Post I.T. - Washington Post Technology Blog Frank Ahrens Sara Goo Sam Diaz Mike Musgrove Alan Sipress Yuki Noguchi Post I.T.
Tech Podcast
The Bloggers
Subscribe to this Blog

The HD-DVD Digg revolt

Mike Musgrove

News aggregate site Digg had a bit of a meltdown yesterday over whether users could post a 16-digit code that can be used to crack the anti-copying technology on HD-DVDs.

The group behind the HD-DVD format's digital rights management technology have been sending around "cease and desist" letters from its lawyers, saying that making the code public violates its rights under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

In an effort to keep the lawyers away, Digg took an aggressive approach and started taking down articles and comments that featured the code (which looks like a meaningless jumble of letters and numbers to most folks). The resulting backlash from Digg users was intense -- at one point, as noted on Boingboing the top ten tech stories at the site yesterday evening were stories about the code, stories about Digg burying the code, and an accusation that Digg's founders had accepted money from the group that oversees the HD-DVD format.

Yesterday evening, Digg founder Kevin Rose announced that the site had changed its stance and keep references to the code posted at the site.

"You've made it clear. You'd rather see Digg go down fighting than bow down to a bigger company," he writes.

By Mike Musgrove  |  May 2, 2007; 11:41 AM ET  | Category:  Mike Musgrove
Previous: A Race to Personalize the Web | Next: Miles Gilburne and Web 2.0


Add Post I.T. to Your Site
Stay on top of the latest Post I.T. news! This easy-to-use widget is simple to add to your own Web site and will update every time there's a new installment of Post I.T.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Thank you for the public acknowledgment that this issue deserves. DRM is a controversial issue.

Posted by: Digg.com | May 2, 2007 12:58 PM

As someone that was part of this online riot, I want to say that this was not about people wanting to put the code up. This was a fight about Digg censoring everything about this issue. When the original story (with the code) was censored, someone put up a story about the censorship (without posting the code) and that was censored as well. That act of censorship toward stories that were criticizing Digg's actions is what really made this event happen.

Posted by: bigbee79 | May 2, 2007 1:11 PM

It's not just DRM. It is more about Digg folding to something that would never hold up in court, without any sort of fight. News providers cannot act that way. Then proceeding to delete articles and ban users critizing digg.

Posted by: AC | May 2, 2007 1:14 PM

please people, have some respect for copy protection. piracy is cancer eating away at some many industries we'd all like to see thrive. it's a terrible shame that huge numbers of people have no sense of right and wrong. their moral compass is shattered.

Posted by: maxhodges | May 2, 2007 1:14 PM

up yours corporate lapdog. your industry makes millions in profit. that puny little geek burning himself a porn dvd isn't going to hurt your wallet

Posted by: steve | May 2, 2007 1:18 PM

This situation is not Digg's fault. All they were trying to do was stop the inevitable.

Note to these organizations (in this case, the HD-DVD group) who try to keep information off the Net once its been posted *one time* (whether its a DRM key or Paris Hilton's arrest record): you can't.

Here's an accurate (albeit somewhat crude) quote that is one of the best I've ever heard regarding this phenomenon:

"Trying to prevent information from spreading on the Net once its out there is like trying to take the piss out of the pool".

Posted by: William J. Edney | May 2, 2007 1:19 PM

maxhodges - I think you're off base here. There are moral and economic arguments against copy protection and DRM. For example, DRM is the cancer preventing media from playing across devices and platforms, frustrating users and delaying digital adoption. This is why industry leaders like Apple CEO Steve Jobs is publicly speaking in support of removing DRM (and copy protection) from digital media downloads.

Posted by: danboarder | May 2, 2007 1:20 PM

MSM has forgotten its most important mission, informing the public. Corporate types and lawyers have taken over.
I was part of the revolt yesterday and if I have learned sthg, it's to have even less respect for lawyers and journalists.
Jay must resign, and I'm not going EVER to buy any DRMed crap

Posted by: Sami | May 2, 2007 1:22 PM

Yes piracy eats at certain industries and yes it is wrong.

The music industry and video industry are also wrong, they are driven by greed and do share the wealth with the artists that bring them the money.

Piracy will stop when CD's, DVD's are fairly priced and the artists get a large percentage of the price. Until then good luck trying to stop it.

Posted by: Chad | May 2, 2007 1:25 PM

Power to the People!

