This is madness! ...THIS IS DIGG~

[me2]

So digg.com recently exploded randomly. It was all over the 16-hexadecimal code that supposedly unlocks HD-DVD discs on PCs. The article containing this code was posted last night, and skyrocketed to 7000 diggs in 2 hours. Then, it disappeared. The digg staff said that the code was copyrighted/trademarked (?) by the person who leaked it and that he may sue.

Anyway, this evening someone thought they would be clever and put the code in a domain name. The article got quite a lot of diggs. Then someone copied and upped an article containing the code in one of those userbars. Then it exploded, and people were posting ways left and right, from hiding it in artwork to videos to mathmatical equations to hex colors to even posting the code in plain sight. It's slowed down, but it was CRAZY when it happened. Someone even made it so that all the code related articles were bumped to the top. They took up two whole pages. Proof:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/172/480718913_337ceec10b_b.jpg

There's also reports that the MPAA paid digg to take down the stories or something. I don't know, digg is being really gay right now.

[Beldaran]

Digg is being really gay right now.

So... basically nothing out of the ordinary.

[AtmaWeapon]

I'm confused exactly how to discuss this, no doubt due to the low amount of sleep I had last night and my foolish behavior that has led me to keep a ridiculously late bedtime.

Are we to discuss the implications of freedom of speech versus the right of a copyright holder to protect his copyright? Are we to discuss the ethical responsibility, or lack thereof, of digg to remove the article? Should we consider the myriad ways of redistribution of the code a valid protest or should we view it as the product of activists hungry for a machine to rage against? Once can surely see parallels to the whole DeCSS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeCSS) debacle, in which response to the defense of the copyrighted code led to many artistic renditions of the algorithm (including a Haiku form (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/decss-haiku.txt)). Were the people right to use digg to facilitate the spread of the new ways of expressing the code, or were they under an obligation to respect digg's wishes to not host the article?

None are easy questions and, unfortunately, none are asked by the original post. Someone pick some questions for discussion and when I'm actually awake tomorrow I'll be sure to explain why [irrationally strong viewpoint] about [boring issue] is the only solution to [the problem of the day].

[rock_nog]

*sigh* It's kind of sad that this is the one thing that digg users suddenly seem to get militant about. My God, aren't there more important things out there than whether or not a number can be copyrighted?

[Darth Marsden]

No there isn't. The right numbers, the right equation, can split the atom. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shakespeare_Code) Numbers are like magic, y'know.

[Aegix Drakan]

No there isn't. The right numbers, the right equation, can split the atom. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shakespeare_Code)

That's nothing. You want to know what's really scary? THIS SITE is made of numbers. *shivers in a corner* A bunch of number sthat has consumed our lives...

>_> *cough* [/horrible joke]

Anyway, if a bunch of differently colored pixels can get copyrighted, why not numbers?

[AtmaWeapon]

I've heard an interesting point made before but its implications aren't as profound as whoever came up with it probably intended.

A binary file, since it is simply a string of bits, can be interpreted as a single very large number. If one translates the file into that number, then sends the number to a friend, who then converts it into a string of bits, you have transferred the mp3. Does this mean a number can be copyrighted?

The flaw in the argument is that the copyright holds on any representation of the music, analog or digital. When you convert an mp3 into numeric form you haven't changed the contents or status of the file any more than ripping the track from the CD does. It's not like converting the file suddenly makes you the holder of copyright on a new piece of music. (Also this method is ridiculously impractical for all you clever pirates; a 1MB file will require a number at least as large as 2^1024 = 1.797 x 10^308, which is the number of bits it would take to represent the number in a standard text file [twice that if unicode is used].)

Anyway, I don't think digg did anything wrong by removing articles related to the code; if it is in reality a trade secret than the MPAA has the right to request it to be removed. However, the nature of the internet and the attitude towards the MPAA is such that the act of filing a cease and desist causes little more than an active campaign to mirror the number and harass the living daylights out of people who don't care about [boring nerd topic] once again.

