digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

RIAA Will Drop Cases If You Point Out That An IP Address Isn't A Person

almostheadline.com — For years, the RIAA has claimed that having the IP address of a computer that has shared unauthorized files is the equivalent of having the evidence of who was actually sharing files.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • EasyIan, on 10/12/2007, -134/+14saw this yesterday this is a repeat story
  • phpirate, on 10/12/2007, -3/+79My name is 127.0.0.1 :)
    • BostonVaulter, on 10/12/2007, -4/+68Hi 127.0.0.1
      my name is 192.168.1.1
    • xst4t1kx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+68Nice to meet you both. I'm 255.255.255.0
    • computerdude33, on 10/12/2007, -6/+44Hi. I'm localhost. Nice to meet you all.
    • hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -6/+58I am not a number. I am a free man.
    • P3ST4, on 10/12/2007, -55/+10@computerdude

      with a name like computerdude, you should already know localhost IS 127.0.0.1
    • albinoMithos, on 10/12/2007, -7/+46127.0.0.1, 255.255.255.0, 192.168.1.1you have all just been sued for illigal file sharing. Have a nice day :).
    • phpirate, on 10/12/2007, -7/+27@P3ST4: Thats why hes my identical twin brother. Duh.
    • EmileVictor, on 10/12/2007, -41/+7@albinoMithos

      That's 1/2 a digg off for failing to put a space between "1" and "you" and another for failing to spell "illegal" right.

      ;)
    • fatlip, on 10/12/2007, -3/+40ya'll behind the times.. oh btw my name is 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1
    • CJz44, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17And my name... Well it's just 10.1.1.11
    • OregonTrail, on 10/12/2007, -16/+2Ha nice one ^

      Well, all of you better make sure you have your names registered. I'm the last IP that will ever be assigned. (assuming there are no reserved domains in 128bit IPs)

      ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:fffe

      :)
    • martinus, on 10/12/2007, -6/+49You should not have posted your IP. I have just hacked into your computer (it was sooo easy) and am deleting all your files.
    • cbrack, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6/deltree C:windows
    • xose, on 10/12/2007, -9/+211.3.3.7 over here. Come sue me RIAA! :)
    • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15This is what neighbors' routers are for.
    • cabazorro, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3We are 224.0.0.9
    • voldern, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Hi to you, my name is 10.0.1.7.
    • SpeedyG, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10The combination is... 1.2.3.4.5.

      Come on RIAA, I dare you to get in my luggage!
    • templest, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2I win: I am root.
    • phiend, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Hi all, i am administrator ;-)
    • tehJR, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6127.0.0.1 and localhost, you guys got some 'self-loving' file sharing going on.
    • techmonkey4u, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Hi, RIAA. I'm 146.82.174.13.

      What's that? ...the same IP as your webserver? What a coincidence!
    • fauxXenophanes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Nice thought but, wrong issue.
      The issue is PIRACY, not sharing, and not about money for artists!
      The artists are RIAA property.
    • titlesaysitall, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2I'm a Mac
    • titlesaysitall, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2And i'm a PC
    • taotaobabe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1and mine is: 68.163.75.10
      RIAA: damn it, it's my own IP
      lol~
    • taotaobabe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2and also: 66.252.129.187,
      MPAA: NOT ME!!!
      lol~~~
    • taotaobabe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2and finally comes to: 207.46.19.60
      M$: well, we had a deal, both of you are running IIS6!!!
      lol~~~~~~~~~~
    • tylerni7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Woa!! You're 127.0.0.1?? But that's my IP address! How can this be!?!?
  • JamesWilson, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20For all those who still haven't heard of it, here's the eqiuv of an internet condom against RIAA, MPAA, and many others:

    http://wiki.phoenixlabs.org/wiki/PeerGuardian_2:Manual#Introduction
    http://phoenixlabs.org/pg2/

    • Kanundra, on 10/12/2007, -34/+3Or http://tor.eff.org ;)
    • joeshlub, on 10/12/2007, -3/+36Don't waste the tor network with file sharing. Its set up for far more legitamate purposes, and donors the the EFF are footing the bill for your sharing.
    • WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20"here's the eqiuv of an internet condom against RIAA, MPAA, and many others:"

      Thanks! Now I can hardly feel the internet! How was it for you?
    • chrono13, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25Do not use Tor for p2p.

      To quote... myself: http://www.digg.com/tech_news/3500_Arrests_in_Biggest_Single_Action_Against_Music_File_Sharing#c1783317

      "Asshat. Encurage the death of successful anonymous networks why don't you?

