Warning and disclaimer: vitriolic rant ahead; I am not a lawyer, just angry.
Recently I’ve been seeing a lot of a certain number on the internet. Specifically, the processing key for most of the HD-DVD movies published so far. And I’m getting really sick of it.
Most of the people copying this key did so under some delusional notion of “free speech” or “numbers not being copyrightable”. Under current US law (regardless of what you think of it), this number is part of an “circumvention device”, and as such is not under copyright, but is it also not protected speech. This number has no artistic merit or value beyond its purpose towards breaking the DRM on HD-DVD products. As far as I’m concerned, it’s just garbage that I’ve had shoved in my face constantly for the last few days.
By posting this number on your blog/web site/google notebook/tattoo-on-your-chest (I’m not making that up), you are not making a valuable contribution to the world. You are not even inconveniencing the AACS-LA or their lawyers. If you want to make a difference, you have several productive options:
- Contact your legislative representatives and lobby for copyright/DMCA reform.
- Put economic and social pressure on the various backers of DRM technology by writing letters and talking to people on the street. Teach people why these technologies are bad. Maybe you’ll even get them to help campaign for open formats.
- Get out there and produce a competing technology for distribution of digital media that’s so better that everyone will want to adopt it.
I suspect these will be unpopular options, since they actually require some effort. The sort of “civil disobedience” exhibited by plastering this number all over the internet is idiotic. Picketing is effective. Boycotts are effective. Political action is sometimes effective. Whining on the internet is not. Especially when that whining is in violation of existing law. What happens when, in court, useful arguments are thrown out because the person making them was shown to have willfully disregarded existing statutes?
Please, stop polluting my internet with this garbage. Most of you doing this are bright, talented human beings. Go use that talent to create something wonderful.
#1 by iain on May 3rd, 2007
Quote
“Cyberprotest is to real politics what cyberporn is to real sex. There is the niggling need for self-expression, the moment of urgent communication with a computer screen, all leading to a vague sense of foolishness and anti-climax. Even when the porn star in question sends out a mass email thanking the punters for their interest, it feels, and is, fake. The process has provided the illusion of engagement for those who prefer to sit at their desks and will doubtless become a part of our political lives.”
#2 by Ian McKellar on May 3rd, 2007
Quote
amen.
but this hasn’t been about free speech for a while — it’s just another internet meme like lolcats or all your base…
#3 by Eric on May 3rd, 2007
Quote
Very good post. So many good quotes. I’ll try to keep dearly in my mind the following two:
“Political action is sometimes effective. Whining on the internet is not.”
“Most of you doing this are bright, talented human beings. Go use that talent to create something wonderful.”
#4 by randomwalker on May 3rd, 2007
Quote
You need to relax.
It’s mostly just people having fun. There’s nothing wrong with that.
This isn’t as effective as picketing, and that’s a GOOD thing. That’s because the situation isn’t as bad yet. Do you honestly think the DRM problem is as severe as say, a totalitarian government?
Effective civil disobedience or not, I think this showed everyone that the DMCA is in many contexts unenforceable. I’m not a lawyer either, but that might have some merit in a court of law if and when the DMCA and similar laws are challenged.
If nothing else, this will raise awareness among people who previously had no idea that HD-DVD DRM is broken and that they can look forward to exercising their fair use rights. Which is also good.
#5 by Ronald S. Bultje on May 3rd, 2007
Quote
You disappoint me David. You really think people are not doing all of the things that you’re mentioning here? Of course we write to politicians, I write to my party every once in a while. On itelf, this is meritless.
What happened in the past few days, this is not just about a hype. This is about creating a notion, a movement, a sound that is being picked up on the streets. New York Times frigging wrote about it, it was B I G, everyone knew it, and for a second we were actually victorious. Not legally, but just by means of showing balls. This is point 3 that you’re talking about. How could you miss this?
And like all the other crap on the net: you don’t like it? Move on.
#6 by Joe Buck on May 3rd, 2007
Quote
Many of those who posted the number are not in the US, not subject to the DMCA, and are therefore violating now law. Rather, they are giving a demonstration of how futile the law is.
Many legislators simply aren’t interested in DMCA reform, because they count on Hollywood and the record industry for campaign contributions. There are a few good ones, but your suggestions for alternative action have no credibility. Your idea of “a competing technology that is so good” ignores the fact that the big content providers are demanding a software jail.
#7 by Joe Buck on May 3rd, 2007
Quote
Make that: violating no law.
#8 by David Trowbridge on May 4th, 2007
Quote
I’m well aware that non-USians are bound by different laws (most of which are more permissive than US copyright law, but not all). That doesn’t mean that such behavior isn’t stupid.
If legislators aren’t reflecting the will of the people, vote new ones in. Heck, run for public office yourself. Call me naive, but I just don’t buy this defeatest attitude that government will always be bought and paid for by big business, so there’s no use even trying.
