The Number that Newsvine Censored

Like it or not - it is currently against the law to tell others how they can circumvent DRM protections, which is what that number is for. Newsvine and DIGG do not exist to violate the law. Don't like it? Get your congress people to repeal the DMCA.

You can't discuss the issue without posting the number? The number is not illegal, but the posting of someone else's intellectual property is.

You should be thanking Newsvine for taking down the article, because if they hadn't, YOU would be the one prosecuted, not them. If you'll take a careful read of the User Agreement, you'll see that all users are responsible for what they post.

If an F*ing number is illegal, than what's next?

Hey, can I have your SSN#, birth date, driver's license #, and bank account numbers (don't forget the PINs!). It's absurd to keep claiming "It's just a number." You're deliberately being obtuse. Numbers have consequence in our digital age. Numbers are keys to content.

You're perfectly within your rights to perform civil disobedience to the extent that it matters to you alone. This is not your site. You are claiming that any rights to free speech that you have (already tenuous on a privately held commercial website) trump the rights of the site owner to be free from liability for your speech. In essence, you are making decisions for Newsvine by placing them at liability without any consideration for what Newsvine wants. That's not your right. You have stepped beyond the bounds of your rights and put yourself squarely in the midst of someone else's.

If we live in a society where ideas are outlawed, it's my responsibility to participate in civil disobedience

It's not your idea, burningion. It's someone else's intellectual property, and it's not within your rights to post it to the internet. I'm all about protecting one's right to have ideas, and to express them. I'm also all about protecting my ideas themselves. And taking responsibility for them.

It'd be about the same if someone figured out what your Newsvine login was, and logged in and took your earnings that you'd earned by writing thoughtful articles and seeding interesting stuff from around the web.

There would be nothing better than a prosecution. Imagine the judge's face when he finds out I'm being persecuted for copying and pasting a number.

Stop being so ignorant. You know darn well it's not just a number.

It's also illegal for a company to post its customer SSN's on the web. So, according to your "logic", aren't they just numbers, too? Can you imagine the judge's face when he finds out someone posted those numbers?

There would be nothing better than a prosecution. Imagine the judge's face when he finds out I'm being persecuted for copying and pasting a number.

You have yet to post your social security number and bank account/routing number. Post those numbers. They're only a collection of numbers, so who cares, right?

You could threaten someone's life and get charged with intimidation, but those are just words, right? Telling someone you'd kill them is just stringing a bunch of words together.

The justice system in the United States is built off of laws that make the supposition there can indeed be harm inherent in something said or written. You not respecting this system is putting Newsvine's livelihood in danger.

To clarify, the number is not what I'd call intellectual property. It's not copyrightable or patentable or trademarkable. It's just a number. It is what would normally be considered a trade secret. The DMCA criminalizes decrypting copyrighted works, so distributing the key is illegal, but it is not what has traditionally been considered intellectual property. The DMCA has been misapplied countless times since it came into being, notably by printer cartridge manufacturers and garage door remote control manufacturers who tried to argue that the printer unlock or door open code in their product was a copyrightable text so that their competitors could not reverse engineer products for compatibility. Those were misapplications of the law.

Using the law for protecting HD-DVD content is however exactly what the law is for. I don't agree with the law. I don't believe in any legal protections for any intellectual property because I think that on balance the whole system slows progress more than it helps it, and I'm a borderline anarchist anyway. But I do believe in contract law. And burningion, your acceptance of the terms of use for the site when you created your account constitutes a valid contract, and you are bound by it not to use Newsvine for illegal conduct. By all means, engage in civil disobedience - print the decryption codes on t-shirts, help hack the systems, whatever you want. I'll applaud you. I'll write an article about you. But I won't post anything illegal on Newsvine while doing so.

All I want is his bank account and routing number. That will work just fine. I mean, if there are funds in the account. If not, never mind.

I posted a number which may possibly have been illegal.

So, you didn't know when you posted this article that it was "legal" to share it on the internet?

It was lazy people who never bothered to find out the facts beforehand that censored it.

But you didn't know the facts before it was established in the comments of this article that it was not illegal, correct?

And it's not a number. In fact, It's got some letters in there.

But seriously, it's not a number. It's a code.

Code - a system used for brevity or secrecy of communication, in which arbitrarily chosen words, letters, or symbols are assigned definite meanings. - Dictionary.com

It's a code that unlocks the ability to steal intellectual property, if i'm understanding this right. Even if it's not against the law, it's still very controversial and potentially lethal to this site, so don't ruin it for the rest of us.

And it's not a number. In fact, It's got some letters in there.

Actually, it is a number. Hexadecimal (base-16) numbers in our script our noted in our script with the values 0-9 noted with our normal digits and the values 10-15 (for sixteen total possible digits) noted with A-F.

3BF42BA9E74D3842 is a number, 3B-F4-2B-A9-E7-4D-38-42 is the spoon.

It's still not a number. It's a sequence of characters, but "sequence of characters" isn't quite as short as number.

It's a number in any meaningful sense of the word. You can do arithmetic with it.

It's a string of characters, yes, but so is 1234567890. All of those are just characters as well, collectively known as the Arabic numerals (even though they're really Indian). Base-10 is not the only game in town.

Are you guys seriously debating whether it's a number or not? ;)

It's a code that unlocks the ability to steal intellectual property, if i'm understanding this right.

You are and you aren't. It's a code that unlocks the ability to play intellectual property on a Linux system. As a by-product of that it does make it possible to steal intellectual property, but so does a VCR. And there are ways to steal that intellectual property without this code.

It's still not a number. It's a sequence of characters, but "sequence of characters" isn't quite as short as number.

I'm with VikiBabbles. Why are we debating this. But, just to be precise, it's a sequence of numbers.

it's a sequence of numbers

Well, that's not precisely right. It's an encryption key, so they actual value of the number in total matters. An encryption key, unless it's a really dumb encryption key, will not just operate like a passcode/password. It will involve a large prime number on which some operation or set of operations is performed to move between the unecrypted value and the encrypted value.

In order to get the correct output of the algorithm, you have to have the correct number, as in the whole thing. If it's 1 billion, 200 million, 800 thousand, 757, it doesn't matter if I write it 12 00 80 07 57. What matters is that I treat that string as 1,200,800,757 when I'm performing the decryption algorithm.

It is outrageous to claim censorship when the actions of one person can possibly threaten the entire site. While you are free to excersise what you belive to be free speech anywhere on the internet, don't expect those of us who cherish the forum we have at Newsvine, to get behind the idea of risking it all to challenge the entertainment industry's right to protect their property.

While there is no doubt a thrill to being an individual user in cyberspace taking on the giants it isn't the least bit fair to assume that the community wants to risk what we have, nor the owners risk legal backlash to indulge you. Sensible action and self preservation is not the same as censorship. Bad claim and much to the credit of Newsvine that they tolerate the criticism and didn't remove you in addition to the post.

I don't think you understand what Newsvine is all about, burningion.

Is it really outrageous to claim censorship when that's exactly what's going on?

If anything, it was self-censorship. Other users reported you. I'll be up front. I was one of them.

You have to take a stand for something

You want to make a stand? Wonderful, post the number to your own blog. Write your congressmen and women, again and again. Mobilize support through a newsletter that you publish. Do all of this in a manner that does not threaten or potentially threaten the site that thousands of other people enjoy. We're not here to serve your own personal grudge match against the MPAA.

