite plausible. Make up your mind already.
May 5, 2007 5:03:00 AM

Quote:
Actually, you're missing part of the post which is called precedant. A crime must be committed to be made a crime first, and then it can be made to law. In this case, interpretation of the law would have to be made with possible amendments (or, this could be set merely as precedent).
Precedent is not always required. At some point, a particular case must set precedence. The first person to commit murder after it became illegal did not get off just because no precedent had been set. Obviously, I am taking things to an extreme here, but it doesn't seem that you understand me when I speak any other way.

Quote:
How does posting = attempt. I'm just dieing to hear your explanation of that one.
The Posting COULD be considered an attempt in that the act of posting the key facilitates someone else using the key to break the encryption. If you help someone commit a crime, you can be held liable as well.

Quote:
What, the posting or the attempted breaking? Your bouncing back and forth so much your argument seems cluttered.
Any attempt at breaking the encryption is illegal. I am not bouncing back and forth at all, you are just deliberately misconstruing what I say in an attempt to strengthen your argument.

Quote:
See, you keep on bouncing between "It's the lawyers that decide" but your original conclusion was "IT IS ILLEGAL". Make up your mind . . . seriously, you wouldn't be schizophrenic by chance would you?
Actually, I don't. I did originally say the posting was illegal, which was a mistake, as it could be in one light, but it could not be in another, and that would be up to the layers to decide. However, I HAVE maintained that any attempt to break the encryption would be illegal.

Quote:
It is up to you to prove, since you're telling everyone it's illegal. In a debate, burden of proof is on YOU. That's like me saying "Jesus lives", but when questioned I just say "Nah, go find him yourself".
Actually no, as I said, you asked how it could be illegal, and I gave you the law stating that an attempt to break the encryption is illegal. I don't know what more proof you want that attempting to break the encryption is illegal. I DID say that whether the posters were attempting to aid the breaking of that encryption would be up to the lawyers. What is happening now is you are saying "Prove Jesus lives", me showing you a guy named Jesus, and you saying "not THAT Jesus".

Quote:
See, once again you're jumping back to this "may" business. Yet you seemed so sure to shove that it was illegal down others throats before :roll:
No, I said that any ATTEMPT to break the encryption IS illegal.

I said ONE time, as I mentioned above, that the posts were illegal:
Quote:
BUT, distributing the key itself WAS illegal, and DIGG was within its rights to restrict illegal activity on it's site.
And then I realized that its open to interpretation, so I changed and said that it would be for the courts to decide. read my posts again. nowhere have I flip-flopped on any of this. I DID change my mind one time.

I think you seem to be misunderstanding me and that we are talking about two different things here.
May 5, 2007 5:17:49 AM

Quote:
Precedent is not always required. At some point, a particular case must set precedence. The first person to commit murder after it became illegal did not get off just because no precedent had been set. Obviously, I am taking things to an extreme here, but it doesn't seem that you understand me when I speak any other way.


The first people to do a hijacking on an airplane couldn't be prosecuted because they hadn't broken any laws. So yes, with many cases a precedent must be set.

Quote:
he Posting COULD be considered an attempt in that the act of posting the key facilitates someone else using the key to break the encryption. If you help someone commit a crime, you can be held liable as well.


Then you're talking about an accessory to a crime. I can leave my car unlocked and shout it from my lungs, it still doesn't make me guilty if someone hotwires it and runs someone down. At best makes me negligent.

Quote:
Any attempt at breaking the encryption is illegal. I am not bouncing back and forth at all, you are just deliberately misconstruing what I say in an attempt to strengthen your argument.


Am I misconstruing or are you not making a clear argument? One like me wonders . . .

Besides, whining proves nothing. How am I misconstruing what you say?

Quote:
I did originally say the posting was illegal, which was a mistake, as it could be in one light, but it could not be in another, and that would be up to the layers to decide. However, I HAVE maintained that any attempt to break the encryption would be illegal.


I haven't doubted that breaking the actual encryption would be illegal. However you did say the post was illegal, which has been what I was on about.

Seeing as how you have changed your mind in this light means that you've conceded it isn't blatantly illegal (although may found to be in the near future) in regards to the actual key posting. Regardless it's been fun, but this now bores me :lol: 

Maybe another time? Until then, I'll go to my normal forums I post in.
May 5, 2007 5:35:59 AM

Quote:
Precedent is not always required. At some point, a particular case must set precedence. The first person to commit murder after it became illegal did not get off just because no precedent had been set. Obviously, I am taking things to an extreme here, but it doesn't seem that you understand me when I speak any other way.


The first people to do a hijacking on an airplane couldn't be prosecuted because they hadn't broken any laws. So yes, with many cases a precedent must be set.Yes, but laws have already been written in this case, there's no real need for precedence. There is merely the burden of proof that the existing laws were broken.

Quote:
he Posting COULD be considered an attempt in that the act of posting the key facilitates someone else using the key to break the encryption. If you help someone commit a crime, you can be held liable as well.


Then you're talking about an accessory to a crime. I can leave my car unlocked and shout it from my lungs, it still doesn't make me guilty if someone hotwires it and runs someone down. At best makes me negligent.Not the same thing. A better analogy would be If you found the key for a car, gave it to someone else, told them it was the key, and then they used it to steal the car. In that case, you would probably be an accessory and would be charged as such.