Posted by: Freedom Rings | May 2, 2007 1:28 PM

I pirate because I'm a patriot... as long as countries like China and North Korea have no laws barring piracy it behooves me to have access to the same software as the competition

I pirate because I don't profit... I make no money from the software that I've pirated

I pirate because I don't consume... I don't buy CDs or go to the theater to see movies... occasionally, music or a movie comes along that I am interested in... so I don't wait for it to come on cable as is my custom

You cannot control data... it has no constraints... I am running a pirated copy of Vista... wanted to pay for that... really... but at $400 I miss a car payment... can't wait until Linux is a viable alternative

My moral compass? I haven't coveted my neighbors wife but if she give me a copy of Eragon I thank god that I didn't pay to see it and sleep very well

Posted by: uNiVerse555 | May 2, 2007 1:34 PM

Lemmy, don't be half-witted. Hexadecimal "digits" are grouped by two. Harmless? Well, kinda. I'm not going to reiterate the full impact (/absence of) for part of a hardware key being released.

Let me ask the so-call rioters. AC, are you offering to pay those court costs? Sami, Jay must resign? For protecting his site, that you so much enjoy, from corporate lawyers who have proven in the past not to have a problem taking people to court over DMCA infractions?

bah you twits

Posted by: idkfa | May 2, 2007 1:37 PM

Honesty and morality are only as good as the ability to pay an honest price.
BITE ME

Posted by: BYTE ME | May 2, 2007 1:41 PM

idkfa, that's precisely why situations like this need to happen. Let Digg's lawyers and many others fight and test this horribly flawed DMCA in courts of law. If Rosa Parks had listened to people like you, she'd still be at the back of the bus.

Posted by: Kenneth | May 2, 2007 1:44 PM

As soon as the industry stops making me pay $10 bucks to see some crappy Hollywood Blockbuster and then expects me to sit through 20 minutes of commericals, I will change my stance on the pirated copyright material.

Posted by: TRUTH | May 2, 2007 1:44 PM

People hate censorship. More importantly people don't like to be told they can't do something they want to do. I like to send my family email but the current revolution between mega ISPs is blocking most emails between myself and my parents. Do I try my best to be a thorn in the ISP's sides because some thing, somewhere doesn't mesh with their objectives to own everything in our lives? You betcha!

Bravo to those that rioted on Digg's website. Digg had it coming to them.

Posted by: The Dude | May 2, 2007 1:45 PM

How does a US legislator come up with a law that tries to regulate information that may be property of an Australian entity, that sits on a German server and links to a French database hosted by a Lithouanian ISP? These laws are totally useless. Defective-by-design. And contrary to what that idiot in the White House may think, America does not rule the world.

Posted by: DMCA ? | May 2, 2007 1:46 PM

A lot of you ask for so many things, when you are not in any position to say anything. To the person who scoffs at Vista's price, or the cost of a CD... No one said you HAVE to have these things, they are just things you want, that you can't afford.

Taking something because you can't afford it, is still taking it. You're not Aladin, and no matter how you justify it, its not "free speech"... these are products, and peoples lively hoods.

If I post your credit card number on here is that free speech?

Get a job.

Posted by: Egg | May 2, 2007 1:47 PM

Piracy is not around because of the music industry! You believe that and you're worse off than them. Piracy is prevalent in our society because USERS are greedy. Yes,some companies make a lot of money doing what they do but don't whine for the musicians, they make plenty. Don't cry when you can't afford a $400 car payment because you chose to buy a copy of Vista (should have waited for the first SP anyway XP pro works just fine). It's called responsibility and damn - live within your means!

I'm not saying I don't, hell, we were around long before napster brought it to the mainstream. I'm just saying don't defend it like it's not wrong. Profit is what drives our economy and piracy is stealing.

Go ahead and "back-up" your legit copies. The majority of data transmitted over the Net is not legit.

Posted by: iddqd | May 2, 2007 1:47 PM

Not only is DIGG censoring stories, it is being used by armies of on line people to get rid of stories they don't like and support stories they do. In other words, it is being used as a tool of politics.

I canceled my digg membership and I tell everyone I know with a site NOT to put their button on the page, lest people with opposing views hit the NEGATIVE DIGG flag and kill the story.

Posted by: Citizen | May 2, 2007 1:48 PM

In the 1960s the Greek military dictatorship tried to ban the letter 'Z' as noted in the Costa-Gavras film of the same name. In 2007, in America, a number is now banned.