      Why do some people feel the need to flood anonymous services with massive bandwidth-eating p2p? Oh yea... because they don't give a damn. Tor has a great many uses - none of which should be as a mask for bit torrent or other bandwidth intensive p2p services.

      Sure, you alone can't bring down Tor, but if everyone does it, or even a rather small percentage, then Tor is no more. It would be crippled under the weight of that much bandwidth.

      Go ahead, abuse and misuse every free service on the web until it becomes impossible for such services to exist. Then perhaps you'll understand.
      While your at it, order a few thousand Ubuntu CD's (hey, they're free) just to have the free paper CD cases.

      Pull your head out of your ass, and stop encuraging people to destroy some of the best free services on the web."
    • bennyboy371, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I REALLY think Tor should add something that says its useless for filesharing at the top of the main page to keep people from doing it. Most of the people that stumble onto it and don't know what it is just see "anonymous internet", and see that as parallel with "you won't get sued" so they use it. I tried it once, to be honest. If you think its slow running regular internet pages, my god try a file-sharing program on it. Back in the horrible days I had AOL, that was faster. Its useless for file-sharing, they should mention that on the main site, because not doing so is shooting themselves in the foot.
    • Ikioi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@chrono13

      As a tor user, you have sharing of your connection off by default. If you want to share, but don't want exposed to abusers, just share an internal link. This helps the masking ability of Tor. If you have some bandwidth, and aren't afraid of a little excitement (as in you are the kind of person who doesn't mind sharing your wireless router), open up some external ports.

      As for file sharing, unless the proper ports are open, you can't use it to file share at all. And, those who open up those ports, well... they know exactly what they are in for. This is also why port 25 is turned off even in full open sharing unless explicitly turned on, to prevent Tor from being used by anonymous spammers.

      Many Tor operators allow port 80. Some allow 6669 and other IRC ports. Fewer offer some non-standard ports, including file sharing.

      It's all completely in control of the outbound Tor node which services they will allow you to use on their connection. After all, that's why it's THEIR connection. ;)

      I run Tor in two ways, intralink connections (I don't want directly exposed, not with commercial broadband... would violate the TOS) and a public proxy. I let people use the Tor network on a site I run without installing it, but running a public proxy webpage (SSL encrypted) that routes all connections through the Tor installed on my server.

      There's a lot you can do to help things like Tor without exposing yourself to litigation. God bless the brave outbound nodes that aren't afraid to take a chance so that others might have a breath of truly free air. I only wish I had my own Russian T1 to do the same with. ;)
    • titlesaysitall, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1"here's the eqiuv of an internet condom " Oh good I don't want to clog up the tubes.
    • thatrez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I guess you can't call yourself methlabs.org anymore if sell your soul to symantec
  • Kanundra, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12They will try and find a "way" around this, because we all know they are greedy and won't keep dropping cases, but for the moment this is great news because people are starting to call their bluff.
  • royall64, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19I love the title. I don't know why. It's just awesome.
  • JamesWilson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20I have my Wifi hotspot open to neighbors and thanks to open-wrt I am running at 900% broadcast power, 251mw
    • DarkZen, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1Thats great, but you might not want to tell the judge that if you ever get slapped with this kinda BS as im sure that is against FAA rules so they would probably still get to slap you with a fine of some sort...just not for thee RIAA haha.. Anyway, i use open-wrt as well and love it ;) its great software. And if you are running a open AP you can decide how much band each person is allowed so it wont kill your ping if you game =) Soon im thinking of setting up a open-authenticated wifi meaning you can use it but you have to register =) Just so if someone screwes with my network somehow i can call them on it....

      HB
    • shoota, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17@darkzen I do believe that the FCC is the organization that oversees radio frequencies, rather than the FAA which governs aircraft.
    • mikenemat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25You know that running at 251mW actually makes it HARDER for people to use your wifi because people try to use it outside of their card's transmit range...

      That is the TRANSMIT power only, this way your router spews beacon frames much further than the distance which 99% of wifi cards on the market can respond with an association request or any packet for that matter. What you have in result is a client that can receive from the router, but has nowhere near the necessary power to transmit, effectively confusing any client who is not within the range of the default power setting of the router. Most wireless cards transmit at 14 to 20mW, having a router that transmits at 251mW is plain and simply useless as clients cannot send packets back over the same distance as their radios are nowhere near as poweful.

