They are gonna sue companies or people posting numbers? LOL good luck with that - boy those telephone directory people better watch out!

When i buy a dvd i expect to copy it as i already own it. End of. But good work by the AACS in publicising the fact that copy protection can be broken with this code. I will be checking it out very soon.

Oh yeah and the DCMS only applies to America right? AACS you have no chance, give it up, you are toast!

phil, London, uk

The movie industry claims encrypting DVDs (HD or otherwise) is to protect against mass copying by pirates. This is rubbish! Since every player can decrypt the DVDs, the pirate merely needs to copy the encrypted DVD.

The true reason for encryption is to give industry a lever by which they can force player makers to include restraints which no sane maker would otherwise want in their players. These are dictated by the terms of the license agreement player makers must sign to get the DVD keys.

The principal restraint is region coding so players will only play DVDs bought locally. This too does nothing to discourage piracy. It merely enables the movie industry to charge vastly different prices around the world while inconveniencing legitimate users in innumerable ways.

Another restraint is the inability to fast forward over certain part s of DVDs such as the FBI copyright notice or adverts.

Mark, Yokohama , Japan

Posting a key and posting a name and social security number are two totally different things.

If you post an encryption key, it's more like posting just a social security number.

Now if someone starts posting a program that will use that key to remove the protection that is more like posting someone's name and SS.

Lastly this is why DRM fails. They have given you both encrypted content and they have given you the key to unlock it, but they are just nicely asking you not to look at the key.

Darren, Vancouver, WA

You know there was a time when there wasn't any digital rights management. VCR's could copy, cassettes and 8-tracks could record. Xerox machines could duplicate. People could record off radio. The industry didn't die, record sales didn't wither, CD sales continued, pre-recorded cassettes sold well, print publishers continued on with their business.
Fast forward to 2007 and now you have a paranoid (though wealthy) industry that has put in draconian copy protections that limit consumer flexibility. Did you know HDMI is protected? Your component video is limited to 480p not because of technology, but because the movie industry demanded it! Video discs are encrypted, music is protected. The consumer now is saddled with music they can't transfer to a new media for convenience, they're locked in a legal agreement every time they purchase music.

Is this the modern day communism, where you don't have ownership, but only license and are victims of big business cronies and the govt?

Steve Savage, oklahoma city, ok, USA

I think it's really funny how people can justify breaking the protection on movies.

Unfortunately for people living in America and Europe you can legally protect a number. What everyone fails to understand is that publishing the number isn't illegal, but telling people that the number is a key is. It's all laid out in the DMCA & EUCD.

It's obviously going to be difficult to police this, in the same way that any crime becomes difficult to police if enough people do it. Thats no reason to not bother.

Money has to come from somewhere, people who pirate every movie they watch mean that other people are paying for your entertainment. That means you all owe me money, I'll be round to take your posessions in payment. Don't worry, I'll break the law enough times that it becomes unproffitable for the police to arrest me.

Bill, London, England

It's not the publishing of the number itself that can be criminal it has to be the act of unlocking a movie. It’s all in what you do with the information.

The movie industry needs to look at distribution options and how to protect their investments. Music was like this until itunes came along. The differences being that HD movies are huge and the music industry never tried to implement a new optical disc format bundled with hard to break encryption.

Security by obscurity doesn’t work.

Locky Grant, Stockholm, Sweden

AACS you can stick your lawsuits to a place where the sun newer shine. Oh btw i live in Sweden so your DMCA isn't applicapable here so please remember to tell your attorneys that as they frequently threatens with that law to our "The Pirate Bay" bit torrent tracker owners.

OLIRC, Sodertalje, SE

Its a 32 byte number, so is any pirate software, it's a number, a digital string of bits... so is it only bad if it's a really really long number, or is it the context of the number.

Rob Zeigler, Dingzogg,

Actually James, thirteen undecillion two hundred fifty-six decillion two hundred seventy-eight nonillion eight hundred eighty-seven octillion nine hundred eighty-nine septillion four hundred fifty-seven sextillion six hundred fifty-one quintillion eighteen quadrillion eight hundred sixty-five trillion nine hundred one billion four hundred one million seven hundred four thousand six hundred forty is not prime.

Robert's point is an interesting one. How can an encryption key be called a circomvention tool. That's calling a physical key a "lock picking tool".

