What is Digg?170 Comments
- inactive, on 10/26/2007, -32/+450***** Reddit, I'm goin' down with the ship.
Who's with me? - inadvertence, on 10/12/2007, -29/+433AACS Lawyer: All the God-King MPAA requires is this: the simple removal of the HD-DVD key from your website. A token of Digg’s submission to the will of the MPAA.
Rose: Submission... Well that’s a bit of a problem. See, rumor has it that the slashdotters have already turned you down. And if those programmers and Linux-lovers have that kind of nerve...
AACS Lawyer: Choose your next words carefully, Rose. They may be your last as Web 2.0 entrepreneur.
Rose: You threaten my people with censorship and DMCA lawsuits! Oh, I’ve chosen my words carefully, lawyer. Perhaps you should have done the same!
AACS Lawyer: This is blasphemy! This is madness!
Rose: Madness? ... THIS - IS - DIGG! - acceptab1euname, on 10/12/2007, -12/+310Oh noes! However shall the AACS survive all the angry forum posts?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -26/+251Getting Digg Shut Down = Millions of Mad Digg Users that want revenge.
- fuzzmeister, on 10/26/2007, -40/+223Getting Digg Shut Down = Many new Reddit users.
- FlapJaw, on 10/12/2007, -37/+15209 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
- wto605, on 10/12/2007, -4/+98They probably wouldn't shut digg down, they'd just bill them a couple million
QUICK... turn ad-block off and someone post an article on how to click ads without getting accused of clickfraud - venom8599, on 10/12/2007, -12/+96@inadvertence
Here, I fixed it for you:
AACS Lawyer: All the God-King MPAA requires is this: the simple removal of the HD-DVD key from your website. A token of Digg’s submission to the will of the MPAA.
Rose: Okay, sure, we'll take it down no problem.
*Digg users riot*
Rose: Err.. Nevermind... *clears throat* Submission... Well that’s a bit of a problem. See, rumor has it that the slashdotters have already turned you down. And if those programmers and Linux-lovers have that kind of nerve...
AACS Lawyer: Choose your next words carefully, Rose. They may be your last as Web 2.0 entrepreneur.
Rose: You threaten my people with censorship and DMCA lawsuits! Oh, I’ve chosen my words carefully, lawyer. Perhaps you should have done the same!
AACS Lawyer: This is blasphemy! This is madness!
Rose: Madness? ... THIS - IS - DIGG! - rye425, on 10/12/2007, -3/+81If digg gets shut down i'll have to start drugs again
- djphatjive, on 10/12/2007, -17/+89Well they wouldn't be DIGG users at that point.
- scottylist, on 10/12/2007, -4/+73"Section 230 provides a defense to liability, that is, a so-called safe harbor, for an “interactive computer service” accused of being legally liable for content posted to that service by one of its users."
Here's the problem: Kevin himself posted the numbers. - frazier428, on 10/12/2007, -6/+65@chrisrs
Aye, now let's see if all these people who were against censorship are willing to back themselves up. - ursername180, on 10/12/2007, -5/+62It was purely a coincidence that a random combination of letters just happen to equal the HD-DVD code and was then posted on Digg.
- RamboJesus, on 10/12/2007, -7/+63Shutting down digg, as much as they could do it, would be the dumbest thing they could do. I don't understand how they can't see that once the number leaked it didn't matter if people talked about it or not. The number does pretty much nothing for the normal digger. It's not as if there will be HD-DVD software that will stop and ask you for the number and then once the number is entered you can convert your HD-DVD to MKV. The number will be only useful for coders that are making HD-DVD software. And this number could have just as easily been trade over IRC and Email. There would have been no stopping it. The only thing shutting down digg could do is give them bad press. Diggers proclaiming the number has done zero damage.
- EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+47Quick somebody post the other 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 combinations to make it look truly random.
- RussellDovey, on 10/12/2007, -10/+41Don't you mean a 1 in 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 chance?
- NeoOfTheSith, on 10/12/2007, -4/+33Welcome to the Government's ***** list.
- dvsbastard, on 10/12/2007, -5/+29I thought all digg users were law professors (amongst many other things)...
- sofaKing812, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23Everyone it's cool; I got a solution for digg should any legal troubles arise...
Lionel Hutz, Attorney at Law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_Hutz - gheide, on 10/12/2007, -2/+199,249,17,2,157,116,227,91,216,65,86,197,99,86,136,192
hmm... is this the "code" in decimal?? or the combination to my super secret safe?? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19And fkr...remember...Kevin Rose was one of those "users" who posted the key that night. If Digg gives up the users who did it, then Digg gives up Kevin Rose. And they don't have to sue every one of them. They can pick which ones to sue.
