Talk:AACS encryption key controversy/Archive 1

Do not post the key

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)

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).

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).

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)

Not according to the protect message at HD DVD. Maybe you could change it? Gracenotes^T § 19:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The number is posted on Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review and "The Foundation has no opinion regarding this matter at this time" see User_talk:Bastique#HD_DVD 213.73.219.133 00:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

What about this guy's opinion?

Advanced Access Content System Licensing Administrator, LLC (“AACS LA”) announces that it has taken action, in cooperation with relevant manufacturers, to expire the encryption keys associated with the specific implementations of AACS-enabled software.

Gracenotes^T § 02:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What's the number that shouldn't be posted? How can I tell if I'm posting it if I don't know what it is. Oh gods, maybe my very IP address is the number! Or part of it! Or maybe the address above me is? Ahhh!!! I clodsed my eyew to aviod seeing ilkegal numbers! 24.179.2.191 13:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

HAHA! Nice and paranoid, that's how they want us to act. — atchius (msg) 21:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

We don't censor, but we do because.... WIKICENSORS71.204.133.75 22:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

how about posting some numbers such as 13,256,278,887,989,457,651,018,865,901,401,704,640 or 1001 11111001 00010001 00000010 10011101 01110100 11100011 01011011 11011000 01000001 01010110 11000101 01100011 01010110 10001000 11000000. Perhaps if the Wikimedia Foundation does indeed get sued a seperate entity based outside the US should be established similar to the debian/non-US. --212.76.33.108 08:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Post the key

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)

A number cannot be copyrighted. What if I post it like : 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 and then later I post 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0? 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 is not the same as the key, nor is 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0. Both of those numbers are completely different from 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88. Oh, and C0.Ghost of starman 03:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Can someone answer this question: does the key completely break HDDVD encryption? Or can the producers just start printing titles with a different processing key? Therefore this key will only decrypt titles produced before the processing key was changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.18.241.193 (talk • contribs)

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)

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)

Background a tad... lacking

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)

• We can post sites that mention the key (the news source I just added has it prominently displayed in the headline, for example): The Number they tried to ban. GarryKosmos 17:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Should the number be listed?

Community consensus is needed on this issue. Should the 16 digit hexadecimal code, which is available in many of the references linked to, be included in the article itself rather than censored via spam filter as it currently is. Please vote "Yes" or "No" on this, with some background. GarryKosmos 17:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I vote a Yes. As stated mainly in the Talk page for HD-DVD, the code is just a number. Having this number doesn't get you instant access to the disc. You still have to do many things before you get to the point of using a HD-DVD on Linux. Furthermore, if anything, this number is considered a trade secret. Once its out, there is nothing a company can do about it except change it for future discs. There isn't a trademark or copyright for a number like this, and posting it will not do any harm. In terms of significance, I still vote Yes on posting this number. It's like Pi. 3.1415....would not be significant enough to post on the math form, except its associated with Pi, which makes it right to post. Likewise, its not the hexadecimal code that is signficant, but rather, its the security key so to speak of HD-DVDs and that in itself in my opinion makes it significant enough to be posted. And lastly, as you stated Garry, the articles themselves have the number. Google has the number. Even Cafe Press has the number. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia tries to bring information to the user. To not put this in goes against the fundamentals of this encyclopedia. Soccernamlak 17:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Consider this, what use would Wikipedia be to Americans if it becomes illegal in their country over this matter? Wikipedia is not a soapbox to protest DRM and the DMCA. There's plenty of other places online where you can make your voice heard without unnecessarily creating a legal liability for the Wikimedia Foundation. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Will we be banning the alphabet along a similar argument to satisfy your Original Research in unilaterally declaring this an Illegal number? 71.204.133.75 07:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

In that case, Wikipedia should list such sites. ~ Strathmeyer 17:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Netsnipe: your soapbox argument is valid only in how it pertains to NPOV. If the article inserts opinionated language against the MPAA, it has to be removed. Wikipedia is not censored is the overriding principle at work here. Also, the number itself has been covered by multiple reliable secondary sources and is therefore notable. It's inclusion is in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. GarryKosmos 18:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Given the safe harbor provision of the DMCA it seems a no brainer: Wikipedia should post the number until such time as they are served with a takedown notice. Funkyj 17:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

And if/when a takedown notice is served, it then becomes the duty of WP:OFFICE to either acknowledge or refuse the takedown notice. It is not the position of Wikipedia administrators to play censor and guess as to what may happen in the future and whether it may be illegal. This prior restraint has already damaged Wikipedia's reputation, and the longer it continues the more Wikipedia will be tarnished. --Rodzilla (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, under 17 U.S.C. 512 it IS our responsibility to remove information as soon as we receive knowledge it MAY be infringing. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Netsnipe's argument above appears to make a few possibly faulty assumptions. First, it's not actually clear that publishing the number is, in fact, illegal. Yes, the AACS is issuing cease and desist letters, but that doesn't by itself mean that publishing the number is illegal. It only means that they are reserving the right to claim that the act of publishing the number is illegal in court. I'm not sure that this claim has been tested yet in court, and I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the AACS could lose such a case (or they might win, who knows?) Secondly, Netsnipe's reply implies that publishing the sequence in Wikipedia would result in "Wikipedia becoming illegal in America", an assertion which sounds fairly remote. Even if (and it's an if) Wikipedia were actually successefully sued to including the sequence in an article and forced to remove it that is still a long stretch to the site being "banned in America". In fact, I would guess that because of legal protections for publishers that Wikipedia basically would never become illegal in America. At worst I think they could lose a lawsuit at some point and be required to pay civil restitution for copyright violation, for example. Dugwiki 17:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is nothing in the DCMA that makes publishing this string of numbers illegal. They most certainly should be posted as the MPAA has no right to dictate want content shows up on Wikipedia and what does not. We're better than bowing to scare tactics. --Wolfrider 18:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

