Second Take: The Digg User Revolt

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
What an idiotic discussion. It's not illegal to make backups of DVD's you own. Posting a number that allows a home user to do this should not be illegal. These guys need to pull their heads out of thier butts and get a freaking clue. Digg and other sites should only censor this information if ordered to do so by a court, the AACS is not a law enforcement agency.

Making a number illegal is not going to keep pirates from pirating one single thing, it is going to hurt honest people that legally want to make backups of their own paid for media. Pirates will always find ways to get their hands on whatever it is they want to copy, this is only hurting honest people that pay for their media.

For pirates it only takes one leak, gifted hardware hacker, well funded organization, incorrect hardware implementation, social engineering exploit, hacked computer system, etc... and one person can distribute it to the whole world.
 
That is where this discussion branches out in different directions. The problem is that fair use and DMCA can't coexist. Unfortunately the US is not the only country where lobbyist have a stronger voice than constituents. We here in Canada are now headed down the same path under pressure from our southern neighbors and industry.
 
Trust me man, no one likes the DMCA, and I hate it more than most people, seeing that I've been on the receiving end of Termination letters and Cease and Desist ones far too any times for my comfort. But the law is the law. I knowingly break the law and because of this i can't complain when I get caught. Its the way things are.

THG and Rob are correct in there stance. Although we may not like the law, as responsible citizen we have to follow them.
 
True, it just bothered me that these guys didn't even consider this. Maybe the key shouldn't be put up, but its not nearly as clear cut an issue as presented in the video.
 
That is where this discussion branches out in different directions. The problem is that fair use and DMCA can't coexist. Unfortunately the US is not the only country where lobbyist have a stronger voice than constituents. We here in Canada are now headed down the same path under pressure from our southern neighbors and industry.
Click to expand...
Too true. That is what I have been saying this whole time. DMCA SUCKS, but it IS the law, and until we can get it changed, we have to follow it, or risk the consequences.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Ouch. Why do you think it was broken, exactly? Because you don't like my opinion on the Digg issue? Keep in mind Ben argued the opposite side of the issue.

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 -
Click to expand...

Jeez, you're making it sound like I'm Big Brother or something. I've said it before in this discussion thread, and I'll say it again: I am a staunch advocate of copyright and patent protection, but that doesn't mean I believe the DMCA or current DRM are the right way to accomplish this. I've cited -- twice -- in this thread a major DMCA case and a link to the actual law. Again, I'm not arguing it's right, only that it's the law. DaSickNinja, accomplished poster that he is, summed it up perfectly: you can knowingly break the law in this matter, but you can't complain when you get caught. That's all I'm saying. And if you don't like the law or current DRM, like me, then do something about it other than illegally copying the content. And yes, Rose did make a brave decision. I'm just arguing that it wasn't entirely smart.

Call my interests those of pirates, and you lose my readership. Would that it still meant something to you.
Click to expand...
Malician, I would never call you a pirate. I don't even know you. And I would never call out the THG readership as being a bunch of theiving hackers. Call me idealistic, but I'd like to think most people here, if they do use that HD-DVD code, would use to make copies of existing discs rather than to obtain content that they didn't pay for. But the fact of the matter is, billions of dollars worth of DVDs are stolen every year through illegal copying and downloading. I'm not talking about people who make backups. I'm talking about people that copy and distribute. Anywhere from $6 billion (the MPAA's number) and $20 billion (independent research) are lost every year by pirating. So obviously, quite a few people out there are stealing rather than just backing up their media.

In the video, I was calling out Digg readers because while some of them may have good intentions, I believe a lot of them (from reading their comments and posts) simply want to use the key to illegally download material and stick it to the man.

Many in the Digg community are also under the assumption that posting the code wasn't illegal and that this is a freedom of speech issue. That's why I made a plea for more patience and intelligent, mature thinking in this case. It's not about what we think is FAIR; it's about the letter of the law.

What an idiotic discussion. It's not illegal to make backups of DVD's you own. Posting a number that allows a home user to do this should not be illegal.
Click to expand...
[shakes heads] Pshrk, you have illustrated exactly what I'm talking about. Whether or not this SHOULD be illegal is not the point. Read the DMCA and look up some of the cases before you claim this is an idiotic discussion.

These guys need to pull their heads out of thier butts and get a freaking clue. Digg and other sites should only censor this information if ordered to do so by a court, the AACS is not a law enforcement agency.
Click to expand...

[Sigh...] First of all, the AACS doesn't need to be a law enforcement agency to send Digg and Google a cease and desist letter and to sue them in a court of law. Not sure where you got that from. Furthermore, Digg censors material all the time. Subscribers post pornographic material, racist hate speech and other objectionable material to the site, and Digg takes it down because it violates its terms of service. Posting porn and racist articles are not illegal, obviously. So does that violate our sense of freedom of speech, too?
 