Paul, Long Beach, California

If I take a "key" (in this case a physical one) down to Lowes, Home Depot, Fred Meyer, etc. they will duplicate it for me. They don't ask me to verify whether I have the rights to use the key, or the copy they make. The only way I stand to get in legal trouble is if I USE the key to actually access someone else's property. A physical key can be reduced to a numerical representation of it's dimensions and so is no different than the decryption key in question.

The fact of the matter is that DRM costs the end user an unnecessary financial burden and limits their freedom to use what they bought when and how they want to use it.

As long as there are ways to play media, there will always be ways to copy it, regardless of DRM.

I hereby propose a new term called "OpenMedia" that producers can put on their products to show that they are DRM free. Not having to include DRM means lower production costs, lower end user prices and ultimately more sales of those products to the end user!

Israel, Seattle, WA, USA

"...to confront bloggers who made the key available, saying they had 'crossed the line.' "

It's interesting how industry groups think they can set where this theoretical "line" even lies.

The information is out there...not only published on blogs and websites, but in private discussions (users that actually want to make use of this key), group names of lobbyists on social networking sites, et cetera. Even the other day, a friend of mine had the hex code in his status on a popular networking site (It shouldn't be too hard to guess which one).

Lawsuits can now only be for punishment, rather than censorship. It's too late for this so-called "key." The naked truth has spread too far.

Zachary C. Brown, Fayetteville, Arkansas, USA

this is hilarious... trying to protect a technology that is now going to be scrutinized by a tech savvy community.... matter of time before the whole thing blows up... and the so called protection.. ..

oh yeah!! please please try taking 700,000 to court... would be an entertaining news story if nothing else!!!

oh and what about the rest of us NOT in the STATES? LOL.. what are they gonna do about us?

Dee, SG, Singapore

The more the AACS tries to stop the key from getting out. The more motivated it makes people to publicize it (the forbidden fruit). It also makes those that are willing to thumb their nose at the AACS heroic for standing up to them. It's funny how these organizations think they can force people to act the way THEY want them too. It just doesn't work that way. In other words . . . RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!

Dennis, Chicago, IL, USA

The question I have is when something like this is posted so widely shouldn't it become public domain? At this point you can't really hide the key any more. There's no way to put it under wraps again, and you can't effectively sue 700,000 bloggers. On top of that I'd say suing Digg would be a huge mistake, since many people have already said they would gladly donate to Digg's legal battle. What can the AACS really do in the end?

Richard, Mountain View, CA

DRM arguments aside.

I believe these bloggers will find legal sanctuary in the fact that the damage was already done, and their wide distribution of the key doesn't actually impact the protection in any fashion. The key was out, even if it had stayed to small forums, the damage was done, the tight community of people who crack these types of things had all they needed LONG before the DIGG uproar.

Justin, Waterloo, Canada

Continued...

On the topic of "The Law"... These money grubbing companies are looking for pockets to pilfer to recoup their losses, and the law will allow it, because for some reason in a country where freedom is supposed to be the goal, we have more laws restricting that freedom than those granting it, all in the name of control. But the public does not like to be controlled, thus the "outcry" by the digg users, a microcosm of our democracy itself, as this issue expands, enough people might want to do something about it, but I doubt it. People today are too absorbed within their own lives, they do not care about the whole and they believe the whole won't listen to them so they never attempt at change.

As for a company owning a number... ridiculous.
As for a website being persecuted for being controlled by the masses... hypocritical
Am I going to hate it when I read that "The Man" has won again?... Hell yes.
What am I going to do about all this?... Go find the key and start playing.

David McClellan, Spokane, WA

it is my understanding that this number is not the only thing you need to open up DVDs.

It is not the same as knowing someones garage code.

You know, With all this copyright stuff, why don't they outlaw photocopiers at libraries? That's the same thing.

Why don't they outlaw tape recorders so people can't make mix tapes? It is the same thing. Just because it isnow "digital" everyone thinks it's a new issue, which I believe is just a feeble cover for their chance to lock out previous, but, unavoidable allowances.

askjd, djs,

the law and justice don't always agree. justice is freedom. the law is the DMCA. they cant sue all 700,000 of us.

buckykat, Denver, USA / Colorado

I think its a bit unfair. Digg is something Kevin Rose has worked very hard for, and its his job, so if it were to be taken down, Kevin would lose his job and his 'baby'.

