Hello,
Casey Brown a écrit :
I find it especially upsetting that you would spam this number by means of the subject header. Please do not even give the excuse that otherwise people would not know what you were talking about (or would know what you were talking about by posting the number in its entirety). If you wanted people to better understand what you were talking about, you could have just added the article title that you linked to the header instead of the number.
Although it has already been stated, the number was added because it was spam. Nothing more needs to be said. However, the number may in fact stay there because it is an "illegal number" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number).
Illegal number? Do you have any legal argument? There is none on this page. At least quite a lot of people have understood that the rethoric from the majors is completely baseless.
Publishing a number is spamming? Publising a number would be illegal? This is a complete nonsense.
Wake up guys!
Yann
Casey Brown Cbrown1023
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Yann Forget Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 8:52 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: [Foundation-l] 09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
Hello,
I am quite surprised that this number has been added to the spam list. I don't understand how it is related to spam... This is more related to free speech. There are already several millions Internet web sites posting this number. Why not Wikimedia projects?
Is Wikimedia starting to bend in front of Hollywood majors?
Regards,
Yann
PS: For those who may not know what is this about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_DVD_encryption_key_controversy
2007/5/6, Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net:
Publishing a number is spamming? Publising a number would be illegal? This is a complete nonsense.
I will not take a position either way about legality, but publishing a number on multiple Wikipedia pages that have little if anything to do with the number is spamming, yes.
On 5/6/07, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2007/5/6, Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net:
Publishing a number is spamming? Publising a number would be illegal? This is a complete nonsense.
I will not take a position either way about legality, but publishing a number on multiple Wikipedia pages that have little if anything to do with the number is spamming, yes.
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
What about publishing the number in an article that has everything to do with it?
Hello,
So OK, various knowledgeable people said this number is illegal. Adding it to non related articles is not appropriate.
Other have made quite strange and disproportionate comparisons. Some talk about credit card fraud. I can't imagine what this serious crime has to do with publish a number which can't be used alone as it is. We don't get free DVDs with this key alone. Some talk about child pornography. Should I remember them that child pornography is injury done to a child. Where is the injury here? If anything, this is more injury to our freedom that anything else.
Anthony a écrit :
But that raises a question. Is it illegal for a Wikimedia dev to add the number into the spam blacklist, or for Wikimedia to store the number in the spam blacklist, or for a dev to send an email to another dev with the number in it, for the purpose of telling them to set up the spam blacklist?
How about the block log? There are users blocked that have the number in their username. Is the block log now illegal?
These are interesting questions. I think it shows how absurd is the ban on this number.
But I agree that it's silly to say it's OK to distribute the information simply because it can be expressed as a number.
That's exactly what I ask. A number can't patented. A number can't be copyrighted. A number is just a code. To get useful information, you need to know how to decode the information hidden in the number. So it seems to me that a number alone is not usefull information (except as a pure mathematical object) unless you know how to get the information out of it. So where is the limit?
Further more, a ban on a plain number is completely absurd as it can always be included in another number, or it can be broken up in a formula. So to ban a number, you have to ban all numbers and all formulas.
Is 09-f9-... + 1 illegal? Is x * y * ... + ... + z (= 09-f9-...) illegal?
I hope that people start to realise how the discussion stands on the head.
I think that we are making dangerous compromise with one of our basic principles: freedom, we are impairing our capability to write a free encyclopedia. I am afraid that if we can't stand up for this useless and obsolete key, we will make more serious compromise with our basic principles when we will face bigger challenges.
So we can't write this number in a news or a Wikipedia article about this affair. So do we change our projects because the law prevent us to do so? Ok, the objective of Wikipedia is not to change the law. But where is the limit?
Ultimately I would like to know what people think about the limit we have and we give to our freedom.
Todd Allen a écrit :
What about publishing the number in an article that has everything to do with it?
Nobody has answered this which seems to me the most interesting question of this thread.
Sorry for my broken English.
Regards,
Yann
Is this number so important in the human knowledge that it HAS TO be on wikipedia? I'm afraid no.
Yann, just remind that free means "under a free documentation license such as the Free Documentation License written by the Free Software Foundation Inc. at http://www.fsf.org " and not "do whatever you want".
This means we have to follow the law, whatever the law is, we have not to cross the line. Why Wikipedia would allow itself to cross this line? There's no reasons, this number is not that important to the project so it needs to be written. It's anecdotic.
I'm affraid Wikipedia is not the good place to defend our opinions, this key number is not encyclopedix, I don't really see why it should either be on Wikipedia or have its own article.
About Wikinews, you can make a full, complete and interressant news about this without giving the number.
So imo the questions is "Can we do, if the subject is encyclopedix, an article about this kind of number without writing them?" yes. What informations does this number brings to the article? None.
On 09/05/07, Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote:
Hello,
So OK, various knowledgeable people said this number is illegal. Adding it to non related articles is not appropriate.
Other have made quite strange and disproportionate comparisons. Some talk about credit card fraud. I can't imagine what this serious crime has to do with publish a number which can't be used alone as it is. We don't get free DVDs with this key alone. Some talk about child pornography. Should I remember them that child pornography is injury done to a child. Where is the injury here? If anything, this is more injury to our freedom that anything else.
Anthony a écrit :
But that raises a question. Is it illegal for a Wikimedia dev to add the number into the spam blacklist, or for Wikimedia to store the number in the spam blacklist, or for a dev to send an email to another dev with the number in it, for the purpose of telling them to set up the spam blacklist?
How about the block log? There are users blocked that have the number in their username. Is the block log now illegal?
These are interesting questions. I think it shows how absurd is the ban on this number.
But I agree that it's silly to say it's OK to distribute the information simply because it can be expressed as a number.
That's exactly what I ask. A number can't patented. A number can't be copyrighted. A number is just a code. To get useful information, you need to know how to decode the information hidden in the number. So it seems to me that a number alone is not usefull information (except as a pure mathematical object) unless you know how to get the information out of it. So where is the limit?
Further more, a ban on a plain number is completely absurd as it can always be included in another number, or it can be broken up in a formula. So to ban a number, you have to ban all numbers and all formulas.
Is 09-f9-... + 1 illegal? Is x * y * ... + ... + z (= 09-f9-...) illegal?
I hope that people start to realise how the discussion stands on the head.
I think that we are making dangerous compromise with one of our basic principles: freedom, we are impairing our capability to write a free encyclopedia. I am afraid that if we can't stand up for this useless and obsolete key, we will make more serious compromise with our basic principles when we will face bigger challenges.
So we can't write this number in a news or a Wikipedia article about this affair. So do we change our projects because the law prevent us to do so? Ok, the objective of Wikipedia is not to change the law. But where is the limit?
Ultimately I would like to know what people think about the limit we have and we give to our freedom.
Todd Allen a écrit :
What about publishing the number in an article that has everything to do with it?
Nobody has answered this which seems to me the most interesting question of this thread.
Sorry for my broken English.
Regards,
Yann
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopédie libre http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 5/8/07, Christophe Henner christophe.henner@gmail.com wrote:
Is this number so important in the human knowledge that it HAS TO be on wikipedia? I'm afraid no.
Yann, just remind that free means "under a free documentation license such as the Free Documentation License written by the Free Software Foundation Inc. at http://www.fsf.org " and not "do whatever you want".
This means we have to follow the law, whatever the law is, we have not to cross the line. Why Wikipedia would allow itself to cross this line? There's no reasons, this number is not that important to the project so it needs to be written. It's anecdotic.
I'm affraid Wikipedia is not the good place to defend our opinions, this key number is not encyclopedix, I don't really see why it should either be on Wikipedia or have its own article.
About Wikinews, you can make a full, complete and interressant news about this without giving the number.
So imo the questions is "Can we do, if the subject is encyclopedix, an article about this kind of number without writing them?" yes. What informations does this number brings to the article? None.
