Kevin Rose, Digg's founder, says he's willing to "go down fighting" rather than attempt to pull posts made to Digg.com that provide the means to violate AACS copyright. The licensing adminstrator issued a cease and desist ordering Digg to remove stories containing a single code that can decrypt HD-DVD movies published before April 23, 2007.
It appears Digg.com may have thrown up its hands, conceding its user base has more control over Digg.com than it does. If the company did--or could, given the mass-Digging the users launched--pull all the postings, the backlash might be too much for the site to live with. People might lose faith that Digg is an uncensored venue for public discourse.
But the copyright laws and underlying issue will not go away because the people object.
Some people say this is a freedom of speech issue. I think not. Whose freedom of speech is threatened? The bloggers? The people who posted copyright-breaking info? It's not illegal to post a blog.
Digg chose to not promote the original AACS posting, agreeing to remove it. (It went up nearly three months ago, by the way, as noted in my colleague Eric Dahl's report yesterday). Customers refused to let it do so. Who pays the consequences?
The story here is that a cyber-riot broke out and the grassroots prevailed. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, AACS. There may be nothing the AACS can do to fight the Internet.
But, as Digg's Rose notes, his company risks legal sanctions because it can't keep up with the removal of Digg posts.
To us, this issue has more similarities to the Viacom-YouTube pending lawsuit. If Digg goes to court, will it take the common carrier defense provided in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act? Can it win?
What's at the root of the cyber-riot? Are users mad at Digg? Maybe yes, because they didn't want Digg to yank the info. But Digg was trying to balance its interests and stay on the side of the law. Perhaps the cyber-riot should've been directed at the AACSLA (which has no comment, by the way). Perhaps copyright laws need to change. But that's not what happened this week.
We don't defend the likes of the RIAA or MPAA and their lawsuit-happy ways of suing first and asking questions later, either However, like it or not, the law is on their side in these copyright disputes.
Digg users could get their way -- but maybe not quite as they anticipate. It appears Digg can't remove the AACS cracking info, short of shutting down its site. As a consequence, Digg could end up in court and lose. Will the cyber-rioters help fund that fight?
If the AACSLA wins in court and Digg withers or dies, who wins? Boy, the cyber-mob really proved something.
(With help from PC World Contributing Editor Peggy Watt, a mass media law professor).
Kevin Rose isn't the CEO of Digg, Jay Adelson is. http://digg.com/about
Article mentions that Kevin Rose is the Founder -- not the CEO.
If sites like Digg, Youtube and many others aren't prepared to challenge that god awful DMCA in courts of law, they shouldn't reap the rewards of what made them popular in the first place. This article makes me feel sorry for PC WORLD, you've clearly chosen to sit at the back of the bus.
"However, like it or not, the law is on their side in these copyright disputes." [from article]
O-rly? YAAL (You are a lawyer)?
Sixteen hexadecimal numbers are copyrightable? Yes, they can make the claim that the numbers are part of a DRM "circumvention device." I suppose they could claim that "open()" is part of a circumvention device too. Maybe those 16 numbers are unique to the AACS? Maybe not.
In any case, the numbers by themselves are useless. The only purpose in the AACS's actions are to inspire fear.
Apparently this does need to go to a court to be sorted out. A large portion of the internet community would rally to support the defendant. Such a case would certainly be interesting.
As far as the "mob", Digg more politely calls them their members.
- "A member of the PCWorld Mob"
Wow... this editorial misses the point. "Whose freedom of speech is threatened?" They are attempting to suppress a NUMBER! Your assertion that this is a copyright issue is spurious, since you can't (by law) copyright a number or natural phenomenon.
This is pretty clearly a DMCA issue, and as an act of suppression, a free speech issue.
Just because the editorialist doesn't see any point in resistance to laws that are unfair and counter-progressive doesn't mean that the rest of us are so willing to lie down for the slaughter like good little sheep.
Color me totally naive but I was under the impression one could not trademark a number. The code, yes, the key no.
The MPAA needs to realize security-by-obscurity doesn't and won't work. The cat's out of the bag.
Yes the law is the law, but as you allude to, in this case it's not a very good one (to say the least). So what's your solution? Well do nothing of course because it is the law, and you sure don't want to challenge the law. Good thing those equal rights people back in the 60s didn't follow your lame advice. People in mass have the power to change laws, but not if they sit on their hands and wait for someone to do it for them.
Copyright and patents aren't property. They're censorship. That's what this case has demonstrated - and it has also shown the internet's response: batter down the censorship with weight of numbers. We will not be gagged! The DMCA and similar laws must die; for them to die they must be fought, and where better to organize a stand than digg?
Attention freedom seekers, seems PC WORLD is also in the business of censorship, even before having received a DMCA takedown notice. May the "mod" hit you with as many DVD keys you can't keep up with...
"that violate AACS copyright."
For crying out loud, how many more news sites are going to post this incorrectly. No copyright was violated. AACS LA is throwing out litigation because the potential to circumvent the AACS drm systems with the key. It has to do with the DMCA violation potential, not a copyrighted number. (Numbers can't be copyrighted....)
Oh well, Digg can support its own lawsuit since they have a flawed website in the eyes of the Law (but who gives a crap aobut the Law?)
You can't copyright a number. It's ludicrous to think that they'll win ANY lawsuit against someone hosting a simple number. I agree it would be illegal to circumvent AACS using the number, but you can't tell me any judge wouldn't laught them out of court for trying to ban a number. This IS a free speech issue, and anyone who argues otherwise is an ignorant fool.
To Crypticgeek,
So it's ok with you to publish your social security number and bank account numbers for identity thieves? It's not a matter of copyright and numbers, it's the information and the context. See
http://www.realtime-websecurity.com/articles_and_analysis/2007/05/the_digg_meltdown_censorship_a.html
for more on that line of thought.
"Article mentions that Kevin Rose is the Founder -- not the CEO."
Not originally. It must have been changed after I posted it.
"If the AACSLA wins in court and Digg withers or dies, who wins? Boy, the cyber-mob really proved something."
I am sick of people trying to change the subject and shift the discussion away from AACSLA, RIAA and MPAA. The "cyber-mob" has nothing to feel guilty about. If Digg goes down the blame should fall to the greedy lawyers who insisted on su-ing despite Digg demonstrating it's inability to stop its users.