And even then, there have been no scare tactics (DMCA takedown notices) against Wikipedia, so any censorship is unnecessary and damaging prior restraint. --Rodzilla (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me re-clarify my position (which is shared by other administrators). Wikipedia is a encyclopedia with the first and foremost goal of being freely distributable and reproducible under the GNU Free Documentation License. We do not need to be "stuffing beans up our noses" and unnecessarily hindering this mission by hopping on the anti-DRM bandwagon because it is currently the trendy thing to do. In light of the precedent set by Universal v. Reimerdes over DeCSS and that fact that the AACS License Authority has already issued two DMCA take down orders to Google [1] [2], it would be wise for us to exercise some caution and restraint until the Wikimedia Foundation legal representative can provide us with a clearer picture on how to precede with this matter. Let me make it clear that as the Wikipedia:Administrator who semi-protected this article, I don't like this chilling effect anymore than you and we haven't ruled out publishing the key altogether. So please, BE PATIENT. We just need to give the foundation office more time so that they can provide us with proper legal advice. --  Netsnipe  ►  18:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that those who oppose mentioning the "forbidden" number on Wikipedia are by far underestimating the power of a well-known and established institution with good reputation, which Wikipedia actually is. Consider this: At first, the article is linking to a lot of pages which either quote that number directly or are itself referencing to websites which do so. If posting the number on Wikipedia was illegal, this would probably also be the case with links leading to that very number. Second, the number has been published by the mainstream media and can be found on so many discussion forums on the web that eradicating it or suing all of these forums would be an impossible task, even for the MPAA. But most importantly, there are no reasonable grounds for a lawsuit against at least some of the ways the number is (or could be) presented inside Wikipedia. The number is way too short to be copyrighted material, and it cannot easily be used to circumvent copy protection schemes (you need to know much more about AACS to do that), so it is doubtful the DMCA even applies here. If these hex codes are used as an example of an IPv6 address without any further reference to AACP, they could even accidentally be made up by someone, or the guy who posted that example found the number somewhere else on the web where it was also denoted as an IPv6 example. Even though all of us know that "common sense" is not always applicable to court decisions, it seems extremely clear to me that just quoting a seemingly random number you found somewhere on the web can never be sufficient to put anyone in jail. Apart from the fact that the MPAA would have a hard time suing everyone posting the number, which can even be found on t-shirts and in lyrics, chances are that the MPAA will refrain from suing Wikimedia, since a lawsuit - carrying the risk of a precedence - would create even more media attention than what we can already observe, and a loss would be disastrous to them, virtually asking everyone to spread that key. If everything goes wrong and mentioning the number in any way is outlawed by all courts involved including the Supreme Court, Wikipedia can still remove all references to that code. We should not show anticipatory obedience. It is the obligation of everyone living in the States to be a law-abiding citizen, not to obey to arbitrary commands issued by the MPAA just because they are threatening everyone with lawsuits who refuses to be their poodle. -- kurt (not a registered member of Wikipedia) 18:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Look, we need to wait until WP:OFFICE gives us legal advice. We can't do much until then. JoshuaZ 19:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The number is now an historical artifact. It is remiss of Wikipedia not to record it for posterity. Wikipedia needs editors to be agitating for the number to appear in Wikipedia, even while waiting for advice from above. Without agitation it will be all too easy to let the issue slip and for it to never be resolved. John Dalton 23:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is prudent to withhold content based on hypothetical legal notices. The number is definitely of academic interest, and should be present in an encyclopedia. If and when a legal notice is served, WP:OFFICE should evaluate it's merit and give us direction. It is wrong to think of including the number as "jumping on a bandwagon" or making any sort of statement. It is nothing of the sort.

The EFF has posted a legal primer on the issue. Jebba 00:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that in the above EFF primer, they don't even list the full code ("hint: it begins with 09 f9"). —tregoweth (talk) 03:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not think the number should be listed, because of possible legal issues. Wikipedia should link to sites containing the number include the doom9 forum site. — Noldoaran 03:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This is hypocrisy. As per the adove legal precedents (i.e. the 2600 DeCSS case), it is just as illegal to link to the number ("circumvention devvice") as it is to publish it! So Wikipedia should not link to any page containing the number, or we might as well publish it directly. There is no middle ground. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.253.67.197 (talk) 12:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes I think that this comes down to two issues: One, the purpose and reputation of wikipedia, and two, our basic free speech rights. First off, what does an event like this do the reputation of what is supposed to be a freely editable, user driven encyclopedia, when it can so easily have potential content affected by the political agendas of corporations? Currently, articles have been locked, and a simple number, not instructions, not hacking tools, just a random number which happens to be newsworthy, is banned from being posted on pages. This is a slippery slope that we stand on, and if wikipedia does not stand its ground against the scare-tactics of people who do not want newsworthy information known, then we truly may find ourselves in an Orwellian future. Wikipedia's reputation has aleready been tarnished in my own mind because of this whole sordid incident. Wikipedia is supposed to be special, don't let it turn into just another encyclopedia. Teknofreak642 02:07, 3 May 2007