You have to admit, the video was absurd, I mean even if it is illegal to post this number. The guy acts like its illegal for a good reason because "only evil `hackers' would have use for this key." NEWS FLASH: Pirates are going to get it one way or another with or without making a number illegal. Also please don't refer to pirates as hackers... It doesn't take a "hacker" to decrypt a video when your given the key.

Bottom line: If its the law, then people should follow the law, but don't start acting like its a good thing just because you think the only purpose of it is to illegally download copied movies. What a simple minded opinion.
 
This matter isn't simply about coping DVDs. The issue is about restricting knowledge.
This encryption was broken by a man. The secret was not stolen or copied. And, is this a program being passed around... or a string of ASCII characters... not unlike characters in a book or magazine.
The author of PGP was met with similar persecution by the U.S. government. The government does not want private citizens to have that level of digital security. And if it wasn't for strong ethical organizations like Digg, he would likely be locked away today.
Fact is big business and government would prefer the masses stay dumb. It's easier to restrict knowledge than it is to seek out those that are actively selling illegally copied media.
If they don't want DVDs/HD DVDs being copied... write better encryption.
But, make no mistake. We will not stand for a censorship of public knowledge. You may think deleting information from the web due to political pressure is ethical. I say it is the equivalent of burning books.
KNOWLEDGE, Mr. Wright is not illegal.
 
I think you are getting a bit carried away with the ramifications here. I don't think this is about censorship of public knowledge at all, especially since no public knowledge was actually restricted in this case. Its also a bit of a stretch to relate this to publicly available strong encryption, especially since we are allowed to have strong encryption, unless we steal it. The it would be a similar situation. I think it would be a stretch to equate this to burning books either, unless those books were missing their covers, and therefore probably stolen.

Further, before you start extolling "strong, ethical organizations like Digg", remember that they caved to the pressure until the "first ever internet riot" was staged. Sounds like they were stuck between a rock and a hard place to me, and they just chose the lesser evil in the form of the possible legal consequences, rather than the wholesale user revolt.
 
OK, I've never posted @ THG before, but since it seems that Rob Wright is actually perusing these posts, I'm going to take the opportunity. I haven't had a chance to read all the responses, so if I repeat something, sorry...

Rob, it almost seems as if you haven't been following this event at all - you didn't address any of the arguments that the "insurgents" are making in your video interview.

First off, is this really against the law? Can you actually copyright a random assemblage of numbers and letters? I realize that program code and literature are also just numbers and letters, but this is a seriously short sequence that seemingly has no pattern - anyone could come up with this code. How can something like this be copyrightable? And even if it is, it shouldn't be - surely, this is not in the spirit of fair use and other intellectual property concerns.

Second, how many people can actually make use of this code? Surely only a small fraction of those who posted the code have the know-how to implement it. People who are going to pirate are going to do so regardless - the ensuing revolt only served to spread awareness of the crack.

Rose did the right thing, because digg is nothing without its community. If the integrity of the site was under attack, then Rose made the correct business decision to secure the only unique asset that provides a competitive advantage to digg, its community.

If there are stipulations in the law that prevent the possession of a random code that just "happens" to circumvent DRM, then the DMCA is WRONG, not in the interests of this society, and should be repealed. The revolt at digg is saying "FUCK YOU" to DRM, "FUCK YOU" to censorship, and "FUCK YOU" to unreasonable intellectual copy protection.

There is a law, and it is unjust, therefore it MUST not be followed.
 
This is the way our generation votes.

This is people feeling disenfranchised and held to follow copyright laws made and upheld by a generation that lacks a grasp of the modern world.

In the absence of a politician to vote for who champions file sharing and DRM free content - this is how people fight back - millions of people used Napster - eventually there will be enough of us united in the right context to change the laws.

Until then we're gonna ignore them and let the 5% that still believe in them go nuts trying to run down the 95% that don't.
 