What if I had written an article calling China out for human rights violations and they asked Newsvine to delete that? Or worse still, what if they didn't even wait for China to ask, they just did it out of fear?

Red herring. Newsvine's servers are not located in China, so China's ability to influence the site is less than negligible. There may come a day when Newsvine is the size of Google or Yahoo! and has to worry about such concerns, but those days are not here yet.

Or would I be the target for today's thought crime, and you'd be next?

Spare me the, "And then they came for me," allusions. You're perfectly free to express this content on a site of your own, that you own, and that you are fully liable for. No one's freedoms are being stamped on here. This isn't your site. This is someone else's site, and so you have to, actually you have agreed to, abide by someone else's rules.

Censorship would not be allowing you to post this article. Censorship would be not letting you talk about the code in general.

I have to agree with VikiBabbles, that particular number in that sequence is intellectual property.

You don't want anyone to infringe on your rights. Don't infringe on theirs.

Do you see the ! mark at the top of every article on Newsvine? That's the report button. One of the catagories is "Misconduct/Unlawful". If you post something that it is against the law to post the users in the community have a responsibility to report this, and after a certain number of reports the article is taken down automatically without the staff having any contact with it.

which may possibly have been illegal.

That's enough reason by itself for the article to have been pulled.
Newsvine doesn't exist to take the stands that you personally think it should take.

What if I had written an article calling China out for human rights violations and they asked Newsvine to delete that?

It isn't against the law to speak out against China.

Free speech isn't unlimited and never has been. Your right to speech ends when it directly adversely affects another.

Additionally, the staff here didn't censor you. From MikeD's comment on Thura's post about this:

The Newsvine staff did not touch your article. It was reported as unlawful by the community so it came down automatically.

I am not infringing on a person's rights. I am supposedly infringing on a corporation's rights.

What is a corporation made up of? People. A corporation is a group of people who come together to provide some sort of goods or service.

Lets examine it this way. You invent a widget. Now the function of this widget depends on people not being to copy a specific part that you created. So, you come up with a way to keep that part uncopyable yet still functional. Here is the question - do you have the right to protect what you created so you can profit from it? Let continue on. Somebody has figured out a way to get around your protection and want to tell other people how to do it. Do they have the right do that? Are they infringing on your right to profit from your widget? In order to share what they have discovered they go to a website that they do not own, they post that information. Now it isn't that party spreading how to but that impartial site. Should the owners of the site allow this person to spread information through them to infringe your right to profit from your idea? Particularly when they know the law is against them. What should the site do - infringe on your right or the other person right.

Finally in every place I said you change it to a corporation (or a group of people).........does that change any of your answers?

I have to agree with VikiBabbles, that particular number in that sequence is intellectual property.

No. It is published in a court document. It is a Public Record. If anyone should be punished for this, it is the idiot lawyer that did not move to have the number redacted in the public documents.

Building the barn after the horse is in the glue factory is way too late.

Why do my rights to speech get overruled by their right to keep a number secret

Because it's their damn number! It's the key to their intellectual property. As has been said above in different ways, it's exactly the same thing as someone posting your bank account number on the internet. They might not say where the bank is, or give instructions for how one might circumvent any security measures, but that's easily found on the internet, much like the instructions for how to use this number.

This kind of crap just doesn't fly on Newsvine, burningion. It's not what this community is about, and I for one absolutely resent your pathetic attempt to rile up Viners over something for which most of us really don't give a @!$%#.

We've got bigger fish to fry. Bigger stories to discuss. Better, more thoughtful articles to write, and more engaging discussions in which to engage.

This is a huge blow to the quality and trust level of Newsvine.

No. Articles like this which attack the integrity of the site owners and its users are what lowers the quality of Newsvine. And that is likely why your original article was removed. You underestimate the value of this community to its members.

...and the lengths to which we will go to protect it.

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C1
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D2 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
09 F9 10 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

None of these numbers is big enough to be a legitimate key and none of them are the 'key' in question. It's like locking your car with a piece of a dowel and then trying to keep anyone from talking about dowels.

Pamela Drew said:

It is outrageous to claim censorship when the actions of one person can possibly threaten the entire site. While you are free to excersise what you belive to be free speech anywhere on the internet, don't expect those of us who cherish the forum we have at Newsvine, to get behind the idea of risking it all to challenge the entertainment industry's right to protect their property.

While otherwise supporting the various reasoning of many objecting to burningion's position, to paraphrase Ms. Drew's logic for effect, in regard to disingenuous leftist objections to the Patriot Act:

It is outrageous to claim invasion of privacy when the actions of one person can possibly threaten an entire city or even an entire society. While you are free to exercise what you believe to be privacy rights, don't expect those of us who cherish civil, Western society to get behind the idea of risking it all to challenge the government's duty to limit the privacy rights of Islamist terrorists who are plotting to kill thousands of people at a time. See how that works?

And here's where it fails: in a liberal Western democratic system such as ours, we're perfectly free and able to decide together, through our representatives, to what extent we wish to constrain our rights. The PATRIOT act passed, but now it's equally reasonable for people to lobby that the act be altered or repealed.

The system of government that we hold makes us all partially responsible for the decision of our government. There's also a strong component in our constitutional system to fences off certain rights of the minority from tyranny by the majority.

But this isn't a forum operating under that system. This is a privately held, commercial site providing a limited open forum, under which every user has agreed to certain conditions to participate. One of those conditions is not opening Newsvine to legal liability (I suppose unless Newsvine explicitly allows such content).

These two systems are not equal.

it's exactly the same thing as someone posting your bank account number on the internet

It's illegal to post somebody's bank account details to the Internet if you know what they are?

So it was removed by the community rather than deleted by staff? That's an entirely different story. It's not "censorship" by Newsvine staff, it's the community taking that stand burningion is talking about.

Viki, I don't actually know for sure. But I am basing the supposition on a few things: one I'm quite sure that I reported the article. I'm almost certain that another user who was commenting on the article did, also, based on the comments he was making. Not too long after I posted my comment around 11 PM central time, the article disappeared. Unless Calvin and the gang were staying pretty late at the office in Seattle (~ 9 PM Pacific), I doubt that they deliberately pulled the article.

I don't know what the threshold for pulling an article is, but if it's relatively low, I'm sure the article hit it.

I am not sure if this is totally conclusive or not but...

If you go to burningion's column, you can still see the referenced article in the 'most recent votes' section. If you follow that link, you will see the following message

This article has been removed by the Newsvine community.

(emphasis mine)

I have watched this story grow with a great deal of interest. I think it is wonderful that social-news sites are discussing and debating our role in what is a fairly important issue in today's society (DRM and intellectual property). It is my hope that through discussion, social action, and individual action, we might see a change in the relationship between the music/movie industry and the consumers who support it.

This conversation brings light to a shadowy corner of the Digital Age - Now, if everyone who diggs or votes for the story would take another five minutes to contact their legislators regarding the DMCA we might actually see some change.

I love to watch the internets get up in arms. I just hope we can use our power for good.

Pat yourself on the back. You deserve a prize. You are the new thought police.

