Digg finds the key is safety in numbers

[admin]

Australians who join the ongoing cyber-protest against the big movie studios risk prosecution in Australia and even extradition to the US, an academic has warned ...

http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/digg-finds-the-key-is-safety-in-numbers/2007/05/14/1178995074634.html

[soup]

But it is illegal under Australian law to communicate all or part of a copy protection circumvention device to a second party.

This interests me no end. So what happens if you post something like this on the web but add a disclaimer, telling people not to download it. Are you then still communicating it to a second party?

[admin]

I would think linking to something or posting instructions on where to obtain it would be considered communication. Disclaimers are mostly useless (like those warez sites that say "you can only enter the site if you agree that this website is not responsible for any legal matters").

The problem with this whole Digg issue is that it's pointless now to get website to stop showing the keys, since it's everywhere. If they do sue Digg, the AACS LA will probably win, but apart from a moral victory, this achieves nothing (ie. the keys are still posted everywhere). Still, they might want to do this as a "show of force", and to let people know they are willing to use legal measures to protect their "product".

[soup]

Well from what I have read, that "show of force" wouldn't mean much in this case, people just got plain mad. Also if you tick too many people off, who's going to buy your product.

[admin]

The AACS LA sells their "products" to groups like Blu-ray/HD DVD, who in turn sells the notion that their systems are copy proof to the movie studios. The reason why movies studios like Blu-ray better than HD DVD is solely to do with copy protection. Any show of force would be for the benefit of the movie studios, to show them that AACS LA/Blu-ray/HD DVD are serious about copy protection, protecting their systems from hackers, etc... Copy protection these days is as much about technological innovation as it is about a legal confrontation - MPAA vs DeCSS, for example. If you can't protect it through technology, like it was in the CSS case, then you go and do it through the courts.

This show of force (a major court case) hasn't happened yet. If there is a court case, Digg will have to prove that they are not responsible for what their users posted on the website, or that these keys have no commercial value/ownership. AFAIK, no lawsuit has been filed yet, it is just at the stage of sending out cease and desist notices (which Digg first complied with, and then they did a 180 - this won't look good in court for Digg, unfortunately - it will be pointed out that they chose to comply first, and this proofs that they knew it was the right thing to do. I'm guessing that Digg's current position is against legal advice given to them, but they don't really have a choice). Things might get interesting when a lawsuit is filed (if it is filed), and perhaps then, it will provide a stage to argue about a lot of issues that are very important for both the web community and content holders (the companies that use DRM).

In any case, it shows civil disobedience is alive and well, and it works. But was this case of civil disobedience directed at Digg for being too hasty to comply with the C&D, or was it directed at content holders due to public anger towards DRM? A little bit of both I think, which is why this whole thing is so interesting.

[soup]

Thank you for the insight, I for one will be keeping tabs on this one.

In any case, it shows civil disobedience is alive and well, and it works. But was this case of civil disobedience directed at Digg for being too hasty to comply with the C&D, or was it directed at content holders due to public anger towards DRM? A little bit of both I think, which is why this whole thing is so interesting.

I think originally it was mostly against Digg, at least from what I read but of course the other is always on people's minds.

[Derree]

I am with you soup..this is one to watch..I was watching on either The Lab or Attack Of The Show and they were discussing this issue..how much control does a site like digg have over the users....A case like our home here is different in that we have to follow the rules of the Admin..now couldn't a site like digg do the same? Follow the rules or be banned? hmmm.....

[soup]

From what I gather that would have left them with next to no members. This involved a lot of their members.

[admin]

I think the difference is that Digg is a big powerful website, possibly more powerful than the AACS LA (but not their backers, the movie studios). Another difference is that Digg is really a "link and vote" type of websites, whereas a forum is more about discussions and creating content (that sites like Digg would then link to) - if Digg doesn't really write any of the contents that it links to, why should it be responsible for them?

And lastly, Digg has a lot of user input which is why it is so successful, but on the other hand, they are susceptible to this kind of user action. Compare this to the main digital digest website, where there is very little user input, and just a few people writing things and creating content - these kind of sites (web 1.0 sites, if you will) allow the owners to have more control, but is less interesting/interactive for the visitors.