On 09/05/07, Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote:
Hello,
So OK, various knowledgeable people said this number is illegal. Adding it to non related articles is not appropriate.
Other have made quite strange and disproportionate comparisons. Some talk about credit card fraud. I can't imagine what this serious crime has to do with publish a number which can't be used alone as it is. We don't get free DVDs with this key alone. Some talk about child pornography. Should I remember them that child pornography is injury done to a child. Where is the injury here? If anything, this is more injury to our freedom that anything else.
Anthony a écrit :
But that raises a question. Is it illegal for a Wikimedia dev to add the number into the spam blacklist, or for Wikimedia to store the number in the spam blacklist, or for a dev to send an email to another dev with the number in it, for the purpose of telling them to set up the spam blacklist?
How about the block log? There are users blocked that have the number in their username. Is the block log now illegal?
These are interesting questions. I think it shows how absurd is the ban on this number.
But I agree that it's silly to say it's OK to distribute the information simply because it can be expressed as a number.
That's exactly what I ask. A number can't patented. A number can't be copyrighted. A number is just a code. To get useful information, you need to know how to decode the information hidden in the number. So it seems to me that a number alone is not usefull information (except as a pure mathematical object) unless you know how to get the information out of it. So where is the limit?
Further more, a ban on a plain number is completely absurd as it can always be included in another number, or it can be broken up in a formula. So to ban a number, you have to ban all numbers and all formulas.
Is 09-f9-... + 1 illegal? Is x * y * ... + ... + z (= 09-f9-...) illegal?
I hope that people start to realise how the discussion stands on the head.
I think that we are making dangerous compromise with one of our basic principles: freedom, we are impairing our capability to write a free encyclopedia. I am afraid that if we can't stand up for this useless and obsolete key, we will make more serious compromise with our basic principles when we will face bigger challenges.
So we can't write this number in a news or a Wikipedia article about this affair. So do we change our projects because the law prevent us to do so? Ok, the objective of Wikipedia is not to change the law. But where is the limit?
Ultimately I would like to know what people think about the limit we have and we give to our freedom.
Todd Allen a écrit :
What about publishing the number in an article that has everything to do with it?
Nobody has answered this which seems to me the most interesting question of this thread.
Sorry for my broken English.
Regards,
Yann
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopédie libre http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- schiste _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I must disagree. The number itself brings -specificity-. We don't say the speed of light is "really really fast", we provide a numerical value. We don't say the sun is "very far away from the Earth", we provide a numerical value. We don't say a mole is "a whole lot of particles", we say what Avogadro's number actually is. In keeping with that, we don't say that the HD-DVD flap was over "a hexadecimal number", -we specify what that number is-.
Heuu I don't think speed of light has the same interest as a key ;)
Ok let's make it easy, what brings this number to the article?
On 09/05/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/8/07, Christophe Henner christophe.henner@gmail.com wrote:
Is this number so important in the human knowledge that it HAS TO be on wikipedia? I'm afraid no.
Yann, just remind that free means "under a free documentation license such as the Free Documentation License written by the Free Software Foundation Inc. at http://www.fsf.org " and not "do whatever you want".
This means we have to follow the law, whatever the law is, we have not to cross the line. Why Wikipedia would allow itself to cross this line? There's no reasons, this number is not that important to the project so it needs to be written. It's anecdotic.
I'm affraid Wikipedia is not the good place to defend our opinions, this key number is not encyclopedix, I don't really see why it should either be on Wikipedia or have its own article.
About Wikinews, you can make a full, complete and interressant news about this without giving the number.
So imo the questions is "Can we do, if the subject is encyclopedix, an article about this kind of number without writing them?" yes. What informations does this number brings to the article? None.
On 09/05/07, Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote:
Hello,
So OK, various knowledgeable people said this number is illegal. Adding it to non related articles is not appropriate.
Other have made quite strange and disproportionate comparisons. Some talk about credit card fraud. I can't imagine what this serious crime has to do with publish a number which can't be used alone as it is. We don't get free DVDs with this key alone. Some talk about child pornography. Should I remember them that child pornography is injury done to a child. Where is the injury here? If anything, this is more injury to our freedom that anything else.
Anthony a écrit :
But that raises a question. Is it illegal for a Wikimedia dev to add the number into the spam blacklist, or for Wikimedia to store the number in the spam blacklist, or for a dev to send an email to another dev with the number in it, for the purpose of telling them to set up the spam blacklist?
How about the block log? There are users blocked that have the number in their username. Is the block log now illegal?
These are interesting questions. I think it shows how absurd is the ban on this number.
But I agree that it's silly to say it's OK to distribute the information simply because it can be expressed as a number.
That's exactly what I ask. A number can't patented. A number can't be copyrighted. A number is just a code. To get useful information, you need to know how to decode the information hidden in the number. So it seems to me that a number alone is not usefull information (except as a pure mathematical object) unless you know how to get the information out of it. So where is the limit?
Further more, a ban on a plain number is completely absurd as it can always be included in another number, or it can be broken up in a formula. So to ban a number, you have to ban all numbers and all formulas.
Is 09-f9-... + 1 illegal? Is x * y * ... + ... + z (= 09-f9-...) illegal?
I hope that people start to realise how the discussion stands on the head.
I think that we are making dangerous compromise with one of our basic principles: freedom, we are impairing our capability to write a free encyclopedia. I am afraid that if we can't stand up for this useless and obsolete key, we will make more serious compromise with our basic principles when we will face bigger challenges.
So we can't write this number in a news or a Wikipedia article about this affair. So do we change our projects because the law prevent us to do so? Ok, the objective of Wikipedia is not to change the law. But where is the limit?
Ultimately I would like to know what people think about the limit we have and we give to our freedom.
Todd Allen a écrit :
What about publishing the number in an article that has everything to do with it?
Nobody has answered this which seems to me the most interesting question of this thread.
Sorry for my broken English.
Regards,
Yann
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopédie libre http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- schiste _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I must disagree. The number itself brings -specificity-. We don't say the speed of light is "really really fast", we provide a numerical value. We don't say the sun is "very far away from the Earth", we provide a numerical value. We don't say a mole is "a whole lot of particles", we say what Avogadro's number actually is. In keeping with that, we don't say that the HD-DVD flap was over "a hexadecimal number", -we specify what that number is-.
-- Freedom is the right to know that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
following a discussion with phe on IRC, I don't see the interest of giving this very number BUT if there's one, why not kivinf a wrong key and saying something like "The illegal number was an hexadecimal key looking like 04 e6...".
Wouldn't it be ok ?
On 09/05/07, Christophe Henner christophe.henner@gmail.com wrote:
Heuu I don't think speed of light has the same interest as a key ;)
Ok let's make it easy, what brings this number to the article?
On 09/05/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/8/07, Christophe Henner christophe.henner@gmail.com wrote:
Is this number so important in the human knowledge that it HAS TO be on wikipedia? I'm afraid no.
Yann, just remind that free means "under a free documentation license such as the Free Documentation License written by the Free Software Foundation Inc. at http://www.fsf.org " and not "do whatever you want".
This means we have to follow the law, whatever the law is, we have not to cross the line. Why Wikipedia would allow itself to cross this line? There's no reasons, this number is not that important to the project so it needs to be written. It's anecdotic.
I'm affraid Wikipedia is not the good place to defend our opinions, this key number is not encyclopedix, I don't really see why it should either be on Wikipedia or have its own article.
About Wikinews, you can make a full, complete and interressant news about this without giving the number.
So imo the questions is "Can we do, if the subject is encyclopedix, an article about this kind of number without writing them?" yes. What informations does this number brings to the article? None.
On 09/05/07, Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote:
Hello,
So OK, various knowledgeable people said this number is illegal. Adding it to non related articles is not appropriate.