Okay RobWright, ever heard of the Swiss, or maybe the Norwegians or the Finnish, you cannot stop them from posting the code, they don't have these laws, all that will happen is that the people running the dig will pay to have it hosted over there. and then no problem has been solved. The key will get leaked, it will get hacked again, and again, piracy is not 'objectionable' public nudity is not objectionable to nudists, how about stopping united states nationalism THAT is objectionable to just about everyone. So stopping it will just piss off the people supporting you, and then how do you gain. You don't, so they made the right decision, just cause you get free stuff from big brother... Corporations have WAY too much money, they wont lose out, have you seen mr gates complaining about all the money he loses to piracy, shut up dude. Just close your cake hole it is their site, they can do what the hell they want. You have to be ALLOWED to break the law, it is in our constitution and i think it is in yours, you *MAY NOT* PREVENT someone from breaking the law, you can only punish them. Therefore they are perfectly entitled to do whatever the hell they want to. I hope the Digg moves their sight overseas. Then it will be quite tough for you to say anything. Posting a plan to break into a bank is in no way illegal, posting the design for a nuclear weapon is not illegal. So what the digg did was not illegal they provided information, in fact they just left an empty window with a sign saying , put anything you want in here. Oh, yes and in a DEMOCRACY, the majority rules so the majority says post it and democracy wins. The Digg is doing nothing wrong, just like a torrent host... I see many new Linux converts if Microsoft takes them down. If these people were not going to buy the dvds they wouldn't buy them anyway, pirates will pirate you cant stop it and the digg is just getting out of the way of the cannons. And now the british are going to kill them for not getting shot up by their own customers. So too bloody bad. I am going to go and buy the t-shirt. And i big bag of weed, for the terr' ists. Gee whillikers Gee Dubbelya.
 
Lets not get political and start putting down peoples countries and leaders ok? I disagree with RobWright too, and i got a little too upset as well but lets not stoop that low...

I really do think some of your comments are somewhat misguided. Piracy is wrong, people shouldn't do it, but I do think they should be able to post a number on a web site, I also think people should be able to make as many copies as they want of the media that they piad for and bought legally.

I don't expect Toms to agree with me all the time, but i would like to see a good debate of the issues. Rob totally took over the whole conversation and kept saying "Piracy is wrong, etc..." Yes, we all know piracy is wrong, but thats not the issue is it? The issue is can you post any number you want on your website, or are some numbers "illegal". The issue is can the AACS pressure people into submitting to its will without going through the courts first to find out exactly what is legal and what isn't? The issue is, who does this really hurt, pirates or home users wanting to back up their paid for media? These are the things I would like to see debated and Toms hardware let me down this time.

Oh well, thanks for all your other hard work. Will be looking forward to a better debate next time, this one was a waste of time.
 
I say freedom of speech. People can say what they want. Like if you have a dumb opinion about a site that is not yours tell everyone, do it via video even...
 
"I am a staunch advocate of copyright and patent protection, but that doesn't mean I believe the DMCA or current DRM are the right way to accomplish this. I've cited -- twice -- in this thread a major DMCA case and a link to the actual law. Again, I'm not arguing it's right, only that it's the law."

I am a staunch advocate of critical thinking. I don't konw if you are aware of this, but in both your video and your post, you are advocating that the law be followed, whether or not the law is right. Let me quote you again, for your convenience, "I am not arguing it's right, only that it's the law."

As responsible citizens, we need to figure out what's right and what's wrong, then fight to have our view heard. I respect those digg users for fighting for what they believe in, and despise people who "obey the law" just because. So would you have supported slavery if it were the law? After all it used to be legal.

So far I haven't discused my view on DRM, and here it is: stop trying to get us consumer to pay for your problem on privacy. If this is such a big deal, raise the price or drop the quality, but stop wasting money on trying the change the law or trying to create a hack-proof device.

p.s: I registered just to respond to this stupid topic because DRM irritates me so XXXX-ing much. No more Digital Right! Time for Fair Use and Consumer Right !
 
Hey Rob,

First off, you get my respect for not just making the video, but coming around to the forumz to join in the discussion, and yes you are more eloquent when typing.

Secondly, I would like to disagree with you. I'm not sure that I do disagree with you, but I would like to...

I buy that the number, on it's own, is innocent enough, but we're not idiots here, and the number isn't standing on it's own: it's coming along with other information, such as what the number represents and what you can do with it. In this context, I'm willing to believe that it's illegal, as you have stated. I've read arguments on either side of this, but barring calling a lawer (and I'm in Canada where things might be different anyway), I don't think I'm going to know for sure. In short, I buy that it's illegal.

On the other hand, I believe in a bit of civil disobedience. The fact is that the U.S.A. is a democracy. That word can mean a lot of things, but my interpretation is that, ultimately, the law makers are subject to the will of, for lack of a better word, I'll call the mob. Now, representative democracy has some nice features built-in to let cooler heads prevail and so "mob rule" doesn't take over and lead to some nasty consequences, but still... the laws we're talking about aren't the commandments, they're written by citizens. If people thought it was in the best interest of the country (ideally, if corruption has no influence), they could change a law, or make a new one, as is seen fit.

Now I should probably get to my point: following a law isn't as simple as doing it just because it's the law. There has to be more reason than that. People obey the laws because we're raised to believe not just in the letters, but in the intent.

I'd also hold that some laws are more important than others. I believe that civil disobedience should break the lesser laws first and work up from there. It's best if no-one gets hurt.

