Christine the Lioness (3122)
Christopher the Pyro (1986)
ProphetJoe the Irreverent (1252)
Trouble the Pirate (601)
Keith the Director (573)
Mara the Peacemaker (533)
eric the Lil' Devil (351)
AJ the Zen Master (305)
Ben the Kingpin (213)
Haas the Addict (187)
Christine 2 the Mercenary (131) Lei the Mercenary (124) Katie the Mercenary (115)
Ben2 the Soldier (56)
j. the Groupie got all philosophical
That’s the spirit!
Christopher the Pyro asserted
I thought so.. 
Christopher the Pyro stated
Tonight’s been a watermark in social media, even just looking at the ingenious (and often hilarious) variations users have come up with to cram the key into headlines, comments and users invites. Personal favorite so far: “Digg deleted my hard drive for posting the HD-DVD KEY! Now my hard drive refuses to write in binary. I get Error Code: 09-F9-11-02-9D-74-E3-5B-D8-41-56-C5-63-56-88-C0 . Oh noz.”
The front page (along with two and three) of Digg consists entirely of stories flaunting the number or criticizing Digg for its actions.
Haas the Addict remarked
Digg has apparently given in to the assault and decided to keep the stories on the site… Well now that the code is out there and considering its is possibly the biggest story of the day, guess its bit of a waste of time trying to censor it all.
This is what I love about the net, ban something and it immediately becomes the most distributed piece of info 
Christopher the Pyro pontificated
I have to completely agree Haas, by censoring it at all they have made it into a much bigger story.. hell I actually saw news about the “revolt on digg” on cnn.com and the drudge report last night…. now the story is huge and international and everybody will understand how easy it is to copy HD-DVD now.. instead of just tech people.
Christopher the Pyro asserted
It is time for me to give credit where some credit is due. The owner and creator of digg now owns the #1 post this was his response.
12700 + Diggs: 09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
Today was an insane day. And as the founder of Digg, I just wanted to post my thoughts…
In building and shaping the site I’ve always tried to stay as hands on as possible. We’ve always given site moderation (digging/burying) power to the community. Occasionally we step in to remove stories that violate our terms of use (eg. linking to pornography, illegal downloads, racial hate sites, etc.). So today was a difficult day for us. We had to decide whether to remove stories containing a single code based on a cease and desist declaration. We had to make a call, and in our desire to avoid a scenario where Digg would be interrupted or shut down, we decided to comply and remove the stories with the code.
But now, after seeing hundreds of stories and reading thousands of comments, you’ve made it clear. You’d rather see Digg go down fighting than bow down to a bigger company. We hear you, and effective immediately we won’t delete stories or comments containing the code and will deal with whatever the consequences might be.
If we lose, then what the hell, at least we died trying.
Digg on,
Kevin
————
The response to this has been interesting.. digg is mostly normal again.. however some people are still pretty pissed for example:
“I’m I the only one that thought that sounded like a pansy reply? I mean, Digg is essentially dead as of right now as it is flooded with literally hundreds of posts about the key. And now that they have basically lost control of the situation, they say, “Oh, we’re sorry! We’ll fight for you!” Did you -really- have a choice at this point?
Something had to give.
I’m more inclined to think that everyone sat around a conference table and said, “We can’t keep up with this. We either let them do what they want, or take the site down,” not, “We messed up here. We should have gone to bat for our users like Google did, or like Slashdot has done - even if eventually they still had to take down the materiel, they built strong loyalty from their users by standing up for them.”
But more seriously, they’ve screwed themselves in the eyes of the law. If they had never removed comments in the first place, they’d have a legal leg to stand on, but because they’ve shown that they can and do have editor powers, they are not protected at all. If you delete one, you have to delete them all (as far as I understand the DMCA). So it’s really a matter to too little, too late. You might as well continue to delete the posts now or you’re going to get pounded. And no, you can’t blame the users if you do get pounded. You guys took the advice of a guy in a suit instead of going with your gut.”
or how about the person who pointed out this very interesting point.
“I’m still left with a big question mark on my head: Digg got a cease and desist letter but according to first ammendment law (of which I might be a little rusty on): news organizations have the right to re-print material that private companies don’t. I don’t think it’s a stretch to call Digg a news organizations (of sorts) — and I think they know that.”
