by Don Park
at 2007/05/03 21:50:17
I pretty much ignored the clamoring over Digg censorship of DVD key numbers but Ed Felten's attempt to explain why so called 09ers revolted got my goat.
To me, publishing such sensitive key is no different from publishing credit card numbers, social security numbers, or passwords. They are all just numbers or random sequence of ASCII characters. No one owns them and they are of little value if they are not associated with anyone or anything. But if they are associated with a person, I don't think anyone will find it outrageous when they are asked to remove the sensitive information from public view.
Digg's post associated a sequence of numbers to a key that'll allow people to access valuable property and share it with people who didn't pay for it. The hacker who uncovered the key justified his action saying the DVD he bought didn't support his monitor. The right thing to do would have been to return the DVD for a refund. Instead, he chose to hack and then shared what he found with strangers.
Kevin Rose became a fool by [sorry, a gremlin escaped] was unwise to answer foolish demands from Digg users, placing his company at the mercy of its users' whims. There is value in a community of users. There is less value in a community of hooligans.
Comments
"The right thing to do would have been to return the DVD for a refund"
Really? What if he thought his rights had been infringed? i.e. the right to play media he paid for. Fair use. Portability.
Protest action is valid. The media companies are pushing the boundaries. The should expect pushback.
Some will choose to roll over, of course. Those people would have been no use when Sony fought Hollywood over video, either.
Really? What if he thought his rights had been infringed? i.e. the right to play media he paid for. Fair use. Portability.
Protest action is valid. The media companies are pushing the boundaries. The should expect pushback.
Some will choose to roll over, of course. Those people would have been no use when Sony fought Hollywood over video, either.
Peter, that's what the courts are for. If the law is lacking, vote people into Congress to change the law. IMHO, breaking DRM and subverting commerce hardly qualifies as a form of civil protest. If it was about a magic key that would unlock free food for starving masses, I would understand. But for movies and music? Urgh.
Don: I've gotta say, I've never shopped *anywhere* that would allow me to return an opened DVD for a refund. In an ideal world, yeah, that would be the way to go... but this ain't an ideal world.
That's kinda the way I look at the whole issue, honestly. Sure, it would be better to vote in new representatives... but that won't happen as long as all major news outlets and politicians are owned by the media companies who invented DRM. And while it's kinda sad to see Kevin Rose roll over for the mob, he had no choice... Digg's rep as one of the "cool kids" was on the line.
None of which means I'm supporting the illegal distribution of HD-DVDs. It's a problematic behavior, and stands to really screw over a format still in its infancy. On the other hand, if I drop $30 on an HD-DVD, I won't feel a moment's guilt about ripping that sucker to my terabyte media server and watching it over the network, or on my non-HD-DVD laptop. My house, my rules.
That's kinda the way I look at the whole issue, honestly. Sure, it would be better to vote in new representatives... but that won't happen as long as all major news outlets and politicians are owned by the media companies who invented DRM. And while it's kinda sad to see Kevin Rose roll over for the mob, he had no choice... Digg's rep as one of the "cool kids" was on the line.
None of which means I'm supporting the illegal distribution of HD-DVDs. It's a problematic behavior, and stands to really screw over a format still in its infancy. On the other hand, if I drop $30 on an HD-DVD, I won't feel a moment's guilt about ripping that sucker to my terabyte media server and watching it over the network, or on my non-HD-DVD laptop. My house, my rules.
Some readers misread me as saying "Digg is a community of hooligans." I don't think it is. What I am saying is that it is in danger of becoming one if unruly users, whom I believe are not the majority, are given free rein. What they have done amounts forcing a company to commit an unlawful act. Having submitted once, Digg will find it more difficult to refuse next time.
Roger, I didn't know DVD couldn't be returned because I simply never bought a DVD. My wife does all the shopping so I asked her and found it to be true. Thinking about it, I think the reason for this might be because DVDs and CDs can be played or even ripped then returned. I've seen people who buy a boat battery to power their laptop while camping then return it afterward so, although I don't like it, I can understand the policy.
According to my wife, stores where she shops at explained to her the restriction everytime she bought a DVD or game for our son (I never bought a DVD for myself) so if I was in the hacker's shoes, I would have talked to the store manager to explain the problem to get a refund. Failing that, I would have just waited til I had a monitor I could play it with or given it someone since I am too lazy to sell it.
Nevertheless, I don't think publishing secret is the right way to solve these problems.
