On 11/05/07, Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote:
So just publishing the number out of context is legal, although publishing it in the context of the HD-DVD encrytion affair is not? So following this argument, this post is illegal http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=233031&cid=18945719 and this one is legal? http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=233155&cid=18959753
Oh, it gets much better than that. The [[:en:American Bar Association]] just published this:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=8840
Precis: Digg may well be protected under CDA section 230, *because* the string of hex digits is probably not copyrightable (too short, and they've already claimed it as a mechanism, i.e. an interface, which is not copyrightable ... probably). CDA sec 230 is why people who really want to sue over a Wikipedia article will generally have to approach the actual contributor.
Of course, the article notes "it may still be risky."
Oh, they also note the AACS LA hasn't a hope, and the DMCA basically doesn't work.
Presently, [[:en:09f9]] is actually pretty stable as an article. There's one arbitration case been brought already over it, but it seems most of the article contributors are horrified disagreements got that far. And even those of us who really want the key to be quoted in the article are quite happy to wait for things to calm down.
- d.