ProphetJoe the Irreverent quibbed this
“I’m still left with a big question mark on my head: Digg got a cease and desist letter but according to first ammendment law (of which I might be a little rusty on): news organizations have the right to re-print material that private companies don’t. I don’t think it’s a stretch to call Digg a news organizations (of sorts) — and I think they know that.”
So this person is supposing that if AP got the password code to my multi-million dollar account in the Cayman Islands, that they have the right to print it under the First Amendment? Hmm, *maybe* so, but that doesn’t make it morally right, nor does it alleviate them from litigation — which, in this scenario, they would obviously be partially liable.
Why does society (at least American society) feel they have a “right” to unlock someone else’s DVD codes?? Or maybe the question should be: why did they feel compelled to share the code in the first place? Is there a “moral issue” I’m missing here, or do people just want to steal copies of DVD’s in order to save a few bucks??
j. the Groupie up'n wrote this
Speaking as someone with some legal training, both of the Digg-responders are legally wrong. Digg would have had to disclose that they had the ability to edit the site during the discovery process anyway, so doing it now doesn’t really harm them. In fact, I think that the attempt to comply with the cease and desist might be beneficial. Even if it doesn’t help them win on the merits, it will play well when a jury or judge is determining damages.
As for the news argument, PJ hit the nail on the head. Just because the First Amendment gives newspapers more leeway doesn’t mean that they absolved from liability if they print someone’s trade secrets or the like. It’s equally possible to report on the story without giving the actual key. For example, “Digg.com was monopolized today by postings revealing a key allowing users to copy HD-DVD movies using a decryption code.” Then, if people go find the decryption code on their own, the news agency isn’t involved at all, and they’ve still reported on the story.
Christopher the Pyro uttered
That would completely take all the fun out of reporting the story J!
PJ why does society..espeically American Society feel entitled… hmm.. because we are an entitled society. Look if your smart enough to crack it or steal it more power to you.
Ok on a serious note this type of copy protection is simply wrong. I purchase something a DVD and I want to make a copy for myself but I can’t. That is simply wrong. I’ve have purchased the rights to the movie I should be able to make a copy to put in my car. This same thing applies to recording songs off a CD or ripping them to my computer so I can listen to them. Once I buy them I own them and I own the rights to do what I want with them.
ProphetJoe the Irreverent stated
Too many people *do* have this “entitlement attitude”. They think that they OWN the rights to that song they paid a whopping .99 cents for on iTunes. You even said it yourself: “Once I buy them I own them and I own the rights to do what I want with them.” WRONG! What you’re “buying” is a license to use exactly 1 copy of that book/movie/song. Copying a movie or song (in the manner your proposed) is as illegal and immoral as purchasing a book, then photocopying it 10 times so that you can have “personal” copies for each room in your house, car, etc.
And we all know the real problem here: people feel entitled to give copies to every friend they’ve ever met AND total strangers via the internet, so the artist and the recording/movie/publishing industry all lose money. You’re essentially suggesting that all original creation is public domain and the purchase price merely covers the costs associated with the media or distribution process.
It’s a very socialist attitude — “I hereby deem that whatever you produce should be available to anyone and everyone who wants it for free” — I suspect you feel differently (or at least Christine does) about something that Christine creates for television… should that be free and available to everyone too, or should she be paid for her work?
Christopher the Pyro asserted
Wrong.. it must be that my entitlement comes from that thing call democracy and bill of rights. Courts have ruled time and time again that people are entitled to copy media they have purchased for fair use. I can’t give it away, but if I buy a song on a CD I should be able to put it on tape, MP3 or whatever else I want and listen to it. Actually I think once she creates something for TV it should be free, infact I think the script she writes should be freely available and the truth is I feel this way about almost anything. I’m very cool with people stealing my code for this site, but only if they are smart enough to steal it. I don’t take any extra steps to stop people from stealing it but on the other hand only certain people are enabled to use it. I think all books should be freely available on the internet and I think movies and music should be available for copying if they are purchased. The world is moving toward an open future.
Christine the Lioness added
Okay… finally time for me to chime in on this one. I think this is tough. Personally, I’m lucky because I don’t have a contract that pays me residuals on the DVD rentals… I get paid for the work I do and if my work airs once or 40 times, I don’t make any additional money, but a lot of people do get residuals and I can understand why it’s not fair to them. I don’t agree with Christopher’s feeling that just because you’re smart enough to steal it means you have the right to. If you’re smart enough to break into my apartment and steal everything I own, does that mean it’s morally right or legal? No. Realistically, if someone did that and didn’t get caught, then their lives go on with all my stuff in their possession. But I support the laws forbidding that behavior and don’t feel sorry for people who get arrested for piracy. They know it’s against the law and that’s the chance they’re taking.