Yeah, thought police. For not wanting Newsvine to turn into a warez site. Right.

Except here you are - dissenting, aguing against the community, being heard if not agreed with.

A CD Key is just a number. Your SSN is just a number. There are consequences if I were to obtain and reveal both of those things on an open forum.

Complain about fascism when you say something of consequence on your own blog and are shut down, not when you engage in something you openly admit is likely illegal on someone else's webspace.

You have complete control over whether I'm allowed to voice my opinion.

And what's your opinion? A several digit hexadecimal string? You're really going to assert that someone is stifling your "voice" and "thoughts" based on what YOU say is "just a number". If your opinion is the MPAA is wrong and current law needs to be changed say that. Don't say "I'm going to engage in illegal behavior on a site that's not mine and complain when nobody supports me."

You couldn't pirate anything with this. It was only a number. Again, no instructions, no nothing. It was just a number.

Then you should have no qualms about posting your Social Security Number, bank account numbers and PINs, and whatnot, as someone pointed out above. They're just numbers, there's no instructions on how to gain access to anything.

But that won't stop me from taking money out of your accounts. The numbers themselves will be sufficient. I'll be waiting for that article.

I think you know perfectly well that posting the number is illegal, plain and simple. It's not an issue of 'thought-police' or anything of the sort. I think you're doing nothing more than deliberately fanning the flames on this, and there's a special word for people that do that.... trolls.

burningion, in a previous post you said,

There would be nothing better than a prosecution. Imagine the judge's face when he finds out I'm being persecuted for copying and pasting a number.

Well, imagine the look on your face when you realized that the judge was no more tech savvy than Eric Atienza or many of the others posting here. The judge would hear the prosecution claim that you were guilty of 'disseminating code that enables the mass piracy of movies' and BANG! the gavel would come down. "Guilty! Next case please."

On a related note, I disagree with your contention that this is censorship, but I am shocked at the people here who are saying that an individual should not exercise his freedom of speech if it 'threatens' the community. Think about what you are saying, people!

I am shocked at the people here who are saying that an individual should not exercise his freedom of speech if it 'threatens' the community. Think about what you are saying, people!

This principle has held up for years. This is the reason it's illegal to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre. Sure, you have freedom of speech that should enable you to yell whatever you wish, but it threatens the rest of the people if there's a panicked rush for the doors.

Does that count as censorship? Insofar as it's limiting what you're allowed to say, sure. But you have to remember that your rights only extend so far as to not infringe on someone else's rights. Our "right" to post "just a number" exists only until doing so infringes on the corporation's right to not have their intellectual property stolen.

but I am shocked at the people here who are saying that an individual should not exercise his freedom of speech if it 'threatens' the community.

This really has nothing to do with freedom of speech. This isn't a totally open forum. This is a forum in which every user has agreed to abide by certain rules, the terms of service that we all agreed to when we signed up to use the site. Additionally, he isn't restricted from expressing himself in a forum of his own.

Freedom of speech is not unlimited. Your limits to speech extend only so far as they begin to impinge on the rights of others. If Calvin or Mike were to come along as say, "You know what, we sat down this morning and had a pow-wow. We decided MPAA be damned, we're gong to fight this thing," that would be one thing. That would be Newsvine deciding for itself to accept this potential liability. What barrington is doing is making that decision for Newsvine. Newsvine as a legal entity has its own right to autonomy in decisions that expose itself to legal liability, and it is absolutely not within the rights of barrington to make that decision for them.

I'm instantly attacked by the community. They make their own judgment that a number is unsafe. My article disappears. This is no longer even about the number. It's about the role the community has in being judge and jury of what's thought crime and what isn't.

Well, to be fair, you've kind of risen to the bait, so to speak. Accusing people of thought-policing is likely to raise their hackles.

Nor are you alone in your sentiment: I am also of the opinion that the policy is the propagation of Fear, Uncertainty, & Doubt at it's finest. The idea of sending legal threats to everyone who posts a particular number or a set of instructions for deriving that number is ridiculous. As Hemphill said above:

It's like locking your car with a piece of a dowel and then trying to keep anyone from talking about dowels.

Did you know, for example, that a magic marker can be used to circumvent certain forms of CD copy protection? It's true - you can beat some systems by drawing on the disk. Should magic markers be outlawed? According to the DMCA, that is sufficient grounds for an injunction against markers. That sounds to me like a broken policy.

That sounds to me like a broken policy.

Agreed. The DMCA is broken and stupid and pointless. But that doesn't detract from the fact that it is the law of the land. There are methods one can use that would influence the changing of DMCA that do not require the posting of the number on Newsvine. There are articles that can be written (and have been written) that highlight the salient points of the Digg fiasco that do not involve publishing the number.

barrington does not get to decide for Newsvine if Newsvine wants to throw its hat in the ring for this fight. If Newsvine decides to do so, and posts a comment similar to what Digg posted yesterday, then fine. Until it does so, then exposing Newsvine to liability, no matter how small that liability may be, is unethical and misconduct, in my opinion.

But that doesn't detract from the fact that it is the law of the land.

The problem is precisely that the DMCA isn't clear on this point. Without a criterion for what constitutes a "circumvention device," the law is too vague to implement. Is the number a "device?" If so, how is it distinct from a magic marker (which seems more device-like to me)? The "law of the land" isn't clear here, so following the strictest interpretation (a) doesn't make a lot of sense and (b) probably won't hold up in court.

barrington does not get to decide for Newsvine if Newsvine wants to throw its hat in the ring for this fight. If Newsvine decides to do so, and posts a comment similar to what Digg posted yesterday, then fine.

Actually, there's an interesting point here, which is that Newsvine's own community buried the story, rather than Newsvine's editors. Digg showed editorial censorship, while Newsvine showed community suppression. Consequently, it's a lot harder to say what "Newsvine wants," since we're talking about a lot of people with a variety of views.

I'm referring to Newsvine the legal entity, I assume a corporation of some sort. That Newsvine gets to make a decision of what to allow and disallow in its site. Because they're essentially six guys who have a swank office in Seattle, and can't possibly patrol every single comment and article posted, every user is essentially deputized with a sliver of authority to report things that are considered misconduct.

So as deputies, we can report things as we want that in our opinion violate either the TOS or the COH. And Newsvine has decided to let the system automagically pull or collapse content that reaches a certain threshold for numbers of deputies reporting that content. But in the end, it's Newsvine the legal entity that determines what stays gone and what stays collapsed, either through neglect or through explicitly disallowing it's restoration.

It's this Newsvine that is ultimately responsible for its own liability. And it's this Newsvine that burningion is attempting to make a certain decision for. That it was the community, deputized through reporting power by Newsvine, that had the content pulled is not really relevant. Until Newsvine makes the decision, "Yes, we want to make this fight" or "No, we're kind of busy making Newsvine even better," then it doesn't seem to me that burningion is within his rights to drag Newsvine into the fray.

Dear Burnington,

To bring this drivel from Digg is somewhat dangerous. The community at Digg basically gave their founders the finger so that they could make a statement. Newsvine and it's members actually care about the site.

If you believe so fervently that numbers can't be protected, just post your social to prove your point. Simple as that. Or your credit card number, or your bank account number. Or your phone or address. They're all just strings of letters and/or numbers.

