« UN: Calling All Student Activists | Main | UNICEF's New Handbook Fights Child Violence? »

May 02, 2007

Digging for Hidden Pirates

 

 

I spent some time reading through Digg’s “geek-riot” today, and found one of the comments worth commenting about here at this blog (and additionally, since my comment at Digg didn’t seem to post). The Financial Times says today’s revolt against the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), related laws, and their supporters unfolded when “users rebelled by voting for stories featuring a 32-digit key that can be used to hack HD-DVD copy protection,” after which Digg initially pulled those stories fearing the wrath of media industries. However, Digg did an about face when it was obvious that users were overrunning the website with comments that included the code in protest. Not all users thought that was such a brainy idea though. According to one user named Catalyst who claims to be a law student:

 

The Digital Millenium Copyright Act makes it a crime to crack the encryption. That is obvious.

 

Given the decision in the DeCSS case, (Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes, 111 F.Supp.2d 294) Digg has to protect themselves by removing the story. Here's a good quote:

 

“It is analogous to the publication of a bank vault combination in a national newspaper. Even if no one uses the combinsation to open the vault, its mere publication has the effect of defeating the bank's security system, forcing the bank to reprogram the lock.”

 

Furthermore, section 1201(a)(2) of the Copyright Act contains an Anti-trafficking provision. Just by allowing this to occur, they are breaking the law. Technically, all of you posting the key are breaking the law. The free speech argument didn't fly then, the fact that it is just numbers didn't fly then.

 

Digg HAS to shutdown if they want to make sure they will not have a host of lawyers on their a**.

 

BTW, my Copyright Law final exam is Friday. (sic)

 

Catalyst appears thoughtful and is correct on a few of his points, and he may do well on his exam, but I worry about his mastery of the English language as well as his soul…

 

  1. Re: Bank Vault analogy: the problem here (at least while using lay logic, which may be redundant in this case) is that once the bank becomes aware that someone has released the combination, it must change the combination to maintain security regardless of how many people have come to know what that combination is. Maximum damage in this sense occurred when the combination was compromised the first time. In other words it’s really the bank’s problem to find which of their people leaked the combination and to change that combination to prevent its being unlawfully utilized.

  2. Catalyst is right in pointing out that that the DMCA does include a provision which forbids the trafficking of such information; however, on the point of the law’s creation, it obviously was not well-crafted since clearly the horse is already out of the barn and professional pirates would already be hard at work disregarding the law with intent to commit real piracy. Honest consumers who wish to make backup copies of their media compliant with Fair Use (or of media now in the public domain) are the ones, as always, to suffer draconian persecution. In point of fact, the free speech argument does fly, because it is correct. Simply because a court has not ruled to recognize that fact no more makes it not correct than the Dred Scott v. Sandford,  Plessy v. Ferguson, Korematsu v. United States... or Buckley v. Valeo decisions made the protection of all citizens regardless of race or political circumstance by the constitution any less correct. If a business can prove an entity has caused real damage to the company through use of its intellectual property, there are always reasonable measures for relief, such as civil action and reasonable anti-piracy laws long on the books; however, abrogating the First Amendment by federal law is not one of them. As the Founding Fathers pointed out, free people have a duty to ignore and put down any law that does not recognize Natural Law.

It strikes me as a little funny and a little sad that we have forsaken restricting the kinds of communication that do cause real public harm, such as pornography and explicit violence in public view, and have restricted the speech and use of things by otherwise upstanding and lawful contributors to society that bring no harm whatsoever to the small number of those whom such laws seek to protect. It is the great perversion of justice in our day.

 

BLOGBAT RELATED: How Far Does Fair Use Go?

 

 

Posted by Martin at May 2, 2007 09:08 PM

Comments