Posted by: Z | May 2, 2007 1:50 PM

Kenneth - Comparing forcing a company (let's reiterate that they are a free-to-use web service at that) into a legal struggle so that users can more easily steal music is kind of off. I agree DRM makes it hard to actually "own" the products you buy.. i agree - but forcing someone else to do your dirty work is wrong.

Posted by: idkfa | May 2, 2007 1:52 PM

maxhodges,
I'd like to see you try to make that argument in front of the countless number of friends and families of those cancer victims whose lives were taken by the disease they were helpless to prevent.

Sunlight & Saccharin may be a carcinogen, but Piracy is NOT.

Besides, the bad press the RIAA/MPAA inflict upon themselves can EASILY account for FAR MORE loss of profits for the artist they claim to represent than any alleged pirate would.

(A 7 year old downloading a few mp3s could be grounds for somehow legally forcing him/her to purchase the actual albums that contain said downloaded songs, but SHOULD DEFINITELY NOT grounds for thousands of dollars in copyright fines & legal fees.)

Posted by: RIAA/MPAA = Pure Greed. Period. | May 2, 2007 1:53 PM

idkfa, Digg was served with a DMCA takedown notice. Now, if all you can see is the issue of "stealing music", I highly suggest you read up on the DMCA, start at the EFF's website. It's such garbage I could use it to have the Washington Post take down your comment for using my name !

Posted by: Kenneth | May 2, 2007 2:00 PM

Comment by Kenneth: "It's such garbage I could use it to have the Washington Post take down your comment for using my name !"

Or in Digg's case, a bunch of meaningless numbers unless they're used in software to copy a DVD. Even then, it shouldn't be criminal to backup what you purchased or play it on hardware of your choosing.

Posted by: Josh | May 2, 2007 2:13 PM

"O9 F9 11 02 ..." has now become a political banner online.

That hex string represents a number, but it is a number that has taken on a new meaning. Just as "Cinco de Mayo" is not just some date--that date carries forward "Viva La Revolución". A government of the people, by the people and for the people might rename "Freedom Fries." But that government shall not prohibit anyone from proclaiming "Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité."

The hex code, "44 6f 6e 27 74 20 74 72 65 61 64 20 6f 6e 20 6d 65 21", might be simply translated. As ASCII, it's "Don't tread on me!" But its meaning is far deeper.

Today, the hex code, "09 F9 11 02 9..." has been memorialized in verse, in song, and in artistic images. It has been scrawled over the web in political protest. And it has been translated into other numeric representations. The number has become a political statement.

This number--this slogan-- symbolizes the proposition that the numbers belong to the public. No legitimate government may award exclusive control over a number. Numbers are not property.

Posted by: nedu | May 2, 2007 2:15 PM

For all those commenting regarding the theft of digital material with copyright protection, I have one question. What about my rights?

Under the fair use policy, I'm permitted to take my newly purchased CD, DVD, HD-DVD and create a copy either in physical or digital format - backup DVD in case the original gets scratched, or MP3s so I can carry my CD around on my digital music player.

Digital copyright protection infringes upon my fair use rights thus posting any number that gets around these illegal programs is actually supporting the law, not infringing on it.

Posted by: Lance G. | May 2, 2007 2:19 PM

Nedu.

Go ahead and show us how "real" you are about your beliefs and post your credit card number on here, or your social?

Oh wait you won't do that, because although they are just numbers, they mean something to YOU.

Quit the free speech crap. Face it, some numbers are more than numbers. The whole argument you are using is horribly flawed at best.

Posted by: Egg | May 2, 2007 2:24 PM

Egg - "Get a job"; I have a high paying job as does my wife... easily in the top 5% for household income. I am relating not my inability to pay, what is the monetary eqivalent of a car payment, but rather my refusal to overpay for a product.

iddqd - "Live within my means"... since when has that been the American dream... you sound like a Red.

You both live within your means and take the moral high ground... unless you are on the board of a corporation dealing with piracy you have no real stake on that side of the debate.

Damn you Blue Collar Republicans... isn't the holy war enough entertainment for you.

Posted by: uNiVerse555 | May 2, 2007 2:31 PM

Hey Egg, how about you stop playing ignorant. I'll sell you my debit card, but won't give you its PIN code. That's what I get when buying a DVD that won't play on my PC or that I can't make a backup copy of.