Other have made quite strange and disproportionate comparisons. Some talk about credit card fraud. I can't imagine what this serious crime has to do with publish a number which can't be used alone as it is. We don't get free DVDs with this key alone. Some talk about child pornography. Should I remember them that child pornography is injury done to a child. Where is the injury here? If anything, this is more injury to our freedom that anything else.
Anthony a écrit :
But that raises a question. Is it illegal for a Wikimedia dev to add the number into the spam blacklist, or for Wikimedia to store the number in the spam blacklist, or for a dev to send an email to another dev with the number in it, for the purpose of telling them to set up the spam blacklist?
How about the block log? There are users blocked that have the number in their username. Is the block log now illegal?
These are interesting questions. I think it shows how absurd is the ban on this number.
But I agree that it's silly to say it's OK to distribute the information simply because it can be expressed as a number.
That's exactly what I ask. A number can't patented. A number can't be copyrighted. A number is just a code. To get useful information, you need to know how to decode the information hidden in the number. So it seems to me that a number alone is not usefull information (except as a pure mathematical object) unless you know how to get the information out of it. So where is the limit?
Further more, a ban on a plain number is completely absurd as it can always be included in another number, or it can be broken up in a formula. So to ban a number, you have to ban all numbers and all formulas.
Is 09-f9-... + 1 illegal? Is x * y * ... + ... + z (= 09-f9-...) illegal?
I hope that people start to realise how the discussion stands on the head.
I think that we are making dangerous compromise with one of our basic principles: freedom, we are impairing our capability to write a free encyclopedia. I am afraid that if we can't stand up for this useless and obsolete key, we will make more serious compromise with our basic principles when we will face bigger challenges.
So we can't write this number in a news or a Wikipedia article about this affair. So do we change our projects because the law prevent us to do so? Ok, the objective of Wikipedia is not to change the law. But where is the limit?
Ultimately I would like to know what people think about the limit we have and we give to our freedom.
Todd Allen a écrit :
What about publishing the number in an article that has everything to do with it?
Nobody has answered this which seems to me the most interesting question of this thread.
Sorry for my broken English.
Regards,
Yann
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopédie libre http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- schiste _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I must disagree. The number itself brings -specificity-. We don't say the speed of light is "really really fast", we provide a numerical value. We don't say the sun is "very far away from the Earth", we provide a numerical value. We don't say a mole is "a whole lot of particles", we say what Avogadro's number actually is. In keeping with that, we don't say that the HD-DVD flap was over "a hexadecimal number", -we specify what that number is-.
-- Freedom is the right to know that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- schiste
On 5/8/07, Christophe Henner christophe.henner@gmail.com wrote:
following a discussion with phe on IRC, I don't see the interest of giving this very number BUT if there's one, why not kivinf a wrong key and saying something like "The illegal number was an hexadecimal key looking like 04 e6...".
Wouldn't it be ok ?
On 09/05/07, Christophe Henner christophe.henner@gmail.com wrote:
Heuu I don't think speed of light has the same interest as a key ;)
Ok let's make it easy, what brings this number to the article?
On 09/05/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/8/07, Christophe Henner christophe.henner@gmail.com wrote:
Is this number so important in the human knowledge that it HAS TO be on wikipedia? I'm afraid no.
Yann, just remind that free means "under a free documentation license such as the Free Documentation License written by the Free Software Foundation Inc. at http://www.fsf.org " and not "do whatever you want".
This means we have to follow the law, whatever the law is, we have not to cross the line. Why Wikipedia would allow itself to cross this line? There's no reasons, this number is not that important to the project so it needs to be written. It's anecdotic.
I'm affraid Wikipedia is not the good place to defend our opinions, this key number is not encyclopedix, I don't really see why it should either be on Wikipedia or have its own article.
About Wikinews, you can make a full, complete and interressant news about this without giving the number.
So imo the questions is "Can we do, if the subject is encyclopedix, an article about this kind of number without writing them?" yes. What informations does this number brings to the article? None.
On 09/05/07, Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote:
Hello,
So OK, various knowledgeable people said this number is illegal. Adding it to non related articles is not appropriate.
Other have made quite strange and disproportionate comparisons. Some talk about credit card fraud. I can't imagine what this serious crime has to do with publish a number which can't be used alone as it is. We don't get free DVDs with this key alone. Some talk about child pornography. Should I remember them that child pornography is injury done to a child. Where is the injury here? If anything, this is more injury to our freedom that anything else.
Anthony a écrit :
But that raises a question. Is it illegal for a Wikimedia dev to add the number into the spam blacklist, or for Wikimedia to store the number in the spam blacklist, or for a dev to send an email to another dev with the number in it, for the purpose of telling them to set up the spam blacklist?
How about the block log? There are users blocked that have the number in their username. Is the block log now illegal?
These are interesting questions. I think it shows how absurd is the ban on this number.
But I agree that it's silly to say it's OK to distribute the information simply because it can be expressed as a number.
That's exactly what I ask. A number can't patented. A number can't be copyrighted. A number is just a code. To get useful information, you need to know how to decode the information hidden in the number. So it seems to me that a number alone is not usefull information (except as a pure mathematical object) unless you know how to get the information out of it. So where is the limit?
Further more, a ban on a plain number is completely absurd as it can always be included in another number, or it can be broken up in a formula. So to ban a number, you have to ban all numbers and all formulas.
Is 09-f9-... + 1 illegal? Is x * y * ... + ... + z (= 09-f9-...) illegal?
I hope that people start to realise how the discussion stands on the head.
I think that we are making dangerous compromise with one of our basic principles: freedom, we are impairing our capability to write a free encyclopedia. I am afraid that if we can't stand up for this useless and obsolete key, we will make more serious compromise with our basic principles when we will face bigger challenges.
So we can't write this number in a news or a Wikipedia article about this affair. So do we change our projects because the law prevent us to do so? Ok, the objective of Wikipedia is not to change the law. But where is the limit?
Ultimately I would like to know what people think about the limit we have and we give to our freedom.
Todd Allen a écrit :
What about publishing the number in an article that has everything to do with it?
Nobody has answered this which seems to me the most interesting question of this thread.
Sorry for my broken English.
Regards,
Yann
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopédie libre http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- schiste _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I must disagree. The number itself brings -specificity-. We don't say the speed of light is "really really fast", we provide a numerical value. We don't say the sun is "very far away from the Earth", we provide a numerical value. We don't say a mole is "a whole lot of particles", we say what Avogadro's number actually is. In keeping with that, we don't say that the HD-DVD flap was over "a hexadecimal number", -we specify what that number is-.
-- Freedom is the right to know that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- schiste
-- schiste _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Why would we deliberately give false information? It's pretty obvious AACS has already let this one go, otherwise there would've been a flurry of C&D's by now. We're running from a phantom.
On 5/8/07, Christophe Henner christophe.henner@gmail.com wrote:
Heuu I don't think speed of light has the same interest as a key ;)
Ok let's make it easy, what brings this number to the article?
On 09/05/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/8/07, Christophe Henner christophe.henner@gmail.com wrote:
Is this number so important in the human knowledge that it HAS TO be on wikipedia? I'm afraid no.
Yann, just remind that free means "under a free documentation license such as the Free Documentation License written by the Free Software Foundation Inc. at http://www.fsf.org " and not "do whatever you want".
This means we have to follow the law, whatever the law is, we have not to cross the line. Why Wikipedia would allow itself to cross this line? There's no reasons, this number is not that important to the project so it needs to be written. It's anecdotic.
I'm affraid Wikipedia is not the good place to defend our opinions, this key number is not encyclopedix, I don't really see why it should either be on Wikipedia or have its own article.
About Wikinews, you can make a full, complete and interressant news about this without giving the number.
So imo the questions is "Can we do, if the subject is encyclopedix, an article about this kind of number without writing them?" yes. What informations does this number brings to the article? None.