Justin --

To be fair, its sounds as though this HD-DVD "number" is outdated and no longer in use.

So, for your analogy to work -- you'd have to ask Burningion to post a SSN that he no longer uses due to the fact that he's using a new SSN.

Which, if it were possible -- I suspect he'd be more than happy to do so.

Oh, come the @!$%# on, for christ's sake.

Get over the "post your social security number" bull@!$%# already. Are you saying that this "key" will allow us all to assume the identity of "the movie industry"? Or are you making the argument that allowing you to assume his identity is the same as posting a publicly available number (through court documents if nothing else) that doesn't even actually allow one to "crack" an HD-DVD? A more appropriate analogy would be to ask him for his old, obsolete phone number. It'd do you about as much good as this "key" is doing anyone else out there.

Much as I respect spiffie, it was a stupid analogy when he made it the first time, and it's about 5 times more stupid now that you're the fifth person to repeat it.

It's your opinion that this is "drivel" from Digg. It's your opinion that the community at Digg "gave the founders the finger." And it's your opinion that Newsvine users "actually" care about the site any more than Digg users cared about theirs. If you want to discuss those things, discuss them. But quit being a dick about it.

FWIW, I think burningion (learn to read for @!$%#'s sake) has an interesting point, this story isn't drivel, that the Digg users were actually holding the Digg founders to the ideals that Digg espoused, and that because Digg users care about the integrity of their site they revolted.

But we each have to make our own assessment of those possibilities.

Well, in my defense, SSN#'s have been published by mistake before, and I still think that it would be unethical to keep republishing them just because they were once released into the public domain.

Viki, I don't actually know for sure. But I am basing the supposition on a few things: one I'm quite sure that I reported the article. I'm almost certain that another user who was commenting on the article did, also, based on the comments he was making. Not too long after I posted my comment around 11 PM central time, the article disappeared. Unless Calvin and the gang were staying pretty late at the office in Seattle (~ 9 PM Pacific), I doubt that they deliberately pulled the article.

I flagged the article, then mailed a complaint in by hand. I'm relieved that it's gone and the comment containing the key above here has also been flagged, it needs to go as well.

This community and site are way too cool to risk losing because of one guy hell bent on promoting piracy and copyright infringement that has a social maturity problem.

There is no comment above containing the key, at least not in plain view. You were sucker-punched by someone posting a number that was almost, but not quite, the key.

I completely understand that the key isn't an identifier like an SSN. I'm not retarded. But what Burnington said was

"Because Newsvine refused to take a stand for an f*ing number. "

Your SSN is a F*ing number too. That's the point everyone was making chief.

And iarnuocon, what did I say that was "being a dick"?

You pretty much handled that for me.

The folks at Digg found out that Kevin didn't want that number posted for legal reasons. They went ape@!$%# posting it. That's the community trying to destroy itself after they've already agreed to follow the rules by having an account at Digg. That's not an opinion. Fact + Fact does not equal opinion.

damn good quote!

If it makes you feel any better, burningion, the fight is already over and the MPAA lost. I can't count the number of places I've seen that number posted, and even if the MPAA gets every single one of them to pull it down, the number lives on in archives, tribal knowledge and any number of "alternate" resources.

Whether or not it remains on Newsvine is pretty much irrelevant.

As far as the Newsvine staff or community killing "dangerous" ideas... well, it doesn't take too long around here to see any number of "dangerous" ideas being debated. The debate in this very article tends to negate your argument to a large extent.

I honestly don't see how this code removal (wherever it's posted) can be legally enforced. I'm not sure that I believe that they would be able to force a takedown, or that a judge rule in their favor.

I don't know if they could or could not win. The number in question is a violation of the DMCA (at least I understand it). Whether they could or could not win they can certainly tie up Newsvines resources making them defend themselves. It is one of the disadvantages of our legal system - winning the case isn't always the goal.

Nobody on Newsvine seems to want to put up a fight. They want to keep Newsvine protected from the big bad world. But that's impossible.

You know I was just noticing the other day that we have completely run out of all possible legal topics to discuss in the entire universe and yeah, we should now move into discussing illegal ones that could get the site in trouble. Please vote up my article on how to hack into the DOD mainframes, it'll be a classic. Oh sure, it may be a bit bothersome for you all when the Newsvine server is shut down and the FBI come knocking on your door, but I'm sure you're all on my side in my fight to expose the truth about UFOs that the government is hiding from us and are willing to go through that for this noble cause.... or not. Maybe I shouldn't have stopped taking my meds.

What "fight" are you ranting about?

Having your rights taken away and being told who to pray to and how to dress is a cause to fight against, not the community taking your article down because we want to keep Newsvine.

And I'm not insulting you or your article or anything, it's just not worth the risks if Newsvine were to get taken down because of some damn number. Your article was reported just-in-case the number was illegal.

If the government was to censor all seditious writing, that would be a cause to fight for - not a petty number that will get you access to a movie.

Seconded. Another IP-hater who doesn't see this site as the place for these types of actions.

This has nothing to do with social media vs. mainstream media. If you think any mainstream media was going to print/publish/show that number, you're nuts.

I'm making a point about social media, and whether or not it's ready to take over and replace the mainstream media like it pretends to want.

Social media is trying no such thing. Social media is not a replacement for mainstream media in any way shape or form. Social media needs normal media to survive. What would we seed if we replaced mainstream media? If anything social media is a complement to mainstream media, the relationship is symbiotic.

See, crowds are unaccountable for their actions. If they decide something is unsafe, there's nobody to complain to.

Actually that isn't true. If you feel your article has been taken down unfairly then you can complain to the administrators. It wouldn't be the first time an article has been put back up after taken down by the crowd.

Without someone to be held accountable for editorial decisions, what happens when you're deemed a threat?

Honestly, I'd go post elsewhere and find other ways to get my message out.

Who do you complain to when the admins have too many questionable articles?

I'd expect the admins to continue to police the questionable articles or I leave the site. I imagine that they would put into place functions to make sure there is a review process. My guess is either they would higher people for this function or get voluteers from the community itself.

The first dissenting view gets buried for questionable legality. What about opinions of questionable value to the community? Are they next?

Your looking at two completely different things. One is something that Newsvine can be held legally actionable for. The other is part of the function of Newsvine. If opinions of questionable value (and Newsvine is rife with them) get buried then in all probability the site will die or be relegated to inconsequence as people seek where they can express opinion. The other probability is that the Newsvine admins will take action to rectify the problem. It isn't a problem yet, nor does it really show signs of becoming because you are being prevented from breaking the law.

If you dislike what "the crowds" do, you are free to leave Newsvine. You are free to join another community. Indeed, you are free to already have joined another community - many of them, in fact. If you'd like, and are able, you can even start your own. If enough people feel as you do, and leave Newsvine, it will die. In such a way "the crowds" will be accountable. However, being as they are "the crowds", that does rather imply there's more than a few of them, and so it is quite likely Newsvine will march on without you. Might that crowd turn on itself, whittling itself away, driving more and more users elsewhere, until the site cannot be sustained? Certainly. It has happened before, and it will happen again.

