Talk:AACS encryption key controversy/Archive 1

message: I personally think it should be on wikipedia, but we're pretty damn far from consensus on that, and as it might incur liability on the site, we should err on the side of caution. We have policies and a process for dealing with this - anything else is just vandalism. Washod 11:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which one, you mean A4,K9,B4,C4,B9,V2? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.236.128.27 (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Once again, the spam filter is being abused by rogue admins acting without office directive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.55.4.36 (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why do people think that WP:OFFICE is going to come in and save the day? That's not what WP:OFFICE is for. It is not an oracle from which you seek divine advice. The community must decide for itself. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not according to the protect message at HD DVD. Maybe you could change it? GracenotesT § 19:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: While that's a wonderful non-answer, the foundation has not, to my knowledge, expressed an opinion on whether the sky is blue.  In neither case does the foundation's lack of an opinion on the matter doesn't change the underlying facts of the situation. --BigDT 00:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: HAHA! Nice and paranoid, that's how they want us to act. — atchius (msg) 21:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We don't censor, but we do because.... WIKICENSORS71.204.133.75 22:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  OMG... It's just a number (26*5*19*12043*216493*836256503069278983442067)... Not even as important as 1038 64912 05465 42720 74839 99918 69368 34171 06619 46201 39675 03653 47696 16693 90458 98849 31513 92585 88617 49077 07964 35321 69815 63383 44509 52832 12525 81747 95234 55323 82580 30222 93777 28783 46831 08398 36247 39712 53672 19326 66180 75129 20013 88772 03941 34464 93758 31734 44135 31957 90002 84431 84983 06969 88820 35800 33266 82379 85846 17099 75723 88089... Fuzzy 15:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm by no means an expert or really have any firm idea of what it would take in practice, but in theory I understand that you use that key with an encrypted hd-dvd disc to get another key, the volume key, is used to decrypt the actual video and audio files. On its own the key does nothing, it needs quite a lot of code to make it work. Its important because with the right program, it works on any previously released hd-dvd. If they revoke the key on future hd-dvds it will not work on the, but it remains to be seen if this will happen. Given how likely it is that another processing key will be found thing will quickly get ridiculous.Plasmoid 17:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are correct in that the key that this controversy erupted over unlocks the volume key, which decrypts individual titles.  As such, this key allows for the decryption of all HD-DVDs released up to this point, as it will give you the key to decrypt any movie.  However, it does not need "quite a lot of code to make it work."  Anyone familiar with programming and cryptography could write a program relatively quickly that would decrypt a movie, all you need is a handful of lines of code and an Advanced Encryption Standard library.  But that's just a minor point I had to correct, the really important point is that own its own, the key actually does do nothing. --Rodzilla (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Do not post the key

message: Posting the key is permissible, since no Wikipedia policy prohibits it and the Wikimedia Foundation does not hold the opinion that doing so would violate any Florida or US laws.  See discussion below.Konekoniku 20:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm by no means an expert or really have any firm idea of what it would take in practice, but in theory I understand that you use that key with an encrypted hd-dvd disc to get another key, the volume key, is used to decrypt the actual video and audio files. On its own the key does nothing, it needs quite a lot of code to make it work. Its important because with the right program, it works on any previously released hd-dvd. If they revoke the key on future hd-dvds it will not work on the, but it remains to be seen if this will happen. Given how likely it is that another processing key will be found thing will quickly get ridiculous.Plasmoid 17:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are correct in that the key that this controversy erupted over unlocks the volume key, which decrypts individual titles.  As such, this key allows for the decryption of all HD-DVDs released up to this point, as it will give you the key to decrypt any movie.  However, it does not need "quite a lot of code to make it work."  Anyone familiar with programming and cryptography could write a program relatively quickly that would decrypt a movie, all you need is a handful of lines of code and an Advanced Encryption Standard library.  But that's just a minor point I had to correct, the really important point is that own its own, the key actually does do nothing. --Rodzilla (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post the key 

message: A chunk of background has been missed I think. 
Here is the where the key was first posted on the doom 9 forums, showing the time, date and username. Alas it also shows the key.
http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=952968&postcount=105
Not to downplay all the other events in the background, the fuss of the last 2 days has been purely over that one key... and it barely gets a mention. Plasmoid 17:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background a tad... lacking 

message: Right now, the number isn't posted but it can be found on the "Google search" reference (since it's a search for the number, after all).  Are we OK with this?  I'm all for sticking it to the MPAA but we don't want to get Wikipedia in legal trouble if the number is indeed illegal as the article suggests. Oren0 18:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has nothing to do with "sticking it to the MPAA."  The fact that there's a significant number of websites out there that have the number on them, as evidenced by a google search for the number, is highly relevant to this article and as such should be included.  The reference must be included else the article will contain an unreferenced statement.  And the legality of the number is a completely different matter, though if you read many of the discussions currently going on (including the one right above this post) you'll find that the legality of the number is hardly accepted to be illegal, and in almost every case is considered to be legal, at least until a DMCA takedown notice is served (at which point the number is still technically not illegal, but Wikipedia may feel obligated to take it down at this point).  At that point, it is up to WP:OFFICE, not the editors and administrators.--Rodzilla (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Number accessible via reference

message: This page needs categories.  Currently it has none.  Just saying so you know...  --70.48.240.116 18:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it happens, I just added a few. It's a shame that Category:Moral panics no longer exists... —tregoweth (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page needs categories. 

