I would not assume that a money judgment could not be obtained from anyone who publishes the code. Thus I have been quite aggressive about removing it. We could have done more.
Fred
-----Original Message----- From: Andrew Lau [mailto:netsnipe@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2007 12:07 AM To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: IDG press enquiry regarding the HD-DVD controversy
Hi everyone,
Today I was approached by a journalist (who is a colleague of a friend of mine from Uni) at IDG regarding our position on the publication of the HD-DVD decryption key.
As far as I know:
- the [[WP:OFFICE]] has so far refused to intervene in the matter and
- the departure of Brad Patrick means we currently have no general counsel
- the Foundation has recieved no DMCA take down notices regarding the matter
For the last 24 hours, we've been censoring the HD-DVD key from articles, talk pages, user pages and signatures and relying on draconian measures such as full protection of [[HD-DVD]] and blocks with the justification that we were awaiting official guidance.
Now that the desperately needed legal advice is apparently not forthcoming, it may eventually appear to outsiders that we are paranoid of what the AACS/MPAA may do to us instead of only being cautious. I am starting to feel uncomfortable that many administrators such as myself may be acting unilaterally over the matter based upon our own personal (mis)interpretations of the DMCA instead of enforcing an official stance or community consensus.
So how exactly should we respond to the press regarding this?
Yours sincerely, Andrew Lau (Netsnipe)
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: mitchell_bingemann@idg.com.au mitchell_bingemann@idg.com.au Date: May 3, 2007 10:27 AM Subject: Re: Fwd: HD-DVD controversy To: netsnipe@gmail.com
Hi Andrew,
I'm a colleague of Liz's and was following the whole HD-DVD debacle. Just hoping for a Wikipedia update on the whole thing, where do you guys stand on it now? Cheeers,
Mitchell Bingemann Journalist IDG Online (02) 9902 2711
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/3/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
I would not assume that a money judgment could not be obtained from anyone who publishes the code. Thus I have been quite aggressive about removing it. We could have done more.
Fred
-----Original Message----- From: Andrew Lau [mailto:netsnipe@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2007 12:07 AM To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: IDG press enquiry regarding the HD-DVD controversy
Hi everyone,
Today I was approached by a journalist (who is a colleague of a friend of mine from Uni) at IDG regarding our position on the publication of the HD-DVD decryption key.
As far as I know:
- the [[WP:OFFICE]] has so far refused to intervene in the matter and
- the departure of Brad Patrick means we currently have no general counsel
- the Foundation has recieved no DMCA take down notices regarding the matter
For the last 24 hours, we've been censoring the HD-DVD key from articles, talk pages, user pages and signatures and relying on draconian measures such as full protection of [[HD-DVD]] and blocks with the justification that we were awaiting official guidance.
Now that the desperately needed legal advice is apparently not forthcoming, it may eventually appear to outsiders that we are paranoid of what the AACS/MPAA may do to us instead of only being cautious. I am starting to feel uncomfortable that many administrators such as myself may be acting unilaterally over the matter based upon our own personal (mis)interpretations of the DMCA instead of enforcing an official stance or community consensus.
So how exactly should we respond to the press regarding this?
Yours sincerely, Andrew Lau (Netsnipe)
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: mitchell_bingemann@idg.com.au mitchell_bingemann@idg.com.au Date: May 3, 2007 10:27 AM Subject: Re: Fwd: HD-DVD controversy To: netsnipe@gmail.com
Hi Andrew,
I'm a colleague of Liz's and was following the whole HD-DVD debacle. Just hoping for a Wikipedia update on the whole thing, where do you guys stand on it now? Cheeers,
Mitchell Bingemann Journalist IDG Online (02) 9902 2711
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred, why do you presume it could? In theory, maybe, but we're certainly not the richest target (Youtube/Google, anyone?), we're far from doing the least to stop it being posted gratuitously (Youtube again, not to mention Slashdot and hundreds of thousands of others -deliberately- publishing it), we're not revealing anything (it's already out there, it can no longer, in any reasonable way, be considered a trade secret), we're publishing it for educational purposes (rather than just for grins or in an undisguised flip-em-the-finger attempt), and we're a PR nightmare (You think suing dead grandmas and soldiers about to leave for Iraq for having some mp3's got some bad press? You ain't seen nothing yet...). Overall, even if they decided to go after -someone- (which would be petty and vindictive at this point anyway, and hopefully one could expect a judge to recognize that), we're pretty far down the list of "tempting targets". (We'd also make a pretty sympathetic defendant, and they don't like sympathetic defendants, especially when the case in question is something of a "test case").