According to my wife, stores where she shops at explained to her the restriction everytime she bought a DVD or game for our son (I never bought a DVD for myself) so if I was in the hacker's shoes, I would have talked to the store manager to explain the problem to get a refund. Failing that, I would have just waited til I had a monitor I could play it with or given it someone since I am too lazy to sell it.
Nevertheless, I don't think publishing secret is the right way to solve these problems.
<i>IMHO, breaking DRM and subverting commerce hardly qualifies as a form of civil protest.</i>
Throwing tea in Boston harbor worked pretty well 230 years ago.
My solution to copy protection and lawsuit ridiculousness on the part of entertainment companies is to buy less of their stuff.
But the idea that we can expect the U.S. government to rein them in and protect fair use has been dead since the copyright extension act. Civil disobedience can be an effective response.
Throwing tea in Boston harbor worked pretty well 230 years ago.
My solution to copy protection and lawsuit ridiculousness on the part of entertainment companies is to buy less of their stuff.
But the idea that we can expect the U.S. government to rein them in and protect fair use has been dead since the copyright extension act. Civil disobedience can be an effective response.
Peter said:
"Protest action is valid."
That may be true, but a crime was committed, and probably is committed each time the 16 digits are posted. As ridiculous as that might seem that 16 digits can be a crime, that is the law in the US. I would agree that DMCA is a bad law and a wrong law, but "looting" in defiance of the law is not likely to end up changing the law. At best, the law will just be non-enforceable on this particular topic.
If techies/hackers really want to change DMCA, real civil disobedience will have to be practiced. That is, people with moral outrage need to publicly break the law, be willing to be punished for it (plead guilty), then wait for public sympathy to build. Unfortunately, I can't imagine that there are too many techies willing to take that kind of risk over the ability to watch HD-DVD content on alternative hardware.
"Protest action is valid."
That may be true, but a crime was committed, and probably is committed each time the 16 digits are posted. As ridiculous as that might seem that 16 digits can be a crime, that is the law in the US. I would agree that DMCA is a bad law and a wrong law, but "looting" in defiance of the law is not likely to end up changing the law. At best, the law will just be non-enforceable on this particular topic.
If techies/hackers really want to change DMCA, real civil disobedience will have to be practiced. That is, people with moral outrage need to publicly break the law, be willing to be punished for it (plead guilty), then wait for public sympathy to build. Unfortunately, I can't imagine that there are too many techies willing to take that kind of risk over the ability to watch HD-DVD content on alternative hardware.
What's wrong with rendering a bad law unenforceable?
And why is the blog host so willing to pass judgment on Digg and its users when he admits to knowing doodley-squat about the issues surrounding DVDs?
And why is the blog host so willing to pass judgment on Digg and its users when he admits to knowing doodley-squat about the issues surrounding DVDs?
Doug, I *only* admitted to not knowing that DVD could not be returned. That's not quite "doodley-squat". But all that matters little IMHO to what went on at Digg.
If you want to break a law, go right ahead. Whether you get into legal troubles of your own making is your business. But I think it's wrong to coerce others to break the law. Furthermore, I think it's childish to resort to publishing sensitive information to protest bad laws and not even bother to change the law.
If special interest groups are in your way, get them out of the way legally. With all the fancy social networking services out there, why not organize a grass root movement? If that doesn't work, we are all fucked anyway and DRM will be the last thing we'll have to worry about.
If you want to break a law, go right ahead. Whether you get into legal troubles of your own making is your business. But I think it's wrong to coerce others to break the law. Furthermore, I think it's childish to resort to publishing sensitive information to protest bad laws and not even bother to change the law.
If special interest groups are in your way, get them out of the way legally. With all the fancy social networking services out there, why not organize a grass root movement? If that doesn't work, we are all fucked anyway and DRM will be the last thing we'll have to worry about.
You think no one is working to change the DMCA? If you really believe that I think your ignorance on this issue goes a lot deeper than not knowing DVDs can't be returned. Let's see, the EFF has been on the case for seven or eight years. Then there's Public Knowledge, the Consumers Union, and the Consumer Electronics Association. These are all pretty formidable lobbying and/or activist groups, yet their efforts have gone nowhere thus far.
Why? Because the special interests that back the DMCA are some of the most experienced and ruthless in the world, and they've got key allies standing as chokepoints. The head of the House subcommittee that oversees "IP" issues is an avowed and outspoken ally of the movie industry. The judge who originally ruled that posting encryption-cracking code on the Net was illegal is a former Warner Brothers counsel. How's that for conflict of interest.
