It is much worse than that. Under the DMCA it is a violation merely to *discuss* the circumvention of a copy protection device.PS suck my left nut AACS.
Fighting in court will never work because from our courts to the highest levels of our government THEY have bribed and coerced they way into power. You can't win a game where they keep changing the rules. You just wreck the game all together so no one can play.
@FartagBoth the encryption key and a social security number can be used to steal. I think of them as the same for that reason. I made the suggestion to try to get people to empathize with the sense of violation the creator of a movie might feel upon losing control of their product. It's clear that if this guy posted his real name and SSAN, he doesn't understand what he's done to himself. I say that this encryption key can be used in theft because I don't believe somebody's movie is in the public domain (unless they say so). It may be "information" but it's still the product of someone's blood, sweat, and tears. I'm willing to pay $4.00 (rental) for the pleasure of watching that movie. And it's not about Speilberg's cut. It's about some lowly gofer who got laid off because the studio he works for made 10% less than they might have due to piracy. Not the piracy perpetrated by a few self-righteous geeks, but that done by the over-seas gang that pulled the code off of Digg and made 100,000 copies of some movie.Don't get me wrong, I'm very concerned about the DMCA and that ilk of laws and regulations. There are some frightening things being attempted in the business world these days. I just believe that if someone going to take them on, they need to make sure make sure they've got good ethics, and they understand the issues.Maybe I'm belittling the issue around this encryption code by thinking it's just about pirating movies. But if it is just that, our founding fathers might be horrified at the misapplication of the concept "freedom of speech". For them, it was about so much more than the price of a DVD.This is my angle on the issue.Hey Kevin Rose, if you're "listening", please pull that guy's social security number. He doesn't understand what he's done to himself.Thanks for your time and response, Fartag.
I think there is a more fundamental question that needs to be asked. Is this number even protected by copyright? If not, then how does the DMCA even apply? It seems more likely to be a trade secret and if that is the case then arguably the secret was out long before it was posted on Digg. As a result, the posting on Digg did not cause any damages. Damages are an essential element to any lawsuit. Without damages, you cannot sustain an action in court. It appears that AACS has no damages from this posting as the number already exists on 600,000+ locations on the Internet according to Google.
kingyubbaMay 6, 2007
f**k THE SCAA!(i mean, the AACS)
pabsterMay 6, 2007
It is much worse than that. Under the DMCA it is a violation merely to *discuss* the circumvention of a copy protection device.PS suck my left nut AACS.
rattelerMay 7, 2007
Fighting in court will never work because from our courts to the highest levels of our government THEY have bribed and coerced they way into power. You can't win a game where they keep changing the rules. You just wreck the game all together so no one can play.
briankdavMay 7, 2007
@FartagBoth the encryption key and a social security number can be used to steal. I think of them as the same for that reason. I made the suggestion to try to get people to empathize with the sense of violation the creator of a movie might feel upon losing control of their product. It's clear that if this guy posted his real name and SSAN, he doesn't understand what he's done to himself. I say that this encryption key can be used in theft because I don't believe somebody's movie is in the public domain (unless they say so). It may be "information" but it's still the product of someone's blood, sweat, and tears. I'm willing to pay $4.00 (rental) for the pleasure of watching that movie. And it's not about Speilberg's cut. It's about some lowly gofer who got laid off because the studio he works for made 10% less than they might have due to piracy. Not the piracy perpetrated by a few self-righteous geeks, but that done by the over-seas gang that pulled the code off of Digg and made 100,000 copies of some movie.Don't get me wrong, I'm very concerned about the DMCA and that ilk of laws and regulations. There are some frightening things being attempted in the business world these days. I just believe that if someone going to take them on, they need to make sure make sure they've got good ethics, and they understand the issues.Maybe I'm belittling the issue around this encryption code by thinking it's just about pirating movies. But if it is just that, our founding fathers might be horrified at the misapplication of the concept "freedom of speech". For them, it was about so much more than the price of a DVD.This is my angle on the issue.Hey Kevin Rose, if you're "listening", please pull that guy's social security number. He doesn't understand what he's done to himself.Thanks for your time and response, Fartag.
Closed AccountMay 7, 2007
damn you caught me...hell im on the side of the diggers!!!!screw AACS
mhiiMay 7, 2007
I think there is a more fundamental question that needs to be asked. Is this number even protected by copyright? If not, then how does the DMCA even apply? It seems more likely to be a trade secret and if that is the case then arguably the secret was out long before it was posted on Digg. As a result, the posting on Digg did not cause any damages. Damages are an essential element to any lawsuit. Without damages, you cannot sustain an action in court. It appears that AACS has no damages from this posting as the number already exists on 600,000+ locations on the Internet according to Google.