The DRM AACS revolt with digg.

Johnnytoxic

Johnnytoxic

Johnnytoxic

Permabanned
Joined
13 Nov 2006
Posts
5,798
Caused quite an uproar. I found it hilarious they tried to censor a user driven news site. Kind of backfired on them. This is the kind of thing OCUK is soo good at :)

http://www.digg.com/tech_news/New_York_Times_on_the_HD_DVD_Revolt

2005777521945099000_rs.jpg


fortunel_a.jpg


rochester0502070950.jpg


fireworks.jpg
 
Last edited:
To be fair though digg were probably under a fair whack of pressure about censoring it, but they still respect the digg community. When they realised how passionate digg users were about this being allowed on the site, they stepped back and left them to it.
 
I think the law is really outdated when it comes to this. I don't think a site like digg should be held legally responsible for things people post on there. The laws were designed for printed publications, but I don't think the same rules should apply to things published online. I think the person who posted it should be held legally responsible for what they say.
 
Psyk said:
I think the law is really outdated when it comes to this. I don't think a site like digg should be held legally responsible for things people post on there. The laws were designed for printed publications, but I don't think the same rules should apply to things published online. I think the person who posted it should be held legally responsible for what they say.
Click to expand...
iAnal, but I believe it is the case that the person who posted the article is held legally responsibile. In cases like these, however, it requires the cooperation of the site owners themselves to a) identify the person who posted the article; and b) take down the relevant articles and prevent any further instances cropping up.

Therefore, it is the site owners who are on the receiving end of the legal advances, DMCA notices, etc.
 
Psyk said:
I think the law is really outdated when it comes to this. I don't think a site like digg should be held legally responsible for things people post on there. The laws were designed for printed publications, but I don't think the same rules should apply to things published online. I think the person who posted it should be held legally responsible for what they say.
Click to expand...

Its just a squence of numbers. Its what you do with them is whats illegal.
 
Aod said:
so, whats the significance of this number?
Click to expand...
Response 18 on http://modblog.bmezine.com/2007/05/03/takedown-this/
This seemingly arbitrary number/letter combination represents a HD-DVD encryption key that got hacked recently (it’s hexadecimal), thus allowing people to bypass the DRM built into the format, enabling them to copy the content.
The content industry is trying to prevent this code snippet from being distributed with all the legal guns that are available, mostly taking down websites.
It`s history repeating - exactly what happened with DeCSS - the DVD copy protection - a few years ago.
Google the code and you’ll see….
Click to expand...
 
There's absolutely no way they can censor this code now. It's already on thousands of websites and no matter what they do someone will have it wrote down somewhere.

People 1. DRM 0. :)
 
johnnyfive said:
Its just a squence of numbers. Its what you do with them is whats illegal.
Click to expand...
Oh I agree. I'm just saying if they want to take someone to court about it, the site itself shouldn't be involved, and the person who posted it should be taken to court. In this case the court should find the poster completely innocent since all they've done is post a number.

I think if a company wants a legal battle related to something posted on a site like digg they should have to follow a system like this:

1) First they will have to get something like a warrant to be able to get a posters details (IP address or whatever)
2) Only after the warrant has been obtained will the site release that information to them. I don't think the site should even be allowed to release this information until they have a warrant.
3) Then the company can take legal action against the poster.
4) Only after the poster has been found guilty can they demand the site remove the posts.

I don't know what the current system is, but this system makes sense to me as the only legal responsibility the site has is to release information when given a warrant, and then remove content as ordered by a court. The site wouldn't have to worry about being taken to court themselves, and wouldn't have to delete posts just because they think it might cause trouble.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom