Do You Think Digg Were Right To Break The Law?

Everton | May 05, 2007 | View Comments


Many blogs this week have been asking whether Digg were right to cave in to the user revolt that led to the HD-DVD key hack being published numerous times on its homepage, despite Digg’s initial attempts to abide by a legal notice to remove the HD-DVD key which if used correctly can be used to beat the copy protection on HD movies.

Not many blogs seem to be asking the question though whether or not Digg were right to break the law? My view is no. I believe that there are situations when an individual can choose to break a law if they feel it is unjust, or if it goes against say they religious beliefs. But, in all other cases we all must abide by the law. I would have respected Kevin Rose and Jay Adelson of Digg more if they’d stood up to their users and abided by the law, rather than pandering to them.

I think it is two-faced of Digg on one hand to support and take advantage of intellectual property laws when it suits their own purposes, and then to ignore them when it doesn’t. For instance, if I created an url or a business with Digg in the name I’m sure that within days I would have Digg’s lawyers pounding on my door. So, why is it ok for Digg to not respect someone else’s intellectual property?

If by any chance you missed the drama over the week, here’s a timeline of events from ReadWriteWeb:

  • 30th April 2007: A user posts a link on Digg to the encryption key that is used to crack HD DVD protection
  • 30th April 2007 – Midnight PST: Digg pulls the story and bans the user. This causes other users to submit stories about the encryption key and the efforts to suppress it. Some people speculate that Digg was censoring the story because HD DVD may have been an advertiser.
  • 1st May 2007: Another story surfaces about the Advanced Access Content System ongoing efforts to suppress the publication of the key since February. AACS is the the creator and distribution authority for the HD DVD encryption.
  • 1st May 2007: Huge numbers of Digg users, in an act of defiance, start posting and digging stories that mention the encryption key.
  • 1st May 2007 – 1PM PST: Jay Adelson posts on the Digg blog. He explains that Digg’s survival is dependent upon complying with intellectual property laws and they removed the stories to shield themselves from potential lawsuits.
  • 1st May 2007: Digg users don’t buy it, and spend the rest of the day flooding the entire front page of Digg with stories about the crack, burying anything else, essentially taking over the page (and causing it to go down completely a few times). The encryption key, meanwhile, explodes across Google, with thousands of search results appearing overnight. Wikipedia also gets in on the act, locking pages that are repeatedly being used to publish the number.
  • 1st May 2007 – 9PM PST: 8 hours after Jay’s post, Kevin Rose and Digg capitulate and publish their Digg This: 09-f9-11… response, which has since racked up more than 35,000 diggs, passing the iPhone as the most dugg story in the site’s history.

Read Related Posts

  1. Techtites Vs The Digg Mafia - Who Won? Techtites Vs The Digg Mafia – Who Won?
  2. Quick Links 19-02-07: Digg Mafia Edition Quick Links 19-02-07: Digg Mafia Edition
  3. Why The Digg Mafia Will Cost Kevin Rose Millions Why The Digg Mafia Will Cost Kevin Rose Millions
  4. What Really Is So Special About Digg? Kevin Rose Please Hurry Up And Sell! What Really Is So Special About Digg? Kevin Rose Please Hurry Up And Sell!
  5. Finally Proof That The Digg Bury Brigade (aka Digg Mafia) Does Exist Finally Proof That The Digg Bury Brigade (aka Digg Mafia) Does Exist



««
»»

Latest Posts

Filed Under: Blogging • Internet News • MP3 & Video

Tags: • • • • •

About the Author: Everton is based in London and has worked in the internet and mobile space for over ten years now, and before that worked in corporate strategy and consulting. He has a degree in Economics from Cambridge University.He also writes for Windows 7 News, Windows 8 News and One Tip A Day.

  • No, I'm not saying that I agree. What I am saying is that I think it is wrong for Digg to publicly break the law when it suits their purposes.
  • Jonathan
    I take is from this that you agree with the RIAA, MPAA and the media companies that all copying of any work of art of any kind should be prevented by both law and technology.

    If so - you owe it to yourself to listen to what Lawrence Lessig, Professor of Law at Stanford Law School, has to say about that:

    http://www.lessig.org/freeculture/

    "There is no doubt that piracy is an important problem–it’s just not the only problem. Our leaders have lost this sense of balance. They have been seduced by a vision of culture that measures beauty in ticket sales. They are apparently untroubled by a world where cultivating the past requires the permission of the past. They can’t imagine that freedom could produce anything worthwhile at all."
  • mosey
    A logical business step?
  • I think they panicked when they couldn’t filter the posts containing the key and gave up.

    I think that was the real reason as well, and Digg decided to put a positive spin on it to turn it to their advantage.
  • I think that Kevin is banking on the loyalty of the Digg users so that if it does get shut down he's hoping the community will follow his next networking site. I think they panicked when they couldn't filter the posts containing the key and gave up.
  • im glad digg stood up to a big company. i think freedom of information should be allowed on the internet. posting the dvd key shouldnt be against the law. using the dvd key should be against the law.
  • mosey
    On another (un-digg related) note... if concert goers recorded short clips of a concert that shouldn't have been recorded, and subsequently uploaded their (low quality) videos on to e.g. Youtube, on the one hand it benefits people not able to make it to the concert (as they could see - for 1 minute - what it would have been liket) but on the other hand one could argue it is illegal. I would like to find out what other people thought of this scenario?

    With regards to the actual post itself: I don't hold strongs views either way about Digg, since I don't believe that the system works that well imho. But it was probably an OTT step to ban the user since it consequently generated such a backlash.
blog comments powered by Disqus