Yes If this number is not allowed to be listed then the wiki itself has failed. All it is, is a set of hex characters. It is a trade secret but it would be impossible to copyright a set of hex characters like that. If you guys are gonna pussyfoot around every gray issue then you might as well save yourselves the time and money and take down the Wiki now. If this information is not posted the global community will just see you as another pawn of the over powerful various American laws and lobbyist. That would tarnish this site reputation far more then posting a random set of hex characters and the impeding drawn out litigation ever could.68.226.119.201 11:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes the number can be listed here. Not doing so is jumping to the conclusion of censorship before there is verification that it is indeed not able to be legally posted, which greatly damages Wikipedia's credibility (and already has). The foundation has said it has no opinion on this. If they didn't want it to be posted until they could figure out whether it could be, they would have said "Pending legal advice, don't post the key." They didn't say that though, so stop assuming that censorship is the right thing to do on an open encyclopedia that faces an uphill battle because of its open nature to be considered a reliable source of information without throwing censorship into the fray as well. Additionally, if Wired still has the number posted (since February), how is there still any basis at all for endorsing censorship here? --Rodzilla (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing more troubling than a "free and open encyclopedia" that manages to commit prior restraint on itself. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 05:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No, this is not some kind of 'freedom of speech' issue, it's a move that is in no way required to cover this article and is on shaky legal ground. DMCA makes provision for distributing information designed to circumvent copy protection technologies and, as the EFF says, there's no precedent as to whether this would come under 'safe harbour'; quite possibly not, if sites linking to DeCSS information were ruled as distributing that information. It annoys me that people are making this into some kind of argument about censorship (on Digg, too) when it's about not doing stupid things that fly in the face of the law just because you hope you can get away with it. Your blog might, Wikipedia might well not. -- Mithent 19:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes and No, now let me explain. If the number is a part of an article that we are using as a source we should not prevent ourselves from linking to the article in an effort to avoid the number, nor should we move away from properly citing an article that may use the number in it's title (i.e. "Digg This:..."). However, I vote no to the inclusion of the number in the articles text as it does not fundamentally add anything to the article. Until such a time that there is a reason to include the number in the article it should not be listed. Basically, we shouldn't include the number in the article just for the sake of using the number.--Darkstar949 19:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No. When deciding what to do with articles, I follow Wikipedia official policy if I encounter a conflict. Wikipedia policy on WP:NOT says that Wikipedia is not censored if the item in question does not "violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida." I think that posting the number would blatantly violate both (WP:C and the DMCA) and posting a link would violate WP:C#Linking_to_copyrighted_works (which states "If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work ... Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors.") and the DMCA (per Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). If you want to get the Wikipedia policy changed, discuss it on WP:C. If you want to get the law changed, call your Congresspeople. I think that Judge Kaplan's ruling in Universal v. Reimerdes (the 2600 case) said it best: "They [2600] have raised a legitimate concern about the possible impact on traditional fair use of access control measures in the digital era. Each side is entitled to its views. In our society, however, clashes of competing interests like this are resolved by Congress. For now, at least, Congress has resolved this clash in the DMCA and in plaintiffs' favor." In our society, Wikipedia, clashes are solved by policy (and occasionally the office). Because the office hasn't said anything, we go by policy. If you want to change policy, do it - with consensus support, of course. But please, don't do it here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Staeiou (talk • contribs) 20:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC).Staeiou 20:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Possibly Yes. Per Staeiou above, Wikipedia policy is to comply with Florida law, so the DMCA applies. Much as I might believe that that particular law is a bad one, Wikipedia is not the place to protest. That being said, as (apparently) no DMCA notice has been received pertaining to this number, then there is a case for including it where relevant. However, if a notice to remove is received and there is no appetite for testing Wikipedia's position in the US courts, then it should be removed. WLD^talk|edits 10:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes! A number can not be subject to copyright, because it's not a work of art. It's my firm belief that the number is randomly generated, most probably by a computer program. Currently computer-generated works do not bear copyright. Furthermore it does not violate DMCA. It is true that it can be used as "a part of a method to circumvent the digital rights management", BUT it is insane, as I bet the letter A also is "a part of a method to circumvent the digital rights management". And binary digit 1 too. Let's ban them, okey? Number MAXLONGINT might be used in a program that's used to circumvent the digital rights management. Let's ban it too, yeah. Wikipedia is not censored. Please do NOT harm Wikipedia! -- Kirils 02:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

