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.
Backstory: the hex string you see in Rose’s blog post title is claimed to be the HD-DVD decryption code. It was leaked a few months ago, and since then any site publishing the key has been subject to takedown notices by the MPAA’s lawyers. Clearly, Rose has decided to listen to his community — the very concept that built Digg into what it is today — than bow to the MPAA’s futile efforts to try to control something that’s already out there in so many iterations that control is, quite literally, impossible.
5 responses so far ↓
Kurazaybo // May 3, 2007 at 12:50 am
I agree things like this should not be removed, it is in the community’s best interest. I do not think it is illegal to share decryption information, is it?
Nimish Batra // May 3, 2007 at 1:00 am
It is. According to an act called “DMCA” it is illegal to break copyright enforcing schemes in USA.
David // May 3, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Sorry to ask a bunch of dopey questions, but the internet “sharing” phenomena have forced me to ask …
To copyright or not to copyright, is that not the question?
Does copyrighting guarantee that artists can earn livings?
Is there really such a thing as “intellectual property”?
Or are all songs the same song, all books the same book, all stories the same story?
Kurazaybo // May 4, 2007 at 7:03 am
From Wikipedia:
“The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is an extension to United States copyright law passed unanimously on May 14, 1998, which criminalizes the production and dissemination of technology that allows users to circumvent technical copy-restriction methods, rendering all forms of DRM-stripping and circumvention software illegal, as well as some aspects of research and reverse engineering of existing systems.”
I think law is just plain wrong when it says reverse engineering is illegal.
“It is. According to an act called “DMCA” it is illegal to break copyright enforcing schemes in USA.”
But sharing a key is not actually breaking DRM. I know, I know, under the DMCA it is not different. But there is a thin line here that crosses with free speech. It will be einteresting to see what happens with Digg.
Nimish Batra // May 4, 2007 at 7:11 am
I think sharing ANY information of the sorts becomes illegal.
On the other hand, I guess this particular “key” is protected as a copyrighted piece of intellectual property, as well as being the thing that opens the DRM lock.
Either way, it would come under “dissemination of technology that…” not because it’s “the number”, but because of the context.
I mean, Friday, the 13th is just another day of the year for me. But for a superstitious fellow, its the day when the devil is more likely to arrive at his doorstep.
Also, note that -
1. No one in the US Senate/Congress would’ve cared about what you or me think because we’re online, in a minority opinion, AND we’re not US citizens.
2. I’m not a lawyer. So I might turn out to be horribly wrong about this.
By the way, do you watch UEFA Champions’ League by any chance?