      Increasing the transmit power of the router is only effective if you increase the transmit power of the client card as well, or if you have high-powered wireless cards to begin with. Oh and this is totally ignoring the enormous increase in heat output of the router's radio chipset which will dramatically reduce the lifespan of the router, as well as the added signal noise, which will dramatically drop your signal-to-noise ratio, resulting in serious packet loss especially at long distances.
    • DarkZen, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@shoota

      Thanks for correcting me on that one ;) honestly i dont know how i made such a big fubar. Ill make sure to look over my post's much better ;) hehe and maybe get more than a hour of sleep every 24 lol...

      Thanks again ;)
      HB
    • JamesWilson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah.. I realize those points, but it feels so good. :)

      I think its great though that if a client can transmit that far he'll get on.
  • daddyfizz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11good way to blow up your router considering the WRT54G's run really hot with anything over like 85mw... :)

    ~Fizz
    • kd1s, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Which is why another mod is necessary - heat sinks and fans do a wonderful job of removing excess heat.

      And who is to say you can't boost the power OUTSIDE the router. Nice clean little RF amps can be built for less than $50 that will bring power levels up to a watt or more. The only danger is that at sufficient power levels, 2.4GHz will cook you.

    • khyberkitsune, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@kd1s

      Yea, but in order for microwaves to even cook you, you gotta doa little math.

      At 1 watt per hour (assuming) is about 859 calories. A calorie is basically the amount of energy required to heat 1 cubic centimeter of water by one degree Fahrenheit. so 859 cubic centimeters per hour - your body would absolutely fail to cook under such low power. you'd need at LEAST 5 watts per hour from a microwave tansmission to even heat your body above 102 degrees after four or five hours.

      Hoo-ray for conversion tables and physics class!

      PS And the irony of this post is the "code" to post was "co0kd"
  • nerditup, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Instead, RIAA will drop pants and point at another person.
  • Krovvy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I thought of this the first time I heard of an RIAA case. I kind of had to, considering I am wearing a tin-foil suit, and carrying a lightning rod in this thunderstorm.
  • neonic, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Couldn't they just say that you were an accessory to the crime. I mean aren't you ultimately responsible for what is accessed on your network? You pay for the Internet line, so why aren't you liable, not the IP, but you the owner of the IP, liable for illegal activities it was involved in. Plus there is a little thing called circumstantial evidence that can lead to a fine. I believe that the RIAA (the bastards that they are) could get away with suing someone over just an IP address. Now do I agree with what the RIAA is doing? Hell no. Those freaking retards are getting a taste of their own medicine. Prescription: Getting screwed over. >end corny statement
    • thinkdifferent, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No, because by the same argument, somebody who takes the bus to go rob a convenience store would be able to have the bus company become an accessory to robbery. Accessory is only applicable if you accomodated the illegal act specifically and with intent, not merely provided an innocent service that could also have been used for untoward intentions.
    • toomuchpete, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Accessory" is a gloss that gets put on criminal statutes, not private rights of action.

      The RIAA could never use "accessory" because they cannot prosecute criminal activities. If the DA's office gets involved, you can start looking at things like that.

      In a civil suit, it depends on the basis of the RIAA's suit, what actions they allege the person to have committed and how reasonably that person acted.

      For example, we could say that a person is responsible for everything that happens on their IP address. But what if the person is running a good firewall (properly configured), their router is not wireless, and they have all of their virus defs and software up to date... but a hacker still makes his way onto their system... say through a newly found hole in windows.

      That person did everything reasonable necessary ensure that they would be the only ones using that address, so they would probably not be held liable for the infringement.

      And that's the problem with the RIAA's suits... by and large they have NO IDEA who is responsible for the sharing and it's doubtful, in many cases, that even the rigorous discovery process of a civil suit headed to trial would lead them to enough evidence to win their cases.

      The key here is for people who get sued to lawyer up. The RIAA's suits are largely BS and intended to scare people and extort settlements for cases they can't win.
  • glafira, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8See the problem is we allow there to be an RIAA, someone should start a petition to boycott theses old diaper wearing polo playing sons of bitches. I sign it, anybody else?
    • joeshlub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'll second that. If everyone just pirates the music from all labels that are members of the RIAA it would take away its money and as such its power... If only you could rally that many people. Then again, the RIAA would try to recoup its losses and stay alive just through lawsuits.
  • johnsto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1(IANAL) I guess the problem with most defences is the defendant will mistakenly start with "I did not download those files", which as an unfortunate consequence, essentially means, "yes that IP address is mine, but I didn't download those files."

    This defence avoids making that IP address link at all, which is probably why it's so effective.

    I'm probably wrong though.
  • cwalk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I have a couple of questions.