message: I added back a toned down version of some of the events, because i think they're verifiable, relevant and interesting! - Purples 01:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliable sources means Reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Picaroon (Talk) 01:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that a paragraph is a great size for information about Wikipedia's reaction. I am perfectly fine with this unless something else develops. Given the nature of the situation, I think it would be great if people suggested significant removals or additions on the talk page, as a show of good faith. (Not to discourage boldness, though.) GracenotesT § 01:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Relevant? Relevance is subjective. Determining relevance can wait. Interesting? Sure, but there are no reliable sources. When (if) there are reliable sources, then the information on what happened here at Wikipedia can be included. Remember, we're writing about the whole world, not ourselves. Picaroon (Talk) 01:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm still kind of opposed to having one-paragraph sections. Why not combine them? GracenotesT § 02:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I take that point too - this may be moot, because it has now all been removed - but my feeling was that the wikipedia information should probably stand alone in a self-referential section - i just thought people would be specifically interested in that aspect - any suggestions? Purples 02:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia's Reaction 

message: The official word from User:Bastique is:
"The Foundation has no opinion regarding this matter at this time."
Which is equivalent to saying that the Wikimedia Foundation currently has no objection to the number being included in a Wikipedia article.
If they did have an objection the Foundation would have an opinion.  Given that those in control of the servers have no objection, what is the current reason for exclusion of the number from Wikipedia please? John Dalton 01:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This whole "controversy" about publishing the key is a bit of a distraction.  The truth of the matter is that there is a revocation procedure in place for such a situation and that it has already been initiated.  Read here for more details: http://www.aacsla.com/home  The key has been made public over 15 days ago, even AACSLA admits this on their website, and anyone who desires the key and could potential make use of it already has it.  The bigger deal is when one is distributing a key prior to its revocation by AACSLA, which is not the case right now.  --70.48.240.116 01:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia community's response seems to be a source of controversy in itself. John Dalton 02:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  True. I don't see much reason to post it on this page, but I do think there should be redirects from common spellings of it to this page. Anyone seeing the big hex string not knowing what it is should expect Wikipedia to answer their question. This page should be the first Google hit for that string. In short, I would like to see the page 09... be a redirect to this page. If it is not a legal concern, then I see no reason not to recreate those redirects. —Ben FrantzDale 02:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Foundation has no objection to publishing the number on Wikipedia

message: My rationale:
This has to be a section of the HD DVD encryption key controversy. This is not a distinct, notable event, but rather part of an ongoing controversy around the key. It is too short to stand on its own, and the sources get repetive quickly. Keeping this page as it is rather than merging with HD DVD encryption key controversy makes for two mediocre article on more or less the same issue, whereas merging brings one very strong an informative article.--Cerejota 02:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge - It's essentially the same thing.  Merge them. --Rodzilla (talk) 04:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Merge - Yeah, the HD DVD Night article is only a little bit longer than part under the controversy page.  Nick Garvey 04:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Merge - Note, HD DVD Night is under AFD at the moment. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 06:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Keep Separate - A number of articles are starting to appear on the internet that are talking about the event in more than just the context of the HD DVD controversy and are covering such areas as protests against DRM and legal impact of user driven websites. --Darkstar949 14:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Please merge. It's basically the same thing. Anything important can be put under the Digg.com heading, etc. It is just a tiny piece of the controversy at large. No need to write and maintain the same thing on so many articles (here, HD DVD Night, Digg.com, HD DVD, Kevin Rose, etc.). It is all the same material. --Ali'i 17:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I would certainly also be in favour of merging the two. The HD DVD Night article should be a subsection of this one, although much of the content in it is already mentioned here anyway. As Ali'i says, currently the same thing is being maintained in multiple places which is rather unnecessary. Will (aka Wimt) 17:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment - Actually, it would be a bit easier to maintain as a separate article - both Digg and HD DVD encryption key controversy could just provide a link there instead of trying to keep things seperate for what applies to just Digg, what applies to just the controversy, and what belongs on neither page but worth mentioning (legal ramifications, examples of the Streisand effect, ect). --Darkstar949 18:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally disagree. Considering how short the HD DVD Night article is there's no need to have two length-wise. Plus, they are both mostly covering the same ground so we could quite easily bring in more information about what applies to Digg here. What happened at Digg is just one part of the controversy (albeit a major part in terms of increasing news coverage) but, as evidenced by the content of that article, there isn't a whole lot to say about it. We are better merging them so that we can focus on writing one good article rather than having two incomplete ones. After all, what happened at Digg only makes sense in the context of the entire controversy. Will (aka Wimt) 18:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger from [[HD DVD Night]]

message: Since the AACS claims to have a strong revocation system, and the AACS claimed they revoked the leaked keys, has anyone INDEPENDENTLY confirmed new HD DVDs WONT PLAY on the compromised WinDVD/PowerDVD versions?Patcat88 05:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alas, 'twould be original. GracenotesT § 10:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Although, yes, it might be useful to know. GracenotesT § 13:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if it answers the question, but the AACSLA press release may give you the information you are after:. The phrase they use is "...expire the encryption keys associated with the specific implementations of AACS-enabled software" - which might mean revoke, or might mean something else. WLDtalk|edits 16:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes they released those press reports, my question is, have they as of now disabled those keys, and has anyone experianced being "revoked"? Those press releases are just WP:SPS until someone else confirms that the keys were disabled. Patcat88 03:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's kind-of too soon to tell, you know.  The process of authoring and manufacturing a DVD will likely take a month or more; then it'll be a few weeks in distribution channels before the disks with the revocation on them hit shop shelves.  I'd expect to see reports some time around mid June. JulesH 18:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: any keys actually revoked?

