Digg and DRM

"The website [Digg] was one of several that received 'cease and desist' letters from Athe ACS Licensing Authority, which administers the DRM used on Blu-ray and HD DVD discs. At the letter's urging, Digg removed a link to a Web page that revealed the encryption key that could enable content on HD DVD discs to be copied, circumventing the DRM."

Soon after a flood of user comments denouncing Digg's decision to comply, site founder, Kevin Rose, had this to say:

"But now, after seeing hundreds of stories and reading thousands of comments, you've made it clear, you'd rather see Digg go down fighting than bow down to a bigger company. We hear you, and effective immediately we won't delete stories or comments containing the code and will deal with whatever the consequences might be.'

Although I'm not necessarily wholeheartedly against DVD DRM (see a few posts below), I'm glad to see Rose not bow down to these contemptible companies and stand up for the people that made his website so popular. That's the problem with a great deal of these entertainment companies and third-party companies: they alienate their consumers in order to appease the higher powers and often to make an extra buck. Like Apple, Digg was not prepared to put their consumers second to pressures from above.

Also, I think it's absolutely ridiculous to persecute a site for allowing the publication of information. This, to me, violates the First Amendment. Granted, this situation walks the fine line, but I wouldn't like to live in a society where the messenger is not valued, but, well, shot. First of all, they didn't come up with the DRM crack, and second of all, they only re-published the information. It wasn't information they picked up themselves and reported on, it was really just submitted by an outside party. As long as the Anarchist Cookbook can be published, so should a benign piece of information like this. Apparently the law is more concerned about copyright protection than the building of explosives. What I'm saying is: it should all be permitted. In the worst case, the only one to be persecuted is the mastermind. And instead of gunning down people who circumvent the DRM technology or publish the code, maybe improve the technology itself. It's their fault that people find loopholes in their ineffective technology. And I say all of this, not in support of DRM, but rather in condemning this breach of the First Amendment.