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.

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)

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.

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.

Risk of legal suit is part of Digg’s line of business – when you deal with UGC, that should be expected. I’m sure that if MPAA will decide to sue Digg, they will find enough grounds on digg’s pages.

Actually sir, I and all the other Digg users combined DID in fact “bring Digg into this world” as we are the content creators. Mr. Rose and company are all multi-millionaires now, solely because of our labor.

Digg does not ask for personal information, nor does YouTube. My email address is readily available on both my Digg and YouTube user pages.

I welcome any attempt by the MPAA, DMCA and the RIAA to sue me for typing my opinion into the comment section of Digg.

Here’s is a recent legal precedent for you to consider: http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/01/29/apple.pays.legal.fees/

Thank you.

Would you do that? Would you be ok with Digg turning over your personal information to someone with a court order? Would you be willing to face a jury over your account?

If not, you just don’t want to be responsible for your actions and in fact want others to be.

PH: Probably. So it’s better to edit and apologize than it is to ignore and spend the day in court.

If that is the case, then YouTube-Viacom drama becomes even more intriguing. If not, then did Digg act rashly?

PH: It’s their site. They can choose what they want to post and what they want to avoid. You get what you pay for.

Can Digg recover from this set back?

PH: Who cares? Does anyone get their news from Digg?

http://internet.seekingalpha.com/article/29579