message: The following was posted as a comment
Please do not insert the publicly disclosed HD-DVD key into this article for the time being. Per WP:ANI#HD_DVD.23Muslix64.27s_exploit, we are seeking legal advice from WP:OFFICE regarding whether we are permitted to publish such information on Wikipedia. Even though Wikipedia is not censored, please note that the Wikimedia Foundation must comply with the laws of the state of Florida where our servers are hosted. Thank you, User:Netsnipe 16:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're missing the point. The key itself adds nothing to the article as it is already available in many of the external links. Including this key in the article could result in legal action being taken against Wikipedia, which would benefit no-one. If you want to publish the key in your personal website, go do it, but Wikipedia is not that. Furthermore, it is not censorship to remove illegal or libelous content from articles. Will (aka Wimt) 08:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is most definitely censorship to remove illegal content, the reasoning for removing the illegal material is insubstantial to the act of censorship. An analogy would be arguing that the term censorship doesn't apply when deleting the articles about Feng Shui because the content is illegal in China. Think of it like this, if in China "the number" is legal, and here it is not, then would it be proper for a Chinese admin to hide the number from us? And, as I'm currently in a libel suit, I can aver that viewing libel outside of censorship rather than a subset of it, is in fact incorrect. EvanCarroll 14:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  When you can provide some evidence that WP:NOT is held in higher regard by those footing Wikipedia's server bills than local law is, I'm sure you'll present said evidence here. Until then, it doesn't trump consensus. Chris Cunningham 15:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Regardless of your opinion on what is and isn't censorship, Wikipedia's policy is very clear. If you read the relevant Wikipedia policy on censorship you will find the very clear statement: "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the article about pornography) and do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted." Now the entire reasoning for us not including this key is that there is a very real concern that it may be in violation of the law (see this EFF article). Therefore it is entirely appropriate for the key to be removed until the time at which we have legal clarification. As I said earlier, if you want to publish this on your own website, that's up to you. To write something on Wikipedia, however, you need to abide by the policies. They are there for a reason. Will (aka Wimt) 17:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, your comment about China is entirely irrelevant. Where the admins / editors come from isn't the issue - Wikipedia must operate by the laws where its servers are hosted and it just so happens that this is Florida. I come from the UK and I have no idea whether or not that number is illegal where I am, but that wouldn't make any difference either way. Will (aka Wimt) 17:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Saying that another editor is delusional is clearly uncivil. Essentially, the policy is that Wikipedia doesn't censor itself, however, as explained, the Wikimedia Foundation must comply with the laws of the state of Florida where the servers are hosted. Addhoc 09:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  On top of that, it's absurd that WP:NOT is being used as some sort of super-rule to override anything else, especially when the accusee is an admin and the accuser appears to have less than 50 edits, mostly to his own user page. Chris Cunningham 09:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not expressing any opinion here but to point out that it is a furphy to weight editors' opinions by the number of edits they have made.  "I was here first" has no valid place in a discussion. John Dalton 11:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know about that. You might want to see WP:AN. GracenotesT § 13:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You've obviously never seen how much screening goes on at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. It usually takes someone six to nine months of participation and over 4000-5000 edits to the encyclopedia before people have a chance at becoming Wikipedia:Administrators. To even imply that some of us might be shills for the Motion Picture Association of America or the AACS-LA who've only just turned up to "astroturf" is simply lidicrous. --   Netsnipe  ►  18:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Correction - it's gone up to 558,000 Google hits since yesterday.  But that's a search you can't run unless you have the code.  (Actually, a graph of this would make a great figure for the article - has anyone been keeping statistics on this before yesterday?) Mike Serfas 14:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're referring to any Wikipedian keeping statistics, that would be original research. I expect some bloggers are doing so, but whether it has appeared in any reliable sources or not, I am unclear on. -- nae'blis 18:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, consensus is irrelevant if it turns out that the laws of the State of Florida do not allow Wikipedia to provide the numbers. The law of the State of Florida overrides Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the consensus of editors. Period. AecisBrievenbus 21:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This has to be the most smart, on point, and simply correct comment in all the soapboxing around. What goes into wikipedia is ultimately the responsibilty and desicion of Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit based in the Sta of Florida. If you don't like it, feel free to for the encyclopedia into another project.--Cerejota 22:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccurate rationale in comments

message: Why not just list it as "09 F9 11, etc"? By itself the information is utterly useless and so doesn't put Wikipedia in any legal trouble, but if you Google for those hex values you'll find out the whole thing in short order. Eugenitor 16:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd have to be an idiot not to get it from Googling the page title already, so I fail to see how this isn't just cheating. If it were to be phrased as "a string of hexadecimal digits" I'm sure that'd be fine, but giving away half of it isn't a compromise. Chris Cunningham 17:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There was a discussion on WP:AN about this. Wikipedia perhaps should be as precise as possible without being crufty; plus, I assume we'd need a source for even a bit of the number, and editorially, linking to it and displaying it are quite close for such a short series of characters. GracenotesT § 19:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if we need to refer to it as anything, I would suggest doing in the same way as the EFF  and using just the first four characters, which would still make it obvious. However, I'm not entirely sure that we would gain anything over the current article by doing that. It's still easy to find the number if you want to via the external links in the article, regardless of whether the article mentions part of it or links directly to it. Will (aka Wimt) 19:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise

message: What's wrong with writing 09 f9...?  Has there been an official decision from the OFFICE, or are the admins acting rogue and abusing their authority?  Moreover, I believe it is Wikipedia policy that as much as possible, nothing on the discussion pages should be deleted.  I believe Netsnipe and others who support his position may be in violation of that policy. Konekoniku 19:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rogue admin WIKILAWYERS 71.204.133.75 22:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not "abusing authority". Anything can be deleted. That's the policy. Talk pages or anywhere. It all depends on the person. If you think someone abused their power, you could always report them on the Admin's noticeboard. However, I think most people just think that in an encyclopedia, writing about the number is better than writing a clumsy hexadecimal number in an encyclopedia article. Please see Wikipedia:Keyspam for further information. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see where you're coming from, except you commit three major errors.  First, you commit a clear logical fallacy by attempting to present writing about 09 f9... and writing 09 f9... itself as mutually exclusive options: there is no reason we cannot do both, and presenting both provides more information to readers, which I believe is the primary purpose of an encyclopedia.  Second, I'm not certain "most people" would agree with you anyway that censorship in this case is the best policy.  And third, Wikipedia is governed by consensus anyway, not the majority, which means that censorship should not be permitted even if you were correct in stating that most people would agree that censorship here is the best policy after all: from the comments here alone it is clear that there is no consensus in favor of such a policy.  I await your response, and the response of Netsnipe, and in the meantime have reported Netsnipe to the Admin's noticeboard link you provided.  Thank you for your assistance.  Konekoniku 20:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suit yourself. You have a couple of errors yourself, regarding how WP operates, but I'm not going to get into a debate (this isn't the place). Thanks. --Ali'i 20:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: As has been noted by myself and others above, the policy on censorship in Wikipedia can be seen here. It makes very clear that, although Wikipedia is not censored, material must not be introduced that is in violation of the law in Florida (where the servers are hosted). Now this is  the entire reasoning behind not including the key at the current time. Until we have got legal clarification that it is permissible to include the key without ramifications, it should not be done. Note a number of online articles (notably this one, written I believe by a lawyer) state that there may well be a case under the DMCA against sites that host this key. Therefore, until we are told otherwise from a legal point of view, this key should not be included. Consensus does not apply to legal arguments. Will (aka Wimt) 21:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The official response so far, as evidenced from the link given by GMaxwell below, is that "The Foundation has no opinion regarding this matter at this time." From that, I believe it is is clear that the opinion of the Foundation does not, as of now, consider this to be a violation of the law in Florida. Do you interpret that statement differently?Konekoniku 22:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Most people I've seen who write The Number are doing it to make a point. JuJube 01:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most does not equate to all, and as the discussion below points out, there are very good reasons why an encyclopedia entry on this topic should include the key.Konekoniku 17:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What's wrong with writing?