Now, is that to say it -couldn't- happen? Of course not. But there might be a time to say "Well, look, this particular numeral does have an educational and cultural value. We have an interest in publishing it, because we intend to create an educational resource. If someone wants to fight over this, that just might be a fight worth having." It's not -impossible- that the AP would come after us for use of a fair-use photo either, but in that case, we've made a conscious decision that if a truly iconic photo or image cannot have an article on it without the image itself, we'll use it, and see if anyone challenges it. So why not do the same with the number? Put it into the relevant articles (only the -very- relevant ones, of course, not anywhere some spammer might conceivably be able to wedge it), if we get a C&D, take it down temporarily and talk to the EFF/ACLU.
There's something wrong, Fred, when an educational resource is scared to publish (or even mention in discussion besides oblique references to "that key" or "the number") a -numeral-. (And despite the fancy hex coding, I could easily convert that into decimal, and it would just look like any other number in the world. It really is just a number.) Now, you'll tell me that's not necessarily Wikipedia's battle, and I'll tell you you're right. But must we be pushed around so easily (and without anyone even having to do any pushing, just the hint they might!), when there is a good case for use of this numeral in some articles? We already have a DeCSS image on that article, no one's come after us yet.
On 5/3/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
There's something wrong, Fred, when an educational resource is scared to publish (or even mention in discussion besides oblique references to "that key" or "the number") a -numeral-.
That battle was lost when it became illegal to produce or publish any technology designed to circumvent copy protection.
Unlike some of the other subject specific free speech restrictions (copies of money, child porn, truly obscene materials per US defn, etc), this restriction is offensive to me and extremely silly given how easily and widespread people are republishing the info. However, that's the law.
I hope eventually to see the law here overturned. Until that day, organizations need to be sensitive to violations of it. WP gains nothing from taking up the fight here. It's not an encyclopedia function to distribute copy protection breaking software or keys.
On 04/05/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
I hope eventually to see the law here overturned. Until that day, organizations need to be sensitive to violations of it. WP gains nothing from taking up the fight here. It's not an encyclopedia function to distribute copy protection breaking software or keys.
Wired has declared "bugger that" and printed the number.
If they get a notice, we watch them fight.
If they don't get a notice, we have a Reliable Source.
- d.
On 5/3/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/05/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
I hope eventually to see the law here overturned. Until that day, organizations need to be sensitive to violations of it. WP gains nothing from taking up the fight here. It's not an encyclopedia function to distribute copy protection breaking software or keys.
Wired has declared "bugger that" and printed the number.
If they get a notice, we watch them fight.
If they don't get a notice, we have a Reliable Source.
Yeah. I wish them well. But in the meantime, we don't have to fight that particular aspect of the battle.
On 04/05/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/3/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Wired has declared "bugger that" and printed the number. If they get a notice, we watch them fight. If they don't get a notice, we have a Reliable Source.
Yeah. I wish them well. But in the meantime, we don't have to fight that particular aspect of the battle.
Precisely. Leave the number in the spam filter for a week and get out the popcorn!
- d.
On 5/4/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Fred, why do you presume it could? In theory, maybe, but we're certainly not the richest target (Youtube/Google, anyone?), we're far from doing the least to stop it being posted gratuitously (Youtube again, not to mention Slashdot and hundreds of thousands of others -deliberately- publishing it), we're not revealing anything (it's already out there, it can no longer, in any reasonable way, be considered a trade secret),
This has nothing to do with trade secret law.
we're publishing it for educational purposes (rather than just for grins or in an undisguised flip-em-the-finger attempt),
Strangely if you can figure out a way to make money out of the second two your legal case might be stronger than one involving educational use
and we're a PR nightmare (You think suing dead grandmas and soldiers about to leave for Iraq for having some mp3's got some bad press? You ain't seen nothing yet...).
"The website that messed up the Seigenthaler article and declared various living people dead now lends a helping hand to movie pirates..."
Interesting PR nightmare.
Overall, even if they decided to go after -someone- (which would be petty and vindictive at this point anyway, and hopefully one could expect a judge to recognize that), we're pretty far down the list of "tempting targets". (We'd also make a pretty sympathetic defendant, and they don't like sympathetic defendants, especially when the case in question is something of a "test case").
We are big. You go for the big targets
There's something wrong, Fred, when an educational resource is scared to publish (or even mention in discussion besides oblique references to "that key" or "the number") a -numeral-.
Um we delete numbers all the time. We delete child porn images from time to time. Those are just numbers when you come down to it.