    If you claim to have wifi running through your house, do you have to provide any evidence to back it up? What about if someone is sued today for downloading a song six months ago, how can the RIAA possibly dispute the fact that the same person may have been running a wifi connection at the time it happened? Does anybody think that the RIAA would care enough to wardrive past the residence of the person they are suing to check?
  • WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13If the RIAA pigs try to bust me for sharing an MP3 file, I'll just point out that I was merely sharing a number, a very large one -- in the quadrillions, but it happened to be in binary form.

    All numbers belong equally to everyone. Thus, sequential, digital / binary files are not copyrightable!
    How can you claim copyright ownership of a file that is just a very large, base-two number, bitches?


    Remember the digg article about the first illegal prime? lol
    • lucas22, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2and you can tell that to bubba when he starts entering you without lubricant.....

      but yes i agree. f**k the system......
    • wowbagger, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1Idiot, you'll end up being sued and you'll pay for the rest of your life. Did you even read the article ?
    • dbr_onix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I want to know what they'd say/do if you told them you'd pay the fine, IF it ALL goes directly to the artists, who they claim their life's were destroyed by downloading all those songs, since thats what their aparently doing is suing you to conpensate their artists.. But I'll bet around.. zero percent of the money directly goes to the artist.. Which leaves an obvious question : Where is the money acctually going?
      - Ben
  • wowbagger, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3You know, it's easy to argue this.
    If I was a lawyer (which I'm not) I'd argue that you are responsible for what happens on your network address. Just like your are responsible for what happens in your car, even if I can't prove you were driving. Plenty of precedent there *****.

    Your defense of "it's not me" is pathetic, you are responsible. The RIAA (however much you hate them) are not stupid, they will get this eventually and your false sense of security will soon be over.

    DON'T PIRATE ***** AND YOU WON'T GET BUSTED. Pretty simple.
    • G00mper, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16You don't need to tell people you're not a lawyer; it's obvious you have no idea how the law works.
    • jimthetaff, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3RIAA are stupid you dick. If your argument worked then why would they be dropping cases?

      The majority of pirates do so because they are sick to death of the poor quality drm riddled ***** that is the legal, paid for download services!

      Why are people going to pay for that crap when they can download drm free, high quality (320k and lossless) from bittorrent or p2p? Now if the legal services offered that at a price that reflects they have reduced the cost of their overheads (media, printing, distribution, etc) then I'm sure a large number of "pirates" would use the service.

      I believe that the majority of "pirates" aren't doing it to "steal" music, they are doing it as a protest to the ***** that's getting pushed on us every day.

      Why not simply boycott by not buying the music? because music is part of our culture and as such it a right to everyone! also it wouldn't work because the majority of people aren't aware or the problem, people are starting to wake up, but if we wait for the general population to realize this issue it will already be "the norm" and therefore too late to change anything.

      This is why the RIAA are are so pissed off! "The goddamn "pirates" are ruining our plan to rip off the entire world with this series of tubes! They're all downloading the Internet damnit, how the hell are we going to afford the Viagra and high-class hookers if they win?!!!"

      It's idiots like you that don't see the bigger picture.

      Oh, maybe your not a dick-brained, retarded *****, maybe your just one of them... Oh wait, is there a difference?
    • TigonLiger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I would think that it is a possibility that a court would rule that you are responsible for your own IP address and then a precedent would be set for future cases. The point is that the Recording Industry Ass. of America don't want to test this in court in case they lose. Until they do test it, victims can keep using the defence and making them drop the case. I suspect the pigopolists will wait until the case is heard in a court whose judge has made decisions friendly to the pigopolists' cause in the past -- then a precedent will be set in their favour.
    • thinkdifferent, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Your comment makes no sense. On one hand you say you are responsible for anything occuring on your network even if it wasn't you & then you say not to pirate. I agree if you pirate, you're liable, (and don't give the lame "it's not stealing cause they still have it" argument).

      If someone else uses your network, you can't be held accountable for their actions. Imagine that someone walks onto your front lawn & then shoots all your neighbors from your lawn. Are you responsible for their deaths?
    • tylerni7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I would agree with you *except* IP spoofing can be done, and it wouldn't be fair if someone just had a similar car now would it? And also, most people don't have static IPs. If they get the timing off, the IP will trace to someone different. How fair would it be if you had a rental car, and after you returned it, someone rented it and committed a crime? Would that be your fault too?
  • Hindu_Wardrobe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Music shouldn't be about the money. It should be about getting your music heard and liked. Money is just a bonus.
    • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Writing music is very time consuming and requires intense dedication. To write GOOD music you have to pursue it as a full-time occupation, not something you do once in a while in a garage with your drunken friends. So how do you support yourself if you have to spend so much time writing music and practicing? You need to get paid for it somehow.

