The MPAA has recently been sending cease and desists to anyone publishing the decryption code for HD-DVD. The magic code, represented in the form of a simple hexadecimal, is apparently “illegal” for anyone to use, disclose, publish or even dream about. The code in question is the key you need to make illegal copies of your movies to all your friends make “backup” copies of your HD-DVD movies.
Following the forced removal of the “magic hex” from many blogs, websites, and even from Google, people slowly started publishing the decryption key to Digg in order to make it as widely available as possible (and to test Digg’s free speech policy). Most of these stories quickly made the front page and Digg was also risking a costly lawsuit. Basically, people went to war against the MPAA on Digg’s territory.
Kevin Rose had to a tough decision to make: leave the stories on and preserve free speech or simply shut them down. In order to avoid jeoparding Digg’s future, the decision was made to remove every story that contained or linked to the HD-DVD decryption key. I personally think that was the best thing to do in those conditions.
Some diggers didn’t feel that way, however. Many decided to confront Digg and flood its front page with the the “illegal” decryption key. Within minutes, it was all over the front page, literally. Digg had to remove the stories as they were published, upsetting the users even more and incitating them to keep going. It was war out there.
In a surprise move, Kevin Rose decided to reverse Digg’s policy and to allow stories containing or linking to the decryption code.
Of course, I don’t know all the details, but from the information I have, I think that was a very bad move. Unless the MPAA has given it’s blessing (which I seriously doubt), Digg is risking a major lawsuit that could go as far as taking them out out of business. Why risk losing a million-dollar company for a stupid hexadecimal number?
Don’t get me wrong, I am totally for free speech and I think the MPAA and RIAA (along with Microsoft) have taken their war against piracy way too far. However, I don’t think what Digg’s revised policy is worth the stakes of keeping a minority of users happy. I am convinced that most Digg users feel that it was fair for Digg to protect itself from lawsuits the way they did. I am also sure that most of these angry users would have agreed to a certain level of “censorship” if the implications were properly explained to them. As far as I know, that was never done.
I assume that the investors backing Digg gave their approval for the policy change: after all, they will be the one spending their money on a lawsuit if it ever goes that far. I certainly wish them the best and hope this decision will not compromise Digg’s future. This is definitely the beginning of a saga. To be continued…
Related information:
Interesting questions to be answered:
- Did Digg get a cease and desist letter from the MPAA, or did they decide to remove the stories on their own?
EDIT: Yes, they did.
02/05/2007 at 8:47 am Permalink
I think that you are wrong. The interesting thing about this event is that if it hadn’t happened on digg it would have happened on another site. The named players are irrelevant as would any lawsuit against digg. It’s a 2.0 phenomena, and though the digg community is seemingly anti-mpaa already, I would think anything the mpaa did to jeopardize the future of dig would catalyze some kind of response from said community as a result. Mobs are scary.
02/05/2007 at 9:13 am Permalink
You are wrong, but also unaware. DMCA is on the side of MPAA and RIAA, but you can’t make illegal a number. That is like making the moon illegal or the Indiana pi bill, any court to do so will be laughing stock of the world. The key is a number which anyone can publish. The method to use the key is also publishable, but doing so is illegal currently (i.e. till someone realizes how idiotic the law is and fixes it).
02/05/2007 at 9:21 am Permalink
MS: I am aware that you cannot make illegal a number, and that Digg would probably win in court. My point is that I don’t think it’s worth it for them to fight such a costly battle.
02/05/2007 at 9:27 am Permalink
There’s a problem with your logic. Internet sites such as Digg are notoriously next-to-impossible to ‘control’. By exerting any amount of control on its users, they stepped over an undrawn line. It was good of them to stop when they did. Bans breed rebellious users breed bans breed a dull and essentially dead site.
30/05/2007 at 7:28 pm Permalink
Good post Carl. I tend to agree that Kevin made a bad call here.
The user community keeps Digg alive, and a unilateral move that flies in their face is a very poor way to nurture that which make the site great.