However, you are operating under a falacy, as Newsvine is not the only option, and I cannot forsee a time when it ever will be. If you can't post what you want here, post it elsewhere. Obviously you got the "number" in question somewhere - I can find it myself (and even on Newsvine) in a matter of seconds. That being the case, neither Newsvine or its users are preventing the number from getting out into the world. They are not even necessarily objecting to it doing so. They are only objecting to Newsvine being a tool by which that happens. And why? Because they do not wish to violate the law. And what might happen if they did? Newsvine might go away. You want to kill the goose which lays your golden egg? Fine. But this is not your goose. This is OUR goose, and anyway it's only on loan. Go kill some other one, if you please.

Should the law be as it is written? I don't know. You're free to argue one way or the other - I'd be more than willing to join the debate. But you can do so without breaking the law, or posing a potential threat not only to Newsvine, but also its members.

Crowds are often drawn to that which they have an affinity for. Newsvine members, in theory, have an affinity for this site. And the rules by which this site operate are, for some of them, a part of that. And for the rest? Well, they agreed to the rules anyway, and so they haven't much of a leg to stand on. Again, they could go to some other site with more amenable rules. They could start their own. You could be the start of a whole new crowd - and more power to you.

Your questions about crowds and accountability might have some merit, all other things being equal. But see, that's the problem - not all things are. Newsvine, and its users, are very much a part of the bigger world it inhabits. That includes laws. Even ones you don't happen to agree with. That also includes practicality. And why should a business - which Newsvine certainly is - want to court bankruptcy should it lose (or even win!) a potential court case? This is not a soap box in a public forum. This is a very small company in a very large, very litigious world.

For the record, burningion, what was the idea you were putting forth in your deleted article? And could your idea have been put forth without the inclusion of this infamous number?

People who are capable of deciding for themselves whether or not ideas are threatening.

It's not the idea that's threatening! We have plenty of controversial topics on Newsvine, a dozen or more every single day. The point is that there is a responsible way to write about controversial topics and there is an irresponsible way. Your posting of the number, and the one above, and a couple others I've seen around is the irresponsible way.

You are deciding that you have autonomy over Newsvine's potential liability. In essence, you are opening up another legal entity to legal liability solely for the purpose of making some kind of obscure, but (to date) wholly illegal point. Get it through your head that some of us agree with you that what MPAA is doing is ridiculous and stupid and contrary to what we consider good business ethics.

But so long as the law is what it is, you have no right to expose others to liability in which they want no part. If you want to expose yourself to legal liability in a forum of your own creation, over which you hold total ownership, or over which you and partners, in agreement, decide to hold liability, then that is you making a decision for yourself. Your rights do not extend so far as to decide for others.

This isn't a nation you were born to, or a religion you were raised in, it's a website, and while you need not "love it or leave it", you do need to abide by the rules which you agreed to.

You are more than welcome to your dissenting view - it's still up here, and being discussed - but it just so happens that a lot of others have taken the opportunity to dissent with you. This does not make them a cabal, nor you a martyr.

You keep saying the "idea was threatening" or some variation thereof, and that's simply not what's happening here. The possible illegal posting of sensitive material which may lead to the bankruptcy of Newsvine and the dissolution of the community surrounding it is what happened. "Democracy" is a 'threatening idea' (to some). I'm sorry, but a string of numbers just doesn't rate.

I am not telling you you have to leave (who am I to ask that, anyway?), but you are free to leave if you wanted to. There are other options. The future of civilization does not rest on this argument. Neither does the future of social-media. The future of this particular site? Now there you've struck marrow. And yet you wish to expose Newsvine to that risk - to threaten to viability of the very site you profess to love.

I'm glad you're bringing up the point. I'm glad we're having this discussion. But the actual posting of the number in question was not necessary to start it, or sustain it. And that will remain true regardless of whether Newsvine decides, as Digg has, to allow it.

It's a good thing horrible analogies aren't against the law...

I'm reminded of so many law breakers....

Our Founding Fathers

Nelson Mandela

Mahatma Gandhi

Rosa Parks

You're delusional. Absolutely, positively delusional.

Rosa Parks made a decision for herself to refuse to move to the back of the bus. She didn't force every other black person on the bus to sit with her. She maintained control over her own fate without compelling unwilling participation from other people.

Well hopefully people are doing just that. Doesn't mean we can't have a discussion here and who knows who might be paying attention.

Well hopefully people are doing just that. Doesn't mean we can't have a discussion here and who knows who might be paying attention.

It is probably a grossly low percentage of those who participate in acts like the digg event that also direct their energy into other venues. I think while we have these conversations its important to not lose sight of the bigger picture -- something I think this very thread has done in too often discussing the local act of moderation and not looking for answers or discussing outlets for helping change the situation... Something that can ultimately be done without reprinting the particular string of numbers.

Sure, the events got us to this point, brought more people into the discussion, but do something with the energy and momentum before it jumps to the next topic.

My general feeling about these kinds of things, anyway.

Gandhi, Mandela, and Parks did not compel unwilling participation in their social movements. This has nothing to do with barrington's attempts to compel Newsvine's participation in his own personal crusade against intellectual property.

Do you really believe even for a moment that lawmakers are paying attention and/or give a crap about a user revolt at Digg?

You want to make a stand via civil disobedience and see these things be changed? Stop buying products that contain it, and get everyone you know to stop buying them as well. Write letters to the corporations using these means to protect their content and tell them you refuse to buy their stuff.

Whining about it on Digg or Newsvine isn't going to get you anywhere.

And for the love of Pete, comparing this to the causes that Ghandi, Mandela and Parks fought for is an insult to their memory.

History shows us that these things often begin with civil disobedience and when large numbers of the population revolt, then you get the attention of the lawmakers, etc.

History also shows that people generally try to get the attention of lawmakers FIRST and resort to civil disobedience when ignored. How many people that have posted this number on digg contacted their congressperson to tell them to change the law?

I sure hope he doesn't, cause that would be necrophilia.

I would like to clarify -- with my interpretation of the events and opinions I have read so far but not to put words in your mouth/post, Kenna989. That is, Newsvine, the community, is out to protect itself, its identity and its future potential efficacy as a social medium. Newsvine, the corporation responsible for the infrastructure (and policy), has not sought to protect itself against this particular issue as far as I know.

I would like to see this issue go a little more meta, which I think is what burningion is going for. Correct me if I'm wrong. What is a community? What rules does a community follow? Are there any universal rules of social gathering which might help inform this debate?

My own opinion is that what has happened here in this community, regarding the article take-down, tells us something about the norms of the community. burningion, you can argue against that identity all you want (which is evidence there is no censorship), but it is only one perspective. It is not a cold, hard truth. And it by no means whatsoever describes this community as as whole, across time past and future. This is not evidence of fascism. It is one episode in an ever-evolving process of identity-formation. What is beautiful about this community is the level of dialogue and the desire to debate the issue. To that end, I appreciate the challenge that burningion is putting to this group. And everyone should appreciate that in some way ...not the number posting itself, but the opportunity to study what this group of individuals is all about.

Without dissension, it is a mob. With dissension, you have a community. Maybe that's overly simplified, but I hope it conveys the point. It is not a good thing or a bad thing that the Newsvine community chose to take down the key. It only matters that the Newsvine community made a choice.

I have my own site. I have a few of my own sites. I write open source software that prevents censorship in China.

What sites do you run?