But must we be pushed around so easily (and without anyone even having to do any pushing, just the hint they might!), when there is a good case for use of this numeral in some articles?
Yup. We stay legal. We create free stuff by bypassing copyright and other IP law completely.
And if you insist on poltical activism:
"The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly" (supposedly Abraham Lincoln).
On 5/4/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
We are big. You go for the big targets
Without wanting to comment on the particular case of "09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63 56 88 c0", the Wikimedia Foundation is not, by any means, a "big target". Financially speaking, we are tiny.
On 5/4/07, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/4/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
We are big. You go for the big targets
the Wikimedia Foundation is not, by any means, a "big target". Financially speaking, we are tiny.
Profile wise it is big. This has nothing to do with the amount of compensation the MPAA would win but with scareing people into following the law in future.
On 04/05/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Profile wise it is big. This has nothing to do with the amount of compensation the MPAA would win but with scareing people into following the law in future.
It would be crippling to our mission to roll over so easily.
- d.
On 5/4/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It would be crippling to our mission to roll over so easily.
Until we get real legal advice (such as when the foundation manages to employ one of those lawyery things) we have no choice. Getting into fights where we are on fairly soild legal ground is one thing. Getting into fights where we have no evidence that our legal ground is remotely solid is quite another.
Going by noises off it looks like the MPAA is going to fight. I would rather we report on that fight than be involved in it.
On 5/4/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/05/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Profile wise it is big. This has nothing to do with the amount of compensation the MPAA would win but with scareing people into following the law in future.
It would be crippling to our mission to roll over so easily.
This is assuming the mission of Wikipedia and WMF is to stand up against bad laws the community does not like. However, it is not.
As Geni said, Wikipedia is a big target because fo the top 10, biggest reference site, yada yada. In that sense, the community has been one of the more responsible folks out there. I'm not even sure the NY Times knows the signifiance of publishing the 16 bytes on their site.
FYI, the following is a good summary of the community consensus (at least the en: sysop irc-enabled consensus on the day of this issue), penned by some of the folks in this thread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Keyspam
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On 04/05/07, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/4/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It would be crippling to our mission to roll over so easily.
This is assuming the mission of Wikipedia and WMF is to stand up against bad laws the community does not like. However, it is not. FYI, the following is a good summary of the community consensus (at least the en: sysop irc-enabled consensus on the day of this issue), penned by some of the folks in this thread. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Keyspam
Yeah, including rewriting by me.
I've just done a rewrite for style to the article itself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_DVD_encryption_key_controversy#Other_website...
Hopefully it's almost readable now.
(see, I do so write articles, not just admin stuff)
- d.
On 5/4/07, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/4/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/05/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Profile wise it is big. This has nothing to do with the amount of compensation the MPAA would win but with scareing people into following the law in future.
It would be crippling to our mission to roll over so easily.
This is assuming the mission of Wikipedia and WMF is to stand up against bad laws the community does not like. However, it is not.
As Geni said, Wikipedia is a big target because fo the top 10, biggest reference site, yada yada. In that sense, the community has been one of the more responsible folks out there. I'm not even sure the NY Times knows the signifiance of publishing the 16 bytes on their site.
FYI, the following is a good summary of the community consensus (at least the en: sysop irc-enabled consensus on the day of this issue), penned by some of the folks in this thread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Keyspam
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
No, it is assuming that Wikipedia's mission is to be a reference work, otherwise known as an encyclopedia. The last message we want to send is "If you're big and bad enough, and you don't like what we say, make rumblings about a lawsuit. It'll be gone within the hour." The message we want to send is "We're a reference work. We publish numerical values all over the place. It's not a "circumvention tool", it is a -number-. Its decimal value is somewhere around 1.325E37.
That's it, that's all. Avogadro's number is around 6.022E23. What if this number also happened to be Avogadro's number? Would that now be an illegal number, that chemists and physicists fear to speak? If it's the number of atoms in a sample that a scientist comes up with while writing a paper, has that scientist written an "illegal paper"? What about the number of kilometers from here to a given point in space? This number could represent any or all of those things, and I guarantee you, somewhere, there's a sample with that many atoms in it, and a point in space that many kilometers away.
A number is not a "circumvention device". It is a numeric value. The hex code makes it look all exotic (if you're not a programmer, anyway), but it's -just a number-. God forbid they ever use really weak encryption, or we'll be prohibited from saying 2+2=4. More on that below.
On 04/05/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
No, it is assuming that Wikipedia's mission is to be a reference work, otherwise known as an encyclopedia. The last message we want to send is "If you're big and bad enough, and you don't like what we say, make rumblings about a lawsuit. It'll be gone within the hour." The message we want to send is "We're a reference work. We publish numerical values all over the place. It's not a "circumvention tool", it is a -number-. Its decimal value is somewhere around 1.325E37.