On 09/05/07, Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote:
Hello,
So OK, various knowledgeable people said this number is illegal. Adding it to non related articles is not appropriate.
Other have made quite strange and disproportionate comparisons. Some talk about credit card fraud. I can't imagine what this serious crime has to do with publish a number which can't be used alone as it is. We don't get free DVDs with this key alone. Some talk about child pornography. Should I remember them that child pornography is injury done to a child. Where is the injury here? If anything, this is more injury to our freedom that anything else.
Anthony a écrit :
But that raises a question. Is it illegal for a Wikimedia dev to add the number into the spam blacklist, or for Wikimedia to store the number in the spam blacklist, or for a dev to send an email to another dev with the number in it, for the purpose of telling them to set up the spam blacklist?
How about the block log? There are users blocked that have the number in their username. Is the block log now illegal?
These are interesting questions. I think it shows how absurd is the ban on this number.
But I agree that it's silly to say it's OK to distribute the information simply because it can be expressed as a number.
That's exactly what I ask. A number can't patented. A number can't be copyrighted. A number is just a code. To get useful information, you need to know how to decode the information hidden in the number. So it seems to me that a number alone is not usefull information (except as a pure mathematical object) unless you know how to get the information out of it. So where is the limit?
Further more, a ban on a plain number is completely absurd as it can always be included in another number, or it can be broken up in a formula. So to ban a number, you have to ban all numbers and all formulas.
Is 09-f9-... + 1 illegal? Is x * y * ... + ... + z (= 09-f9-...) illegal?
I hope that people start to realise how the discussion stands on the head.
I think that we are making dangerous compromise with one of our basic principles: freedom, we are impairing our capability to write a free encyclopedia. I am afraid that if we can't stand up for this useless and obsolete key, we will make more serious compromise with our basic principles when we will face bigger challenges.
So we can't write this number in a news or a Wikipedia article about this affair. So do we change our projects because the law prevent us to do so? Ok, the objective of Wikipedia is not to change the law. But where is the limit?
Ultimately I would like to know what people think about the limit we have and we give to our freedom.
Todd Allen a écrit :
What about publishing the number in an article that has everything to do with it?
Nobody has answered this which seems to me the most interesting question of this thread.
Sorry for my broken English.
Regards,
Yann
http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopédie libre http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- schiste _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I must disagree. The number itself brings -specificity-. We don't say the speed of light is "really really fast", we provide a numerical value. We don't say the sun is "very far away from the Earth", we provide a numerical value. We don't say a mole is "a whole lot of particles", we say what Avogadro's number actually is. In keeping with that, we don't say that the HD-DVD flap was over "a hexadecimal number", -we specify what that number is-.
-- Freedom is the right to know that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- schiste _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
The fact that the number itself is a big part of the issue here (as evidenced by this conversation, after all?) So, why should we -not- print it? It's evident AACS doesn't intend to cause legal trouble, they'd make themselves a laughingstock. It's certainly not in evidence, given that, that a simple numerical value even -would- be enough to trigger the DMCA. So what do you mean, "what brings it to the article"? It's the centerpiece of the article! We don't write a bio about a person without saying -who they are-, and instead dancing around it and describing "Well, there was this one human, male, 6'2", usually wore glasses...". We name names. And in this case, the "star of the show", so to speak, has a name, and it begins with 09 F9.
On 5/9/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
The fact that the number itself is a big part of the issue here (as evidenced by this conversation, after all?) So, why should we -not- print it? It's evident AACS doesn't intend to cause legal trouble, they'd make themselves a laughingstock.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6623331.stm
We have no frigging idea which way the MPAA is going to jump. While personaly I might find a situation where they end up owning digg.com extreamly funny I don't think that would make them a laughing stock.
On 09/05/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/9/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
The fact that the number itself is a big part of the issue here (as evidenced by this conversation, after all?) So, why should we -not- print it? It's evident AACS doesn't intend to cause legal trouble, they'd make themselves a laughingstock.
You do realise the BBC broadcast the number on News 24, and I think on BBC America ...
And, of course, it's still on the Current TV site. I wonder if Al Gore is quaking in fear.
We have no frigging idea which way the MPAA is going to jump. While personaly I might find a situation where they end up owning digg.com extreamly funny I don't think that would make them a laughing stock.
I refer the honorable gentleman once more to the case where Felten said "come on, let's take it to court" and the RIAA broke the sound barrier backing off.
- d.
On 5/9/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
You do realise the BBC broadcast the number on News 24, and I think on BBC America ...
So? If the BBC can't dodge US jurisdiction their lawyers are incompetent
And, of course, it's still on the Current TV site. I wonder if Al Gore is quaking in fear.
Eh fear of not being sued perhaps given from what I last heard they really really need the publicity and can probably get their hands on enough cash to afford to lose.
I refer the honorable gentleman once more to the case where Felten said "come on, let's take it to court" and the RIAA broke the sound barrier backing off.
Not a directly relivant case. Note the lack of comment from the EFF.
On 5/9/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/9/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
You do realise the BBC broadcast the number on News 24, and I think on BBC America ...
So? If the BBC can't dodge US jurisdiction their lawyers are incompetent
And, of course, it's still on the Current TV site. I wonder if Al Gore is quaking in fear.
Eh fear of not being sued perhaps given from what I last heard they really really need the publicity and can probably get their hands on enough cash to afford to lose.
I refer the honorable gentleman once more to the case where Felten said "come on, let's take it to court" and the RIAA broke the sound barrier backing off.
Not a directly relivant case. Note the lack of comment from the EFF.
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Geni, you're kinda grasping at straws here. If they wanted to "own" anyone, they'd be in the process of trying right now. They can't put this genie back in the bottle anyway, they're not going to fight a court case that -they might lose- when it'll do no good anyway. I'm sure there are plenty of sites outside the US happily hosting the key, and they'll get nothing but laughed at sending C&D's to them.
On 5/9/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Geni, you're kinda grasping at straws here. If they wanted to "own" anyone, they'd be in the process of trying right now.
How do you know they are not?
They can't put this genie back in the bottle anyway,
They key doesn't work on stuff produced after april 23rd.
they're not going to fight a court case that -they might lose- when it'll do no good anyway.
It may prevent the same thing happening in future.
I'm sure there are plenty of sites outside the US happily hosting the key, and they'll get nothing but laughed at sending C&D's to them.
Most major sites are hosted in the US however.
geni wrote:
On 5/9/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
The fact that the number itself is a big part of the issue here (as evidenced by this conversation, after all?) So, why should we -not- print it? It's evident AACS doesn't intend to cause legal trouble, they'd make themselves a laughingstock.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6623331.stm
We have no frigging idea which way the MPAA is going to jump.
Putting a precipice in front of them could help them in that decision. :-)
Ec
On 09/05/07, Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote:
That's exactly what I ask. A number can't patented. A number can't be copyrighted. A number is just a code. To get useful information, you need to know how to decode the information hidden in the number. So it seems to me that a number alone is not usefull information (except as a pure mathematical object) unless you know how to get the information out of it. So where is the limit?
(...)
Is 09-f9-... + 1 illegal? Is x * y * ... + ... + z (= 09-f9-...) illegal?
I hope that people start to realise how the discussion stands on the head.
I am afraid there is a fundamental misconception here; law does not make sense in this way. Law, confusing as it may seem to those of us reared in technical backgrounds, is illogical and fuzzy and vague; it is designed to cope with people, and emphasises very heavily the role of undefinable factors like "intent" and "purpose".
What the law here is prohibiting - let us assume for a minute that the law would stand in court, and that the interpretation of the key as forming such a tool is valid - is possession of a tool intended to bypass copy protection. This tool would happen to be a tool of pure information and perfectly expressible as a number, but a tool nonetheless.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005229.php
"No person shall ... offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that that ... a) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing ... b) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent ... or; c) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing..."