Adam, London, UK

This "number" is nothing at all like a person's social security number. It does not refer to an individual. I'm not sure I understand the argument of Brian Davidson who seems to be saying that publishing a string of numerals and publishing a person's name along with his unlisted phone number are the same thing.

PopeRatzo, Chicago, IL

On the first comment about posting my name and social security number on digg.

For a start, my social security number is still just a number. If someone posted my social security number all over digg I couldn't care less - as it's a number. The fact it happened to be my social security number makes no odds. If you turn the HD-DVD key into decimal, you could have a SSN!
What you're saying is my Social Security Number AND my name. Err hello? Since when was giving out my *personal* details even remotely similar? This key isn't someone's personal details. In fact, by itself what can you do with it? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. The number doesn't let you decrypt anything. It's not executable - it's not even close to being executable.

Going by current counts there are 2 million people posting the key - how long will that take to process through the courts? I look forward to ignoring my Cease and Desist.

Ned Tore, London,

In response to the breaking-into-a-house analogy:

Commenters and DRM advocates like to use the analogy of breaking into a house to symbolize copying a DVD. With this key out, anyone can "break in" and "steal" the protected content.

The problem is, the customer ALREADY OWNS the content on the DVD he/she bought. It's like breaking into your own house. Or -- with the key, entering your own house normally. It's not about stealing, or circumvention, it's about accessing content you already own, when and how you want. CALL THE COPS!!

Jer, Issaquah,

I think a better analogy would be this: My neighbor has a code to open his garage door. In his garage he keeps many things of value. I see him come and go; I know when he is not at home. I know the code. I could easily, when he is gone, go over and steal his things. That would be illegal. However, does merely knowing the code constitute a crime? Clearly it does not. However, does printing the code on flyers and handing it out to the neighbors constitute a crime? That is debatable.

me, here,

well, its too late suing people now, the damage is done. They have to pick up the pieces and try and fix the issue. Suing poeple won't do anything, the number is out forever.

DavidJ, ccccc,

Its a 32 digit number. You cannot ban numbers, and sue those who list numbers. This is utter insanity.

Robert, Virginia Beach,

Jayson,
So, if the AACS posts your social security number with your name on DIGG a hundred times, you won't mind?

It's not just a number. Stop kidding yourself.

Brian Davidson, Santa Rosa, CA

I would say that they have no grounds to stop someone from posting a number. Otherwise, I'll be suing anyone who uses the number "2" as I own the rights to it!
On the other hand, I would stand by their attacking sites that post decryption software.

Rob, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Most people understand that if they open the front door to someone else's house and walk inside - they are breaking and entering. Having the knowledge that you CAN do so does not make one a criminal - nor should it make a criminal out of a person who broadcasts the existence of that causal relationship. But also, IF movies did not consist of completely recycled, co-opted and outright xeroxed imagery, structures and ideas, maybe everyone would WANT to pay film makers for the material.

Cletus Dowager, Sacramento, CA

one thing that gets me, It is not breaking the encryption it is the key. Doesn't that mean it is not a circumvention tool, but the proper way to unlock the content?

So if you use the same method as every other DVD player out there, are you any different than any other player? If you are guilty of circumvention then so are they.

robert, edmonton, canada

Good luck with that! BAHAHAHAHAHH! What are you going to do? TAKE 700,000 people to COURT in the usa! YEAH RIGHT!!

Come on! The USA court is for the USA, not the rest of the world.. what a damn joke this "lawsuit" would be..

YEAHHHHHHH RIGHT!

pigs can fly too! Oh yeah - was that ELVIS I saw walking outside on the street talking to Marlon Brandon having a drink with Anna Nicole Smith!

BHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

kitkatsavvy, qld, Australia

Well, obviously the public doesn't respect the AACS' position.

Bobby, morganton, WV

Any time I hear the someone hopes "the public" will "comply with applicable law" makes me giggle.

I mean, the public is supposed to make the laws. If there is enough concern that they won't follow it, perhaps it's because they should be repealing it? I guess the public is lazy, though.

