[WikiEN-l] HD DVD key mess - OFFICE/Foundation?

[Anthony]

On 5/2/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/2/07, Philippe Beaudette <philippebeaudette at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Agreed - in fact, I would go so far as to say that very few legitimate reporting organizations are going to print the key in their newspaper, encyclopedia, radio story, or magazine story.  They're going to say that the key was disclosed, but they're not going to say what it is.
> >
> > I think that's a good model for us to go by.
>
> Actually, it was openly published in a number of columns and some of
> the mainline news stories about the discovery.
>
> The law here is legitimately somewhat muddled.  It may turn out to be
> legal, but there's also  no clear evidence that the MPAA are wrong.
> The law was written in a way that's explicit for just about everything
> else, but may or may not cover a number that happens to be a key for
> such decoders.
>
> I think that the number is of questionable notability.  99.9999% of
> the people who see it aren't going to go code up a DVD player.  For
> anyone else, it's purely a trivial point.  That it exists, was
> findable, and is now public is notable.  We can say all that (and the
> articles do, now) without listing the actual number.
>
I don't agree on your analysis of the usefulness of the key.  An
encyclopedia isn't just about social issues, it also covers technical
ones.  And just as the [[MD5]] article explains the algorithm,
complete with hex numbers like 0xEFCDAB89, an article on HD DVD
encryptions should include details on how to encrypt/decrypt the DVDs.
 "That it exists, was findable, and is now public is notable" for
social reasons.  But the key itself is notable for technical reasons.

Is it really 1 in a million that a reader will code up, for instance,
a Linux DVD player which uses the key?  I don't know, but it seems to
me to be a bit greater possibility than that.

If it turns out to be illegal to publish the key, then that's a
different story, of course.  But I don't think the notability argument
holds water.

> I separately do morally support the publication; but I don't see it as
> something Wikipedia can or should get involved in.
>
Wikipedia can get involved in it if the foundation doesn't stop it.
As for whether or not they should, I'd say providing this type of
information is its very mission.

Anthony