Posted by: Kenneth | May 2, 2007 2:32 PM

Egg,

Long-standing trade secret law recognizes that legitimate interests in protecting secret information. People may protect that interest through contract. But that protection ends after the secret has been revealed to the public.

The government of a free people shall not force people to refrain from speaking or publishing public knowledge.

Posted by: nedu | May 2, 2007 2:33 PM

So, the Washington Post has chosen to sit at the back of the bus by censoring people's comments that contain the HEX code? Without a DMCA takedown notice? It's a sad day for journalism...

Posted by: Kenneth | May 2, 2007 3:20 PM

uNiVerse555,

Your Original Post:
"I am running a pirated copy of Vista... wanted to pay for that... really... but at $400 I miss a car payment..."
Your Recent Post:
"I have a high paying job as does my wife... easily in the top 5% for household income. I am relating not my inability to pay, what is the monetary eqivalent of a car payment, but rather my refusal to overpay for a product."

I'm a white collar worker as well, but I don't contradict myself for the sake of arguments on the internet.

All I am trying to say, is that you can't justify not paying for something by saying its overpriced. Mercedes are overpriced too, but you can't download them so theres no moral loop hole to skate through.

With Software/music/movies, there is a huge difference in that it is "data", and not physical. This is NOT a good reason to justify not paying for something. If food/cars/clothes were data, would the same moral loophole exist for you? Or would driving an overpriced car off a lot be considered OK, because "it was overpriced anyway. I mean I would have paid for it, but they are just a greedy corporation.".

A band I love can produce something I will have for my whole life, and put real soul and emotion into it, and charge me only 10-12 dollars. Meanwhile a $200 pair of basketball shoes that will fall apart before they see another year, are produced in Pakistan, under horrible conditions.

Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean it's OK. You can argue however you want, just because something is on the internet, doesn't make it up for grabs.

Posted by: Egg | May 2, 2007 3:25 PM

uNiVerse555, that doesn't give Mercedes the right to dictate where you can drive the car, much less sell it to you without the keys. There is plenty of abuse and blame to go around. What's sad is consumers are being punished for it and now with the DMCA, so is innovation and the unhindered flow of information.

Posted by: Kenneth | May 2, 2007 3:35 PM

Kenneth,
I agree. Theres a lot of blame to go around. DRM wasn't even something the industry was worrying about until people actually started taking it, and record sales pointed to piracy, which is debatable. Music has been crappy lately, less people are buying music, maybe people have been pirating more, but its all hearsay.

DRM in all forms is ridiculous, and I am not a fan nor supporter of it. My previous posts are only targeted towards the "I don't want to buy it, so I'm taking it" crowd. I'm not a fan with the way the industry is going about piracy, probably isn't the best. But of all the different products in the world, piracy is pretty much limited to anything that is considered data, if its physical it's called stealing.

Posted by: Egg | May 2, 2007 3:52 PM

Egg, you want to see a real shocker? Even the "get it free" model benefits industry. Have a look at the swivel.com graph (link below) of physical music sales. Draw and imaginary vertical column from 1999 to 2002, that's the Napster file sharing era. Notice that sales reached and maintained its peak throughout the Napster epoch, but sharply declined immediately after the entertainement lobby had it shut down:

swivel.com/graphs/show/4146447

Posted by: Kenneth | May 2, 2007 4:00 PM

Yes, piracy is wrong. But guess what, DRM does nothing to prevent piracy, and in fact was never intended to. Pirates don't waste time decrypting anything, they don't need to -- they just make a bit-perfect copy of the original encrypted image and burn it to a new disk. Plays just fine on any DVD player and sells like hotcakes.

Posted by: speederaser | May 2, 2007 4:17 PM

Hey liberals, don't forget that Hollywood is a stonghold of Republican money. Oops, I mean Democratic money.

Posted by: Eric | May 2, 2007 4:22 PM

Eric, neither liberals or conservatives can play DVDs on hardware of their choosing or make backup copies of their purchases. Political affiliation is not at issue here, although the DMCA was a gift from Bush to powerful entertainment money, oups I mean lobby. Whatever, it needs to be fixed...