YES The number now has encyclopediac value. That's it.--Pavithran 08:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes! The number should be listed WITHOUT explaining how to use it - this will not be against DMCA. This is just a number, people! Wake up! Just a number, which is a prime, actually.BeŻet pl 09:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If, as reported, the last two digits are in fact hex C0, then it cannot be prime, as it would be even. WLD^talk|edits 10:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, for reasons I have articulated several times elsewhere, namely that it has encyclopedic value (attempting to have this article without it is like trying to have an article on the geography of the United States without a map) and there is no official Wikipedia policy to support prohibiting it.Konekoniku 10:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Those who say this is an Illegal number are guilty of Original Research, as no one has sourced a legal opinion as to whether a number is illegal in this case. Originally some activist Admins justifyed this censorship as a wait until WikiFoundation got some sought legal advice - it now appears none was really sought. Thus far all I can find is this from a response from Jimbo Wales , To my knowledge, the foundation has not been served with a cease-and-desist order, and neither has the Foundation expressed any opinion on this matter. Speaking in my individual capacity in my traditional role in Wikipedia, I am simply advising everyone to stay relaxed and focussed on the big picture goals of Wikipedia, and understand that people who disagree with you on this point are also human beings who love freedom of information.--Jimbo Wales 19:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC). Now that a prohbition was not handed down from the Wiki Foundation, the same activist admins have reverted to Original Research on their interpretation of a US law, the DMCA, and the inappropiate use of page protection to force their POVs over consensus in their tireless pursuit of WikiLawyering. 71.204.133.75 07:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, on principle. You cannot copyright a number. It's important that we stay within the bounds of the GNU Free Documentation License, but you cannot copyright a number, and a company cannot sue a decentralized community pretending one can copyright a number. We kept those Danish cartoons of Muhammad on Wikipedia while people were being killed over that controversy. We have an ethic on Wikipedia that information is meant to be free, and kowtowing to the demands of censorious lawyers wishing to keep a number top secret (though it is contained on players the homes of millions worldwide) just seems hypocritical. Principle is worth something. Let's keep the number up. Remember, you cannot copyright the only way to express an idea, and a number is the most distilled kind of an idea I can think of (and I hardly think you can copyright expressing that number in hexadecimal). I vote yes. Let's not give up our freedom for fear. Cherry Cotton 08:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It is a number, and cannot be owned, although some claim to do so. This number has encyclopedic value. Wikipedia should not succumb to (imagined?) legal threats for doing it's job. - Soulkeeper 07:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - It's beginning to look like we have a general consensus that the number should be mentioned in the article. It seems to be a moot point to add it into the body at this point, as it's already in an image and is in half of the citations. Barring further negative feedback on this page I will likely add it to the article sometime in the next 48 hours. --Rodzilla (talk) 08:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

<snark>Be prepared for the sudden ban and swift delete of the edit log through oversight powers </snark>. No, but seriously, people are going to go through the roof if the edit is made again. I know the discussion above pretty much says that the community wants it in but people are going to be drawn back in having the key in the article again... Best of luck, MrMacMan ^Talk 08:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Might be worth waiting a month or so before inserting it, to make sure the firestorm has completely died down before tossing out that bit of tinder. As the article currently stands there's a ton of useful information even without the full number being present in the text, and as mentioned it's already available in the images and references, so it's not like we'd be leaving the article in a crippled state until then. Bryan Derksen 09:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a month of waiting would do. The consensus looks pretty clear right now, and if people do oppose it there are proper, established avenues on Wikipedia (e.g., requests for arbitration) to deal with those conflicts of opinion. So I'd say go for it, unless the consensus markedly changes within the next 24 hours. Konekoniku 09:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Need I mention that consensus isn't a vote. Keep in mind that a number of people that have said yes above haven't edited Wikipedia since, and many of them have barely edited beforehand. Lots of people are still expressing doubts, if not in this particular section. I personally suggest we wait a little while until things die down a bit. Will (aka Wimt) 09:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I really hope there isn't an edit war over this... (looks back over discussion... have i not voiced my opinion yet?) I feel that we should wait a few more days, maybe until the page protection wears off before we place the key back in (if that is the consensus). While I'm not able to cite any wikipedia policies at the moment for this idea I feel that 'all notable information that has proper sources should be included in articles' (perhaps that just common sense). MrMacMan ^Talk 09:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe the fact that some of the people who said "yes" haven't edited wikipedia since, or much beforehand, should really be held against them on this issue – their opinions nevertheless still compose an equally valid part of the community consensus. I agree with waiting a reasonable period – say, 24-48 hours – to solidify (or weaken, as the case may be) the consensus, but seeing as to how the information is indeed central to the article, waiting excessively seems unwarranted, particularly given both the lack of prohibitive wp policy and the consensus demonstrated here in its favor. Moreover, I truly do AGF, and do not believe an edit war will take place once a consensus is shown (and again, if it does take place there are established procedures to deal with it). Konekoniku 09:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Their opinions are entirely valid yes, but such a huge influx should not necessarily be seen as indicative of the consensus of the entire community. I agree we should wait and see in say 48 hours what the thinking is. However, I am not as optimistic as you that adding the number wouldn't possibly trigger an edit war. Many editors may not voice their opinion here until someone attempts to add the key to the article. Will (aka Wimt) 09:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good then. Let us wait 24-48 hours, and if the consensus still holds go ahead with the addition. If an edit war takes place we will first attempt to discuss on this talk page, and failing that will file a request for arbitration. By the way, I wanted to thank you for your earlier discussions on AN/I over this same topic with me – it was extremely (even surprisingly) civil and useful. Konekoniku 09:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Number accessible via reference

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)

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)

Page needs categories.