Guess who would top that list? - Charlotte_Web, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Someone should have explained to the law professor how to keep his web server from being shut down. :-(
- Terc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15An interesting point. However, because this is only illegal in the great old US of A, why not just host in a different country?
- tyywebb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14If digg gets shut down we should all mail Kevin Rose a dollar.
- padlock7, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17if digg gets shut down I am going on a killing spree.
- ThreeDee912, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17Replying to first comment to get article contents near top for no specific reason at all:
The article:
Digg, AACS, and the Section 230 Safe Harbor
If Digg.com were sued by AACS under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act for trafficking in technology used to circumvent technological protection measures, might Digg defend itself successfully under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act? Does the answer depend on whether the AACS encryption scheme is a TPM that constitutes an “access control” rather than a “copy control”? Some tentative thoughts after the jump.
Section 230 provides a defense to liability, that is, a so-called safe harbor, for an “interactive computer service” accused of being legally liable for content posted to that service by one of its users. The most important application of Section 230 has been in the defamation context. Usenet providers, for example, are not liable for allegedly defamatory Usenet posts.(The following sentence was added to the initial post, for clarity:) In this case, Digg would be accused of a form of DMCA “trafficking” consisting of hosting content submitted by its users; if Digg were accused of defamation, Section 230 would apply.
Congress, however, specifically exempted “intellectual property” from the scope of Section 230. The statute, at section 230(e)(2), reads: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.” In the recent Ninth Circuit opinion in Perfect 10 v. CCBill, the court ruled: “In the absence of a definition from Congress, we construe the term ‘intellectual property’ to mean ‘federal intellectual property.’” The court seized on the federal / state distinction. In that case, Section 230 immunized CCBill from state-based IP claims.
Does Section 230(e)(2) cover the anticircumvention and anti-trafficking provisions of the DMCA? Section 1201 of Title 17, the statute in question, is obviously federal. What about the question that the Perfect 10 court did not address? Is the DMCA an intellectual property statute?
For its part, Digg might point to expansive readings of the DMCA, such as Judge Kaplan’s district court opinion in Universal City Studios v. Reimerdes, which characterized the CSS system that managed playback of DVDs as an access control regime, and that distinguished the DMCA’s statutory scheme from the Copyright Act. In other words, some caselaw can be read as interpreting the DMCA to create property rights in “access” that exist independent of the Copyright Act. The Copyright Act is federal intellectual property; the DMCA, arguably (and to the extent that it creates this right in “access”) is not. DMCA coverage of “copy control” TPMs would be a different matter, since that section (1201(b)) addresses circumventing a TPM that “effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work.”
AACS (or, more precisely, the AACS Licensing Administrator) has two arguments. First, it might argue that its encryption scheme is a copy control measure, not an access control measure. Second, if it holds to the position that the scheme is an access control measure, it might point to narrower readings of the DMCA such as Chamberlain Group v. Skylink and Lexmark v. Static Control Components, which suggest that DMCA liability, even for access controlling TPMs, is derivative of the scope of copyright. The Federal Circuit wrote in Chamberlain Group:
The essence of the DMCA’s anticircumvention provisions is that §§ 1201(a),(b) establish causes of action for liability. They do not establish a new property right. The DMCA’s text indicates that circumvention is not infringement, 17 U.S.C. § 1201(c)(1) (”Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.”), and the statute’s structure makes the point even clearer. This distinction between property and liability is critical. Whereas copyrights, like patents, are property, liability protection from unauthorized circumvention merely creates a new cause of action under which a defendant may be liable.
Either way, therefore, the DMCA arguably is part of the federal copyright scheme, and part of the federal “intellectual property” that is excluded from Section 230 immunity.
Would Digg succeed? My initial instinct is to be skeptical of the argument that I’ve sketched. Still, an aggressive and creative lawyer might make something of it. There is, one might say, “traditional” federal intellectual property, and then there is “new” stuff. Given the First Amendment implications that seem to be drawn into this situation — as Ed Felten has noted, when can it be said that a number is “owned”? – that lawyer might find wisdom in Justice Ginsburg’s opaque statement at the conclusion of Eldred v. Reno: “[W]hen, as in this case, Congress has not altered the traditional contours of copyright protection, further First Amendment scrutiny is unnecessary.” - NeoOfTheSith, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14We should convert Digg into a "Skynet" infrastructure! Let's see them stop it then!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12If Digg gets shut down...
