What has been made illegal by the DMCA is for anyone to circumvent copy protection (read: copy hindering) or to facilitate someone else’s circumvention. This grants to IP owners the ability to take away the fair use rights of the consumers of their IP products. This would be like S&W selling you a “self-defense-proof” gun that the company only wants you to use for hunting. If you used it in legitimate self-defense, they could claim that you illegally circumvented their “self-defense-proofing,” despite the fact that self defense is a legal action (indeed: a protected Constitutional Right).

The law is flawed, as it gives companies legal backing to lock consumers out of the legal fair-use of a product they have purchased. We wouldn’t stand for a car whose oil can’t be legally changed by the user — why do we stand for movies that can’t be backed up, or computers that can’t be made to run software of our choosing?

The HD-DVD number in question isn’t a copyright issue or even an trade secrets issue (as the number wasn’t discovered through an illegal theft or leak… the number existed within a consumer product, as it has to for HD-DVD players to play HD-DVD discs). The number is simply the key that allows people to exercise their fair use rights. Media companies don’t want fair use. They want a scratched HD-DVD to mean another $29.95 in their pocket. They want you to pay another $29.95 if you want to watch your HD-DVD on your iPod. The DMCA enables companies to restrict your rights. Ergo the revolt.

Look, the fact is data is data is data and if you want to encipher it in some way to, say hide what you’re doing from others, and only give it to one person, fine. If you’re trying to lock down data, INFORMATION shall we say, then too bad when someone cracks the code.

It’s not against the LAW to do that.

Actually, it is, under the DMCA. Utter bullshit, yes, but that’s the whole point here.

Is the Digg riot is proof that libertarian ideals don’t work in the real world?

You mean in the “real world” where politicians are bribed by corporations to make laws that take away individual liberties? In the real world where a company can sell me a computer that cannot legally run software of my choosing, or can sell me a movie that cannot be legally backed up or transformed into another form?

In the ideal libertarian world, such a law would never exist. Unfortunately you (and many others) are gulping the Kool-Aid and accepting the premise that corporations should be able to sell people locks that are illegal to open, even by the owner of the lock.

The libertarian ideal is this: if you buy something, you should be able to perform legal actions with it (such as making a personal backup) without the seller of the item having any control over your usage or the legality thereof. The Digg riot shows that people are willing to fight for that ideal. How is this a failure of libertarianism? It is the triumph of freedom over a law that attempts to take it away.

HD-DVD is at a fork in the road. On the one hand, the new-found ability to make backups and transformations of HD-DVD movies makes the format more appealing to consumers, and should increase its popularity, just as it did with DVD. But if they revoke this key, hundreds of thousands of HD-DVD players will be rendered useless. And who in their right mind would buy a piece of electronics that a company can break if they don’t like how others are using it? Self-destruct functionality in a consumer product with someone else’s finger on the red button? No thanks.

The sooner they realize that people will continue to unlock the locks they purchase, the sooner HD-DVD can become an accepted consumer format and make them mountains of cash. If they protect it too closely, it’ll wither and die as they (the controllers of the format) break it over and over. Every person whose HD-DVD player is broken by new encryption keys is a consumer who will go back to DVDs.

That is like having a drug company manufacture a drug to cure cancer and them not get it patented, they just claim it is a trade secret and never have to have it go to the generic market.

Tim Burton on May 3, 2007 at 1:00 PM

There is a recognized, and RECOGNIZABLE, difference between a trade secret involving a strictly retail product, and one involving a humanitarian product, and the copyright laws are in place to do as you suggest. If someone crafted a drug that cured cancer, the original creator could always profit from its production, but he couldn’t keep it secret from public use.

Well, that’s kinda tough.

The fact is, if you hard code keys into your firmware, you’re asking for trouble, ain’t ya?

I think that if there are hardware devices out there hardcoded, then whatever company “owns” this key was foolish for doing hardcoding. Furthermore, anyone stuck with one of these things should NOT buy another one.

Look, the fact is data is data is data and if you want to encipher it in some way to, say hide what you’re doing from others, and only give it to one person, fine. If you’re trying to lock down data, INFORMATION shall we say, then too bad when someone cracks the code.

It’s not against the LAW to do that.

Not yet.

What is against the law is sending out copyrighted material without giving credit, illegally copying movies, etc. If I make a copy of a MOVIE for instance, I do so because I want a back up copy and that’s what I use. Backups are kept in a place where floods, heat, fire, theft can’t bother them.

Do I give away such things? Nope. They are mine. If I spend 30 bucks on a dvd then I’m damned well gonna back it up and if I have to crack codes to do it, I will. Tough on the maker.

The fact that someone posted a code, over and over isn’t really the big deal though.

The fact that Digg caved in to a bunch of losers, hackers, pirates and creeps is the real story here. Terrorists win, when you give in.

That’s what happened here.

Phew… I have this habit of reading articles and not noticing who posted them. I was thinking how could AllahPundit pose such a doltish question. I’m relieved to discover it was not AllahPundit.

Go on, Bryan. How about cluing us in on what you know about Libertarian ideals, then explain how they aide Copyright violation? If you can do that, I’ll apologize for calling you doltish.

Kevin made his buck and will soon get a real life lesson in consequences.

People who learn how to make Coke while working at or for Coke voluntarily sign a non-disclosure agreement. And yes, it’s voluntary. If they don’t want to sign they don’t have to. They just have to find someplace else to work.
People who learn how to make New Coke while working at or for Coke get laughed at when they ask if they have to sign a non-disclosure agreement.

Update: Exit question–Is the Digg riot is proof that libertarian ideals don’t work in the real world?

I didn’t realize you needed proof. Any system of gov’t that ignores human instinct is doomed to fail.
Our Founding Fathers didn’t expect their experiment to last as long as it has. They tried to take into account that people are people but they still figured out that no matter what, people are still involved and people are, generally, very selfish. Sure there are those who aren’t, but they’re the minority. Or don’t you drive a car?

As for your gun rights allusions, you have the right to buy a gun. You do not have the right to publish the trade secrets behind how to produce a Glock. One is a personal freedom, the other is a specific piece of intellectual property. You have the right to own an HD-DVD. You do not have the right to all the intellectual property that created that piece of technology.

Trade secrets should not be protectable. Coke and companies should be required to patent or copyright it’s work, not have it eternally protected as a trade secret.

That is like having a drug company manufacture a drug to cure cancer and them not get it patented, they just claim it is a trade secret and never have to have it go to the generic market.

Is the Digg riot is proof that libertarian ideals don’t work in the real world?

Nope. The libertarian method would have been to change the IP laws, not break them.

If we lose, then what the hell, at least we died trying.

A quick look back through history would teach us this is exactly what happens when appeasement tactics are used, we die trying.

So the DVD decryption code is a trade secret? Okay, last summer three people were caught trying to sell the secret formula for Coke. In February, the leader of the group was convicted and now faces up to ten years in prison. Are you prepared to see that type of response to whoever leaked this secret?

As for your gun rights allusions, you have the right to buy a gun. You do not have the right to publish the trade secrets behind how to produce a Glock. One is a personal freedom, the other is a specific piece of intellectual property. You have the right to own an HD-DVD. You do not have the right to all the intellectual property that created that piece of technology.

Furthermore, a gun has value as a tool to protect the user from harm. In the case of the HD-DVD code, the only value associated with it is the value one can glean from stealing the material it protects, i.e. Hollywood films. There is no prevention of harm that can come from having this code. Well, not unless you want to argue that forcing people to pay for films is akin to assault. Forget, libertarianism, that’s just Marxism.

Finally, your open standards argument is also weak. Open standards exist in HD-DVD. That’s what the HD-DVD standard is! That’s how multiple companies are able to author films in the HD-DVD format and have it play on the same hardware. That’s not the same as giving away the content.

Sun Microsystems or Cisco can use web standards but ask if they’re willing to post their proprietary software code or chip designs on the web. The answer will be no.

What is the AACS-LA’s argument? In its takedown letters, the AACS-LA claims that hosting the key violates the DMCA’s ban on trafficking in circumvention devices.

In other words, as has been said repeatedly, its not a case of copyright violation, its “trafficking in a circumvention device” that’s at issue.

But what good does that do? Depending on how the key was compromised, any new key issued would be compromised as soon as its issued. Then you end up on a continuous treadmill of updating compromised keys. I’m just not sure the scheme being used does more good than harm for users or copyright holders. Maybe success or failure of Apple’s foray into DRM free music purchases will give an indication.

taznar on May 2, 2007 at 7:57 PM

I’m not exactly sure, but the key isn’t the issue, it is the algorithm. If the algorithm is compromised, then all is lost, the key is only like a CD key on a video game. Sure you can play the video game with the pirated key, but you can’t get to online servers. In other words the key is good for movies that have been made with it, but once they change it, the hackers are stuck till they crack that key. It is the algorithm that is the crux of the issue.

And just so you know, the word in the warez circles is that it will be cracked within 6 months.

Again the issue is that they have spent millions to harm the average customer and have done ZERO to the pirates selling the movies in China, Manhattan, Mexico, Mexican Barrios (My neighborhood has a guy driving around like the ice creamman selling them) and ever other third world hell-hole.

Not since the Crucifixion.

Exit question–Is the Digg riot is proof that libertarian ideals don’t work in the real world?

I think it is a good example of how they don’t work that easily.

No it doesn’t work that way. The DVD-player can change the number as needed.

But what good does that do? Depending on how the key was compromised, any new key issued would be compromised as soon as its issued. Then you end up on a continuous treadmill of updating compromised keys. I’m just not sure the scheme being used does more good than harm for users or copyright holders. Maybe success or failure of Apple’s foray into DRM free music purchases will give an indication.

The copy protection hurts you or I who want to copy a disk so we can take it on a trip and not worry about it getting scratched or stolen.

My biggest beef with DRM is when it goes beyond simply preventing copying (which in itself isn’t always illegal) to intentional limits on perfectly legal actions. For instance, I’m sure I’m not the only one who hates being forced to sit through FBI/Interpol warnings, then studio splashes, and sometimes even movie trailers before being allowed to watch the movie. Disabling the “Stop” or any other function of my DVD player while these things are playing has absolutely nothing to do with preventing copying.

That went on way too long; hope some of it makes sense.
Rev Snow on May 2, 2007 at 11:22 AM

Not to long, that was a great post.

A video blog that is free of any large corporation like HotAir is absoutly should be advocating against all of these ever increasing “intellectual property” restrictions that are being rolled out. You rely on free content in virtually every post because of the “fair use” clause. To advocate in favor of large corporations puting all kinds of locks on thier content will put HotAir out of buisness (in general not the HD-DVD thing)

I think you are badly mistaken if you think this site is much more insulated and safe then say YouTube

Listen, it doesn’t ever stop the pirates who are selling the stuff. They aren’t the ones hurt by the copy protection. The copy protection hurts you or I who want to copy a disk so we can take it on a trip and not worry about it getting scratched or stolen.

BINGO! You get it.

For over 150 years, the fair-use doctrine has helped stimulate broad advances in scientific inquiry and education, and has advanced broad societal goals in countless other ways. In this emerging digital era, we need to return to first principles. We need to achieve the balance that should be at the heart of our efforts to promote the interests of copyright owners while respecting the rights of information consumers. We need to rewrite the law for the benefit of society as a whole before all access to information is irreversibly controlled. In short, we need to reaffirm fair use.

http://news.com.com/2010-1071-825335.html

The genie is out of the bottle, and there really isn’t a fix for this. Next time, the “engineers” (and I lose those term loosely) who design copyright control systems should spend a bit more thought on what they’ll have to do to prevent someone from getting the key.

Listen, it doesn’t ever stop the pirates who are selling the stuff. They aren’t the ones hurt by the copy protection. The copy protection hurts you or I who want to copy a disk so we can take it on a trip and not worry about it getting scratched or stolen.

If you think it is you or I who are the problems (with pirating) you need to go to Manhattan and look for the guys who spread out DVDs and sell them for 5 bucks a pop. Those are the ones who are hurting movie sales and they are the ones who aren’t stopped by protection schemes like you or I who want to copy it for fair use.

In general, that’s true. But presumably, there’s a model of HD-DVD player out there that uses this key to unlock the content of HD-DVD disks. If that key is revoked, the “lock” on all new HD-DVDs will no longer recognize that key, and those players will be unable to play the disks.

No it doesn’t work that way. The DVD-player can change the number as needed.

It is like a programable lock. You set it, and if the key/code becomes compromised you can reset the key/code and change it to a new one.

And it’s all going to be moot: Engineers will probably have a new encryption code in a day or so, making the code that has now spread beyond Digg to Slashdot and elsewhere useless. Until it gets hacked and posted at Digg, of course.

Sure, if they people who have published HD-DVDs and Blueray disks to this point don’t mind a general recall, so they can republish those disks with the new key(s).

Oh, and all the manufacturers of the hardware that reads HD-DVD and Blueray will need to issue a recall of all those systems, so they can be re-encoded.

The genie is out of the bottle, and there really isn’t a fix for this. Next time, the “engineers” (and I lose those term loosely) who design copyright control systems should spend a bit more thought on what they’ll have to do to prevent someone from getting the key.

Or, people can realize there really isn’t a technological solution to “piracy”, because it’s a social problem. You can’t fix humans with software code.