Second Take: The Digg User Revolt

[joex444]

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?

 

[hergieburbur]

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.

 

[joex444]

Dude, I'm the L377 H4X0rz pwning.

 

[hergieburbur]

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:

 

[Shike]

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.

 

[hergieburbur]

Does this work for you: US Copyright Office Anticircumvention rulemaking.

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

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.

 

[echdskech]

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:

 

[echdskech]

btw, if you don't hear from me again, one of those three is probably right... 8O

 

[RichPLS]

Reported [/dispatch alert]

 

[hergieburbur]

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...

 

[Shike]

. . . 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.

. . . 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.

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.

 

[hergieburbur]

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).

 

[hergieburbur]

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

 

[batterycell]

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.

 

[Shike]

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

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.

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.

 

[hergieburbur]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[hergieburbur]

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.

 

[Shike]

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).

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.

and that IS illegal.

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

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?

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".

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.

 

[hergieburbur]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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:

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.

 

[Shike]

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.

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.

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?

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.

 

[hergieburbur]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Shike]

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:

 

[robwright]

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.

 

[Shike]

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?

 

[Malician]

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.