This page needs categories. Currently it has none. Just saying so you know... --70.48.240.116 18:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Removed details of Google search and wikipedia article controversy

I have re-added the information regarding how many pages on the internet have sprung up with the number, as evidenced by a google search (a valid and necessary reference), and have also re-added information on some examples of Wikipedia articles that were key articles in the controversy on Wikipedia as well as the discussions that have resulted from them (relevant to the controversy as it relates to wikipedia). If you disagree, discuss here before removing again without a reason. --Rodzilla (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, a google search or a Wikipedia talk page can never be a reliable source and consequently should not be cited. Addhoc 18:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - a Google search constitutes original research and should not be cited. Will (aka Wimt) 18:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What if it is used as a primary source to demonstrate what is on that page? For example, a Google search for miserable failure is a source on the Political Google bombs page. —Ben FrantzDale 19:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In what manner then should the fact that there are 300,000+ websites containing the number be cited? Also, the controversy that has erupted on Wikipedia is a significant point of interest in this article, so how can that be cited as well? Should the talk pages simply be linked (but as links, not as citations)? Please clarify, as I believe omitting these points to be an omission of relevant information in this article. Thanks. --Rodzilla (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This should be cited by referencing a reliable source that quotes this number. Will (aka Wimt) 19:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's an easily verified fact such as this, then it shouldn't really need a source. It would still be useful to provide the link for illustrative purposes ... 71.206.231.102

Your confusing the concepts of journalism and encylopedia writing. Addhoc 21:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Google constitutes a reliable source - they are one of the best-known search engines on the Web; the information they publish is generally true, as evidenced by your ability to follow their links and your expectation that most sites can be found by searching it. Whether their approximate hit numbers are reliable is more debatable - but they say those numbers are approximate, and a reliable source is allowed to estimate. Google searches are NOT original research - because Google, not you, is the source of the information, and as said, they're a reliable source. They are a publisher; the search has a certain URL they have published; and someone who wants to check the figure can go to that URL and check with this third party on their own. It would be inadmissible to cite the number of search engine results if you wrote your own web-crawler and collected some idiosyncratic subset of websites, and then people had to find out from you what your criteria were. The most serious issue is Wikipedia: Verifiability, since these search results change over time and may not readily be recoverable later; but this is true of almost any online source eventually, and there is no doubt that the searches are verifiable now.Mike Serfas 15:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I agree with you that a Google search result can be verified, it does represent original research. From the policy page, "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed." By entering a search term on Google you are creating a primary source because Google searches are neither published or self published by anyone else. However, it would be entirely appropriate to link to a reliable source that commented on this vast increase in search results - and I am quite sure that many such sources will exist by now. Will (aka Wimt) 15:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, the only reason that a Google result would be relevant to this article is because the number of results has increased (the raw number is irrelevant without context). Now a Google search won't tell you a historical number of hits for a particular search, only the number at the current time. So the increase, which is what is important here, would not be verifiable in this manner. As I say though, it's a simple problem to overcome simply by citing a reliable source which notes this increase. Will (aka Wimt) 16:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

When I read the policy page, I interpret "original research that creates a primary source" to mean for example if you do your original research, post it to a Web site, then cite the site on Wikipedia. I don't believe that using a search engine "creates" a primary source - their index is constantly being maintained and updated regardless of whether anyone types in a search term or not. As for verifiability, I have to admit that making a graph of the number of Google results on one's own would generally violate WP:NOR, but then again, verifiability only matters if challenged (consider how much of Wikipedia is unsourced, for example). I wouldn't say that's the only way to use the results, however - you could use them to illustrate which Internet services allow Web pages bearing the code, for example, or try to run a breakdown by national domain names (.uk, .jp), or compare the number of people who post the full code to the number posting the first four bytes, and so on. Mike Serfas 19:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to re-add a section mentioning that within a day (e.g. on May 2nd) there were 283,000 pages returned by a google search. I'm going to add a valid source, and I'm going to properly cite that source. Properly citing that source means including a link to it and its relevant citation information (title, access date, authored date, publisher). Unless someone can give me a legitimate reason based on policy and WP:OFFICE that doesn't revolve around speculation not to do this, I'm going to go ahead and do it sometime tonight. --Rodzilla (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

There's also this link which states there were 300,000 search results. It might be better than the Inquirer one because you could cite the proper name of the article without mentioning the actual number. I'm not sure how reliable a source the site is though. Will (aka Wimt) 20:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

While I still don't believe there is a legitimate argument for the entire title of the Inquirer article being cited, I understand that half the admins here are paranoid so I came up with an intermediate solution that should work (see the current citation). Also, I found a source for how many google results there were right at the start (about 10,000). Just a general comment...10,000 -> 300,000 in under 24 hours...wow... --Rodzilla (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Even BBC consider's a Google search as valid source: "A search on Google shows almost 700,000 pages have published the key." see DRM group vows to fight bloggers for more juicy bits. --Miikka Raninen 10:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I just searched on google with the actual key as a search term (with "" of course). Got 1.550.000 results. wow Shinhan 10:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Near-complete blanking of Other websites section

Why was almost all of the content for the "Other websites" section erased? The edit summary said that it was "recent" vandalism and was self-referential. There has already been criticism of Wikipedia on Wired for the events that have occurred here, therefore I think it's relevant to talk about them. Additionally, the fact that it's "recent" on Wikipedia should have no impact, as this is a current event and everything relating to this is "recent." Finally, why was the reference to the article that spawned most of this ("Spread this number") deleted? All the edit summary says is that it "can't be cited" and that the article was taken down. The article is still there, so why can't it be cited? Without the citation the only statement that is left in the "Other websites" section is without a valid citation. --Rodzilla (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I added it back. Even if the Wikipedia diffs aren't acceptable sources to some people, I've heard no claims that the section isn't factually accurate or relevant. As I see it, the story this page needs to be telling is (in part) how user-generated-content sites reacted. Wikipedia is the most high-profile user-generated-content site and there has been controversy here (obviously :-) ). Wimt or Haddhoc, could you explain why you don't like that section? Do you disagree with its accuracy? Do you think it's too self-referential? —Ben FrantzDale 23:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't for publishing original thought, even if the content is accurate, the aim is to write an encyclopedia. Addhoc 23:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. However this article will need to talk about Wikipedia's reaction. Can we agree on that?