As a typical querulous wikien-l contributor, I must note that it is a string of bits that happens to form a number. Certainly in its notable form, it's a string of ASCII text.
Other than that, yes, precisely. Rolling over on this one is *ridiculous*.
Mind you, I still want to wait at least a week. The article's a bit better now, but needs more substance.
- d.
On 5/4/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/05/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
No, it is assuming that Wikipedia's mission is to be a reference work, otherwise known as an encyclopedia. The last message we want to send is "If you're big and bad enough, and you don't like what we say, make rumblings about a lawsuit. It'll be gone within the hour." The message we want to send is "We're a reference work. We publish numerical values all over the place. It's not a "circumvention tool", it is a -number-. Its decimal value is somewhere around 1.325E37.
As a typical querulous wikien-l contributor, I must note that it is a string of bits that happens to form a number. Certainly in its notable form, it's a string of ASCII text.
Other than that, yes, precisely. Rolling over on this one is *ridiculous*.
Mind you, I still want to wait at least a week. The article's a bit better now, but needs more substance.
I think David is right. Tell the spammers to fuck off, and take a little eventualistic approach - there's no hurry in writing the article. The article will still be there in 1 week, and by then the legal picture will be a lot clearer, and the spamactivists will have gone away (I hope). Then we can decide whether or not to put the number in - and personally I don't see a reason not to, except for the potential legal consequences (which I think are really minuscule, since so many reputable resources have republished the number - if we do get sued, we'll be in company which can afford to argue our case for us).
Having said all that, yeah, it's way too soon to decide, and for now, let's err on the side of caution and keep the number out. I anticipate that in a week's time, either a lot of other sites will have gotten DMCA takedown notices, or we'll be pretty confident we can publish the number.
Johnleemk
On 04/05/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
Having said all that, yeah, it's way too soon to decide, and for now, let's err on the side of caution and keep the number out. I anticipate that in a week's time, either a lot of other sites will have gotten DMCA takedown notices, or we'll be pretty confident we can publish the number.
Concur entirely, and I'd like to restate that we can - for the time being - have a perfectly good article without the string in it. We're not crippling ourselves in any way by keeping it in the blacklist *for the time being*.
(ah, I love the smell of burning immediatism in the morning...)
On 5/4/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
No, it is assuming that Wikipedia's mission is to be a reference work, otherwise known as an encyclopedia. The last message we want to send is "If you're big and bad enough, and you don't like what we say, make rumblings about a lawsuit. It'll be gone within the hour." The message we want to send is "We're a reference work. We publish numerical values all over the place. It's not a "circumvention tool", it is a -number-. Its decimal value is somewhere around 1.325E37.
It is however part of a technology, product, service, device or component that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological protection measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title
That's it, that's all. Avogadro's number is around 6.022E23. What if this number also happened to be Avogadro's number? Would that now be an illegal number, that chemists and physicists fear to speak?
No because it has a commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological protection measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title
If it's the number of atoms in a sample that a scientist comes up with while writing a paper, has that scientist written an "illegal paper"? What about the number of kilometers from here to a given point in space? This number could represent any or all of those things, and I guarantee you, somewhere, there's a sample with that many atoms in it, and a point in space that many kilometers away.
In the first case the scientist would be fired for lying in their paper (there is no way to count that number of atoms that exactly). In the second well we will worry about that when it happens.
A number is not a "circumvention device". It is a numeric value.
This number is part of a circumvention device. That is the only reason people are spreading it.
The hex code makes it look all exotic (if you're not a programmer, anyway), but it's -just a number-. God forbid they ever use really weak encryption, or we'll be prohibited from saying 2+2=4. More on that below.
Um actualy my plan was to make an encryption device useing "1" as the key but no matter.
In reality Sec. 1201 2(b) & Sec. 1201 2(c) largely prevent that kind of abuse.
On 5/4/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
It's not a "circumvention tool", it is a -number-. Its decimal value is somewhere around 1.325E37.
That's only your opinion. And given that you believe that a court wouldn't enforce a court order if enough people disobeyed it, your opinion on legal questions is clearly worth jack shit, to put it bluntly.
The message we want to send is "We're a reference work. We publish numerical values all over the place.
The message we want to send is that if you want to experiment in civil disobedience you can do so on your own website.
http://thoughtsfordeletion.blogspot.com/2007/05/wikipedia-is-not-thermopylae...