You can sniffle that the '09ers are "childish", but to act like changing a bad law is as easy as replacing a buggy code library - that shows that you've got the political sophistication of a 10-year old. To battle the one of the world's most sophisticated lobbying machines only on their ground - Congress and the courts - that's a recipe for losing, nothing more.
Why? Because the special interests that back the DMCA are some of the most experienced and ruthless in the world, and they've got key allies standing as chokepoints. The head of the House subcommittee that oversees "IP" issues is an avowed and outspoken ally of the movie industry. The judge who originally ruled that posting encryption-cracking code on the Net was illegal is a former Warner Brothers counsel. How's that for conflict of interest.
You can sniffle that the '09ers are "childish", but to act like changing a bad law is as easy as replacing a buggy code library - that shows that you've got the political sophistication of a 10-year old. To battle the one of the world's most sophisticated lobbying machines only on their ground - Congress and the courts - that's a recipe for losing, nothing more.
Doug, are you misreading what I write intentionally? Where did I say "no one is working to change the DMCA?" How am I suppose to discuss anything if people I am having a discussion with keep twisting my words and putting words into my mouth?
"Furthermore, I think it's childish to resort to publishing sensitive information to protest bad laws and not even bother to change the law. "
Not even bother to change the law???? Okay, how am I twisting your words?
Not even bother to change the law???? Okay, how am I twisting your words?
@Don - I've run into a fair number of DVDs that flat out won't play on any device I own. If it weren't for the existance of ripping software, I wouldn't be able to play them at all.
It's not even the case that just frivolities like movies and music are affected. By way of example, my phone will only run BREW applications, which have restrictions that are fundamentally the same as the ones these hackers are circumventing. You can't write software for this device without a $400/yr "developer key", and even once you have that, you can't *deploy* it anywhere without the blessing of a carrier. I've got a computer twice as powerful as my first PC that fits in my pocket and I *can't write software for it* because Verizon wants to sell me snowboarding games instead.
That's where DRM ultimately leads. "No content but our content." Devices you buy and pay for but don't own. DRM is bad for the consumer, and you frankly aren't going to get rid of the laws that make breaking it illegal just by voting people who put it in place out of office.
It's not even the case that just frivolities like movies and music are affected. By way of example, my phone will only run BREW applications, which have restrictions that are fundamentally the same as the ones these hackers are circumventing. You can't write software for this device without a $400/yr "developer key", and even once you have that, you can't *deploy* it anywhere without the blessing of a carrier. I've got a computer twice as powerful as my first PC that fits in my pocket and I *can't write software for it* because Verizon wants to sell me snowboarding games instead.
That's where DRM ultimately leads. "No content but our content." Devices you buy and pay for but don't own. DRM is bad for the consumer, and you frankly aren't going to get rid of the laws that make breaking it illegal just by voting people who put it in place out of office.
You should have followed your first instinct, Don - ignore the situation.
Attacking those who attack DRM is lot like saying there might possibly be something wrong with a Macintosh - people don't actually try to read and understand your words but react on an emotional level.
No one has a "right" to see a movie or listen to a song without explicit permission from the owner of those rights. Those owners usually allow licensed use of their works in a variety of ways. Either chose one of those ways, or forego the entertainment. It's not rocket surgery....
:)ave
Attacking those who attack DRM is lot like saying there might possibly be something wrong with a Macintosh - people don't actually try to read and understand your words but react on an emotional level.
No one has a "right" to see a movie or listen to a song without explicit permission from the owner of those rights. Those owners usually allow licensed use of their works in a variety of ways. Either chose one of those ways, or forego the entertainment. It's not rocket surgery....
:)ave
Dave, you apparently have a very weak understanding of the concept of Fair Use in U.S. copyright law. Let me educate you - there's some things called "time-shifting" and "space-shifting" that consumers are allowed to do with their lawfully obtained content, and these do not require any kind of license, explicit or otherwise. That means you get to watch your stuff where you want, when you want, and there's fuck-all the copyright holder can do about it.
Do you consider all of the hundreds of millions of people who rip their CDs to listen on their iPods to be criminals? I wouldn't be surprised if you feel that way, given your smug, simplistic view of copyright, but I doubt that's how most courts are going to come down on the issue. Yet DRM and the DMCA prevent the same thing from happening with DVDs. That's wrong.