It isn't really in dispute that there are legitimate uses for any fourteen-digit hex string, including this one - there is a sufficiently huge amount of digital data created, processed, and transferred each minute that, even were it all to be random noise, you'd find that string embedded innumerable times as part of perfectly legitimate data. The legally dubious thing isn't the integer as a concept; it's the "aspect" of that integer that is a tool.
But once you add context - by adding the words "the HD DVD encryption key" in front of it, for example, or for quoting it in a discussion such as this one - which shows you are aware it has that aspect, and that you are referencing it with regard to that aspect, *then* you get thumped by the statute...
... because you're knowingly providing something which was produced with the intent of circumvention. It doesn't *matter* to the law that it is conceptually identical to and indistinguishable from a random integer; you can't get out of it by arguing that you were only using it in its "innocent" aspect, because the number you got was obtained via the criminalised context and retains that "taint".
Sure, there are untainted uses. But any time you're doing it knowingly and in the context of the tainted use, it's tainted.
Does that make any sense? It's hard enough to explain to me, much less to anyone who has English as their second language...
http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/colour/2004061001.php was mentioned right at the beginning of this discussion, and may be very helpful in explaining it.
On 5/10/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/05/07, Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote:
That's exactly what I ask. A number can't patented. A number can't be copyrighted. A number is just a code. To get useful information, you need to know how to decode the information hidden in the number. So it seems to me that a number alone is not usefull information (except as a pure mathematical object) unless you know how to get the information out of it. So where is the limit?
(...)
Is 09-f9-... + 1 illegal? Is x * y * ... + ... + z (= 09-f9-...) illegal?
I hope that people start to realise how the discussion stands on the head.
I am afraid there is a fundamental misconception here; law does not make sense in this way. Law, confusing as it may seem to those of us reared in technical backgrounds, is illogical and fuzzy and vague; it is designed to cope with people, and emphasises very heavily the role of undefinable factors like "intent" and "purpose".
What the law here is prohibiting - let us assume for a minute that the law would stand in court, and that the interpretation of the key as forming such a tool is valid - is possession of a tool intended to bypass copy protection. This tool would happen to be a tool of pure information and perfectly expressible as a number, but a tool nonetheless.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005229.php
"No person shall ... offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that that ... a) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing ... b) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent ... or; c) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing..."
It isn't really in dispute that there are legitimate uses for any fourteen-digit hex string, including this one - there is a sufficiently huge amount of digital data created, processed, and transferred each minute that, even were it all to be random noise, you'd find that string embedded innumerable times as part of perfectly legitimate data. The legally dubious thing isn't the integer as a concept; it's the "aspect" of that integer that is a tool.
But once you add context - by adding the words "the HD DVD encryption key" in front of it, for example, or for quoting it in a discussion such as this one - which shows you are aware it has that aspect, and that you are referencing it with regard to that aspect, *then* you get thumped by the statute...
... because you're knowingly providing something which was produced with the intent of circumvention. It doesn't *matter* to the law that it is conceptually identical to and indistinguishable from a random integer; you can't get out of it by arguing that you were only using it in its "innocent" aspect, because the number you got was obtained via the criminalised context and retains that "taint".
Sure, there are untainted uses. But any time you're doing it knowingly and in the context of the tainted use, it's tainted.
Does that make any sense? It's hard enough to explain to me, much less to anyone who has English as their second language...
http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/colour/2004061001.php was mentioned right at the beginning of this discussion, and may be very helpful in explaining it.
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Then we're perfectly safe! That number in itself can't circumvent anything.
On 5/10/07, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
Then we're perfectly safe! That number in itself can't circumvent anything.
"component, or part thereof"
Come on you must have read the relivant section by now.
On 5/10/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/05/07, Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote:
That's exactly what I ask. A number can't patented. A number can't be copyrighted. A number is just a code. To get useful information, you need to know how to decode the information hidden in the number. So it seems to me that a number alone is not usefull information (except as a pure mathematical object) unless you know how to get the information out of it. So where is the limit?
(...)
Is 09-f9-... + 1 illegal? Is x * y * ... + ... + z (= 09-f9-...) illegal?
I hope that people start to realise how the discussion stands on the head.
I am afraid there is a fundamental misconception here; law does not make sense in this way. Law, confusing as it may seem to those of us reared in technical backgrounds, is illogical and fuzzy and vague; it is designed to cope with people, and emphasises very heavily the role of undefinable factors like "intent" and "purpose".
What the law here is prohibiting - let us assume for a minute that the law would stand in court, and that the interpretation of the key as forming such a tool is valid - is possession of a tool intended to bypass copy protection.
No. You are very very wrong. That is not what the law is prohibiting. It prohibits trafficking "in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof" that "is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a [copyrighted work]" OR "has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a [copyrighted work]" OR "is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a [copyrighted work]". It most certainly does not cover mere possession of a tool intended to bypass copy protection.
It isn't really in dispute that there are legitimate uses for any fourteen-digit hex string, including this one - there is a sufficiently huge amount of digital data created, processed, and transferred each minute that, even were it all to be random noise, you'd find that string embedded innumerable times as part of perfectly legitimate data.
The second part of that sentence is also very very incorrect. The chances of a random 128 bit string being the key is about one in 339,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (give or take a couple trillion...). A computer one million times faster than current computers could generate random data for 6 thousand, trillion years before coming up with the number by accident.
The legally dubious thing isn't the integer as a concept; it's the "aspect" of that integer that is a tool.
But once you add context - by adding the words "the HD DVD encryption key" in front of it, for example, or for quoting it in a discussion such as this one - which shows you are aware it has that aspect, and that you are referencing it with regard to that aspect, *then* you get thumped by the statute...
... because you're knowingly providing something which was produced with the intent of circumvention.
No you're not (IOW, you are once again very very very incorrect). You're knowingly providing something which was produced with the intent of encrypting and decrypting DVDs. You've actually stumbled upon what is probably the best argument so far that distribution of the HD DVD encryption key itself does not fall under the DMCA.
Anthony
Hello,
Thanks for this detailled explaination. This is quite informative.
Andrew Gray a écrit :
On 09/05/07, Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote:
That's exactly what I ask. A number can't patented. A number can't be copyrighted. A number is just a code. To get useful information, you need to know how to decode the information hidden in the number. So it seems to me that a number alone is not usefull information (except as a pure mathematical object) unless you know how to get the information out of it. So where is the limit?
(...)
Is 09-f9-... + 1 illegal? Is x * y * ... + ... + z (= 09-f9-...) illegal?
I hope that people start to realise how the discussion stands on the head.
I am afraid there is a fundamental misconception here; law does not make sense in this way. Law, confusing as it may seem to those of us reared in technical backgrounds, is illogical and fuzzy and vague; it is designed to cope with people, and emphasises very heavily the role of undefinable factors like "intent" and "purpose".
What the law here is prohibiting - let us assume for a minute that the law would stand in court, and that the interpretation of the key as forming such a tool is valid - is possession of a tool intended to bypass copy protection. This tool would happen to be a tool of pure information and perfectly expressible as a number, but a tool nonetheless.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005229.php
"No person shall ... offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that that ... a) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing ... b) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent ... or; c) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing..."
It isn't really in dispute that there are legitimate uses for any fourteen-digit hex string, including this one - there is a sufficiently huge amount of digital data created, processed, and transferred each minute that, even were it all to be random noise, you'd find that string embedded innumerable times as part of perfectly legitimate data. The legally dubious thing isn't the integer as a concept; it's the "aspect" of that integer that is a tool.
But once you add context - by adding the words "the HD DVD encryption key" in front of it, for example, or for quoting it in a discussion such as this one - which shows you are aware it has that aspect, and that you are referencing it with regard to that aspect, *then* you get thumped by the statute...
