[Foundation-l] 09-f9-...

[David Gerard]

On 11/05/07, Yann Forget <yann at 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.