Now, I don't know much about the technical details of whatever algorithm is used to protect these DVDs, but I do know that if your algorithm uses a single key that must be shared with numerous individuals (the companies that manufacture the DVDs) then it is going to be broken. I think if they made a licensed crypto chip that was a black box then they could at least delay this phenomenon; but as soon as software to decode the DVD must be written someone will disassemble it and the encryption will be broken.

[ZTC]

and why should I even care?

[Pineconn lolz]

http://www.detaer.com/albums/Internet-lol/notagain.jpg

No ones cares. Its a back and forth battle thats been going on forever.


Oh, and the 300 refrence is pretty much worn out. Stop using it.

[Beldaran]

No ones cares.

Clearly thousands of people care, or they wouldn't have basically shut down a popular website.



Oh, and the 300 refrence is pretty much worn out. Stop using it.

You do not have the authority to instruct people how to post. Almost everything you post is annoying or vapid. And then you inform us that you officially declare yourself a respected member of the community. And then you start commanding people which movie references they can and cannot include in their posts. If you are so concerned about quality of posts here, why don't you contribute by unplugging your internet.

Also, that negative rep you sent me from your earlier obnoxious thread didn't cost me a point.

[The_Amaster]

You know, if no one just turns the other cheek, than the lolz vs. the rest of us war is going to continue forever. Beldaran, your post seems to be around 90 percent lolz flaming, and 10 percent on topic. And even that was an insult.

About Digg, well, what can I say? I can't really come up with an opinion. It certainly is illegal to copy certain stuff, but at the same time well, if only a few people have access to it, there isn't much harm. As long as the companies are maing a profit, well, they have a right to complain, but they shoudl consider how much worse it could be. I do think it's wrong for thousands or hundreds of thouseand of people to just be able to rip stuff illegally.

[Prrkitty]

Knock it off y'all!!

Beld... don't respond to him 'cause it ONLY feeds him to do it more.

Pineconn lolz, smarten up or else!

[Pineconn lolz]

You don't have to feed me. I will continue to post the way I do anyway.

Clearly people care about the HD-DVD issue, but no one cares about the ethical values behind it, which is what I was refering too, and what (I assume) the OP wanted us to talk about. Perhaps you should stop and think a second before you post, so you're comments aren't so annoying and vapid? And of course, the 300 thing was my opinion. It just happens to an agressive, educated opinion, from my experience with other people around me. If you don't like it, ignore it.


I do think it's wrong for thousands or hundreds of thouseand of people to just be able to rip stuff illegally.

which is what will happen if the move industry doesn't stop this stuff. Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile.

[Cloral]

If the MPAA did ask DIGG to remove the number, then they really didn't have much choice. Otherwise they'd probably be liable under the DMCA.

[rock_nog]

To actually jump into the argument and make my position clear, it's not the ripping that's the problem, it's the illegal copying. We should be able to do whatever the hell we want with our media. I agree that giving out free copies is bad, but if I want a copy on my computer, for example, I should be able to do that so long as I don't send it to anyone else (of course, I realize we could open up a whole new can of worms with "fair use," but let's ignore that for now). In light of that, I feel entitled to bypass any form of encryption I want.

The thing about illegal distribution is, it's gonna happen. Hackers will always find a way. It's like the argument about guns - outlaw guns and only outlaws have guns (and yes, I know in the past that I've argued against guns, but I do accept them as a necessary evil, even if I'm not too fond of them). You're not stopping the criminals, you're only hurting honest customers by pulling this kind of crap. As for the whole "protected number" thing, though... Personally, I agree that they have the right to protect a number, because there is a lot of copyrighted material out there that can already be represented with numbers, so what's the difference here?

[The_Amaster]

We should be able to do whatever the hell we want with our media.
Exactly. If I wasn't able to rip my CD's to my new iPod, well, that would suck.

[AtmaWeapon]

Digg is handling it in a way that makes me respect them more even though I don't particluarly like the site:

http://blog.digg.com/?p=74


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.

Digg on,

Kevin Not many people are willing to risk their business simply to satisfy customers, I like his moxie.