message: Is this edit summary a good enough reason to allow mention of the actual key in the article in the absence of any official ruling not to? --Random832 22:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe so.  A discussion is currently ongoing at 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Administrator_Abuse_by_User:Netsnipe —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Konekoniku (talk • contribs) 22:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see it as giving the go-ahead to mentioning the key. Jimbo merely said that no legal repercussions have arisen at the moment. In other words, it hasn't (yet?) been found to be illegal. But it also hasn't (yet?) been found to be legal. AecisBrievenbus 22:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you presumee that restricting mention of the key is the default scenario.  This goes back to what I argued earlier – there is no approved policy that I am aware of which supports your position, and your position violates several current wikipedia policies that are approved.  See the AN/I link above for continuation of the discussion.Konekoniku 22:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is indeed no policy as far as I know that supports my position, except perhaps Wikipedia:Use common sense and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. But I will not invoke them. But my position does not violate any Wikipedia policies either. AecisBrievenbus 22:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, the default situation, which does not preemptively censor any contributions, should prevail.Konekoniku 22:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand on what grounds you think this key should be in the article. Even if there wasn't a policy preventing this on legal grounds, discussion on the admin noticeboards over the past few days has shown quite clearly that there is a consensus not to include the key until we have had further advice. The default situation is not to include everything - the default situation is to act with consensus. Will (aka Wimt) 22:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus is not just among the admins, however, and I think that is the entire point.  As I understand it, consensus should be among the entire community, and it is clear from this discussion board that no consensus among that community exists.Konekoniku 22:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed consensus isn't just among the admins and, if you hadn't noticed, I'm no admin. This talk page hasn't had anything like as big a discussion as has been held on the various admin noticeboards over the past few days, with contributions from admins and non-admins alike. Will (aka Wimt) 23:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that almost by definition, consensus on an admin noticeboard cannot claim to be representative of a consensus by the entire community, as participation on admin noticeboards almost certainly does not mirror participation in the community as a whole. Konekoniku 00:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If that is your position, Konekoniku, fine. It seems that a substantial group of people at WP:AN/I and here disagree with you. By the way, we have a similar stance when it comes to uploaded images: if the copyright status is not given properly, the image will be deleted. The onus is on the uploader to prove that the image meets relevant legislation, not on Wikipedia to prove that it doesn't. AecisBrievenbus 22:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed. Of course that doesn't mean that it should be added to the article though, as you say. Plus, although Jimbo clearly doesn't object, it doesn't mean that it's totally all clear from a legal perspective (in my opinion, based on the views in the EFF article linked to at the top of this page). So, taking into account that it wouldn't add much to the article and that it is always better to be safe than sorry, I still believe it should not be included. Will (aka Wimt) 23:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your agreement on this point – I believe that clears up my concerns that the ex-ante prohibition of posting of the code is indeed not based on any policy, including WP:NOT#CENSORSHIP.  With that resolved, I will contend that in the absence of any official policy prohibiting it, adding the code to the article would indeed be beneficial and therefore should be done as the code itself is absolutely central to the topic of this article.  This is like having a discussion about US geography without actually showing a map of the US on the grounds that readers can easily find such a map elsewhere. Konekoniku 00:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aecis' comment above is instructive: We don't allow images where we suspect them to be copyright violations, and there is distinct evidence of copyright rights being pursued aggressively in the case of this illegal number. Until we get word to the contrary, we should err on the side of caution and not include the number in the article. -- nae'blis 00:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see where you're coming from, but I believe your stance contravenes the official stance of the Wikimedia Foundation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bastique#HD_DVD.Konekoniku 00:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "official stance" you refer me to is that they have no opinion on the matter. In that case, the broad consensus seems to be that not hosting illegal material is the best course of action for the present. For the record, should the copyright on this key be released/invalidated, I believe it might become an interesting factoid for the article, but at present it's more akin to copying a specific map of Washington D.C. for our article on the United States. It's not necessary to convey information about the controversy itself, anymore than it's necessary to show an example of what was captured in the 2004 Ukrainian child pornography raids. -- nae'blis 00:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion page alone is evidence enough that no broad community consensus exists on banning the publication of the code.  A consensus might exist among Wikipedia administrators, as evidenced by AN/I, but I do not believe you have adequately supported your assertion that such a consensus exists among the community at large.Konekoniku 01:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimbosaid 

message: * It would be a valuable addition to the article. In fact, it is the very subject of the article. If you don't know the number, this article doesn't tell you what it is. Likewise, a person who sees the number in an unconnected context currently has no way of relating it to this article.
* It has been widely republished on many other websites across the Internet. As well as being clear evidence of its notability, this raises the question, "If they can do it, why can't we?"
* Anyone who wants to find the number themselves can easily do so (in fact, it's included on some of the external links). Wikipedia is not making the number any more 'secret' by not publishing it here.
* Jimbo Wales himself has confirmed that the Wikimedia Foundation has received no takedown notices or other legal warnings that would forbid Wikipedia from publishing the number (see above).
* By not publishing the number Wikipedia allows censhorship to attack Wikipedia and it might harm healthy development of Wikipedia in the future. ( Kirils 02:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments for publishing the number 