Frankly, I have a hard time listening to someone say that it's retarded to do something just because it's breaking the law. The reason is one of credibility. I don't know a single person who doesn't drive at least a little over the speed limit just once in a while. I haven't met anyone yet who actually signals (Edit) every single time when they change lanes... and the list of traffic infringements goes on. These are laws, and they are important ones that involve public safety. People die because the average joe doesn't obey the letter of the law on the road.

Then again, I speed. I keep it reasonable, and I think most people would agree that it's a waste of time for an officer to pull over a guy who's going 110 in a 100 zone. That's breaking the law.

Your commentary was so black-and-white that it makes me think you'd have to condemn my lifestyle because I speed. As far as encouraging illegal activities, most of the car ads I've seen show stunt drivers pulling illegal stunts. If the ad is supposed to be able to convince me to buy that car, I'm sure it's equally as convincing that I should go out and try to drive like that.

Anyway, after saying all that, two wrongs don't make a right. If Digg did (or didn't do) what Digg had to do to save their own ass, that's their thing. Personally, I'm a Linux user, and I'm damn-well going to watch the DVDs I've paid for on my media centre PC. Bullocks to those who want to charge me a royaltee fee for their DVD decryption keys.
 
Oh, and another thing... which might be an interesting topic for discussion here...

It's my impression that the kind of vertical integration that many of the large companies in the entertainment industry holds today used to be illegal - until the Thatcher/Regan/Mulroney years. For a single company or collection of cooperating companies to have controlling interests (or even just interests) in the production, distribution, sale, and usage (playback) of content reeks of anti-trust. When you have a situation where a company is charging me a royaltee fee on the hardware or software I use for playback of content they make, they have gained too much control over the industry.

The fact that these large companies are colluding, instead of tripping over each other to compete for the consumers dollar seems to me to be a failure of the marketplace. I really have to wonder about the health of this industry, when every new technology is seen as a threat instead of an opportunity. Hell, these days they're starting to redesign our computers so that you can do less on them - trusted computing my ass! There is collusion in the industry: people can smell it and that's what they're pissed off about. I feel it, too.

I try to support DRM-free content. There is at least one place where many artists have put up their work for sale, DRM-free, and in file formats where you don't have to use one specific company's software for playback. I'm not affiliated with them, I'm just a happy customer: werkshop. Vote with your dollars.

Edit: Fixed broken link.
 
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.
Click to expand...

1) I love Massachusetts... actually, most of the New England area. It's got to be the most gorgeous countryside east of the Rockies.

2) I'm thankful to live north of the U.S. rather than, well, anyone else. I disagree with many of the things you do (esp. trying to suggest that the 9-11 terrorists came mostly from Canada, thanks, Hilary, for that one), but at least you're not China! At least you're not France! When I complain about U.S. politics, it's because I'm afraid of what you have to lose, not how much you need to change.

3) As to your statement that I've quoted above, I think that it's a little idealistic. The fact of the matter is that many artists and "creaters" of the content aren't actually getting that much for their work. There have been too many cases where an artist has ended up owing the recording company money at the end of the day, since these contracts are written up in a "profit-share" way, where the definition of the word "profit" isn't what you'd think it should be. I say this because there is at least the perception that the RIAA isn't representing the artist who deserves your support, and that's where you're going to lose the argument with people who are marginal on the idea of whether to pirate or not. What I'd really like is to make a deal with the artists directly, buy the rights to own a particular set of content, and then go about obtaining that content whatever way I see fit, but I know that's a pie-in-the-sky kind of concept.

What I'm saying is that the RIAA/MPAA aren't out to protect the artists. They're out to protect the owners of the content, and there is a significant gulf between these people in many cases.
 
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.
Click to expand...

I find this wording worrysome. If "technology, devices, or services that are used to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works" are indeed illegal, then doesn't that mean that any computer is illegal? What's the low-down on this?
 
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.
Click to expand...

I find this wording worrysome. If "technology, devices, or services that are used to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works" are indeed illegal, then doesn't that mean that any computer is illegal? What's the low-down on this?

And that gets to the heart of why the law sucks.
 
One of the commentator's rant, discusses nothing but theft. He seems to not see any other possible reason for wanting the codes other than stealing.

What about someone who just wants to personally use the media and not be restricted to how its used. E.g, playing it on any monitor or system rather that it being deliberately down scaled because you don't have HDCP.

The controls are aimed at controling not just those who steal but even us who buy the media, ensuring we use their content within our home as THEY approve. This is wrong. I want to codes to be able to use the protected media that I have legally bought in the way I can best display it at my home.

Its a bad law that ensures that legitimate uses have restrictions placed on a reasonable use of media they have bought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom