• http://www.eyefall.co.uk/blog ciaran

    “The crowdwisdom went wild”

    Never was a more oxymoronic phrase used in a more inronic way. Nice summation Danny.

  • graywolf

    here’s the full screenshot from last night

  • http://sethf.com/ Seth Finkelstein

    “Publishing instructions rather than actual devices does not seem to be a violation of this particular part of the DMCA, to my non-legal but common sense eyes.”


    Danny, you’re one of the world’s top search experts, but you’re out of your area of expertise here :-) :-) :-)

    There’s literally *years* and *years* of litigation on this subject.

    Let me send you some stuff by email, I find comment-boxes painful for anything that’s long and references.

  • http://onlinesaleschannels.wordpress.com/2007/05/02/digg-cease-and-desist-a-number-and-the-best-viral-marketing-everall-by-the-mpaa/ Jeffrey Buechler

    This is the Boston Tea Party of the internet revolution. This may very well be a seminal event in the history of the web, where the collective will of a user base exercised its muscle and gave the Man the finger.

  • RustyS

    “The crowdwisdom went wild.”

    That line alone was enough to get me to finally register with TypeKey to say – BRAVO!

    It wasn’t until Kevin Rose chimed in that the crowd was assuaged. Which leads to a question I’ve long pondered:

    If Steve Jobs and Kevin Rose got into a fight, which god would Mac people pull for? ;)

  • http://searchengineland.com Danny Sullivan

    Hey Seth, I did say my “non-legal” eyes!

    Look, you emailed that DeCSS is a computer program, and that — I gather — a court decided that a program is “technology” according to the law. Sure, I can roll with that.

    But writing about something within the code — writing about a number? Just saying something like “this is a key used in encypting HD-DVDs” is not, ot me, providing a technology or a service or a device or a component.

    Chilling Effects touches on this here:

    The tension between the DMCA and the First Amendment is at the heart of several ongoing lawsuits. [Felten v. RIAA; Universal v. Corley] The mere posting of a link to a computer program that can be used to circumvent technical protection measures was held to be a violation of the DMCA. [Universal v. Corley (2d Ciruit cite)] The Recording Industry Association of America used the threat of a DMCA action to silence a professor whose research paper discussed circumvention of a technical protection measure. The professor subsequently mounted a legal challenge to the DMCA on First Amendment grounds and presented his paper. While courts in both of these cases have found in favor of the copyright industries, these cases are being appealed and the state of the law is yet to be determined.

    Both cases have yet to go through the entire appeals process, so we really don’t know. What I suspect is that some common sense is going to prevail over the copyright madness. I can’t publish a number? Please. I don’t care if the number was secretly hidden in code or not. The number is out, and it’s in the public domain for fair commentary.

    I can speak the number to others, right? I could sing about it; I could sing to a live audience if I wanted to. There’s an entire difference between commenting on something and publishing instructions.

  • http://sethf.com/ Seth Finkelstein

    Just to be clear – no offense intended. But having slogged through this for so long, at such a deep level, it’s more a reaction of “Oh no, here we go again!”

    Did you read my paper? I discuss the argument you make in detail, with code examples.

    Regarding: “There’s an entire difference between commenting on something and publishing instructions.”

    Here’s the key passage about that … Brr …

    “During the trial, Professor Touretzky of Carnegie Mellon University, as noted above, convincingly demonstrated that computer source and object code convey the same ideas as various other modes of expression, including spoken language descriptions of the algorithm embodied in the code. … He drew from this the conclusion that the preliminary injunction irrationally distinguished between the code, which was enjoined, and other modes of expression that convey the same idea, which were not, id., although of course he had no reason to be aware that the injunction drew that line only because that was the limit of the relief plaintiffs sought. With commendable candor, he readily admitted that the implication of his view that the spoken language and computer code versions were substantially similar was not necessarily that the preliminary injunction was too broad; rather, the logic of his position was that it was either too broad or too narrow. Id. at 1070-71. Once again, the question of a substantially broader injunction need not be addressed here, as plaintiffs have not sought broader relief.”

  • http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/cyberia-l/msg32701.html Seth Finkelstein

    See EFF’s post on the subject now:


  • badcop666

    Assumption: it is good for everyone if all inventions are tested adn improved in the public domain.
    Assumption: what is good for everyone is good.
    Assumption: legislation, governments, baddies limiting or preventing activities which are good for everyone are BAD.

    These are simple logical truths as far as human society is concerned.

    The media industry *believes* that it is hemorrhaging from the ‘bottom line’ due to those nasty phenomena *freedom* and *the internet*.

    Human endeavour throughout history can be viewed as being divided into three groups :- those intent on carrying humanity forward towards intellectual and physical freedom, those intent on holding human society back for cynical individual gain, and those who simply suffer whatever the outcome is – ignorant of their capacity for pursuing of their best interests.

    Even right-wing idealogues *like* to be able to claim that pro-capitalist idealogy will take society forward to a golden age of freedom.

    By this logic then, circumventing their security measures is good.