message: * It would be an unnecessary legal risk. Publishing the number may be illegal (see the EFF's article, for example), and could potentially cause Wikipedia to be sued under the DMCA.
* While many websites have published the number, many others have prudently chosen not to do so; Wikipedia is not the only one trying to 'censor' it. For example, Google has been removing mention of the number from its users' pages, and its no longer directly listed on BoingBoing.net (although that site links to it, as this article does).
* Just as point 3 above says, anyone who wants to find the number can easily do so. Wikipedia would not be making it much easier for anyone by publishing it here; currently, all they have to do is follow one of the external links, or search for it on Google. 
* Even if the chance of legal action is unlikely, and hasn't happened so far, why take the risk? Wikipedia would gain little by including it, and potentially has everything to lose. The risk just isn't worth the benefits.
Final thought: this situation raises memories, for me at least, of the Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy. Then, after much debate, the conclusion was to publish the offending cartoons on Wikipedia (as, indeed, the article does). On the other hand, that may not be a useful comparison here: in that case, the argument against publishing was over the cartoons' offensiveness, and Wikipedia makes clear that it is not censored for offensive material. But in this case, the argument is over the number's legality, and Wikipedia has a strong policy against publishing illegal material (such as copyright violations). So maybe it's not that relevant after all. Terraxos 01:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments against publishing the number 

message: At this point, it seems like an increasingly gaping omission. I go to Wikipedia to find articles that get strait to the point (and when they don't I try to fix them). I see no reason not to have the page 09f9... redirect to this page and for this page to include the number in the opening sentence. Even if you are opposed to the full number, a partially elided version would at least let the reader know that this page is talking about the same number they have in mind. Could we agree on changing the first sentence to read as follows:
: The HD DVD encryption key controversy arose in April 2007 when the Motion Picture Association of America and the Advanced Access Content System License Authority (AACS LA) began issuing Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown notices to websites publishing a 16-byte hexadecimal number, 09f9...C0, which can be used as part of a method to circumvent the digital rights management on HD DVDs.
Would that be acceptable? —Ben FrantzDale 05:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the phrasing. The number itself should have reference links to the news articles below directly attached. Perhaps "reportedly 09 F9 ... C0 [ref][ref][ref][ref]". And "which they claim can be used". As I said, wait a week IMO until the keyspam drops off - David Gerard 09:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I cannot think of a worse way to phrase this. One of the more annoying things about Wikipedia is when contentious information is entered with an absolute barrage of refs jammed in next to it in some attempt to "legitimise" the edit. Chris Cunningham 09:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, this strikes me as a worse way. (Wonder if that's a free image.) I know the annoyance you mean, I'm just using my experience of bulletproofing at some expense to flow - David Gerard 10:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How to use the number encyclopedically

message: So how many media organisations in the US have actually run the key in a story? (Ones outside the US are not under quite the same pressure. And I'm not counting blogs here, because Wired has had the key in its blogs for months.) - David Gerard 02:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The key was included in  this PC Magazine column, mirrored at Yahoo! News. —tregoweth (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  US press containing the actual key 

message: Anyone want to summarise this in a third of a sentence in the article? - David Gerard 10:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AACS LA strikes back! Really! You watch out! 

message: Mineralè removed the  (and corresponding  at HD DVD Night)), alleging in the history this was because there is an AfD request for HD DVD Night. I disagree with his view. We could merge the page and render the AfD moot. Increased quality of information is better than deletion of information, and a merge request is that solution. Continuing  with a AfD while the option to merge is there is possible, however eleminating the merge possibility robs wikipedians of the idea. 
Furthermore, I would appreciate discussing things in the talk page, rather than just deleting and putitng a comment in the history.--Cerejota 13:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AFD has now been closed as a merge, please feel free to do so with any material from HD DVD Night  not presented here. That title is now a redirect. -- nae'blis 13:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I've been doing more or less a thorough rewrite. And was about to post here noting such, and asking people to try to do the merge! I've just been doing a lot of rewriting, clarification, section shuffling and so on - in order to attempt to alleviate the too-many-cooks bad writing effect that afflicts current event articles. If there's any particularly subtle points I've obscured, please fix - David Gerard 13:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge request removal

message: The intro reads: "The controversy escalated in early May 2007, when technology news site Digg received a DMCA notice and then removed numerous articles on the matter and banned users reposting the information." I remember an interview with Kevin, where he said that these were actions based on a DMCA notice that they had received earlier in April. So this intro would need some editing to more carefully reflect that it was editorial action based on a previous DMCA notice. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone can find back that quote, please do. I saw so much stuff, I can't remember which interview it was exactly. Or perhaps it's just my mind going out of control. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 14:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DMCA to digg 

message: This is most of the discussion page from HD DVD Night
===Don't add/use the key===
It is best to avoid adding the HD DVD processing key to this page (for now at least), otherwise the page will probably be deleted. I could not add some references because the URL contains the key, and sites such as tinyURL are blocked. HalHal 17:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any legal word form the admins on the hex code's usage yet? --Darkstar949 18:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem is not the number itself, but the legal ramifications it may have against Wikipedia if it is used at all. DCJoeDog 20:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding the key should be alright, since no Wikipedia policy prohibits it and the Wikimedia Foundation does not hold the opinion that doing so would violate any Florida or US laws.  See discussion above. 128.12.22.112 20:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Now you're just being silly, adding these random numbers just so you can set wiki up for auto censoring.--DCJoeDog 23:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's really silly is that wikipedia is blocking these numbers
Slashdot has them as a tag!155.97.212.93 23:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just FYI the above number is the hex string thats being censored on here converted to base 10. -Shogun 00:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed.  --Iamunknown 01:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Suggest this subtopic for deletion --DCJoeDog 01:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The subtopic  is entirely relevant to the article. Furthermore, editing/deleting user's comments on a talk page is poor Wikipedia Etiquette. Instead the comments should be archived. Madder 01:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Additionally, text which poses potential legal problems should be removed.  Please do not add it back in.  --Iamunknown 01:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If "potential" laws make you nervous or depressed... or paranoid... GracenotesT § 18:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: A handful of minor blogs - most of the news media is referring to it as the "Digg Riot." --Darkstar949 02:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The term was coined in a story submitted to Digg just after the chaos. As fas as I know this is the very first instance of the term in conjunction with this event. Although I must admit, a lot of news media outlets are calling it several things, Digg riot, Digg Rebellion, Digg User Rebellion, The night Digg went Ape$#*!, just to name a few, I just like the term HD DVD Night, it's like marking a day in history.--DCJoeDog 02:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone removed the reference from the article when they changed the name, and it was not put back when someone changed it back. I just fixed it. -HalHal 02:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Ugh, then we shouldn't have an article on it.  Wikipedia isn't a news-reporting site, its an encyclopedia.  --Iamunknown 03:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I fully expect we might move this to a different title eventually, but it's a fairly standard Wikipedia title for things which do not have a 'settled' name in reliable sources yet. -- nae'blis 14:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the media is calling it the "Digg Riot" or "Digg Revolt"; however, "Digg Revolt" turns up a bit more in new searches so I would say that might be what WP:RS are calling it. --Darkstar949 14:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digg section 

message: It is best to avoid adding the HD DVD processing key to this page (for now at least), otherwise the page will probably be deleted. I could not add some references because the URL contains the key, and sites such as tinyURL are blocked. HalHal 17:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any legal word form the admins on the hex code's usage yet? --Darkstar949 18:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem is not the number itself, but the legal ramifications it may have against Wikipedia if it is used at all. DCJoeDog 20:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding the key should be alright, since no Wikipedia policy prohibits it and the Wikimedia Foundation does not hold the opinion that doing so would violate any Florida or US laws.  See discussion above. 128.12.22.112 20:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't add/use the key

message: Adding the key is permissible, since no Wikipedia policy prohibits it and the Wikimedia Foundation does not hold the opinion that doing so would violate any Florida or US laws.  See discussion above. Konekoniku 20:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Go ahead and add the key

message: I was watching it unfold in real time, so this is my take on it, I am not that great a writer so I will  leave the actual article editing to someone who understands the wiki edit-quitte better than I.
February 11th, 2007
The Doom9 forum had a post in which a user details the procedure they followed to retrieve the AACS key used to decrypt an HD-DVD and rip the contents for viewing on unauthorized boxes(such as Linux). This is out in the wild on the net and no one makes a fuss over it as it is relatively unknown at the time it is published.
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=952968#post952968
Sometime in April, 2007
Websites around the net begin to hear word about a cease and desist letter issued to a blog that prints the HD-DVD key in it, this story is picked up on Digg and the inklings of what is to come begins to rear it's head.
May 1st, 2007 
A user on Digg submits a story named "Spread this number" and it is promptly erased upon reaching the front page, no explanation is given and no action is taken against the user. The same user then posts the story "Spread this number again" and once again it reaches the front page, only this time it has gets massive amounts of diggs(votes for it int he positive), over 15,000, pretty much setting it up to become one of Digg's most popular stories ever, the previous record holder having about 22,000 or so. This story all of a sudden just vanishes, and word gets around that the user is also I.P. banned from registering at the site again.
Soon more users try to get the story on to the front page and all stories are erased, and the users banned. Even stories mentioning the efforts of the Digg staff, with no mention at all of the HD-DVD key are being erased and those users also banned. This gets the community into an uproar, how can a site based on the philosophy that the user controls what content makes it to the front page be so against that very belief. Almost organically they idea to flood the Digg front page with stories of nothing but stories about the key while burying everything else as "Wrong topic" seems to take shape in the minds of all Digg users. Soon hundreds of stories an hours get submitted to the site and thousands of diggs a minute force the stories onto the front page almost as quickly as they are made. At one point in the revolt the entire front page, along with pages 2 and 3, were nothing but stories about the key, or just blatantly containing the key in the story title or description.
Jay Adelson blog post trying to explain why the story article were removed from Digg:
"What’s Happening with HD-DVD Stories?
by Jay Adelson at 1pm PST, May 1st, 2007 in Digg Website
Hey all,
I just wanted to explain what some of you have been noticing around some stories that have been submitted to Digg on the HD DVD encryption key being cracked.
This has all come up in the past 24 hours, mostly connected to the HD-DVD hack that has been circulating online, having been posted to Digg as well as numerous other popular news and information websites. We’ve been notified by the owners of this intellectual property that they believe the posting of the encryption key infringes their intellectual property rights. In order to respect these rights and to comply with the law, we have removed postings of the key that have been brought to our attention.
Whether you agree or disagree with the policies of the intellectual property holders and consortiums, in order for Digg to survive, it must abide by the law. Digg’s Terms of Use, and the terms of use of most popular sites, are required by law to include policies against the infringement of intellectual property. This helps protect Digg from claims of infringement and being shut down due to the posting of infringing material by others.
Our goal is always to maintain a purely democratic system for the submission and sharing of information - and we want Digg to continue to be a great resource for finding the best content. However, in order for that to happen, we all need to work together to protect Digg from exposure to lawsuits that could very quickly shut us down.
Thanks for your understanding,
Jay "
http://blog.digg.com/?p=73
This post seemed to only add gasoline to the fire, as word also began to spread that HD-DVD was a sponsor of the show Diggnation, it seemed more a blog trying to bow down to the money rather than the users the very site is built upon. Madness spreads to all facets of Digg, and the mods on Digg try to fight back, but at this point it is a losing battle. They try erasing stories, but 10 replace those erased. They try banning people, but at this point they lost respect for the site and didn't care if they were banned. They tried to covertly promote stories to the front page with fake diggs, but people soon notice the action and take screenshots of this and this also gets spread around the net. They try to reset diggs on stories already on the front page, but the stories get diggs so fast that it makes very little difference. They try taking down the submit page, but this only made the revolter focus on digging the stories which were already on the front page. The page is promptly brought back up. At this point the mod staff goes quiet all of a sudden and they seemed to give up trying to rein int he site, which they had clearly lost to the overwhelming power and number of users. At one point Digg is actually taken offline, not by the staff but because of the sheer number of digging and submitting the server was handling. They site returned but the site was acting strangely the rest of the night.
Kevin Rose explaining to the Digg community that they have reversed their stance on the HD-DVD matter:
"Digg This: (Followed by Key sequence, censored by Wikipedia) 
by Kevin Rose at 9pm PST, May 1st, 2007 in Digg Website
Today was an insane day. And as the founder of Digg, I just wanted to post my thoughts…
In building and shaping the site I’ve always tried to stay as hands on as possible. We’ve always given site moderation (digging/burying) power to the community. Occasionally we step in to remove stories that violate our terms of use (eg. linking to pornography, illegal downloads, racial hate sites, etc.). So today was a difficult day for us. We had to decide whether to remove stories containing a single code based on a cease and desist declaration. We had to make a call, and in our desire to avoid a scenario where Digg would be interrupted or shut down, we decided to comply and remove the stories with the code.
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.
If we lose, then what the hell, at least we died trying.
Digg on,
Kevin"
http://blog.digg.com/?p=74
At which point the site is site is taken offline (the standard Digg maintenance page is shown), and then brought back online with a new story submitted by Kevin Rose linking to the previously mentioned blog post.
So it seems that the community has shown the Digg staff that the site can not survive if they have no users on it using it. Everything slowly returns to normal, and life goes on. But Digg needs to realize this had very little to do with the HD-DVD key itself, that was just a way to get the point across, and more to do with internal censorship of articles posted by the users. Why is it ok to post hacks for the PSP (Dark_Alex custom firmware) but then turn around and say we can't post some numbers(by a corporation also sponsoring Diggnation). They need to reform and refine their post deletion policy, if it is truly for spam, porn and etc, then do just that, but do not choose to censor because that is what the money tells you to do.
NOTE: I may have left out a thing or two, but this is more or less what happened on the site.DCJoeDog 18:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The events of Digg's HD-DVD Night

message: Fnord —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.97.212.93 (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you're just being silly, adding these random numbers just so you can set wiki up for auto censoring.--DCJoeDog 23:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's really silly is that wikipedia is blocking these numbers
Slashdot has them as a tag!155.97.212.93 23:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just FYI the above number is the hex string thats being censored on here converted to base 10. -Shogun 00:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed.  --Iamunknown 01:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Suggest this subtopic for deletion --DCJoeDog 01:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The subtopic  is entirely relevant to the article. Furthermore, editing/deleting user's comments on a talk page is poor Wikipedia Etiquette. Instead the comments should be archived. Madder 01:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Additionally, text which poses potential legal problems should be removed.  Please do not add it back in.  --Iamunknown 01:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If "potential" laws make you nervous or depressed... or paranoid... GracenotesT § 18:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fnord 

message: Is the term "HD DVD Night" independently noted anywhere?  --Iamunknown 02:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A handful of minor blogs - most of the news media is referring to it as the "Digg Riot." --Darkstar949 02:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The term was coined in a story submitted to Digg just after the chaos. As fas as I know this is the very first instance of the term in conjunction with this event. Although I must admit, a lot of news media outlets are calling it several things, Digg riot, Digg Rebellion, Digg User Rebellion, The night Digg went Ape$#*!, just to name a few, I just like the term HD DVD Night, it's like marking a day in history.--DCJoeDog 02:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone removed the reference from the article when they changed the name, and it was not put back when someone changed it back. I just fixed it. -HalHal 02:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Ugh, then we shouldn't have an article on it.  Wikipedia isn't a news-reporting site, its an encyclopedia.  --Iamunknown 03:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I fully expect we might move this to a different title eventually, but it's a fairly standard Wikipedia title for things which do not have a 'settled' name in reliable sources yet. -- nae'blis 14:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the media is calling it the "Digg Riot" or "Digg Revolt"; however, "Digg Revolt" turns up a bit more in new searches so I would say that might be what WP:RS are calling it. --Darkstar949 14:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: I'm not an expert on this issue by any means, so I'm not that comfortable editing this article. However, I wanted to provide some information about the notices that AACS-LA sent out. There are links in the article to the Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act, implying that the notices were section 512 DMCA takedowns, but the AACS-LA letters weren't claiming copyright of the key. In this notice sent to Google, they cited sections 1201(a)(2), 1201(b)(1), and 1203, the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA. Linking to the WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act would probably be less misleading. --Ichthyos 17:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. To characterize this as a "DMCA takedown" is not accurate, as the former has to do with specific cases of copyright material appearing on a site. The issue has always been whether printing the key is part of the circumvention. As such, I am changing the opening of this article. -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I went ahead and changed further references to the notices from "DMCA takedowns" to "DMCA violation notices."  It might be worth noting that a popular misconception is that the AACS LA was claiming copyright on the key by issuing section 512 DMCA takedowns, when instead they were issuing notices of violation of the anti-circumvention provisions in section 1201. I don't really know how best to integrate this into the article though, so I'll leave this up to someone else. --Ichthyos 18:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DMCA notices: 1201 anti-circumvention, not 512 copyright-infringing 

message: From what I understand, the processing key is used by AACS in the DRM schemes for both HD DVDs and Blu-Ray discs. This thread on the doom9 forums (a few pages after the key was discovered) confirms that. Perhaps the article should be renamed to "AACS encryption key controversy" since the key also allows people to decrypt Blu-Ray discs. --Ichthyos 17:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I moved the article but there are 5 protected double redirects still in place. Being sort of new here, I'm not familiar with the proper action to take in this situation. --Ichthyos 18:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Double redirects fixed. -- nae'blis 18:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of article: AACS instead of HD DVD 