If diffs are too close to original research for you but you agree the statements are almost certainly accurate, then we should be looking for other sources for the information, not just deleting it. —Ben FrantzDale 00:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You've got it backwards. Look for a reliable source and then, if you find one, you can replace it. Picaroon (Talk) 00:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Part of the content itself is discussing the sheer number of results that a search returns for the number, and as such why would the google search page for the number not constitute a valid source, similar to the google search page for "miserable failure" acting as a valid source in the Google bomb article? --Rodzilla (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Another source mentioning Wikipedia directly [3] --Rodzilla (talk) 01:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That story does not cite the information that I removed. Everything the DailyTech story says is already in the article. Picaroon (Talk) 01:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

WTF?

I'm sorry, I could have sworn that WP:NOT censored. And that Wikipedia:Oversight is done in reaction to Foundation counsel's advice, not in anticipation of it. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 23:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Keith, I think, at the moment, there are three separate editing disputes:

1. Whether to link to the number - which is primarily a legal concern.

2. Whether to cite articles mentioning Wikipedia's role in this story - which is an undue weight argument.

3. Whether to cite to Wikipedia talk pages or google searches - which is an original research argument.

For what's it worth, I'm cautious on item 1, not so cautious on item 2 and opposed to item 3. Addhoc 23:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd think that Wikipedia at least deserves a mention, since if we have sources, why not? It's not like the article has so much content that every detail must be pivotal. Of course, if we can find other communities for which this phenomenon occurred, that would be great. Gracenotes^T § 01:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT says that "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." Posting the number violates WP:C (Copyrights, the number is copyrighted) and US Law (DMCA). Whether or not those policies and laws should exist is not a discussion for this article's talk page. If you want Wikipedia to violate copyrights and U.S. law, you'd need to start/lead a community movement, starting on the WP:C page. Staeiou 20:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, you can't copyright a number. -Halo 20:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That is a matter of interpretation - any novel can be represented as a number. But you cannot copyright this number, as it is not a creative work, but the result of some trivial mechanical process. --Stephan Schulz 23:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if a number can or can't be copyrighted. Copyright is not claimed on the AACS key. Its distribution is (supposedly) prohibited by the DMCA as a "component or part" of a device primarily designed to circumvent AACS. Regardless, we are not Wikipedia's lawyers. It is not and should not be up to us to decide what is in the best interest of Wikipedia legally. The key is also readily available in several places on Wikimedia servers ([4] and [5] for example), so it's simply ridiculous that anyone should believe they are "protecting" Wikipedia from anything. – Þ  03:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Reaction

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)

Oh - it's been reverted... hmmm... - picaroon says that this requires reliable sources, but i'm not sure what that means in this context - i'll ask him to come here.... Purples 01:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources means Reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Picaroon (Talk) 01:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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.) Gracenotes^T § 01:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

.... thanks for the quick reply! - i think i kind of understand what you mean, but don't you think that this info is relevant and interesting? - are there subtle reasons not to include this info. that i'm missing? - thanks, Purples 01:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Yeah - i see your point. How would you feel about a section title for the info that's there now? Purples 01:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

For clarification this is what i mean....... - Purples 01:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Other websites

In a response to the events occurring on Digg and the call to "Spread this number," the number was rapidly posted to thousands of pages across the Internet.

Wikipedia's Reaction

As with Digg and other websites that rely upon user-generated content, the user-written encyclopedia Wikipedia found itself embroiled in the controversy as well. The number itself, as well as details about its spread across the internet, Digg, and other websites were added to various articles. The media has begun to pick up on the story, with a Wired blog article appearing on May 1, 2007 criticizing Wikipedia for locking pages in response to the number.

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

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)

As I said, I'm quite fine with what was there in the above revision. Let's leave it alone. Do we have consensus? Gracenotes^T § 02:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I got itchy and reworded it a bit - i don't think i've changed any of the meaning (and apologies for not taking your good advice to bring all changes here first - if it weren't facile, i'd revert myself) - what do you think? - Purples 02:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Foundation has no objection to publishing the number on Wikipedia

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)

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)

The Wikipedia community's response seems to be a source of controversy in itself. John Dalton 02:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Merger from HD DVD Night

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)

Merge - It's essentially the same thing. Merge them. --Rodzilla (talk) 04:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

any keys actually revoked?

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)

Alas, 'twould be original. Gracenotes^T § 10:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Although, yes, it might be useful to know. Gracenotes^T § 13:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if it answers the question, but the AACSLA press release may give you the information you are after:"RESPONSE TO REPORTS OF ATTACKS ON AACS TECHNOLOGY". Retrieved 2007-05-03.. 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. WLD^talk|edits 16:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Inaccurate rationale in comments

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)

I disagree with the consensus of Wikipedia, but I find this statement to be absurd. It should be noted, that the above post by User:Netsnipe is a prime example of a delusion. Deleting valid information pertaining to an article on the grounds of legal action is the most cut-and-dry definition of censorship. Shall we either amend the action of censorship, or use admin privileges to modify the definition, and lock the page from editorials.