If the content providers are calling the shots, maybe it’s time to transform the content scene. Chances are pretty good that everyone reading this either produces something themselves, or knows others who do. I’m aware that a lot of the readership of planet GNOME and others are already converted, but are all your friends?
For people who are telling me to calm down: see that “rant” disclaimer at the top? That indicates hyperbole. It wasn’t labeled “a calm, reasoned argument.”
#9 by Benjamin Otte on May 4th, 2007
Quote
I think you are missing the point at least twice. People did not think very much about that number or if posting it was illegal. They wanted to talk about something. And they didn’t want to be oppressed by authorities. In this case the authorities were the administrators of web sites. The number quickly became a meme to show support for the cause. Just like the Aids banner, every country’s flag or all these little banners. It’s a very simple way to express one’s opinion in a very complex issue.
Another thing you are missing is the idea that people should “do something”. For one, doing something costs a lot more time than printing a number. And thre might actually be things I care about more than AACS I’d rather spend my time on. And then there’s the fact that I suck at the things required to fight the DMCA, which is mostly talking to people (half of the time politicians and lawyers). I’m far better at writing code.
But I still want to make a supporting statement to the people that do tackle that job. I think it’s just like people that come to you saying they like your app. They can’t write code themselves, but want to say “thank you, keep up the good work.” And you know that this is highly motivating.
I also don’t believe this to be a defeatist attitude. If I were a defeatist, I’d work for Adobe right now and not sitting in mom’s bassement trying to find someone willing to sponsor what I’m doing.
#10 by Kanenas on May 4th, 2007
Quote
The number posting symbolically, demonstrates the futility of trying to suppress the spread of information on internet, via sending S&C letters utilizing the DMCA law.
During the early years of the internet, it was easy for a government-corporation to suppress information because “information posting” required site building skills. So information was spread in a centralized way. There would be that much less web pages having this number 5–7 years ago.
Also do not forget that the internet prolification of this number has raised questions that would not have been raised before. Both, my father and brother asked me about this number, and by having to explain to them the nature of the number i had the chance to tell them about the DMCA and EUCD.
#11 by Calabacin on May 4th, 2007
Quote
I was about to write a big reply to this post, but I have noticed some very interesting replies that say almost everything I wanted to say.
If it wasn’t for all that people out there writing that number everywhere, we wouldn’t be here speaking of how bad and useless DRM’s are, or how useful open systems can be, etc.
Just like Karenas says, the mere fact of thousands of posts, news, etc. talking about this number brings the problem to people that didn’t know anything about all these problems (like his father and brother). People in my office came asking about this and there has been a long discussion about the problem.
All this ‘new’ people will have their own opinion now. They may agree with me, or may not, but now they are AWARE of the problem, they are aware that THERE IS a problem, and they can start thinking on what the solution could be. And this is, in my opinion, the magic of the Internet: If you want, you can find things to think about.
What I mean is that some of these new people might be the ones who write a new law, they might be the ones who create an alternative open system that everyone is happy with, they might be the ones who make big music & film companies understand that restriction is not the solution.
Spamming this number everywhere may not be a solution, it can even be childish, but I am convinced it’s not at all useless. For a start, it made you write this very interesting and informative post, didn’t it?
PS: I didn’t spam this number anywhere, but I did save the number on my computer and began gathering information and reading posts about this everywhere. Who knows? I might be one of those who help solve the problem
#12 by NotThisTime on May 4th, 2007
Quote
I worked in economic and political movements for years, and all the time got the same impression:
To be heard you need backup. You can write as much as you want to politicians and your congress man or whomever you vote (we have another system here) — but they will only listen to you if you make them feel that you are not alone. And for that, you need things done by masses. Like demonstrations. Or like boycotts. Or like thousands of peoples wearing a T-Shirt with “NO to CFC”. Or people labeling genetic modified food in super markets.
Of course you are totally right with the three things you outlined — but civil disobedience is another one. We need that as well. It is even dangerous to forget it or to let it away.
Sure, everyone only showing civil disobedience and not acting in the other was is not that helpful, but you have that problem all the time, and that’s not the point.
As one thing to remember: at a WTO meeting there was someone representing the civil/NGO groups talking to a “big business” guy (I think it was an Attac member and a Mercedes guy, but I do not remember exactly and don’t find that quote atm). And the business man mentioned that he cannot understand that the people demonstrating outside are so emotional about the topic and so drastic in their actions, while these two guys can just talk to each other in normal ways.
The answer was: We can only talk here because they demonstrate in such a way.
So, yes, let’s show them that the masses do not bow to the DRM system with its attached rights. Create awareness!
Then your congress man might start listening to you.
#13 by Jesse on May 4th, 2007
Quote
1. It’s about a cost/benefit analysis. Posting the number is cheap (free, really) and has the benefit of making the key totally ineffective. Do you actually believe that picketing the DVD CCA would have been *more effective* in demonstrating the toothlessness of DRM schemes than posting this number far and wide on the internet? If so I’d watch who you’re considering naive. The internet gives people a way of acting without much cost (potential legal threats aside) and with at least as much effect as more tried-ad-true means of protest.
2. Part of the exercise was also to show how blurry the line is between the number and derived artistic works. If I create a song which encorporates the number in, say, its tonal scheme, am I violating some law? Does that have “no artistic merit or value?” Who are you to say what does or doesn’t have “artistic merit or value,” anyhow?
#14 by Alexander Boström on May 4th, 2007
Quote
I did publish the number in my blog, in a posting arguing that it the mere existance of laws banning such publication is harmful to society. I’m hoping my friends and family who aren’t so tech and tech-politics savvy will read it and wonder how anyone thinks it would be possible to keep those numbers secret for very long. I consider that useful.
The DMCA and similar laws are unenforcable. (If they weren’t our contries would be called police states.) Such unenforcable laws are harmful and it’s important to expose them as such.
#15 by bustaa on May 4th, 2007
Quote
geezuz … u need a woman … (maybe a life too)
#16 by Eric on May 4th, 2007
Quote
Hehe, most of the replies here surprise me. Well, not really, but still..
I agree completely with you David in that it’s very lame to post a number on a blog just for the sake of it (there have been posts which used the number tastefully and for a good reason, but seriously, the big majority of posts were an embarrassment), and we people don’t like to be shown how lame we are, so there you have it.
Having said that, I think you did the right thing, standing by your position and writing about it. After all, you have the same right to tell the world your view on it as much as people have the right to write incredibly lame stuff on their blogs, and that number is just.… so, so lame…
#17 by John on May 4th, 2007
Quote
“Picketing is effective. Boycotts are effective. Political action is sometimes effective. Whining on the internet is not.”
Which is exactly what this is. Dave, it’s not your internet. We get to whine, you get to whine, that’s free speech.
“code: 09-F9-11–02-9D-74-E3-5B-D8-41–56-C5-63–56-88-C0”
Bong! You’ve got mail! Oh, is that a DMCA takedown notice?
#18 by PENIX on May 4th, 2007
Quote
It should never have gotten to the level it did. It’s not that special of a number. Very few people will ever actually do anything with it. I’m never going to use it. I’ll just download the DVD-R image.
#19 by Brett on May 4th, 2007
Quote
Your reasoning is ill-conceived.
Posting the number is EXACTLY the same as picketing. It’s a public display of solidarity in an effort to raise awareness of the issue and display the bargaining strength of the collective group.
Just because you don’t like the demonstration being in *your* face, doesn’t invalidate any of the reasons for doing it.
Perhaps you should take your own advice and do something productive. It would make you seem much less hypocritical for condemning others for “internet whining” when you’re just as guilty of doing the same.
#20 by HypoLuxa on May 5th, 2007
Quote
It’s MY Internet bitch.
#21 by Mike Hearn on May 6th, 2007
Quote
+1 to you. The whole “zomg DRM is so evil” thing is unbelievably pathetic, in my book. I’ve disassembled more than one copy protection scheme in my time but I’ve never cracked them, and I’ve never had any respect for people who do.
There is exactly one (1) solution to the “problem” of DRM, and that’s for people who don’t like it to produce their own non-protected content. Period. End of story.
It would be far, far better if the people criticising you here for pouring cold water on their little party went out and wrote some music, made a film, wrote a video game and then sold it unprotected. And didn’t whine when 90% of the people enjoying their work never paid them.
Instead we get these ridiculous anti-DRM “movements” and orgies of self congratulation when protection mechanisms are broken. It’s disgusting to watch, especially when it’s done all in the name of backups, of course.
#22 by Preed on May 13th, 2007
Quote
So… I’m coming late to the party and all, but… I thought I’d point out that I think the reason behind people posting the number all over the Internet is that it is, as you point out, a form of civil disobedience.
The whole point is to illustrate the flawed nature of the DMCA, and the fact that it was bad legislation when it was passed and it’s bad legislation now.
No, it’s not picketing in the streets, or ignoring HD-DVD/Blueray players until content producers get the point… and yes, you’re completely right that those steps would be more effective.
But if your goal is to point out that the basic tenants on which the DMCA is based represent bad legislation, then actively breaking the law by posting the number (and creating circumvention devices on purpose) isn’t, in my opinion, as pointless as you make it out to be.
You have to admit that content producers suing individuals on the basis of a 128-bit number is pretty absurd. I think the hubbub is more about pointing out that absurdity.