... because you're knowingly providing something which was produced with the intent of circumvention. It doesn't *matter* to the law that it is conceptually identical to and indistinguishable from a random integer; you can't get out of it by arguing that you were only using it in its "innocent" aspect, because the number you got was obtained via the criminalised context and retains that "taint".
Sure, there are untainted uses. But any time you're doing it knowingly and in the context of the tainted use, it's tainted.
Does that make any sense? It's hard enough to explain to me, much less to anyone who has English as their second language...
http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/colour/2004061001.php was mentioned right at the beginning of this discussion, and may be very helpful in explaining it.
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
Yann
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.
On 11/05/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, it gets much better than that. The [[:en:American Bar Association]] just published this:
Ghod, don't click on that previous link. (The shame ... I looked at WR.)
The link is:
http://www.abanet.org/journal/ereport/my11blog.html
- d.
What about a 20k hex number that represents a child porn JPEG? Publishing that number would be highly illegal. "Complete nonsense" indeed...
Ed.
Yann Forget wrote:
Illegal number? Do you have any legal argument? There is none on this page. At least quite a lot of people have understood that the rethoric from the majors is completely baseless.
Publishing a number is spamming? Publising a number would be illegal? This is a complete nonsense.
Wake up guys!
Yann
On 5/7/07, Ed Sanders ejsanders@gmail.com wrote:
What about a 20k hex number that represents a child porn JPEG? Publishing that number would be highly illegal. "Complete nonsense" indeed...
Ed.
Yann Forget wrote:
Illegal number? Do you have any legal argument? There is none on this page. At least quite a lot of people have understood that the rethoric from the majors is completely baseless.
Publishing a number is spamming? Publising a number would be illegal? This is a complete nonsense.
Wake up guys!
Yann
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
It depends. If you were publishing the image, formatted and set up as an image file, that would be illegal. If, instead, you were simply publishing a text file containing the numeric value making up that image, why should it be?
That's exactly why this whole thing is pretty slippery. Computers transmit and manipulate vast quantities of numerical values. There's no way to remove that capability from a computer and still have it work. Any given numeric value could represent any number of things, just as in the real world. What is "100"? My age? The number of pennies it takes to make up one dollar? The third octet of my IP in decimal form? The ASCII code for the letter "d"?
The answer to all of the above could certainly be "yes". Numeric values are -just numbers-. A credit card number, in and of itself, is just a number. Misusing that number, by for example making an unauthorized purchase on the card, is an action, and is and should be illegal. Knowing something is not a crime. Acting on it might be.
Todd Allen wrote:
On 5/7/07, Ed Sanders ejsanders@gmail.com wrote:
What about a 20k hex number that represents a child porn JPEG? Publishing that number would be highly illegal. "Complete nonsense" indeed...
Ed.
Yann Forget wrote:
Illegal number? Do you have any legal argument? There is none on this page. At least quite a lot of people have understood that the rethoric from the majors is completely baseless.
Publishing a number is spamming? Publising a number would be illegal? This is a complete nonsense.
Wake up guys!
Yann
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
It depends. If you were publishing the image, formatted and set up as an image file, that would be illegal. If, instead, you were simply publishing a text file containing the numeric value making up that image, why should it be?
Don't be ridiculous. Of course it would be illegal, and anyone found with such a file on their computer would certainly be put in jail, regardless of whether you changed the file extension, the encoding, or even tried to encrypt it.
That's exactly why this whole thing is pretty slippery. Computers transmit and manipulate vast quantities of numerical values. There's no way to remove that capability from a computer and still have it work. Any given numeric value could represent any number of things, just as in the real world. What is "100"? My age? The number of pennies it takes to make up one dollar? The third octet of my IP in decimal form? The ASCII code for the letter "d"?
Making the comparison is "100" is very naive. 100 is a very small number, and one you could chance upon in a number of circumstances. The probability of accidentally or coincidentally reproducing a 32 hex digit number is completely negligible, even over a dataset as large as the internet. There are about as many 32 byte strings (64 hex digits) as there are atoms in the universe.
The answer to all of the above could certainly be "yes". Numeric values are -just numbers-. A credit card number, in and of itself, is
Again a credit card number is long enough that it couldn't be "just a number". I don't think anyone arrested for stealing credit card databases has gotten off by claiming the were just collecting interesting numbers.
just a number. Misusing that number, by for example making an unauthorized purchase on the card, is an action, and is and should be illegal. Knowing something is not a crime. Acting on it might be.
But distributing the numbers is also a crime, regardless of whether you used them or not.
On 5/7/07, Ed Sanders ejsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Todd Allen wrote:
On 5/7/07, Ed Sanders ejsanders@gmail.com wrote:
What about a 20k hex number that represents a child porn JPEG? Publishing that number would be highly illegal. "Complete nonsense" indeed...
Ed.
Yann Forget wrote:
Illegal number? Do you have any legal argument? There is none on this page. At least quite a lot of people have understood that the rethoric from the majors is completely baseless.
Publishing a number is spamming? Publising a number would be illegal? This is a complete nonsense.
Wake up guys!
Yann
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
It depends. If you were publishing the image, formatted and set up as an image file, that would be illegal. If, instead, you were simply publishing a text file containing the numeric value making up that image, why should it be?
Don't be ridiculous. Of course it would be illegal, and anyone found with such a file on their computer would certainly be put in jail, regardless of whether you changed the file extension, the encoding, or even tried to encrypt it.
That's exactly why this whole thing is pretty slippery. Computers transmit and manipulate vast quantities of numerical values. There's no way to remove that capability from a computer and still have it work. Any given numeric value could represent any number of things, just as in the real world. What is "100"? My age? The number of pennies it takes to make up one dollar? The third octet of my IP in decimal form? The ASCII code for the letter "d"?
Making the comparison is "100" is very naive. 100 is a very small number, and one you could chance upon in a number of circumstances. The probability of accidentally or coincidentally reproducing a 32 hex digit number is completely negligible, even over a dataset as large as the internet. There are about as many 32 byte strings (64 hex digits) as there are atoms in the universe.
The answer to all of the above could certainly be "yes". Numeric values are -just numbers-. A credit card number, in and of itself, is
Again a credit card number is long enough that it couldn't be "just a number". I don't think anyone arrested for stealing credit card databases has gotten off by claiming the were just collecting interesting numbers.
just a number. Misusing that number, by for example making an unauthorized purchase on the card, is an action, and is and should be illegal. Knowing something is not a crime. Acting on it might be.
But distributing the numbers is also a crime, regardless of whether you used them or not.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
If you're correct there, then...wow, things are worse than I imagined. What if you did have a collection of 2000 credit card numbers, and never made an unlawful purchase on a single one? Who's been harmed? Likelihood of replication doesn't change the basic premise. That's getting into the realm of outlawing information and concepts rather than actions and deeds, and that's not a very good road to start walking down.
Todd Allen wrote: If you're correct there, then...wow, things are worse than I imagined. What if you did have a collection of 2000 credit card numbers, and never made an unlawful purchase on a single one? Who's been harmed? Likelihood of replication doesn't change the basic premise. That's getting into the realm of outlawing information and concepts rather than actions and deeds, and that's not a very good road to start walking down.
Well if you didn't have a good reason to be hoarding credit card numbers you could be convicted of conspiracy to commit credit card fraud. In the same way the only reason to distribute a number generated from porn would be to distribute the porn, and the only reason the distribute that exact DVD key is to circumvent a protection system (which is illegal in the US, I believe). This is about outlawing the distribution of certain information, which is very much a real crime in some circumstances.
Ed Sanders wrote:
Todd Allen wrote: If you're correct there, then...wow, things are worse than I imagined. What if you did have a collection of 2000 credit card numbers, and never made an unlawful purchase on a single one? Who's been harmed? Likelihood of replication doesn't change the basic premise. That's getting into the realm of outlawing information and concepts rather than actions and deeds, and that's not a very good road to start walking down.
Well if you didn't have a good reason to be hoarding credit card numbers you could be convicted of conspiracy to commit credit card fraud. In the same way the only reason to distribute a number generated from porn would be to distribute the porn, and the only reason the distribute that exact DVD key is to circumvent a protection system (which is illegal in the US, I believe). This is about outlawing the distribution of certain information, which is very much a real crime in some circumstances.
Ed,
how do I use this number ?
Sorry but I don't really get it. How this number crack protection system. Because i am looking at this number and my DVD is not still cracked?
On 5/7/07, Darko Bulatovic mail@itam.ws wrote:
how do I use this number ?
Sorry but I don't really get it. How this number crack protection system. Because i am looking at this number and my DVD is not still cracked?
I know you're playing dumb to make a point -
but the US law in question bars components of a contravening device, and the code given is definitely an important part of a HD-DVD decryption device, because without one of these you cannot decrypt the content. There are other components needed, but they are also available - the encryption scheme itself I believe is publicly known (deliberately so, so that it could be peer-reviewed).
This number has no known real purpose except for being a HD-DVD key. (Yes, I know that people are rushing around trying to find other purposes for it as an excuse for keeping it available, but that doesn't change things)
-Matt
Matthew Brown wrote:
I know you're playing dumb to make a point -
but the US law in question bars components of a contravening device, and the code given is definitely an important part of a HD-DVD decryption device, because without one of these you cannot decrypt the content. There are other components needed, but they are also available - the encryption scheme itself I believe is publicly known (deliberately so, so that it could be peer-reviewed).
This number has no known real purpose except for being a HD-DVD key. (Yes, I know that people are rushing around trying to find other purposes for it as an excuse for keeping it available, but that doesn't change things)
-Matt
Matt I am not playing dumb I really didnt (want to) know, but I am not unintelligent. You now did explain to me that I can use others components with this number to crack HD-DVD. So did you doing this violate law? Or will I violate law when I crack HD-DVD (which I don't have), Oh can people that don't have HD-DVD be prosecuted if they use this number in documents?
Is someone walking along the street with a stone in the hand, should police arrest him for possibility to brake window? And stone on the street don't have any real purpose than to break the window? Or should Police arrest them self for making up about stone and window, as that is criminal act?
My point is that sharing of number (stones, knifes,...) cant be violation of law. And reaction of people here is just good fact how some powerful group can influence with fear and affect people to give up their free speech right.
Darko Bulatovic wrote:
Matthew Brown wrote:
I know you're playing dumb to make a point -
but the US law in question bars components of a contravening device, and the code given is definitely an important part of a HD-DVD decryption device, because without one of these you cannot decrypt the content. There are other components needed, but they are also available - the encryption scheme itself I believe is publicly known (deliberately so, so that it could be peer-reviewed).
This number has no known real purpose except for being a HD-DVD key. (Yes, I know that people are rushing around trying to find other purposes for it as an excuse for keeping it available, but that doesn't change things)
-Matt
Matt I am not playing dumb I really didnt (want to) know, but I am not unintelligent. You now did explain to me that I can use others components with this number to crack HD-DVD. So did you doing this violate law? Or will I violate law when I crack HD-DVD (which I don't have), Oh can people that don't have HD-DVD be prosecuted if they use this number in documents?
Is someone walking along the street with a stone in the hand, should police arrest him for possibility to brake window? And stone on the street don't have any real purpose than to break the window? Or should Police arrest them self for making up about stone and window, as that is criminal act?
My point is that sharing of number (stones, knifes,...) cant be violation of law. And reaction of people here is just good fact how some powerful group can influence with fear and affect people to give up their free speech right.
It is indeed illegal in some places to carry, for instance, a gun. Or a knife that is "too large." Whether you use it or not. It's illegal to carry it. Period. Civilized people agree to certain limits to their own absolute freedom because they recognize that not everyone can be trusted with absolute freedom, and there is often no way to know ahead of time who can and who cannot be trusted.
So I disagree with your example, and I disagree with you point. There are certainly strings of numbers that are illegal to have and to share in some places -- a string of numbers that represents child pornography, for example.
You may argue that this particular set of numbers should not be illegal. But I don't think you can really argue that there are no sets of numbers that are illegal. There certainly are, and (in my opinion) should be.
-Rich
Rich Holton wrote:
It is indeed illegal in some places to carry, for instance, a gun. Or a knife that is "too large." Whether you use it or not. It's illegal to carry it. Period. Civilized people agree to certain limits to their own absolute freedom because they recognize that not everyone can be trusted with absolute freedom, and there is often no way to know ahead of time who can and who cannot be trusted.
So I disagree with your example, and I disagree with you point. There are certainly strings of numbers that are illegal to have and to share in some places -- a string of numbers that represents child pornography, for example.
You may argue that this particular set of numbers should not be illegal. But I don't think you can really argue that there are no sets of numbers that are illegal. There certainly are, and (in my opinion) should be.
-Rich
In the eyes full of fear no one can be trusted. And that is not civilized. Now is quite clear that those numbers are not illegal by the DMCA, but th this situation show how one group of people can take freedom from others just by suspecting that they will use it as illegal.
And that is not good. The law still protect people from this kind of people.
Darko Bulatovic wrote:
In the eyes full of fear no one can be trusted. And that is not civilized. Now is quite clear that those numbers are not illegal by the DMCA, but th this situation show how one group of people can take freedom from others just by suspecting that they will use it as illegal.
Ah. I didn't realize that you were an expert in US law. Please do make sure that everyone else understands that your expertise is the only expertise that matters in this case.
</sarcasm>
On 08/05/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Darko Bulatovic wrote:
In the eyes full of fear no one can be trusted. And that is not civilized. Now is quite clear that those numbers are not illegal by the DMCA, but th this situation show how one group of people can take freedom from others just by suspecting that they will use it as illegal.
Ah. I didn't realize that you were an expert in US law. Please do make sure that everyone else understands that your expertise is the only expertise that matters in this case.
</sarcasm>
When Ed Felten countersued the RIAA, asking a court to declare his work was *not* illegal, the RIAA backpedaled so fast as to break the land speed record for reverse circumnavigation by bicycle - they *really* didn't want that question asked. Quoting the number is extremely far from clearly illegal, and you don't have to be a US legal expert to know that. Your sarcastic ad hominem is not only ridiculous, but simply incorrect.
- d.
On 5/8/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
When Ed Felten countersued the RIAA, asking a court to declare his work was *not* illegal, the RIAA backpedaled so fast as to break the land speed record for reverse circumnavigation by bicycle - they *really* didn't want that question asked. Quoting the number is extremely far from clearly illegal...
The Felten case never reached any conclusion; the action was dismissed for lack of standing because RIAA indicated they had no intention to pursue him and there was no longer a live legal issue. It has no legal value (other than being a good example of the limits on judicial power).
It may have significance in a tactical sense, but please do not represent it as if it has legal significance.
On 09/05/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
It may have significance in a tactical sense, but please do not represent it as if it has legal significance.
Around this issue, it's *all* tactical significance. Or everyone posting the number would have received a takedown notice. As we have not.
- d.
I have a simple question. What's the harm in waiting a period of a month, in which we will not allow the addition of these numbers to articles. In a month we'll all be much wiser and will therefore be able to make a better informed decision. There's hardly any harm in an article of ours not having some number in it [related as it may be] for a month.
-Yonatan
On 5/9/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/05/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
It may have significance in a tactical sense, but please do not represent it as if it has legal significance.
Around this issue, it's *all* tactical significance. Or everyone posting the number would have received a takedown notice. As we have not.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 09/05/07, Yonatan Horan yonatanh@gmail.com wrote:
I have a simple question. What's the harm in waiting a period of a month, in which we will not allow the addition of these numbers to articles. In a month we'll all be much wiser and will therefore be able to make a better informed decision. There's hardly any harm in an article of ours not having some number in it [related as it may be] for a month.