Wikipedia should not hide its stance.

EvanCarroll 06:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Yes people, lets all be civil, and not bite new editors. That said, this entire lock down would have been prevent had people not started vadalizing pages with the code all around wikipedia. Had people followed wikipedia conventions, the code would have been included where relevant. The whole legalese argument might seem delusional to some, but this is the way wikipedia has worked since it was founded, and editors should understand that is the social compact we have.

There is a lesson here: wikipedia, while user driven, is not Digg. It is not a free for all based on mob rule (and I mean it in a good way!).

In wikipedia, while anyone can edit, while anyone is in fact encouraged to edit, we must stick to certain principles, including GFDL licensing requirements, copyright law, and the five pillars of wikipedia.

There is a place for everything. You go to The Pirate Bay for torrents, digg for post ranking, but for an encyclopedia, you gofor wikipedia. And it seems to me the community consensus is that the number should not be currently included. If there is censorship here, it is self-censorship by the community, not by some Evil Corporate Overlord(tm).--Cerejota 11:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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

There may be infiltration being done to influence the consensus.......... Fatfool 12:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

I think this talk page is proof that there is not a community consensus to remove all mention of the number from this story. Some people have had their edits deleted, or respected requests not to post the number pending a decision, but that's not exactly the same thing. Nor is it unusual for Wikipedia (or any public communication) to operate on shaky legal ground - for example, every time a "fair use" image is posted. The rationale for this particular restriction seems even more dubious than most, though - I just looked up the "take-down notice" sent to one of the original Web sites, which says, "It is our understanding that you are providing ... and offering to the public a technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that is primarily designed, produced, or marketed for the purpose of circumventing the technological protection ..." Now I don't know if that's true of the original site when the code was less well known, but by this point the encyclopedic value of including the code (for instance, so that editors can do a Google search for all 298,000 pages or subsets thereof to track its progress through the Internet and see what policies different Internet services are adopting) is far in excess of the circumvention value of the code (which has been revoked anyway, according to this article, and which is already so widely accessible that it is totally implausible that censoring this one site can stop a person from finding it and cracking a DVD using it if he is so minded and otherwise able to do so). To claim that this encyclopedia page is primarily designed, produced, or marketed to crack DVDs would be utterly absurd. Mike Serfas 13:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Agreed: there is clearly no consensus on censoring the numbers. Existing Wikipedia policy must be followed. See my comments in the section below. Konekoniku 19:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Compromise

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)

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)

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. Gracenotes^T § 19:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well if we need to refer to it as anything, I would suggest doing in the same way as the EFF [6] 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)

What's wrong with writing?

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)

Rogue admin WIKILAWYERS 71.204.133.75 22:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Anything can be deleted. That's the policy. BUT Anything can be ADDED-. That's the converse policy. Enough with the rogue WikiLaywers. 71.204.133.75 22:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Most people I've seen who write The Number are doing it to make a point. JuJube 01:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Self referencing Wikipedia

As has already been discussed on this page, self references to Wikipedia articles etc constitute original research. If you want to add something about Wikipedia you must cite a reliable source. However I'm not sure that what happened at Wikipedia is really relevant compared to other sites given that it didn't even get a DMCA takedown notice. Just because this is Wikipedia doesn't mean our articles should exhibit a bias towards mentioning it. Will (aka Wimt) 21:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia also found itself embroiled in the controversy. The number itself, as well as details about its spread across the internet, were added to several articles. Various editors and administrators removed almost all instances of the number. A Wired blog article appearing on May 1, 2007 criticized Wikipedia for protecting pages in response to the publication of the number.[19]"

I don't see how this is notable outside WP itself either- a paragraph on one of the eight or so Wired blogs on how we locked and reverted additions of the key does not represent a reliable source either. -Wooty Woot? contribs 21:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree - I think I'll remove that too based on the current source. Wikipedia has barely featured in much of the news coverage so there really is no need to mention it, especially given that the cited source is so weak. Will (aka Wimt) 21:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are several additional sources. The Wired article, in particular, is not a blog. A Google search on "Wikipedia HD DVD key" will produce many more references. Wikipedia is definitely part of this story.

• http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/news/2007/05/digglegal?currentPage=2

• http://www.newsfactor.com/blog_article.php?aid=727217

• http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/geeks-will-not-be-silenced/breaking-digg-riot-in-full-effect-over-pulled-hd+dvd-key-story-256982.php

• http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/02/0235228

• http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/archives/2007/05/02/digg_in_chaos_over_hd_dvd_crack.html

We should not censor material about ourselves when it is news.--agr 21:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed but we should also note that in nearly all those articles, Wikipedia was only referenced as a passing comment. Therefore, I think we could include a line about it saying it also caused some pages to be deleted and protected at Wikipedia, or along those lines, but nothing more. It really isn't that big a part of the story, considering how many news articles there are altogether and how many don't mention Wikipedia. Will (aka Wimt) 21:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think comparing the number of articles that mention Wikipedia vs. Digg or the length of WP's mention in any article is a good yardstick to use to determine the size of the paragraph that discusses WP's reaction to the controversy. It was even specifically stated inline that the source of the comment was from a wired blog. More cites:

• http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;1073213305
• http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=7129
• http://www.itbusinessedge.com/item/?ci=27823
• www.infowarscom/articles/media/digg_censorship_there_should_be_digg_riot_every_day.htm
• http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/editors/

regards, --guyzero | talk 22:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should make a bid deal about it or editorialize, but the Wikipedia angle is in play and people will come here to find out what happened. While there may be controversy about what should ahve happened, I am not aware of any about the facts of what did happen. We know, we can source it and we should include a factual summary in the article--no longer than it needs to be but no shorter either.--agr 22:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The only one of those not a blog is [7] which says only that the page was locked. -Wooty Woot? contribs 23:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Jimbosaid

[8] 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)

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).