...we'll retaliate. - chaokwan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11I hv 2 suggestions for defending Digg:-
(1) Get Google involved, google "doom 9 hd dvd drm Key" and you will find the link to the doom 9 posting of the key. Google has cached the page. Public domain argument. If it's on Google, it's already entered the public domain, man, and Google has published it into public domain.
(2) Start petitioning to change the DRM law. It is crazy that even discussion of the technique involved would constitute an offence. Is it an offence to teach somebody the skill for picking locks? - davecor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Bah.... digg won't be shut down.
If this move is supposed to serve as a warning to all other user-content-driven websites, it won't work. People will have a million sneaky and clever ways to disseminate future bits of "forbidden knowledge" such as the humorous JPG images that contain the key.
Are they next going to start sniffing our e-mails in case we start sending the illicit string of characters to each other?
- spitalfield, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13a little slow but seems to have caught it..
http://duggmirror.com/tech_news/Protecting_Digg_From_Getting_Shut_Down/ - Crimsoneer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9If they threaten to take down digg, we can always just put their website up on digg...Let the digg effect work its magic.
- JonDee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Do you remember what skynet did? It made an unending attempt to destroy the entire human race. But if thats what you want...
- digboy99, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Don't exaggerate. There are not MILLIONS of Digg users who would be pissed enough to say anything. Maybe a thousand or so at most.
- DavidDigg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"Here's the problem: Kevin himself posted the numbers."
Yes, and all he has to do to comply with the takedown request is to edit his post to remove the numbers. Problem solved.
That should make everyone happy /rolls eyes - Slacker1031, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8everyone's a lawyer on the ***** internet
- B3nno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I'd be up for that.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14why do you care if digg gets shut down? who was it that decided to post a bunch of stupid #s all over digg? now youre scared for digg?
- BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Not that the DRM issue is what it was all about, but:
1. The encryption scheme is not copy protection, it's access control. It does not in any way, shape or form prevent copying of the content, it prevents access to the content. It's not a copy protection mechanism.
2. That access control is applied by the vendor to the legitimately obtained content. Preventing people from accessing legitimately obtained content on their own computer is a probably a fairly clear incursion into reasonable and fair use.
3. The hex value given out can't, in whole or in part, be used to access HD DVD content without the mechanism to do so - it is not the mechanism. This readily available, widely published hex value is worthless on its own.
4. Maintaining access control on other people's computers by keeping secrets from them, to the point where you're preventing legitimate fair use by people who have legitimately obtained the media for money, is considered by lots of technically experienced users to be something akin to a malware or "trojan horse" program, as what you're doing is controlling access policy on someone else's computer/system against the administrator's will. - fkr3, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10@ hdtvdust
If they focus on users and Rose gets targetted too, that still leaves the site itself out of the crosshairs.
Rose would be missed, but Adelson runs the business. - jshutzman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Those pathetic folks behind HD-DVD and Blu-ray, cannot even sort out their own fights, to the point that only a handful of people even pay attention to this new format, let alone buying their DVD players and/or movies. Honestly, other than real freaks and obsessive people about video quality (about .000001% of the general population), no one else gives a rat's ass about this new 'revolution'. Those folks are going to bring their own demise. They should be so lucky regarding any news advertising this new format, I think they have to pay digg for this publicity stunt.
HD-DVD folks, look at Steve Jobs, he already convinced some Music industry folks to drop DRM - Take notice HD goof-balls. - BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I'd be up for that too. Make it a pound, heh.
- one2gamble, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4There is all this talk of digg getting shut down but is any of it actual news? I mean as far as any of us know the consortium has simply dropped it, until we get an official "digg" notice of future legal trouble I dont know that we as users or anyone else should really worry to much about it at this point.
- EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5They know the existing leaked key is a lost cause. All their saber rattling is to discourage the next broken key from being leaked and distributed. It wouldn't surprise me to see them actually pursue legal action against a web site to make their point, and Digg might make a nice target.
- bronyraur777, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Do you remember what Skynet ended up being ultimately? Yeah, the internet. So...the work is already done.
*brushes off hands* - Rocketbird, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@sofaking
I've got one better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_birdman
Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law. - gr3yn3t, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3who votes to hire Bob Loblaw?
- mikenemat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Maybe this fellow should rethink his stance and favor Digg being shut down? After all, if it was, his server wouldn't be dead right now :)
- Narvien, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I've always seen the thumbs down button as a way to spare other digg users the stupidity I've had to suffer though. *Buries comment* You're welcome guys and girls.
- Tetrabiblos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yep, no matter that sometimes Digg makes me so mad, ...I still can't do without it.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 161 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is