Do you consider all of the hundreds of millions of people who rip their CDs to listen on their iPods to be criminals? I wouldn't be surprised if you feel that way, given your smug, simplistic view of copyright, but I doubt that's how most courts are going to come down on the issue. Yet DRM and the DMCA prevent the same thing from happening with DVDs. That's wrong.
Don,
you're saying
"I think the reason for this might be because DVDs and CDs can be ripped then returned"
This is exactly what makes people so angry. Every customer is a presumed criminal.
I agree that communicating confidential numbers is not the best way to fight this, but then again this is not about piracy at all. The best way would be to refuse buying that DRMed crap, which I happen to do ever since CDs came with copy protection. Again, not that I was planning to spend my money on a CD in order to rip it and publish it on the internet (a weird thought, don't you think?), but I think the DRM limitations diminish the value of the product.
Publishing the key reveals how stupid the whole scheme is in the first place, if that's all what's required to render it useless.
you're saying
"I think the reason for this might be because DVDs and CDs can be ripped then returned"
This is exactly what makes people so angry. Every customer is a presumed criminal.
I agree that communicating confidential numbers is not the best way to fight this, but then again this is not about piracy at all. The best way would be to refuse buying that DRMed crap, which I happen to do ever since CDs came with copy protection. Again, not that I was planning to spend my money on a CD in order to rip it and publish it on the internet (a weird thought, don't you think?), but I think the DRM limitations diminish the value of the product.
Publishing the key reveals how stupid the whole scheme is in the first place, if that's all what's required to render it useless.
Sorry, I had to get a nap. Short of sleep lately.
Doug: I don't think your nasty habit of disrespectfully accusing others of ignorance before stating your opinion leads to meaningful discussions and you'll better off without doing that.
By "Furthermore, I think it's childish to resort to publishing sensitive information to protest bad laws and not even bother to change the law.", I meant 09ers should have added their energy to ongoing efforts by EFF and others like consumer rights advocate groups to fix the problems.
I simply don't see how plastering some numbers all over the place helps your cause. To me, it seems like a tantrum driven by emotions more than reasons. How will all this lead to DRM-free DVDs or even returnable DVDs? Is DVDs being DRM-free a good reason for stores to change their return policy?
Folks, if you got a problem with a law, change the law. If you got a problem with unfair return policy, there are legal means to force stores into change their policy like not buying from such stores or protesting in front of the stores.
I think this form of couch-activism is unhealthy and undesirable.
Doug: I don't think your nasty habit of disrespectfully accusing others of ignorance before stating your opinion leads to meaningful discussions and you'll better off without doing that.
By "Furthermore, I think it's childish to resort to publishing sensitive information to protest bad laws and not even bother to change the law.", I meant 09ers should have added their energy to ongoing efforts by EFF and others like consumer rights advocate groups to fix the problems.
I simply don't see how plastering some numbers all over the place helps your cause. To me, it seems like a tantrum driven by emotions more than reasons. How will all this lead to DRM-free DVDs or even returnable DVDs? Is DVDs being DRM-free a good reason for stores to change their return policy?
Folks, if you got a problem with a law, change the law. If you got a problem with unfair return policy, there are legal means to force stores into change their policy like not buying from such stores or protesting in front of the stores.
I think this form of couch-activism is unhealthy and undesirable.
>> Folks, if you got a problem with a law, change the law.
Might it be that the best way to change the DMCA, given current political circumstances, is to make it clear how farcically unworkable the law is?
I don't know exactly what you mean by couch-activism, but I will concede that it is not especially brave to publish possibly illegal information on other people's sites. Digg management, on the other hand, is being quite brave.
Might it be that the best way to change the DMCA, given current political circumstances, is to make it clear how farcically unworkable the law is?
I don't know exactly what you mean by couch-activism, but I will concede that it is not especially brave to publish possibly illegal information on other people's sites. Digg management, on the other hand, is being quite brave.
Doug, it might be but I doubt it and, unfortunately, there is no one watching to notice and flip the switch to fix things.
Yes, I'll have to agree that Digg management is being quite brave. But if Digg was my son, I would have spanked him because last time my son got that brave on a bike, he broke his arm. ;-p
Yes, I'll have to agree that Digg management is being quite brave. But if Digg was my son, I would have spanked him because last time my son got that brave on a bike, he broke his arm. ;-p
Copyright © 2006 Don Park