message: "On 2 January 2007, muslix64 published a new version of his/her program, with volume key support."
Ah, come ON. It's common KNOWLEDGE that women don't invent anything, pfft, and it's even more know that there are no women on the Internet, only FBI agents who pose as women and chidlren, sigh.
No, in all seriosity, someone with an account, remove "her". It makes the article look not in place. Well, not like much is in place on Wikipedia right now, though.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.193.241.224 (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't make Sexist comments on Wikipedia.  Yes, it may be true that there are more Men in the technology industry than Women, however it is unfair to say that Women don't invent anything.  I've changed the line to read their instead of his/her. Martin Porcheron need help? just ask! 21:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's no need to go using the icky "their" for a neutral pronoun here when "the" will do. Chris Cunningham 21:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslix64's gender 

message: Y'all do realize the flag image (:Image:Free-speech-flag.png) encodes the key, right? Being a graphics engineer, I knew that the second I looked at it. The description is somewhat misleading. -- Kendrick7talk 02:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh! Nice one. I'll amend the description to explain the colors. If the drive to expunge this number from Wikipedia is really due to its "spamminess" then I don't see this as a problem, but I wouldn't be surprised if it gets deleted anyway since I expect the real reason is lawsuit paranoia. Hopefully it'll be back eventually when the furor has died down. Bryan Derksen 03:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The drive is both, not "really" one or the other. Me, I'm waiting to see who follows Wired's lead with republishing the key in a genuine news story - David Gerard 09:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is getting really stupid. You show the flag and then explain where the key is in it. Thats like me showing the key in say binary and tell you where the hexadecimal is in it. If the flag is being allowed why is everyone going nuts over the key?--Dacium 12:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of the subtle legal difference between the number and the key. No-one cares about the number as a number. It's famous because it's the key, not just a number. That that shouldn't make a difference in a sane world doesn't mean it doesn't make a difference in this one. It got stupid around 1996 - David Gerard 13:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Moreover, there is clearly no consensus or policy to support removing the flag or the key anyway, as evidenced by discussions both here and on AN/I.  The flag should therefore be kept, and I will act to prevent efforts to revert without a solid consensus.Konekoniku 16:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, that was being stupid (the edit putting the string in). The flag IMO is fine - it's been all over the place in the controversy, and even as I acknowledge that an AACS LA lawyer could plausibly argue that the 09 F9 string is the "circumvention device" under the more cracksmoking aspects of the DMCA without being struck by lightning, not even they could argue the flag is a "circumvention device" under said law - David Gerard 21:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a dishonest argument. The spirit of the argument is that the key should not be included in the article at the moment, not by linking, funny encoding, stenography or whatever. I realise that people who think they're clever circumventing the DMCA by blogging about the key think they've clever circumventing consensus by hiding the key in an image, but Wikipedia should be better than that. I'm happy for it to go back in if and when consensus indicates that this is okay. Chris Cunningham 21:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, no, it's not a dishonest argument. The flag is part of the phenomenon. You can hardly unilaterally remove it, then edit-war when it's restored claiming consensus is required to honestly disagree with you - David Gerard 22:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: And stop removing other chunks unilaterally then claiming others must show consensus before restoring them. How about you discuss first if you value consensus so highly - David Gerard 22:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The large disclaimer at the top of the article says not to include the key. Including the key in an encoded forum and claiming there's no problem is disingenuous. That said, the article needs for more work to be done to it than people finding clever ways of sneaking the key in, so I'll hand the task of keeping people from sneaking it in to someone else. Chris Cunningham 22:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no such disclaimer. There's a box with a bunch of links to various pages discussing the matter, including one where Jimbo states that there's been no legal threat and the Foundation takes no position on the matter. There's a discussion section titled "Do not post the key" but that's just the title of a discussion thread and the subsequent one is titled "Post the key" anyway. And the flag was hardly being "snuck" in, I added a description of its function in the caption myself. I expect the flag will be back in the fullness of time. Bryan Derksen 23:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe its inclusion is not to sneak the key onto wikipedia, but to improve the article by providing an example of the response to this controversy.  guyzero | talk 23:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the flag had been included to illustrate an event (that of bloggers circulating a Free Speech Flag). Its inclusion here is not for the "purpose of disseminating a circumvention technology" and is therefore likely not a violation of the DMCA. Secondly, as Jimmy Wales has pointed out, the Wikimedia Foundation has not received any takedown notices. Therefore, Free-speech-flag.svg should remain in this article until, at least, such a request is recieved. --LEKI (talk) 05:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The flag is a work of art.  When used as a work of art or as part of a commentary, 1st ammendment free speech protections kick in.  True, free speech isn't without limit but artwork enjoys a lot more protection from DMCA-infringement-tool notices than an actual physical device would.  Assuming for the sake of argument that a pure number isn't absolutely legal and protected from such notices, any artwork that incorporates the number would enjoy  more protection than the number itself, by virtue of being artwork.  davidwr 09f9(talk) 17:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: FYI deletion failed, the image stays.  davidwr 09f9(talk) 17:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag 

message: Just noticed that the flag in question has been proposed for deletion from Wikimedia Commons with the preemptive concern that it may be a violation of the DMCA. You may want to comment on the matter on its deletion page on the Commons. --LEKI (talk) 05:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI deletion failed, the image stays.  davidwr 09f9(talk) 17:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag image up for deletion 

message: Please either seek consensus here or file a request for arbitration.  No consensus currently exists on its removal, as evidenced above, and no established official Wikipedia policy supports it.  Thus I have reverted the page to restore the image. Konekoniku 07:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Do not unilaterally remove the flag image

message: Okay, we really need the article to refer to the key in some technical terms. At the moment it reads like a newspaper article. The key sounds like a magic number. Second section should be a brief rundown on the different types of keys and how they're derived from each other. IIRC some guy did an excellent illustration of how the keys relate on the Doom9 forums; this could be chased up and relicensed for inclusion. Chris Cunningham 22:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree wholeheartedly; I was just about to say just that. arnezami's thread on Understanding AACS (including Subset-Difference) might provide the necessary insight. --Ichthyos 22:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Excellent! That was the image I remembered. Chris Cunningham 22:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical info