3 ms·

I really don't understand certain users. Digg is a great and useful service, why try to abuse it? Are pirates so proud of stealing that they have to broadcast

I really don't understand certain users. Digg is a great and useful service, why try to abuse it? Are pirates so proud of stealing that they have to broadcast it to the whole world?

jaggederest 19y ago
It's a number. You can't copyright a number. It's also censorship. Censorship is bad. People shouldn't need these things explained to them.
- farmer 19y ago
  Can't you copyright a number? If you can copyright text, why not digits?
  - byrneseyeview 19y ago
    Because as far as we know, an arbitrary sequence of digits will eventually show up in the decimal expansion of pi. So if you can copyright a number, anyone who can calculate pi is a criminal.
    - mojuba 19y ago
      Even worse, pi contains a (binary) program that hacks DRM, so Mother Nature is with us!
    - nostrademons 19y ago
      But any sequence of text can be represented as a number, given a suitable encoding. And that number will show up in the decimal expansion of pi somewhere. So clearly, text should not be copywritable either. I think I need to link to "What Colour are you bits?" ( http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/colour/2004061001.php http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/colour/2004061001.php ) again, just because the issue is so confused. Basically, it boils down to humans' conception of reality being incorrect, so things like authorship are assumed, even though there's no unforgeable way to represent them in reality.
- schoudha 19y ago
  That's not what I'm saying. I agree that Digg shouldn't censor it. My point is that the original poster shouldn't have posted it. Clearly, the intention of this particular number is to steal. It's not enough that pirates steal, but they have to publicize their behavior and tactics and encourage others to follow them. It's this type of publicity that fools people into thinking that somehow digital piracy isn't equivalent to walking into Best Buy and shoplifting. I can only hope that one day these characters get caught and have to face the MPAA in court.
  - mojuba 19y ago
    One day we'll have the ability to copy physical objects just like we copy files today, and it would be as cheap. In fact we may see that technology in our lifetime. At that point, the whole concept of "stealing by copying" would be challenged as never before, and I believe it will surrender. All ethical or business issues aside, it will surrender for two simple reasons: (1) it would be practically impossible to prevent copying and (2) it won't actually do any serious harm to the author who considers herself to be "robbed" through copying.
    - nostrademons 19y ago
      More fancifully, what happens when someone decides to copy themselves, and copy themselves, and copy themselves, until they account for more than half the population of the earth, and then vote in a change of the property laws such that copying is not theft...
  - Goladus 19y ago
    It's not stealing, nor is there implicit intention of stealing. This is a piece of information that is a part of every single HD-DVD player and every single HD-DVD disc. It is the nature of people to be curious, and to share their findings with their peers and to the world. This is how science and technology have advanced for centuries. Censorship strikes at core American values, which are based on more fundamental observations of human nature that apply to everyone in the world. Furthermore "Stealing" is one of the worst possible words to use. Duplicating and distributing media is not stealing. The term Copyright Infringement and it's important not to conflate the two. In some cases, Copyright Infringement is a far more expensive than stealing, but they are not the same thing. Whenever something is stolen, there is -always- an identifiable victim, no matter how minor the victimization might be. There is always someone who has lost something. In the case of copying an HD-DVD, there is no such automatic loss. Stealing someone's copyright is stealing. Plagiarism is stealing. Breaking an exclusive license agreement is not.
- Agathos 19y ago
  You may say the DMCA is a bad law. I'm inclined to agree. And if you choose to violate a bad law and risk the consequences, you'll be in some heroic company. But demanding that someone else, like Digg, violate the law and risk the consequences in your place seems a bit low.
  - jaggederest 19y ago
    Well, it's very simple: digg has two options, either fight, or shut down. They've empowered their users, and their users have informed them in no uncertain terms that they will not accept censorship. That doesn't mean that they have to fight, merely that if they want their community to remain largely as it is, they cannot censor. As the saying goes, they can't "have their cake and eat it too"

I really don't understand certain users. Digg is a great and useful service, why try to abuse it? Are pirates so proud of stealing that they have to broadcast it to the whole world?

jaggederest 19y ago

It's a number. You can't copyright a number. It's also censorship. Censorship is bad. People shouldn't need these things explained to them.

farmer 19y ago
Can't you copyright a number? If you can copyright text, why not digits?
- byrneseyeview 19y ago
  Because as far as we know, an arbitrary sequence of digits will eventually show up in the decimal expansion of pi. So if you can copyright a number, anyone who can calculate pi is a criminal.
  - mojuba 19y ago
    Even worse, pi contains a (binary) program that hacks DRM, so Mother Nature is with us!
  - nostrademons 19y ago
    But any sequence of text can be represented as a number, given a suitable encoding. And that number will show up in the decimal expansion of pi somewhere. So clearly, text should not be copywritable either. I think I need to link to "What Colour are you bits?" ( http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/colour/2004061001.php http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/colour/2004061001.php ) again, just because the issue is so confused. Basically, it boils down to humans' conception of reality being incorrect, so things like authorship are assumed, even though there's no unforgeable way to represent them in reality.
schoudha 19y ago
That's not what I'm saying. I agree that Digg shouldn't censor it. My point is that the original poster shouldn't have posted it. Clearly, the intention of this particular number is to steal. It's not enough that pirates steal, but they have to publicize their behavior and tactics and encourage others to follow them. It's this type of publicity that fools people into thinking that somehow digital piracy isn't equivalent to walking into Best Buy and shoplifting. I can only hope that one day these characters get caught and have to face the MPAA in court.
- mojuba 19y ago
  One day we'll have the ability to copy physical objects just like we copy files today, and it would be as cheap. In fact we may see that technology in our lifetime. At that point, the whole concept of "stealing by copying" would be challenged as never before, and I believe it will surrender. All ethical or business issues aside, it will surrender for two simple reasons: (1) it would be practically impossible to prevent copying and (2) it won't actually do any serious harm to the author who considers herself to be "robbed" through copying.
  - nostrademons 19y ago
    More fancifully, what happens when someone decides to copy themselves, and copy themselves, and copy themselves, until they account for more than half the population of the earth, and then vote in a change of the property laws such that copying is not theft...
- Goladus 19y ago
  It's not stealing, nor is there implicit intention of stealing. This is a piece of information that is a part of every single HD-DVD player and every single HD-DVD disc. It is the nature of people to be curious, and to share their findings with their peers and to the world. This is how science and technology have advanced for centuries. Censorship strikes at core American values, which are based on more fundamental observations of human nature that apply to everyone in the world. Furthermore "Stealing" is one of the worst possible words to use. Duplicating and distributing media is not stealing. The term Copyright Infringement and it's important not to conflate the two. In some cases, Copyright Infringement is a far more expensive than stealing, but they are not the same thing. Whenever something is stolen, there is -always- an identifiable victim, no matter how minor the victimization might be. There is always someone who has lost something. In the case of copying an HD-DVD, there is no such automatic loss. Stealing someone's copyright is stealing. Plagiarism is stealing. Breaking an exclusive license agreement is not.
Agathos 19y ago
You may say the DMCA is a bad law. I'm inclined to agree. And if you choose to violate a bad law and risk the consequences, you'll be in some heroic company. But demanding that someone else, like Digg, violate the law and risk the consequences in your place seems a bit low.
- jaggederest 19y ago
  Well, it's very simple: digg has two options, either fight, or shut down. They've empowered their users, and their users have informed them in no uncertain terms that they will not accept censorship. That doesn't mean that they have to fight, merely that if they want their community to remain largely as it is, they cannot censor. As the saying goes, they can't "have their cake and eat it too"