Quote:
I haven't doubted that breaking the actual encryption would be illegal. However you did say the post was illegal, which has been what I was on about.
Actually, you started this by asking where in the DCMA it states that such activities are illegal. I posted the links showing that attempt to break the encryption were illegal, and said that in this situation, certain actions could be construed as such an attempt.
May 5, 2007 6:17:45 AM

Quote:
Actually, you started this by asking where in the DCMA it states that such activities are illegal. I posted the links showing that attempt to break the encryption were illegal, and said that in this situation, certain actions could be construed as such an attempt.


It's too late, you've already conceded the point I wanted you to. The post may or may not be illegal, rather than outright is. You said you changed your mind before, are you going to say you did it again? :roll:
May 5, 2007 6:36:42 AM

Quote:
It's too late, you've already conceded the point I wanted you to. The post may or may not be illegal, rather than outright is. You said you changed your mind before, are you going to say you did it again?


Shike, I'm not sure if you caught my earlier post about the DVD crack case in 2000 with the hacker magazine 2600, but you should look it up. 2600 got sued and lost the case after they posted LINKS -- not encryption codes or software or anything, just links -- to the code that would break DVD's DRM. According to the DMCA, you don't have to actually used whatever tool or code in question; you can be found guilty by merely distributing the codes or information, without having any real intention of illegally copying HD-DVDs yourself. Which is exactly the boat that Digg is in: Kevin Rose isn't advocating that people use the code to steal copyright material -- he's merely posting information that his community wants. However, he and the Digg execs are putting themselves at risk by consciously going back on a previous policy and allowing the information to be distributed through their site. Their defense may end up being that they are merely a news aggregation/community site and that Digg itself did not publish the information. But it's not like Digg can plead ignorance.

We've spent two pages talking about precedents and bad analogies, with people arguing about what is illegal and what is not. Don't get me wrong, I love the fact that it's a Friday night and I'm reading posts about this at wee hours of the morning. Again, I encourage everyone to read the DMCA text and look up some of the recent case history, such as the 2600 case.

Digg may very well beat the rap on this, who knows? But the from what I've read, they don't have case history on its side, and a lot of legal experts are saying it doesn't look good.
May 5, 2007 7:03:06 AM

Quote:
Shike, I'm not sure if you caught my earlier post about the DVD crack case in 2000 with the hacker magazine 2600, but you should look it up. 2600 got sued and lost the case after they posted LINKS -- not encryption codes or software or anything, just links -- to the code that would break DVD's DRM. According to the DMCA, you don't have to actually used whatever tool or code in question; you can be found guilty by merely distributing the codes or information, without having any real intention of illegally copying HD-DVDs yourself. Which is exactly the boat that Digg is in: Kevin Rose isn't advocating that people use the code to steal copyright material -- he's merely posting information that his community wants. However, he and the Digg execs are putting themselves at risk by consciously going back on a previous policy and allowing the information to be distributed through their site. Their defense may end up being that they are merely a news aggregation/community site and that Digg itself did not publish the information. But it's not like Digg can plead ignorance.

We've spent two pages talking about precedents and bad analogies, with people arguing about what is illegal and what is not. Don't get me wrong, I love the fact that it's a Friday night and I'm reading posts about this at wee hours of the morning. Again, I encourage everyone to read the DMCA text and look up some of the recent case history, such as the 2600 case.

Digg may very well beat the rap on this, who knows? But the from what I've read, they don't have case history on its side, and a lot of legal experts are saying it doesn't look good.


Well great, if there was this info on hand why didn't you, I don't know, actually post the text in the DMCA that was used in the other case maybe so this thread could have been done hours ago?
May 5, 2007 9:25:41 AM

It is with great dismay that I write this post.

Why?

I've been a steady reader of Toms Hardware Guide since 2001. My first homebuilt computer contains a motherboard which I bought due to the site's reviews. That motherboard has the THG Logo stamped on the box. I've followed the site through good articles, bad articles, and allegations of bias.

I haven't had time to investigate every controversy, I've seen a professional attitude and dedication to truth and accuracy that has kept me coming back.

Today, for the first time in six years, I have seen a posted feature which disregards every editorial value which the site had held. I've watched a video containing a loud, aggressive stance with nothing to defend against it.

Perhaps I merely overreact to one video with which I disagree.

Nevertheless, Tom's Hardware Guide has established a standard for all their content, and to see it so grievously broken in this instance leaves me at a loss.

Honesty, integrity, respect. These are things I wish to see. An argument, even a strong one, for the predominance of the new order of copyright law under which this number can be in violation, under which opening legally purchased products for the sole purpose of their use, can be illegal - an argument for the criminalization of the HD-DVD key. In these things, properly phrased, I can see these values.

Ugly arguments, but what copyright debate does not include those?

I can see an argument for the use of other, more legal tactics to revoke the HD-DVD encryption, for laws to decriminalize the breaking of DRM. I cannot look kindly upon the acceptance of what I consider to be laws running foul over morality, practicality, ethics, and the history of law itself, the American legal system, and copyright law's history, even the concerns of artists and authors; but I will accept any honest and true argument.

Demand I mindlessly follow a law damaging to creator and consumer alike, and you lose my respect. Demand I oppose a brave decision on the part of Kevin Rose - as you say, Digg could have continued without the key, without users like myself; though I did not post the key nor partake in the spam, I would have left otherwise -

Call my interests those of pirates, and you lose my readership. Would that it still meant something to you.
!