Go ahead and post the username and password to your server. They are, after all, just letters and/or numbers.

The next one that is illegal because it's stolen.

But this wasn't stolen. The industry itself gave it away by publishing it in public.

And, ultimately -- that's what you had here.

The community made an editorial decision, while waiting for word from those who ultimately would have received the C & D.

burningion would have to ask them to restore it, and provide some reasoning. He has not indicated whether or not he has done so.

As far as multiple handles, I'm pretty sure that's a no-go. There have been several former users who tried that and were removed as a result.

iarnuocon,

I get the point that this number is outdated, and has been published in court documents and on Wired's blog for some time. The concern comes in that Digg apparently received a DMCA notice for the number. Whatever the merits of that notice are, and whatever the probability is that Newsvine would receive a similar notice, by metaphorically throwing down the gauntlet here at Newsvine, burningion is making a decision on behalf of Newsvine to potentially embroil it in this dispute. He's still making a decision that isn't his to make on behalf of another.

(I just realized that I wrote barrington in...like...a dozen comments. I can't read. Apologies to burningion.)

Multiple handles are not allowed.

The UA expressly states that we are not to actively participate under multiple names, and Calvin mentioned in a recent thread that we are not to do so.

And,

I would like to just go ahead and throw my own name into the "voice of reason" category.

:)

There have been several former users who tried that and were removed as a result.

There's also at least one regular front-page user who does so fairly openly.

Actually, quite a few voices of reason, even they may disagree.

There's also at least one regular front-page user who does so fairly openly.

Yar eally?

Absoreactionarylutely.

Spiffie, I don't disagree with you. I understand the implications. But 1) cease and desist notices are sent out all the time, and a huge number of them are nothing more than bluster. I doubt anybody who reported burningion's story as "unlawful conduct" is a lawyer familiar with copyright law (I'm sure they'll correct me if I'm wrong), and I doubt any of them reviewed Digg's cease and desist letter or referenced the DMCA to find out what parts of the act might have been violated. 2) If the number is part of public documents, it is no longer a trade secret, and cannot be considered a violation of the DMCA to post. It's a public record. There are a number of people who, rather than investigating this, have simply stated a blanket assertion that burningion is doing something illegal. What do they base that on? Probably hearsay.

I'm not saying that the people who reported burningion's story as misconduct because of the potential for a lawsuit (however misguided or groundless) were necessarily wrong for doing so. They're obviously trying to look out for Newsvine's (the company's) best interests. That's one reason why I'd like to hear Mike and company's take on this, and see whether they'll repost the story. But I find it ironic that rather than discussing both sides of the issue, the vast majority of posts simply have asserted that burningion is violating the law. Some, like yours, didn't come right out and call his actions illegal, but certainly didn't look at the flip side of the issue.

It just struck me that of all the people I normally consider to be erudite, well-reasoning individuals, only two actually bothered exploring the "it's not illegal" side.

Is he making a decision on behalf of others about what's legal to post on his site? Obviously. I'd expect him to. We're told up front that our columns are ours, and burningion obviously doesn't feel that this is illegal. It's incumbent on Newsvine to assess whether his article opens them up to liability and to disposition it as they see fit, trying to balance fairness and their willingness to accept any legal liability. I don't fault him for posting it. And I wouldn't fault them for taking it down (or refusing to repost it). I'm just surprised at all the armchair lawyers who think that a 'cease and desist' letter is tantamount to a Supreme Court ruling, and automatically jumped to side with an organization that has verifiably abused 'cease and desist' letters to chill legitmate discussion-- hell, they're currently embroiled in a lawsuit filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation over it.

Brian Ford-- consider your name thrown! [grin]

On the multiple account thing, I OttO show by now that people will abuse the system, I've had enough daily briefings on it. But, yar, I'm pretty reactionary about it.

My guess is that they rolled their eyes, sighed -- and gave up on that issue / user. (It's just a guess -- I haven't asked.)

Some problems are so pervasive -- and so widely recognized by the community that I suspect they (the Newsvine staff) just give up and let it unfold.

That user(s) dug a grave with most of this community -- and I think there's little need to worry about his actions, nor to worry much about him.

In my last comment -- I'm talking about the multiple user situation -- not the author of this article.

I think my biggest problem with posting the number is this: it doesn't contribute meaningfully to content discussing the merits of this debate, and it doesn't contribute meaningfully to any subsequent discussion resulting from that content. All it does is potentially result in a C & D letter, which is a headache that, if I were Calvin or Mike, I would not really want to deal with.

We can talk about the number and DVD John and all sorts of things without belligerently trying to provoke a direct response from the group that has shown they're more than happy to call the lawyers first, and ask questions later (if at all).

The MPAA will lose this one, and should Newsvine wish to participate in the take-down, great! I can copy and paste a hexadecimal number with the best of them. I just think that as a demonstration of civil dissent or protest, posting a number is pretty weak.

iarnuocon:

There are a number of people who, rather than investigating this, have simply stated a blanket assertion that burningion is doing something illegal. What do they base that on? Probably hearsay.

burningion, in the 2nd sentence of this article:

I posted a number which may possibly have been illegal.

burningion didn't know if this was legal for him to do or not when he posted it. It has been only in subsequent discussion that other Viners have made that point.

So because burningion didn't know whether it was illegal or not, this means that it's ok for everyone else to simply assume that it is?

I'm sorry, but supposing he had said that in his opinion it was perfectly legal, but failed to say why? Would the same people still be leaping to the same conclusions? I'm pretty sure most of them would be. Whether or not burningion knew it was legal or not doesn't excuse everyone who leaped to the immediate conclusion that it wasn't. If anything, I think it points out even more that they failed to even investigate the question. That burningion didn't know suggests that it might, in fact, have been legal. But almost no one bothered to check before weighing in on how eeeevil it was to expose Newsvine to risk by posting this obviously illegal information.

The point being that quite often what's obvious is, in fact, wrong.

I'm just surprised how few people stopped to consider that.

In fact, even though we've been talking about this particular aspect of the story all afternoon, there are still people weighing in, ignoring the thread, insisting that burningion is doing something illegal. Hell, Paul William Tenny even trumpeted how proud he was of reporting a comment as illegal that didn't even actually post the key, simply because he saw some hexadecimal numbers and assumed that they were the object of the discussion. Didn't even bother to read a one paragraph post.

That's exactly what I'm talking about.

As far as I'm concerned, iarnuocon, the issue is that burningion believed he was doing something that was possibly illegal when he did it, and in doing so was essentially sticking his nose up at the rest of the community and the owners of the site. Whether it is actually illegal or not is beside the point.

In addition, although he pointed out in the sentence I quoted from the article, he is now (see this comment) calling everyone who reported him lazy, when he himself didn't bother to do the homework either.

I don't know what he said in his "quick" article that was removed, because I was not able to read it before it was removed, although I've asked him repeatedly in this thread to give me a quick run-down.

I would hope that burningion would take the time to write an article spelling out his opinions rather than one like he's written above, in which he accuses Newsvine of censoring him. I can't judge whether his article was reported down for good reason or not if I haven't seen it. I am only reacting to what he's done and said here.

So because burningion didn't know whether it was illegal or not, this means that it's ok for everyone else to simply assume that it is?

