Forum Moderators: rogerd
who is still smelling nice?
who successfully took the brunt?
That is not too smart. I wonder if Google will react to it once push comes to shove....
www.digg.com is back up, though they forgot to remove the "we'll be back soon" from digg.com. That is, "www.digg.com" is up, "digg.com" is down. Perhaps it is an oversight, or perhaps there was some particularly effective script being used against "digg.com", and they decided to leave that down for now, rather than putting the redirect back.
The site seems pretty-much back to normal. I'm guessing the protesters are satisfied with the reversal of policy. There are a few stories on the subject floating to the top, and they generally are serious stories about what happened.
The story is just starting to make it to the mainstream tech press. Wired and ars technica have stories up. Ah, and C¦Net as well, finally. They have it as a "high impact story".
There are now about 320,000 Google results on the key. (Not sure why the Wired article is saying 56,000.)
Just a reminder to keep things on-topic - this thread isn't about the merits of copy protection, DRM, secret codes, etc. It's about a community phenomenon in which large numbers of members protested an action by the site operator and, perhaps surprisingly, cause a change in policy.
Seem's like the teen tech users of digg are saying; If you are going to make money off our backs, don't dictate what we can and can't digg.
So who owns the community site you run?
Community revolts are nothing new. I've seen them plenty of time, it just happens this is an especially large community and an especially big revolt.
Wow, they are violating adsense TOS: Hacking/cracking content
You're kidding right? Like Google are going to close down Digg's adsense account.Stranger things have happened. Google did, after all, de-list BMW for some cloaking shenanigans. Once fixed, BMW sure got re-listed pretty fast, which smacks of editorial control, rather than simple algorithms ...
Not every software developer is some big bloated corporation - but "screw copyright!" affects all of us.
If code or hex is fair game then so are the entire contents of your website and any info or coded products you sell.
And please, of course it is about copyright, and indeed the fact there are differing views on it.
P.
I hope he gets the lawsuit he's asking for.
I hope not.
There's no real purpose in these DMCA takdown notices, nor in any lawsuits that may result from websites ignoring them.
There are now 350,000 pages indexed by Google containing the code, and growing daily (from 280,000 just two days ago.)
AACSLA can't possibly expect to put the cat back in the bag at this point, and sending out take-down notices only serves to cause website owners needless expense and bother. It's all a terrible waste of time and effort, for what?
If they have any common sense, they will back down, as the resulting negative publicity could critically scar HD-DVD and Blu-Ray in the public's eye.
The whole thing is technically flawed from the get-go.
There is a newer crack that they can't defeat, anyway - the Xbox 360 crack, which allows volume keys to be read from all past and future discs. While the Xbox 360 will certainly be updated to eliminate this capability, there are already enough Xbox 360s in the hands of crackers to insure that all future discs will have their keys widely distributed.
BTW, the takedown notices don't cite traditional copyright, but the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA. The fact that this provision is being used is indicitive of the technical failure of the scheme.
If code or hex is fair game then so are the entire contents of your website and any info or coded products you sell.
That's one of things that is interesting about this because I'm not so sure posting that number is breaking any laws. I'm not lawyer so my opinion of course is certainly not based on any legal skills. However that number was found because one of the players was flawed and they simply read it from a memory dump, nothing was "hacked" in the normal sense of the term and the DMCA may not apply. Not much different than if you viewed the source of webpage.
If you want to analogize it would be like posting a snippet of code which AFAIK isn't breaking copyright because it would fall under the fair use act. Digg probably has some pretty firm ground to stand on.
it would fall under the fair use act
It's all a terrible waste of time and effort, for what?
The whole thing is technically flawed from the get-go.
It's instructions on how to break the law. The explicit intent is to cripple the ability of the creators of HD-DVD to sell their products. That doesn't sound like fair use.
Firstly my post was in relationship to the number itself, it's not instructions on how to break the encryption. The only question is if it could be labeled as tool to break encryption. You don't have to break any laws to obtain it. You just need the correct software and the know how, all of which is legal.
Secondly you're quoting me out of context.
Secondly you're quoting me out of context.
Wow, they are violating adsense TOS: Hacking/cracking content
You're kidding right? Like Google are going to close down Digg's adsense account.
I think trinorth was referring to site that Brett posted a link to on page 4 of this discussion. They have a few dozen images (some quite funny) of the cracked code (adsense tos violation?) and at the bottom of the page they have Google Ads.
My 2 cents on the Digg user revolt: it's childish. But under US law, site owners are not legally responsible for user-submitted content. They ARE on the hook to respond to DMCA take-down notices, though. The Digg admins would be wise to respond appropriately to those.
IANAL.
The Digg revolt may turn out to be the Boston Tea Party of the electronic age.
If so, it's far better than what would happen if the massive injustice perpetrated by the RIAA and their ilk continued to be supported by oppressive violence until the protests turned active--and violent! We could see RIAA goons hanging by their entrails from lightposts yet...and at this point I'd, um, feel guilty about not feeling guilty. And I think of myself as nonviolent.
When someone's messing with my ability to feed and house my family I'm extremely violent. If you don't like the copy protection of certain items, don't buy them.
If someone used software to record your keystrokes as you keyed it details at your online bank (modern technology!)and then posted the details online for their friends, would you just shrug it off as modern technology, so deal with it?
Or would it be facilitating theft and pee you off a bit?
It's one thing to say you're not responsible for what is posted on your site, another to say you're still not responsible after its been pointed out to you.
1) The responsibility of the community architect to define the characteristics of the community.
2) The need to let the community itself set its direction and priorities.
Both are important and have their place. If you are trying to run a friendly and helpful community, for example, if a large number of members want to be rude and confrontational you may have to exercise authority to maintain the desired tone.
On the other hand, a community operator who attempts to impose his/her own vision when the community wants to go in a different direction may end up destroying the community.
Personally, I think an open mind is essential, though the community operator shouldn't depart from core values and overall mission.
The Digg controversy also includes a legal dimension. Protecting the site and the members themselves from costly litigation should be a priority (though I suppose Digg can afford to hire lawyers if they need to). Overall, it's an interesting and complex situation.
"There they go! I must hasten after them, for I am their leader."
One doesn't remain the leader of the mob for long if one refuses to get back in front when it moves in another direction.
