Comments on: A Very Angry Digg Nation

By: Nikools

Nikools — Thu, 10 May 2007 07:40:03 +0000

Pfft.. Digg is overrated, there are an infinite number of sites that can fill its shoes frack.it, reddit, netscape...

By: Wai Yip Tung

Wai Yip Tung — Thu, 03 May 2007 21:31:46 +0000

Sounds like the big loser is MPAA. Their hardball tactics totally back fires and the encryption key is so widely known that it is now impossible to censor.

By: Blackblade

Blackblade — Thu, 03 May 2007 08:06:48 +0000

The question of legality is, however, very difficult because, frequently, the law in question was developed for print and broadcast media.

Web 2.0 applications permit use of media and interaction with it which were never considered when the IP laws were drafted. Hence, now, there are many difficult areas that go right to the core of the issue.

Is Digg a publisher or a technology service which permits others to publish ? Quite hard to answer that one and it's fundamental .

Hence, to answer Random Thouoghts' question ... do new businesses consider legality ... of course we do. However, speaking personally, I can assure you that the legal advice we receive is very confusing and confused because even the advisors can see multiple approaches.

Matt.

By: Herb Kornfeld

Herb Kornfeld — Thu, 03 May 2007 04:34:29 +0000

Digg was clearly brought down by a very powerful minority and not by a majority of its fan base. Digg will die because stunts like this have demonstrated Digg's lack of credibility

By: RandomThoughts

RandomThoughts — Wed, 02 May 2007 20:24:44 +0000

Daniel, I agree, but when dreaming up a business, I hope the talk of "is it actually legal" doesn't take all that much thought.

Then again, if you go close to the edge, maybe there is more profit if it works. We know the guys on Wall Street think that way.

Maybe playing it safe is too easy (and unprofitable)

By: Daniel

Daniel — Wed, 02 May 2007 19:51:45 +0000

Random Thoughts, I think that sticking the label of "illegal activity" to Digg in particular, and to all user generated content sites, is superfluous. Any business is subject of legal suit risk, some to lesser extent, some to larger. The larger the business, the larger risk of suit. It's not black and white, it's fuzzy.

By: Clay Cook

Clay Cook — Wed, 02 May 2007 19:35:36 +0000

This has created so much publicity for Digg that their traffic will rise to a new level.

By: Nick Hawkins

Nick Hawkins — Wed, 02 May 2007 19:21:46 +0000

Between digg's bury brigades and the spam that shows up there, it's useless to me as a news aggregate. So, screw 'em.

By: Ferhat Savci

Ferhat Savci — Wed, 02 May 2007 19:14:42 +0000

I'm a computer scientist specializing in DRM and legalese comes with the job.

Publishing a trade-secret is illegal, but only the source is responsible. Follow on...

The concept of a copyright exists for material published or meant to be published; trade-secrets are, by definition, not meant to be published: once they are out, they are out and are not protected by a copyright. If found, the parties responsible for making the secret public can be successfully sued, but not the publisher.

Digg can't be sued or even taken to court for linking to a published (or even publishing) a trade-secret. They certainly acted rashly and probably without consulting their legal position. They probably got courageous about going to court and "dying trying" after a consult, but it was too late.

The party that discovered the trade-secret and made it public may rot in jail, if caught.

By: RandomThoughts

RandomThoughts — Wed, 02 May 2007 18:46:00 +0000

Daniel, how can you build a business model on a business that is breaking the law? If there are enough grounds on Diggs pages for the MPAA to sue, how can advertisers or investors work with Digg?

The interesting thing with the Viacom/YouTube suit is that everyone thought the only thing protecting YouTube was the fact they didn't have any money, because they knew they would get sued. Once deep pockets (Google) stepped in that changed.

I would say that if YouTube were to lose to Viacom then all sites with business models built around questionable legal activities will really take a hit, because investors will stay away. Course, one would think that Google did some legal due diligence here.