Illegal or not doesn't make a bit of difference. Digg had received a cease and desist order for posting the code. If Newsvine had received a similar c&d, and not taken down the code, they could have opened themselves up for a lawsuit. A lawsuit they undoubtedly would have won, but that's not the point. Lawsuits cost money, win or lose.

That's interesting. So far the two real voices of reason on this thread have been Adipic Acid and Ksoze. The first pointed out that the number is recorded as part of a public document, and as such is no longer a "trade secret", and hence not illegal to post. The latter has pointed out that the key is expired and has already been patched, so constitutes no danger.

The issue isn't whether or not this is a trade secret and it probably doesn't matter if it is in the public domain. The issue is that under the DMCA the discussion of and/or linking to anything that can be used to circumvent DRM protection is a legally actionable offense. Would they win if they pressed it? Don't know but apparently the history isn't good. More importantly it doesn't matter - sometimes the goal of a legal case isn't to win but to exhaust your opponents resources. Guess who has more resources in this case.

My advice check out this seed Belarius found which is a primer of the basis of the cease and desist letters.

FYI, the DeCSS cases that went to trial went very very badly for those involved, some news magazines got in trouble just for LINKING to 2600's page where the code was. I am assuming that you are familiar with the DeCSS cases burningion?

2600 case timeline

2600 DROPS DECSS APPEAL:

Posted 3 Jul 2002 19:09:42 UTC

Yes, it's true. After numerous consultations with our legal team and all kinds of internal debate, we have decided that we've gotten the DeCSS case as far as we can. We won't be bringing it to the Supreme Court.

While we share the disappointment many of you will feel, we think it's very important to understand why this is the proper course of action. Our chances of the case being taken up by the Supreme Court were very slim. And it was the nearly unanimous opinion of all of the legal experts we consulted that the current Supreme Court wouldn't take our side.

This was almost THREE YEARS after the initial order. Three years of litigation. And all the legal experts said they would lose. 2600 fought the good fight. And they got their ass kicked doing it. I just looked at their main page and don't see anything that likes like this code. Is it on there? Or did the uber-hacker zine 2600 learn their lesson and give up? This is the situation you want Newsvine to dive into?

So apparently you folks are still having vision troubles. I'll repeat myself. Learn to read. I've already dealt with most of these objections in previous posts. I'll just highlight what I think are the most obvious flaws and move on.

As far as I'm concerned, iarnuocon, the issue is that burningion believed he was doing something that was possibly illegal when he did it, and in doing so was essentially sticking his nose up at the rest of the community and the owners of the site. Whether it is actually illegal or not is beside the point. As far as I'm concerned, Vikki, the issue is that virtually everyone on this thread, even now that more information has been posted, fails to read or investigate, but assumes that 1) what was done is illegal, and 2) that 'cease and desist' letter equals some sort of legal judgement. I'll agree that whether it's legal is beside the point. Where I disagree is in that, for me, the lesson taken away from this is that almost the entire body of folks on Newsvine that I've come to respect as thoughtful failed (in this case) to be thoughtful. Y'all just lined up, with nothing but a television education in the legal system, and parrotted the MPAA's line. Is that understandable? Sure. Do I disagree with the result? No. Was I shocked at the lack of consideration given to the situation before the bulk of Newsviners croaked out "Polly wanna cracker"? Absolutely.

If Newsvine had received a similar c&d, and not taken down the code, they could have opened themselves up for a lawsuit. I've highlighted the relevant portion of your hypothetical. A cease and desist letter is not "legal action" in itself. It's a formal version of me telling you, "please, knock that off." All the folks stating that burningion "opened up Newsvine to a lawsuit" are exaggerating. Could the MPAA sue? Sure. But they could sue over an article they don't like that doesn't include this number. They could sue because someone posts an article that says "the MPAA are a bunch of jack-booted thugs!" My point was that virtually no one here bothered to look into the possibilities and/or likelihood of such a lawsuit, or whether posting the number was in fact illegal. You all just assumed that it was and ran with it. And that's OK, it's just not what I had come to expect from my time on Newsvine.

The issue isn't whether or not this is a trade secret and it probably doesn't matter if it is in the public domain. On the contrary, if it's in the public domain, then the MPAA cases claiming that it is an infringement on trade secrets will be dismissed. You can't claim that something you've entered into public records is a secret. So in terms of legal liability, it very much is a question of whether this is in the public domain.

sometimes the goal of a legal case isn't to win but to exhaust your opponents resources. Guess who has more resources in this case. It's inconsequential to what I'm driving at, since I happen to agree that taking the article down was probably the right move. I'm not talking about what might happen in a potential lawsuit; I'm talking about the fact that virtually everyone here assumed the article was illegal, rather than investigating or discussing whether it was. Not a sole bothered to explore that issue until (and I'll take the time to correct my earlier statement) Brian Ford, Adipic Acid, and KSoze brought it up. Everyone else just jumped on the "It's illegal!" bandwagon. That's the issue I found interesting. Hell, most of you people are STILL stuck on the knee-jerk "It's illegal!" subject, despite a few instances of folks discussing how it probably isn't.

My advice check out this seed Belarius found which is a primer of the basis of the cease and desist letters. My advice is "read the thread before giving out advice." If you had bothered to, you'd have noticed that I already linked to a DMCA primer a full four hours before Belarius seeded anything, a short 8 comments prior to yours. So thanks for the advice, but I was there ahead of Belarius, and well ahead of you.

I am assuming that you are familiar with the DeCSS cases burningion? You should try reposting this at the bottom of the page. I haven't seen burningion in this subthread.

And all the legal experts said they would lose. 2600 fought the good fight. And they got their ass kicked doing it That's why I love 2600. They live for that kind of @!$%#.

I just looked at their main page and don't see anything that likes like this code. Is it on there? Or did the uber-hacker zine 2600 learn their lesson and give up? What's more likely is that since this "code" can't unlock jack @!$%#- given that it's obsolete and already patched, they didn't see it as having any "hacker" value. And since the number is available from public documents, it also lacks any cool-factor for having broken it open.

This is the situation you want Newsvine to dive into? The situation I want Newsvine to jump into is the one where Newsviners explore more than one side of an issue. Sadly, most of them failed to bother on this important issue.

iarnucon, please educate yourself on the DMCA, Belarius links to the EFFs primer below. Every movie studio can sue Newsvine for $200 - $2500 per offer of this encryption breaking tool. Will they? Unknown, they may just go with a cease and desist letter and let the matter drop. But if this keeps cropping up on forums they are going to make an example of someone the way they did with 2600. 2600 didn't have any money to sue away, Newsvine does (or hopes to at least).

Who can sue over the posting of the key? The DMCA entitles "anyone injured by a violation" to bring a civil lawsuit seeking damages (including statutory damages ranging between $200 and $2500 for each "offer"). In addition, if a person violates the DMCA "willfully and for purposes of commercial gain," a federal prosecutor could bring criminal charges (with the famous exception of the Sklyarov case, however, criminal prosecutions have generally been limited to situations where the DMCA violation was also accompanied by evidence of commercial piracy).