Also the industry is learning (http://news.yahoo.com/s/infoworld/20070416/tc_infoworld/87720) and has already fought back. Key revocation is an interesting development, though I am of the opinion that so long as there is some software player it will be comparatively trivial to crack device keys.

The battle should not be over encryption but distribution.

[Darth Marsden]

I'm not a fan of Digg, but I applaud the stance they've taken. Power to the people!

I'm also not a user of HD-DVD (or Blue-Ray, for that matter), so this whole issue doesn't concern me in the least. I understand the position both parties are in, but the companies had to realize that this was going to happen sooner or later. Hackers will crack any code you give them.
The best thing they can do is deal with the fall-out - change the protection, or go after those downloading the cracked DVDs.If they'd done that rather than 'cease-and-desist' Digg, they might not be in the mess they're in at the moment.

[Aegix Drakan]

Wow...they've got a lot of guts to take that kind of stance...They deserve to survive, just for that alone!

[Glenn the Great]

I salute Kevin. He deserves to be King of the Internet.

[Beldaran]

I salute Kevin. He deserves to be King of the Internet.

Why? Because he got bitch slapped by the people who read his website? He caved in to pressure from corporate america. Then he caved into pressure from the people who read his website. It sounds to me like he's just a big pussy.

[War Lord]

Digg is just links right? I really don't know as I don't use it.
How are they liable then?
Shouldn't the site linked from digg be liable?

I wasn't aware linking to something off of your server was illegal, only hosting said material.

[Glenn the Great]

Why? Because he got bitch slapped by the people who read his website? He caved in to pressure from corporate america. Then he caved into pressure from the people who read his website. It sounds to me like he's just a big pussy.

The way I see it, he caved to the pressure of corporate America, but then realized his mistake, and amended his wrong by doing the right thing, serving the will of his constituents.

I'd equate him with such figures as Cecil Harvey, Anakin Skywalker, and Paul of Tarsus.

I see him as a hero because I am biased toward the constituent group. You see him as a pussy because you tend to take a more libertarian stance on things.

Oh and War Lord, direct linking is illegal, because it can cause traffic to be automatically redirected.
EDIT: Which is why you rightly disallow direct-linking to ROMs on these forums.

[Darth Marsden]

The way I see it, he caved to the pressure of corporate America, but then realized his mistake, and amended his wrong by doing the right thing, serving the will of his constituents.

I'd equate him with such figures as Cecil Harvey, Anakin Skywalker, and Paul of Tarsus.
Oh, don't you bring Star Wars into this. Don't you dare.

:D

[Beldaran]

The way I see it, he caved to the pressure of corporate America, but then realized his mistake, and amended his wrong by doing the right thing, serving the will of his constituents.

I don't think he realized his mistake. He didn't "realize his mistake" until his prized posession (his website) went apeshit. It's like how a burglar "realizes his mistake" when a homeowner aims a gun at him.

If he weren't such a pussy, he would have just told everyone to STFU. Or, if he weren't such a pussy, he would have told the corporate lawyers to go suck dick. He did neither. He gave in to both groups. His ass has been penetrated by a duality of cock.

[Glenn the Great]

That's how you realize mistakes. Something goes wrong.

He's not giving in to both groups at the same time.

He has done both requirements of not being a pussy. He told everyone to STFU by telling them not to post the code, then he told the lawyers to suck dick by allowing his members to post it.

He was never a pussy, he just flipped his non-pussy polarity.

[Beldaran]

I'm just being pissy because I'm studying for finals.

[shadowboxer2007]

Kevin from digg sounds like a big pussy. I have had more lawsutes then him from my site. I for one never remove a thing. Thats why i been sued so much thouth. If he really whated to fight this he sould have never removed it to begin with. I might not put up any copyrighted stuff now on my main site. but i still run alot that do. I never have back down to any company. I looked over his site there is nothing wrong with links thats what they are on there. nothing hosted like on my site. Hes just got bich slaped by that company then by his users. Hell if he does lose i might buy him out.