Posted by: Kenneth | May 2, 2007 4:49 PM

uNiVerse555: your justifications for piracy are laughable. saying that you pirate because you don't "consume" is hilarious. the truth is, you don't consume because you pirate. you admitted that you DO watch movies, however infrequently that may be, therefore you are consuming. you may regret watching these movies after seeing them, but, by then, you have already consumed them.

so are yours "Chad".

pirates are not protesting the high prices of media. If the expensive software they were copying cost a single dollar, they would still copy it.

people pirate software because they can. simple as that.

i will conceed that the DMCA is a hilariously terrible piece of legislation. but that is a different discussion altogether.

if you're going to pirate anything, please don't lie to yourself by pretending that you're some activist for "freedom of information".

if you truely cared or understood any of these issues, you would already be a member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Posted by: rukh599 | May 2, 2007 5:19 PM

I am an EE and guitar player. I stopped buying DVDs and CDs and passed on the SOny PS3 because of one single thing

DRM or copy protection

Yes there are thieves in the world and there will be thieves. But as a taxpayer do not use me tax money to protect yourself from some CD or DVD thieves. I voted my legislators to protect me from invasion, physical harm and disease and build roads and bridges etc. Not keep some lawyers and suits in business because a few crooks and God save us "college kids" (your future consumers when they have money)are stealing music.

I and millions of other paying consumers are (were) your customer. we are not gone. I don't buy CDs anymore (priced high to make up for declining sales) and no DVDs as I don't have fair use rights.

Sony's PS3 mistake is not adding the Blueray but DRM. Remove all protection and see your sales soar. Take the profits and pay a few detectives to catch real crooks who pirate in volume - not a few college kids. And don't waste my tax $$

ELSE go out of business

Posted by: Joe | May 2, 2007 7:33 PM

"Can God microwave a burrito so hot that he himself would not be able to eat it."

"Can a computer be programmed to output sound and video without that computer being able to record it?"

The problem is that we have an older generation (b pre-1965) that are basically cavemen living among us. They view computers as magical. They control capital by virtue of their age and sheer longevity.

DRM is what happens when ignorance, corruption, and arrogance are all combined together. It also kills consumer technology. Fritz Hollings disgraced himself in the final months of his career by whoring himself out to disney with a mandatory drm bill. DRM killed digital audio tape, it is killing blu-ray and hd-dvd. General-purpose computers have effectively replaced specialty electronics, and trying to dictate their designs will not work.

If you want to know why young people pirate, here's the explanation:

they want to bankrupt the current MPAA/RIAA types. Whoever replaces them will probably have less money but more manners.

Posted by: nedsburrito | May 2, 2007 7:43 PM

After reading these comments, I weep for the future of our world. We are a culture of thieves and charlatans. We are insipid cheap bastards. We confuse narcissism with freedom. We are hedonistic, crass, craven, greedy and selfish. All revolutionaries are thieves and the overthrown criminals.

Please meet the new boss, same as the old boss. We live in the world we deserve.

Posted by: Gazinnia | May 2, 2007 8:18 PM

Gazinnia, rest assured, all is not lost. There will always be politicians ready and willing to be bought and paid for by industry.

Posted by: Kirt | May 2, 2007 8:44 PM

Doesnt anyone feel a pang of pain that one can copyright a number? Think about it. If I decide that I want my content to be protected by a DRM scheme which depends on the number 2008, then no one else is allowed to use that number? Basically, it would be illegal for you to report that in the year 2008, someone cracked my DRm scheme.

this whole situation is ludicrous, and caused by a legal system far behind the times.

Posted by: varun | May 3, 2007 4:04 AM

varun, no one has copyrighted a number. Anyone else if free to use HD-DVD encryption key as a key of their own. I'm pretty sure you could use it as the title of a manifesto raging against DRM. What you cannot do, however, is publish it as a way to circumvent the copy protection of a DVD. While it is still legal to publish information about building a bomb, it is not legal to publish information about making a single, personal backup of a DVD. That disparity is the result of a badly written law and a lack of technological acumen on the part of the legislature and courts.

The discussion here seems to have drifted away from what started it all. The backlash against digg was not about whether it is okay to publish the key, but rather why the wishes of the users on a user generated site were being overridden by management in an effort to avoid a potential lawsuit. Who is really in charge? The community, who decides what is important to them, or management, who is responsible for keeping the site alive? Should the community be allowed to put the site at risk by linking to something the courts have already decided is illegal just because they, the users, disagree with the courts?

This may sound mean, but I hope digg does get sued and has the chance to take this fight to courts once again. Maybe smarter heads will prevail and this law will be shown to be the worthless tripe that it is.