What about just linking to a place where the key is posted? The courts in the DeCSS case wrestled with the proper test to apply when someone links to a location where a circumvention tool can be found. Ultimately, the district court held that an injunction against linking could be issued after a final judgment if a the plaintiff could show, by clear and convincing evidence,

"that those responsible for the link (a) know at the relevant time that the offending material is on the linked-to site, (b) know that it is circumvention technology that may not lawfully be offered, and (c) create or maintain the link for the purpose of disseminating that technology."

The court of appeals upheld that ruling, while admitting that the issue presented a difficult First Amendment question.

Sorry, didn't see you'd linke to a DMCA primer. Please check out the EFF's opinion here though. Newsvine can be sued over this. As far as many of us are concerned, that's the end of the matter.

iarnucon, please educate yourself on the DMCA Brian, please either learn to read, or get bent. I don't care about the legality or illegality of posting the number. What I'm talking about is the vast number of people who simply assumed that this is illegal without actually exploring whether it was in fact illegal.

Newsvine can be sued over a great many things. I don't think this should be reason for Newsviners to refrain from discussing whether those things are, in fact, illegal. Assuming that they are illegal simply because someone could sue over them is reversing the proper order of things.

I can sue you for hurting my feelings. That doesn't make hurting my feelings illegal.

If you want to talk about the legality (or lack thereof) of posting this number, I'd note two things about the DeCSS case that make it irrelevant to this case: DeCSS was a program that was not produced by the movie industry, but by individuals seeking to crack encryption. This number is not a program. It is not "technology" and it is not a "component" of "technology". Second, DeCSS, in addition to not being created by the movie industry, was not made publicly available by the movie industry. This number has been made part of the public domain by the industry itself. A lawsuit over the posting of this number is tremendously likely to be thrown out of court, as it is analogous to attempting to sue someone for taking something that you've given them for free. If the industry did not want this number in the public domain, it should not have put it in the public domain. It did put it in the public domain, however, and it is too late for it to claim that it is NOT in the public domain.

So, sure, they could sue. They'd lose.

You might also find this link illuminating.

With that said, I'm done. I really don't care about whether this is legal or not. I've said as much, numerous times. I understand the murky quality surrounding the DMCA and the legality of burningion's article; I understand people's fears about Newsvine being sued. I was merely commenting on the fact that few people bothered to link to any actual information, or present the arguments, but instead simply chose to think that "this is illegal and Newsvine could get sued" sufficed.

Repetition isn't going to make the assertion of illegality any more important, for me.

It is not "technology" and it is not a "component" of "technology".

That is not what the EFF posted as their expert legal opinion, and they should know. They think that the other side will make that argument when they sue. This is not like suing over hurt feelings. The DMCA creates a specific means of redress for 'injured' content companies, to wit suing in civil court. I'm not aware of any restrictions in that law that limit their ability to sue if they've accidentally left the number in a court document. The issue for me isn't whether the case could be won. The issue for me is that Newsvine could be sued. You and burningion seem to care about the other issue. Do you really think losing matters to the MPAA and their goons? They have billions to burn in frivolous lawsuits. The punishment for their opponents is not the court decision, the punishment for their opponents is the expense of legal representation in those cases. That is the reality that small businesses face. Getting tied up in expensive civil cases wipes out small companies. A small company gets nothing out of successfully defending themselves against a bad lawsuit. Heck, just see the story that was on the front page about the dry cleaners sued for $65 million for a lost pair of pants. It doesn't matter that the suit is utterly without merit, just defending themselves is wiping them out.

Again, sorry about not seeing your DMCA link.

That is not what the EFF posted as their expert legal opinion, and they should know. They think that the other side will make that argument when they sue. So that's NOT the EFF's expert legal opinion about this number. It's their expert legal opinion of what argument the MPAA might make. Since the EFF has spent years and money fighting the DMCA, and helped represent individuals and companies who do things like distribute DeCSS, I'm guessing that their legal opinion is that this number isn't "technology" or a "component" of "technology".

I'll say this one last time: nothing prevents Newsvine from being sued by anyone at any time. All a lawsuit (and especially a civil lawsuit) takes is an allegation and filing the paperwork. The MPAA can sue Newsvine right now.

You keep missing this, and coming back to the issue of protecting Newsvine. I don't care about that issue or about burningion's "Newsvine censored me" issue. I only cared that the community here failed in what it purportedly is all about, discussing and exploring the various sides of an issue. And since that's now covered, I really don't much care about that either. My initial comment was that the lack of calm reasoned voices that simply assumed the truth without exploring the issue. Period. I don't much care one way or the other about whether the HD-DVD key's posting is legal or illegal. Or about whether the posting opened Newsvine up to "liability" (especially since they could be sued anyway, regardless).

I don't know how I can make that any clearer.

It's their expert legal opinion of what argument the MPAA might make.... when they sue your pants off in court. You seem to think that it matters if the MPAAs argument is correct. It doesn't. Suing over this provision of the DMCA requires some 'component' of 'technology' to be offered. If it's never been offered they have no standing to file suit and it will be dismissed at minimal cost to the defendant, or more likely the suit will never be filed in the first place. If they have basis, the defendant is in for a long, drawn-out court battle. Those are two different situations with radically different consequences regardless of the outcome of the court case. This is one of the situations I'm most unhappy about with the practice of law in this country as it is today, but it is a situation that exists.

We can have a discussion of the legal issues without ever posting the actual number in question. That adds nothing to the discussion while creating a real, albeit minor, threat of legal consequences. Similarly I would not want a post that talked about the legality of child porn to feature actual child porn. The 'report as illegal' option exists for a valid reason, so that Newsvine will hopefully face the first situation in court if/when they're sued instead of the latter situation. An article that was the same but didn't contain the potentially illegal information would have had more reasoned commentary. As far as I can tell that option was used appropriately. If there was an article about the legality of child porn and the author posted a picture of an 18 year old dressed to look like a 15 year old I would act on the assumption that it was illegal and would not spend time trying to ascertain detailed info or expert legal opinion.

You seem to think that it matters if the MPAAs argument is correct. It doesn't. Look, I'm done going around in circles with you on this. You keep mis-attributing motive to me that I don't have, arguments that I'm not making and beliefs that I'm not espousing. The MPAA can sue Newsvine whether this is legal, illegal, or whether Newsvine even had anything to do with it. All they have to do is make an allegation and file the paperwork. I wasn't trying to argue the legality of posting the key; I wasn't trying to argue that people who reported it were wrong for doing so, I was merely pointing out the presumption of guilt made by most posters who ordinarily exhibit an interest in knowing the facts before making assertions, in this thread. This thread isn't illegal. This thread has plenty of space, and we have plenty of time in which to discuss all the ramifications of said other article. And in this thread, until noted as mentioned by Adipic Acid, et al, every poster continued to make unsupported assertions about the illegality of the former article without any reference to support other than hearsay and vague notions about the law.

Exploring that doesn't require me to take a stand one way or the other on the legality of posting the key.

If you want to talk about the legality of publishing the key, do so over in Belarius' seed, where I've left a lengthy comment as to why the MPAA will lose any lawsuit it files over this key.

Put away your easily inflamed sense of rage. This? You're helping distribute something that will hurt a company that has spent countless hours developing. Hours = Money. Company = People. So the end result is that you are hurting people by doing this. Yeah, that's not what he did. I know you think he did, but you might try actually reading the thread before venting your spleen.

God, it's like a virtual sewing circle in this place.