Sorry, but when a site like Digg exists ONLY because of user submitted content (and user voting) then it is, in fact, the USER BASE that determines exactly what that store is selling. Digg isn't like a brick and mortar store, it's more like a flea market... and if everyone who shows up at that flea market insists on selling key duplication machines, the flea market owner has two choices: either let them sell or shut the entire thing down.

Before you speak for him, ask Digg founder Kevin Rose if he feels like 09 f9 11 was a victory or a crushing defeat. Thanks to Digg users this issue got wide enough coverage that for the AACSLA to sue Digg.com now would be PR suicide. The massive publicity Digg received for their courageous stance is sure to propel them to new heights of success. My guess is that Kevin Rose considers this to be one of the best things that's ever happened to him.

sincerely,
Jeffery Coleman

From someone with no prior knowledge of Digg.com :
So the user usage agreement makes no stipulation about illegal behaviour? quite unlikely.

The first post is exactly right - Digg is much more similar to a flea market than a store.

Also, as overreaching as the DMCA is, it covers mechanisms to break encryption. I understand that all that was posted is the key, not the mechanism to use it. It's a real stretch to say that the DMCA can cover a single number. If that's the case, perhaps I can create my own weak encryption scheme that uses the key 42, and then send DMCA takedown notices to every online post where this number is mentioned.

The original blog post is so wrong.
The willingness to accept and follow rules must
be based on individual thought and morality.
Rules such as "niggers and chinks can't have guns"
were prevalent in the late 1800s and early 1900s.
Anyone who didn't follow these rules was a hero.
I did not notice that the country collapsed at that time.
The US seems more ready to collapse now when so many people follow the lead of a war-monger named George Bush. What are the rules now ? Spend as much money and lives as quickly as possible to insure the creation of a democracy ? Blow up the village to save it ?
Intellectual property went from a nicely working idea to a nutty race to see who could grab the most goodies and hang on to them. I no longer have any use for IP and I give away all my designs and concepts ( I am an electronics designer ) as public domain.
Patents should last a maximum of 5 years given the silly criteria that now exists for approval from the patent office. Copyright should last 20 years given the ridiculous extensions that now make it possible to hang on to copyright for over 100 years.
Absurd Power to the people.

Ephraim, you've got it very wrong, though I don't blame you. Your frame of reference is that of the traditional journalist and things like Digg or independent blogs are a threat to your profession. I'm not scolding you, but simply that while you POV has thought behind it, it does not reflect the reality of the change that is happening on the Web. I'm not an anarchist or some anti-DCMA advocate, but when the masses speak, they need to be listened to, or else chaos can ensue.

Ephraim, it's kind of sad to watch you shout that the sky is falling over a few blogs, some user participation, and an "Oh, fine then" capitulation by Digg. It's like the old guy next door who just can't grasp why anyone would want that 'Internet thing' anyway....

Masses? Some anonymous nerds wrote some cool automation scripts and have been elevated to 'masses'?

the flea market analogy is completely specious. These clowns/defenders of freedom/whatever are completely ANONYMOUS. If I go to a flea market and sell my "key duplication" machine, i have to show my face. Unless, of course, I wear a mask. In which case, I probably wouldn't be let in.

Did these guys leave their names & contact info? If they did, then we can talk about the "masses" and flea markets.

Otherwise, they are just a bunch of cowardly hackers, like most everyone else who cause problems on the inet at large...

The difference between 'The masses' and 'Them asses' is the position of the space.

Unfortunately, anonymity breeds excessive behaviour. Remember the "CB" craze of the seventies? The useful 2-way radio medium was destroyed by anonymous negative pinheads who only wanted to disrupt trusted, orderly communication. The internet is a logical child of that communication medium. It has become dangerous, and is heading towards a useless playground for pre-pubescent nihilists and eastern European scammers and leeches who haven't a clue how to help mankind or produce something of value for a living. It is following television into the toilet and certain oblivion.

What Ephraim dismissively refers to as "a completely self-organizing mob" and "scary" seems like neither to me.

Are those unwashed masses howling for the lynching of a human being? They are not. Is violence actualized? Is it threatened? Is it implied? It is not.

This seems to me a lot more like the grand tradition of civil disobedience. Why did the posters continue to subvert Digg, when they had so many other choices to post the key? They were trying to make a point.

Yes, the rules are important. So is free speech and the right to object to the rules, as they are written today. Does Ephraim seriously think that the DMCA and the AACS/CSS was written by, or for, the consumers of IP? Does anyone seriously think that the average citizen has the same pull in our legislative bodies as a well-funded, politically active lobby group?

Even the language of debate has been subverted by corporate interests defending a particular business model. It's not "Intellectual Property", it's a temporary, legally sanctioned monopoly on a creative work.

I don't object to them trying to make a profit, but let's be real here. Corporate monopolies are closely regulated for a reason. Monopolies can quickly turn cancerous and harm, rather than help, society.

Consumers are learning that simple, harmless things they want to do with their music, movies, and the like, are prohibited, not just in practical terms, but in law. They've been criminalized by organizations that are living in the past.

And, just because AACS can prevent piracy (a bad thing, to state the obvious), doesn't make AACS a good thing. Same goes for the DMCA.

Digg isn't noble for bending to the will of their customers. They are acting like a business.

Mr. Smith makes an excellent point. I'd also like to see the anonymous hackers agree to pay Kevin Rose's legal fees if Digg is sued. This guy has spent his time and money creating a fantastic desitnation for ALL users. In return, SOME of these guys claim they speak for everyone, and that they "own" the site. Well then, put your money where your mouth is, come out of hiding, face prosecution yourself, and pay Digg's legal fees, too. Otherwise, you are just the cowardly hackers you have been accused of being.

As to Mr. Wright's comment, Digg has more than two choices. Digg can refuse the hackers entry and deal only with those providers who are not putting his site at risk. There are plenty to choose from who don't get their jollies from posting other people's encryption keys. What a waste of time and talent. These guys should be getting paid good money to figure out ways to stop Russian thugs from stealing 45 million credit card and social security numbers from TJ Maxx.

Even if certain users think posting encryption keys should be legal (ugh), you can see what a bind this puts Digg in. These guys do not speak for all Digg users. If they think they are so in the right, they should start their own website and post their ecryption keys there. Then they can pay Digg to display ads for their site so that all Digg users know where to find them, and the majority of Digg users can continue to enjoy the site that Kevin Rose has created.

If the mob had a voice, I believe it would certainly be different from the individual one. I believe if you asked anyone if they had unauthorized copyrighted media (software, movies, music, books) in front of everyone in a crowded auditorium, they would more than likely lie or acknowledge it under a bit of embarrassment. They would be openly admitting..."Yes I am a thief." Take that same person and throw in the anonymity of the web and they would freely volunteer their own copies or any place to get one. I've always believed that there are two places where people are at their worst 1) behind locked doors in secrecy and 2) in a mob.