Posted by: johnrdupree | May 3, 2007 10:45 AM

I rented a movie while I was away from home to play on my laptop. Did it play? No! I paid for that right to watch the movie. I had no desire to copy it, only to watch it as I had paid for. My laptop did have an authorised DVD-ROM drive made under specification and full authorization for the DVD Video format as advertised. Operating System actually comes with a DVD Movie player built in!

Now copy protection got in my way. Since I paid to watch the movie, does this mean I can copy it to my hard drive with so called illegal copy software so I can play it then delete it after watching it? I am not a lawyer. Should I have to pay one to answer my question? To be safe, YES! So...

I took it back and didn't get my money refunded because it worked on a DVD player and TV in the store. Neither of these I had access to. Can I sue the Laptop maker for clearly false advertising? I don't have that kind of money! Besides I doubt that I would win anyway.

Here in Canada (as well as Spain), we pay a tax on blank CDs and DVDs. If I buy a blank DVD, does this mean I have already paid for my legal right to make a copy of the disk that I rented? I doubt it.

What about people who attempt to back up legally downloaded but DRM protected music?

I have seen several cases where people backed up their own music and documents before doing a system upgrade, but the legal owners can't play their legally obtained commercially licensed and authorized downloaded music due to it being encrypted. Does this mean they have the right to convert it over to a non-encrypted version before they back it up? I doubt it.

What about the parents that spend $30 on a child's DVD movie or $80 on a child's computer game. Under copyright laws they are allowed to copy books for back up purposes but not equally damageable optical disks that often cost more and are hard to find six months later. DVD players and DVD-ROM drives are cheep to replace, optical disks are cheep too, less than $1 but not the expensive data on the disks.

Too many of us, generally speaking here, aren't able to even glimpse at the the laws of our own country let alone grasp their meaning. We are content to let our VCRs blink 12:00. It is also worth mentioning that it is illegal to record TV on low grade video tape but then again who is policing that?

We are content to attempt to learn to use (not master) the technology we live with. Forget all of the oversight and bickering with lawyers that is following all of us about. We have crazy governments (I dare you to name one that isn't) to deal with daily, who needs more? So how do we balance this all out?

Here is my personal simple proposal to end all of this:

Any Individual (Not groups, organizations or even governments) should be able to access any music, movie or software (once a two new versions are available or not sold by the manufacturer), once publicly shown on TV (not pay stations), Radio and publicly over the non-secured Internet. The individual may dissect and use the knowledge to their personal advantage, share it with anyone, with only two restraints. (Please see below.) However companies (as well as groups, organizations and governments) must pay to use that same material at all times. Even if the holder of the patent(s) (unless the patents have expired) or copyright is unavailable, give the money to selected charity. Once in "public domain" let it stay there. This should stay this way regardless of where on Earth or beyond, when we get there, a person lives.

The two exceptions are:

No money (or equivalent) may pass hands.
No private individual, group, organization or government can be attacked in either real world or the virtual. In other words, no viruses, hacking and/or alike.

My idea is somewhat part of proposed copyright law changes in Australia.

Please see:

Australian Digital Alliance
Source: http://www.digital.org.au/

By having free and open access to all knowledge resources we can collectively pull way ahead and our children will be smarter and better equipped to deal with an ever increasingly complex and technological world that lay ahead. Things like global warming, toxic waste clean up, pollution, infrastructure construction and even Space beyond our grasp of imagination for the moment. This will require an openness that we once had all too briefly in the late 1960s but has been closed off to us by what, for only greed?

A lot of people came up with ideas flowing freely in the west back then but we let our dreams die too. Even our beloved GUI (Graphic User Interface) nearly died at a major company.

Let us remember some of our accomplishments from that time:

MRI, CAT Scan (CT Scan as it is now called), Internet, micro-processors and with that personal Computers, high efficacy machines like cars, aircraft, trains etc. medical treatments. Pollution.

Is this not how we all learn? Free and open knowledge with our peers and elders? Some not so correct, others dead on. So I share this with you freely today with the help of The Washington Post. Thank you for reading my posting.

Posted by: A Deep Thinker | May 4, 2007 8:03 AM

"although the DMCA was a gift from Bush to powerful entertainment money, oups I mean lobby."

Wow, Bush is pretty powerful if he can do that without even being in a national office. Probably had help from Karl Rove, when he wasn't busy killing puppies.

(The DMCA was signed into law in 1998.)

Posted by: uh huh | May 10, 2007 4:21 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company