Note it's still there on es:wp. (Hex pairs separated by colons, not spaces as in the widely-spammed version.) Not a peep from the AACS ...
I support it staying in the spam filter for a short but indeterminate time. But that's a purely project consideration - blocking the widely-spammed version is to our good. Our risk of serious legal consequence is zero. We haven't even had a take down notice.
- d.
Hello,
What does it matter whether or not we're likely to be sued? if it is illegal, it's not free content; users can't reuse it under the GFDL without violating the law. Get the law changed if you think it absurd, then we can distribute the key all we want.
Maybe I'm of a dying breed of idealogists, but aren't we here specifically to write *free* content? I didn't think that included anything we can host without getting sued into oblivion. Should I add copyrighted lyrics to Wikisource? They're cool, free speech, we're unlikely to be sued, et cetera— too bad about the lack of freedom, but hey, who cares? Apparently not the community of the Foundation dedicated to developing and maintaining free content.
Yours cordially, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
On 5/9/07, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
What does it matter whether or not we're likely to be sued? if it is illegal, it's not free content; users can't reuse it under the GFDL without violating the law. Get the law changed if you think it absurd, then we can distribute the key all we want.
It depends. If *no one* is likely to be sued, then it pretty much is free content.
Anthony
On 5/9/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 5/9/07, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
What does it matter whether or not we're likely to be sued? if it is illegal, it's not free content; users can't reuse it under the GFDL without violating the law. Get the law changed if you think it absurd, then we can distribute the key all we want.
It depends. If *no one* is likely to be sued, then it pretty much is free content.
Anthony
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
In addition to this (and aren't we big on reality-over-rules around here anyway?), there really isn't a clear case that it's illegal simply to publish the number. That's entirely the opposite of song lyrics, which are unequivocally copyrightable.
Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) wrote:
Hello,
What does it matter whether or not we're likely to be sued? if it is illegal, it's not free content; users can't reuse it under the GFDL without violating the law. Get the law changed if you think it absurd, then we can distribute the key all we want.
The law is not simply reading a bit of statute and believing that it is all black and white. It may seem clear in your interpretation of the law, but to someone else the opposite is equally clear. Getting sued is not just about being wrong and being penalized for it; it is just as much about establishing what the law means. One's policies about exactly what is accepted as legal are just as much policies about risk management. The more self-righteous one's comments are about doing the "right thing", the more likely it is that one's interpretation of the law is damaging to one's own interests. Risk management attempts to balance the costs of protecting oneself against the costs of failure and the probability of that failure. It's a kind of poker game.
Ec
Rich Holton wrote:
Darko Bulatovic wrote:
Ah. I didn't realize that you were an expert in US law. Please do make sure that everyone else understands that your expertise is the only expertise that matters in this case.
</sarcasm>
Sorry that I have challenge your expertise(ego), but sarcasm is good - when nothing else is there to say.
On 5/8/07, Darko Bulatovic mail@itam.ws wrote:
In the eyes full of fear no one can be trusted. And that is not civilized. Now is quite clear that those numbers are not illegal by the DMCA,
Certain uses of them appear to be. Although there is a lack of case law.
but th this situation show how one group of people can take freedom from others just by suspecting that they will use it as illegal.
Given that the number had zero interest to anyone until it was discovered to be a now defunct key that seems a reasonable suspicion.
On 5/7/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/7/07, Darko Bulatovic mail@itam.ws wrote:
how do I use this number ?
Sorry but I don't really get it. How this number crack protection system. Because i am looking at this number and my DVD is not still cracked?
I know you're playing dumb to make a point -
but the US law in question bars components of a contravening device, and the code given is definitely an important part of a HD-DVD decryption device, because without one of these you cannot decrypt the content. There are other components needed, but they are also available - the encryption scheme itself I believe is publicly known (deliberately so, so that it could be peer-reviewed).
This number has no known real purpose except for being a HD-DVD key. (Yes, I know that people are rushing around trying to find other purposes for it as an excuse for keeping it available, but that doesn't change things)
-Matt
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
A 1 or a 0 could be -part- of that "contravening device", just as a chunk of metal could conceivably be used to build an illegal automatic weapon. The number in itself is not any type of "contravening device", and on its own, is nothing but a very large number.
Whatever you think most people would use it for, whether you're right or not, it really is, in and of itself, just, a, number.
Hello,
Wikipedia is not a experiment in civil disobedience. Whether or not the law is absurd, it is nonetheless law. Feel free to convince your congressperson to get it struck down or militate elsewhere; don't make Wikimedia content illegal in the US and the European Union just because you disagree with the law.
Yours cordially, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
Yes. We are not discussing the philosophy behind this and why it should not be so. No matter what you discuss here, it will be a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA and will still be breaking the law.
Cbrown1023
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 5:31 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 09-f9-...
Hello,
Wikipedia is not a experiment in civil disobedience. Whether or not the law is absurd, it is nonetheless law. Feel free to convince your congressperson to get it struck down or militate elsewhere; don't make Wikimedia content illegal in the US and the European Union just because you disagree with the law.
Yours cordially, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) wrote:
Hello,
Wikipedia is not a experiment in civil disobedience. Whether or not the law is absurd, it is nonetheless law. Feel free to convince your congressperson to get it struck down or militate elsewhere; don't make Wikimedia content illegal in the US and the European Union just because you disagree with the law.
Yours cordially, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
Jesse,
As I understood this matter it is not about law, it is about understanding of the law. Google, Digg has removed some posts with this numbers because of AACSLA request not because of judge or law request. I didn't follow up what happen on wikipedia, but I see WMF are acting preventive. I understand that WMF are afraid of court expenses if AACSLA raise charges against them. But currently there is several processes that point out First Amendment conflict with the DMCA.
The part of that law is mentioned in the letter to the Google, more info you can find on:
http://www.chillingeffects.org/anticircumvention/notice.cgi?NoticeID=7180#FA...
So I find this very creative approach in understanding of this law. And I find it that many others do. Regardless of this notice to Google, its still returned to me about 1,740,000 search results on this number. Is that make Google disobedient , and you Jesse obedient? :)
*
*
On 5/7/07, Ed Sanders ejsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Todd Allen wrote: If you're correct there, then...wow, things are worse than I imagined. What if you did have a collection of 2000 credit card numbers, and never made an unlawful purchase on a single one? Who's been harmed? Likelihood of replication doesn't change the basic premise. That's getting into the realm of outlawing information and concepts rather than actions and deeds, and that's not a very good road to start walking down.
Well if you didn't have a good reason to be hoarding credit card numbers you could be convicted of conspiracy to commit credit card fraud.
A charge of conspiracy to commit credit card fraud requires that there actually be credit card fraud. There may in fact be a law against possession of credit card numbers, most likely requiring an intent to use them for fraudulent purposes, but conspiracy is not such a law.
In the same way the only reason to distribute a number generated from porn would be to distribute the porn,
In the case of child pornography, there is a law specifically banning possession.
and the only reason the distribute that exact DVD key is to circumvent a protection system (which is illegal in the US, I believe).
I don't know about anyone else, but the reason I distributed the DVD key on this mailing list was in order to make it clear what string had triggered the spam blacklist. I was quoting from the blacklist message.
But that raises a question. Is it illegal for a Wikimedia dev to add the number into the spam blacklist, or for Wikimedia to store the number in the spam blacklist, or for a dev to send an email to another dev with the number in it, for the purpose of telling them to set up the spam blacklist?
How about the block log? There are users blocked that have the number in their username. Is the block log now illegal?
This is about outlawing the distribution of certain information, which is very much a real crime in some circumstances.
Well, that's somewhat of an incomplete description. The word "distribution" isn't used in the law in question, and one of three specific criteria must be met regarding that certain information.
But I agree that it's silly to say it's OK to distribute the information simply because it can be expressed as a number.
Anthony
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org