I feel like if someone buys music or a DVD and does want the ability to view it on different mediums that they own, they should be able to transfer it to the medium they want to use. Because we now live in a time where you can enjoy this stuff on your laptop, DVD player, MP3 player, etc. there should be concessions for that. Just because it’s possible to post something on the internet and give it away to millions of people for free, doesn’t mean that everyone is going to do that. No one seemed to care when people were making copies of cassette tapes they’d bought to give to their friends. It’s the ability to do this with such mass numbers that’s the problem. And I don’t have a good answer. American industry loses millions and millions of dollars to China and the other countries on the “high-alert” piracy list, and we should be protecting our American companies from getting fucked by other countries who want our stuff. But we can’t then have a free-for-all attitude for Americans. It’s complicated.
Christopher the Pyro said this
The problem is with all these laws.. is that they are like Gun laws they only work to stop people who follow the rules anyway.. so they stop Christine from using an CD in her house stereo, car stereo and computer cd player.. but they don’t stop me from ripping the cd and giving it away.. the point the rules don’t apply to me anyway they just make Christine’s life hard.
Mara the Peacemaker up'n wrote this
I think you’re right, Christopher. The law would only work for those would follow it anyway. For example, I’m friends with a couple who have a “no piracy” rule in their house. If you have a CD that they like, they don’t want a burned copy — they want to know the artist so they can purchase their own. They also don’t burn CDs for other people. They consider it stealing and find it a serious moral issue (though they have no problem driving 20 miles over the speed limit…still breaking the law there but there is no relative morality…okay, that’s a discussion for another time). But the point is, there are some people who will follow the law even when presented with ample opportunity to do otherwise and there are those who won’t.
Christine the Lioness scribbled
I agree with what Christopher said. It’s true… it makes life hard for someone like me, and not for someone like him. But according to his theory that if you are smart enough to steal it you should, then it shouldn’t matter if it makes my life hard because I am not smart enough to steal it (which is why he does it for me). Either way… there are two issues at play: a moral one, and the reality of being able to stop something deemed illegal or not.
Christopher the Pyro stated
Look survival of the fittest. Being smart and clever enough to futher your life.. is a +, doing otherwise is just stupid.. morals especially ones that have to do with intellectual property rights are over rated.
ProphetJoe the Irreverent thought this
‘topher said: “I think all books should be freely available on the internet and I think movies and music should be available for copying if they are purchased. The world is moving toward an open future.”
Hmm, an “open future” sounds more Star Trekkian than Conservative, ‘topher. Are you sure ‘tine hasn’t turned you into a flaming liberal???
‘topher also sayeth: “it must be that my entitlement comes from that thing call democracy and bill of rights”
Umm, ‘topher, I’m a little bit of a history buff and I’m fairly certain the Bill of Rights doesn’t say a fucking thing about copyright law (no offense, but I think you’re talking out of your ass on this one).
Copyright law comes from the U.S. Code and yes, the courts do interpret that law, especially when new mediums such as CD’s, tape recorders, etc. come into play. I think the direction we’re heading is probably a “per use” fee structure. You’ll eventually get a digital file which is only good for 1 play and you’ll pay 5 micro-cents for it, then it will harmlessly self-destruct.
Of course, some clever woman (in honor of Madame Curie) will invent the replicator from star trek soon, and we can all just order rare first editions of Dickens’ work for free. 
)
Btw, see http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107—-000-.html for reference to the Fair Use provision. There are 4 primary factors: !) commercial vs. non-commercial use, 2) the nature of the copyrighted work, 3) the portion used of the work (sound bites, quotes, etc.) and 4) the effect upon the market or value of the copyrighted work.
PJ
P.S. — I really wasn’t trying to offend you with the “talking out of your ass” joke above! I hope I don’t lose my commenter privileges here.
Mara the Peacemaker hunt n' pecked this
I don’t know if stealing makes one smart…
ProphetJoe the Irreverent scribbled
I agree with Mara!
Let’s give credit where credit is due. The smart one is the creator. The mind who can create something like the Harry Potter fantasy characters (or LOTR), write the song Hallelujah, or even the short story Scarlatti Tilt… not the lackluster mind who steals to possess it.
Names and emails are required (emails aren't displayed), url's are optional.