Of course, I think that various distinictions in law that are being eroded are probably lost on people. So many prosecution and enforcement types are gung ho that 100% enforcement is now technologically possible, that they fail to appreciate that existing laws are often overly harsh because they were created with the understanding that they would rarely be able to even be enforced. No one appreciates that our democracy is as much about serving the public will as it is about avoiding the tyranny of the majority.

Who was it that said that democracy was "Two wolves and one well armed sheep contesting the vote."?

At the core of it, people are being sued for posting a number. It's BS.

Jayson Vantuyl, Republic, MO

You are wrong, your article states....
"Bloggers who posted links to a software key that would unlock the copy protection on some high-definition DVDs have been threatened with legal action."

Most bloggers etc have posted the *actual* key in it's hex form.

If the DMCA think it can prevent publication of the key using legal methods they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Look up the expression "The Streisand effect" on Wikipedia.

The key has now been published in video's, as lyrics to songs, car bumperstickers, T shirts....some individuals have actually had the key tattoo'd on their bodies.

If the DMCA hadn't tried to bully Digg the whole thing would have blown over in a few days. Very few people know how to use the key.....
They have now created a very belligerent geek techno savvy group of people who will devote their already high computer usage to thwarting the DMCA at it's copy protection folly as a matter of principle

Infami, Derby, UK

The AACS can sue whoever they like it will make little difference the information is out there, if the code is able to circumvent the protect of High definition discs, then it will be done it may have to be done in countries that do not have such laws.... but it's online its out there its very hard to now stop...

Andrew, Newcastle, England

DVD's and CD's are past their prime.
I say boycott the purchase of both and save the planet.
The garbage dumps are full of old media
78's -> 33 1/3 -> 45's -> mono -> stereo -> cassette -> 8 tracks -.> VHS/Beta -> Floppies - CD's -> DVD's,

The Internet can deliver all of this now without the wrapping transportation and real estate.

Boycott them

Just say no.

Donald Cameron, Hamilton, Ontario

I note that they continue to refer to the number as "the key," which is obfuscation. It is nothing more than a number.

I believe that the number in question is a prime number. If so, it has been published previously, as this is very far from the highest prime discovered. If it is not a prime, it is nothing more than one of the ordinary counting nuumbers.

I do not accept that anyone can "own" a number, no matter how large or how hard to find. I also do not accept the premise that it is "outside of protected speech" as they claim.

Fact of the matter is they failed - they did not create an effective "protection scheme" - they tried to create an ownership of a publicly owned quantity, for their exclusive use. I reserve the right to continue to use this number in my investigation of Number Theory and to publish it at will.

James Harvey, Ocala, FL

Ayers and his AACS just don't get it. What happened at Digg wasn't the work of a small group of 'rebels'. Over 200,000 people took part in the Digg event, and the more the AACS tries to clamp down on them, the more people will join them. This isn't even about digg anymore, and suing digg and it's creators will do nothing except make some martyrs for the cause. As long as Ayers keeps along this path, he'll face a long bloody struggle ahead of him, one i can't see him still in a job by the end.

Chris Deans, Edinburgh,

Perhaps they should move with the times and scrap protection? They are, after all, behind the times with a lot of things. They use a very historic exchange rate when calculating prices $1:£1. Perhaps if they were sensible and stopped 'Treasure Island' pricing there would be fewer bootlegs as they would just not be worth buying.
Just in case the dreaded copyright police are reading this - we buy most of our dvds legaly from the USA and have a region 1 dvd drive on the computer BUT would far prefer to buy from the UK.
CDs can be copied easily and they still sell wouldn't the same apply to dvds?

J D S, Cardiff, Wales UK

Only 700,000? A quick search for 09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63 56 88 c0 gives me 1.2 million results.

Bob, Beijing, China

I, as one of the many diggers that participated, believe that the so called 'riot', or 'rebellion' happened more because people have a legitimate reason for knowing the key. Linux users for one, and anyone who needs to make a backup (if you have young children you know) for whatever reason.
The current system doesn't allow for people to use their legally purchased media in a manor that is perfectly legal. Piracy will occur despite any action taken against it.
Anyone who would purchase any media still will, even if they download it first, if for no other reason than to support the ones responsible for creating it. The MIAA & RIAA know their time has come and are just making a mad grab for as much as they can, while they can.

authustian, Louisville, KY

Its time the dinosaurs moved into the 21st century, or they may find themselves at odds with their customer base more and more.

Jon Dear, London,