How LJ *should* have reacted
Okay, so I'm clueless to some things. Like HD DVD stuff. Because I don't have an HD-DVD player (errm, would that be a normal DVD player?), because my computer lacks media manip software, because "copy discs" is a new concept for me. Because I still don't have a way to rip my CDs to MP3. (I rip to .wma or .ogg, which my iRiver plays just fine.)
So, while I hear bits and pieces about DRM encoding and people's attempts to fight ridiculous restrictions on what and how they watch, I don't keep up with them. I don't read Wired or Digg or Slashdot except when linked to them.
Today, the "random user" on My LJ was ascendeddaniel. His post was about LJ's policy that you're responsible for the content of everything you link to... and that that content is being judged as if it were posted to LJ directly. So I went to look at his blog, which talks about DRM and the cracking thereof.
Several months ago, someone named arnazami posted that he'd "discovered the processing key for the AACS content-protection system." I have only the vaguest idea what this means, and no idea how to use it, and I don't have a Linux box. But I was fascinated at how the discussions & comments were similar to the fannish ones about "pirate ebooks," and how there's a great deal of grassroots support for "cracking" (which I'm told is not what happened here) codes that prevent free use of, well, anything. But especially entertainment media like books and movies. And my heart swelled with joy, and I went looking for other links on the topic.
And I found that the number (code, really) had been posted at Digg, and been removed after receiving a C&D from, umm, whoever would send such an order. And people reposted it, and posted the code in comments to other discussions. And so on.
And Digg reacted: Kevin Rose, the founder, said:We’ve always given site moderation (digging/burying) power to the community. Occasionally we step in to remove stories that violate our terms of use (eg. linking to pornography, illegal downloads, racial hate sites, etc.). So today was a difficult day for us. We had to decide whether to remove stories containing a single code based on a cease and desist declaration. We had to make a call, and in our desire to avoid a scenario where Digg would be interrupted or shut down, we decided to comply and remove the stories with the code.
But now, after seeing hundreds of stories and reading thousands of comments, you’ve made it clear. You’d rather see Digg go down fighting than bow down to a bigger company. We hear you, and effective immediately we won’t delete stories or comments containing the code and will deal with whatever the consequences might be.
If we lose, then what the hell, at least we died trying.
(emphasis added) My eyes teared up. There are companies willing to stand by their stated principles.
That's what LJ should have done: it should've said, "we're trying to cover our asses legally, but we also have an obligation to provide service to our customers. Thousands of you think you're not doing anything illegal, and we're gonna stand by that--we're going to say, 'if someone thinks we're hosting illegal content, they need to bring a court order, not a save-the-children rant.'"
They didn't, of course. And they won't.
And they wonder why we don't think they're devoted to free speech? (Except, of course, for the freedom of their staff to slander their customers. That, they stand behind.)
So, while I hear bits and pieces about DRM encoding and people's attempts to fight ridiculous restrictions on what and how they watch, I don't keep up with them. I don't read Wired or Digg or Slashdot except when linked to them.
Today, the "random user" on My LJ was ascendeddaniel. His post was about LJ's policy that you're responsible for the content of everything you link to... and that that content is being judged as if it were posted to LJ directly. So I went to look at his blog, which talks about DRM and the cracking thereof.
Several months ago, someone named arnazami posted that he'd "discovered the processing key for the AACS content-protection system." I have only the vaguest idea what this means, and no idea how to use it, and I don't have a Linux box. But I was fascinated at how the discussions & comments were similar to the fannish ones about "pirate ebooks," and how there's a great deal of grassroots support for "cracking" (which I'm told is not what happened here) codes that prevent free use of, well, anything. But especially entertainment media like books and movies. And my heart swelled with joy, and I went looking for other links on the topic.
And I found that the number (code, really) had been posted at Digg, and been removed after receiving a C&D from, umm, whoever would send such an order. And people reposted it, and posted the code in comments to other discussions. And so on.
And Digg reacted: Kevin Rose, the founder, said:We’ve always given site moderation (digging/burying) power to the community. Occasionally we step in to remove stories that violate our terms of use (eg. linking to pornography, illegal downloads, racial hate sites, etc.). So today was a difficult day for us. We had to decide whether to remove stories containing a single code based on a cease and desist declaration. We had to make a call, and in our desire to avoid a scenario where Digg would be interrupted or shut down, we decided to comply and remove the stories with the code.
But now, after seeing hundreds of stories and reading thousands of comments, you’ve made it clear. You’d rather see Digg go down fighting than bow down to a bigger company. We hear you, and effective immediately we won’t delete stories or comments containing the code and will deal with whatever the consequences might be.
If we lose, then what the hell, at least we died trying.
(emphasis added) My eyes teared up. There are companies willing to stand by their stated principles.
That's what LJ should have done: it should've said, "we're trying to cover our asses legally, but we also have an obligation to provide service to our customers. Thousands of you think you're not doing anything illegal, and we're gonna stand by that--we're going to say, 'if someone thinks we're hosting illegal content, they need to bring a court order, not a save-the-children rant.'"
They didn't, of course. And they won't.
And they wonder why we don't think they're devoted to free speech? (Except, of course, for the freedom of their staff to slander their customers. That, they stand behind.)