      That doesn't even include equipment costs, studio rental costs, etc.
    • TigonLiger, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Musicians should make their money from live gigs or from tip-jars (essentially online busking). Artists (or rather the capitalists who pay artists) have no God-given right to have taxpayers pay for the enforcement of an unnatural monopoly over the distribution of their works. Artists have a moral right to a credit when their work is used, but that is a different matter.
  • Serinox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1what if you reset your connection and let dhcp give you a new ip, then in court you show them that the ip they have isnt you... now if they had the mac address then your screwed...
    • Cykaos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1your ISP knows exactly what time you had which IP. The RIAA isn't going after whoever currently has the IP they are looking for. They get the time the download/upload occured and the IP and they go to the ISP to find out who it was. Most of these cases are where the person downloaded awhile ago and most probably have already lost their lease on that IP and have a different one when the suit is filed.
    • epiccollision, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2and to that end if you have a router connected to the front end of your network the visible IP for all comps connected to the network will be the same
    • arizonagroove, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"now if they had the mac address then your screwed..."

      Not really. Mac address can be spoofed quite easily. My cheapo Belkin router allows you to specify the mac address it advertises to the outside world.
  • KenMo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3I blame Bush
  • gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I've always thought that the RIAA really should gather actual physical evidence such as files from computers, etc. Just showing that an IP address is listed as belonging to a certain person at a certain time does NOT prove that the person had any involvement with file sharing.
  • cazual, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1About time some people have used this defense, this is an obvious hole in the RIAA's case. However, I would not be surprised if a judge in some jurisdiction, rules that it is the individual's responsibility to secure their wifi thus they would be ipso facto responsible for the file swap and guilty as if they did it themselves. At that point the Supreme Court will have to come into the picture and finally we will have a definitive answer.
  • dougbdl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"I believe that the majority of "pirates" aren't doing it to "steal" music, they are doing it as a protest to the ***** that's getting pushed on us every day."

    I believe that people just want free *****.
    • gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Yeah, the whole "protest" thing is just an excuse for not wanting to pay for stuff. I protest DRM and crap like that by breaking it. However, I still buy the product. I don't buy something can't break the DRM on it.
    • Duggy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1yes... free excrement for all
    • joeshlub, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I'm doing it because theres no way a college student can fund a 7,000 song collection. Rather than just listen to radio, and still not put money toward labels, I buy the CD's i really like (that i first check out through illegal means), and the rest I pirate.
      Ethical/Legal? Perhaps not. But they aren't making any more or less money off of me regardless of whether or not I pirate. So why should they care? Personally, I don't even share the music I download. I share other things to compensate.

      If you were an artist, would you rather have 10,000 people buy your CD and no one else listen to it, or have 10,000 buy it, and 100,000 listen to it illegally, and then eventually have some of those 100,000 who would otherwise not known of you show up at your concert?

      Long story short, the music I buy is all I would buy on my budget. So no ones getting hurt. And if there weren't soooo many people leeching off the products produced by musicians, then thier music wouldn't cost so much in the first place. Which means more sales. And less overpayed industry excecutives.
    • thinkdifferent, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@joeshlub

      It's pretty simple, not being able to afford something doesn't make it ok to steal it. I can't afford a Ferrari, but going down to the local dealer & simply taking the car with the excuse (but I couldn't afford it) isn't valid. You need to learn that sometimes you can't have everything you want. On a budget you said you decide which stuff you really like & then buy the CD. You should take the same thing to the downloaded music.... if you really like something purchase it.... otherwise... learn to do without.
  • techmonkey4u, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wow.. so all this time all anyone had to do was point out the obvious and use a little common sense to defeat the RIAA? How devious!

    I wish the dead woman they sued had known that.. she could've saved herself some trouble.
  • oyourmom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Its time to go to all my friends house and get there IP's. ;) Just incase.
  • mangroove, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Why didn't people think of this before?
  • Clp727, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I've been telling friends that an I.P. address shouldn't be enough proof for them to win a law suit since these law suits began! Since I am no an attourney, I just assumed that I was wrong. There are tons of methods for a remote user to high jack your system and use in in illegal ways. This should've been pointed out long ago. I am amazed that they are just now considering this stuff. I assumed that they had already considered it, and preceded with law suits anyway. I mean if grandma's box is compromised with a simple Trojan...
  • D14BL0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What if I feel like getting my name changed to 70.112.228.123? I guess I'm screwed, then.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.