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. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In that case, the default situation, which does not preemptively censor any contributions, should prevail.Konekoniku 22:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's comment seems to me to pretty clearly say that he isn't going to object to the code being present. I'm not convinced it adds to the article at all, but lets not pretend at this point that there's any real policy basis for not having it at this point. JoshuaZ 23:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Summary of arguments on this issue

Just to be clear, I've read through all of this talk page, and I'm still undecided on whether or not to publish the number myself. But I have compiled a summary of the arguments on both sides, to help make up my mind and those of other editors reading this.

Arguments for publishing the number

• 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) )

Arguments against publishing the number

• 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)

Discussion

Thanks for taking the time to compile this! I would like to add two things, however.

1) From discussions both here and at AN/I, I believe it is apparent that there is no official Wikipedia policy to support banning the posting of the code.

2) This discussion page alone is evidence enough that no broad community consensus exists on banning the publication of the code.Konekoniku 01:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I want to see it in about a week or two. Right now would only encourage the next meme-spam attacks. That's the point of Wikipedia:Keyspam - David Gerard 02:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note, in case other users get the wrong impression, Keyspam does not represent official wikipedia policy but is rather just the personal opinions of a group of wikipedia users. As a sidenote, the Wikimedia Foundation has officially stated that it currently has no opinion regarding the issue, and therefore clearly does not yet believe that the code contravenes Florida law or other Wikipedia policy.Konekoniku 04:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, no. The Wikimedia Foundation so far has chosen not to intervene in the situation at this time. The implication is that the community can handle it itself. Your conclusion is incorrect about the last part. In fact, if one were to conclude anything (even though I am not): the lack of intervention means that the community norms do not seem to be running afoul of established laws, and the Foundation feels no need to step in. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, my conclusion is drawn directly from the logic that if you hold "no opinion" about a matter, by definition you cannot hold the opinion that the matter is illegal. The logic is simple and direct enough that I find it incontrovertible. If you believe otherwise, please enlighten us. If you have misinterpreted anything else from my statement, then I unfortunately cannot help you there.Konekoniku 16:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Konekoniku, I'm quite glad that "consensus" is not a reason for either of those. "Consensus is on my side!" "No, it's on mine!" "Give it!" "It's my consensus, stop taking it!" Gracenotes^T § 03:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The number is embedded in usernames, edit histories, and blocklogs (example); is it realistic to believe we could eliminate every mention of it from Wikipedia? And keep it out thereafter? Considering how many ways it could be reintroduced, e.g. as graphics (explanation) or in metadata? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 03:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The number will be added, if not now, for sure in the future. Wikipedia is not censored. And the key is the main topic. This article would be unencyclopedic if it didn't discuss the key. Berserkerz Crit 10:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

For now I've added it as 09 F9 - which is being used as a shorthand to refer to it - David Gerard 11:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

We are having parallel conversations on all of this in triplicate -- on IRC, on mailing lists and here. Sigh, business as usual. We should stop using the C word (censorship) because this is not a case of objectionable and offensive speech. That is what Wikipedia is not censored is referring to. (In fact if you look at the next entry on the page, it's more relevant: Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground). Contrary to the comment above, there is a pretty significant community consensus about this. The en: admins during the heat of this conflict converged quickly on a reasonable course of action considering the legal ramifications and stayed consistent in excising all full mentions of the string. That should be noted for the record. -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit dubious about this, because maybe it is was only opposed on IRC and the mailing list by the types of people that frequent IRC and the mailing list. I am even more dubious of "here", as indicated by WP:AN discussion and this talk page. I hate to see Wikipedia follow the iron law of oligarchy, although I have seen it prior to this. For the sake of eliminating meatball:ForestFires, do you advocate the creation a straw poll on this manner? Polling is evil, but for the sake of finding some form of consensus, it's a good idea. Gracenotes^T § 13:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw this administrator consensus too, but I never saw the process. I've been around Wikipedia for years and have never seen this level of unilateral administrator consensus when others seem to disagree. In this case, I saw a lot of this sort of debate:

• "You are censoring."
• "No we are not, there's consensus."
• "Clearly there's not consensus, that fact is relevant news on HD DVD encryption key controversy."
• "You don't have sources to back that up."

I don't doubt that there was administrator consensus, but the credibility of Wikipedia's process is its based on its openness, and as far as many users are concerned, IRC and mailing lists are back channels compared to talk pages like this one. Perhaps the logs of those discussions could be posted? —Ben FrantzDale 14:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that initially, some people overreacted because they feared similar turmoil as on digg, as well as the "destruction of wikipedia by DMCA legal action". Second: those and later actions were not always properly illustrated, nor reported at their proper locations (often due to haste). There is concensus that many posting cases of the key are WP:SPAM and not encyclopedic content (causing it to be added to the spamfilter). Another concensus is that introducing the key in this article might be putting wikipedia at legal risk. Another concensus is that we are not in a hurry, and we can at any point in the future easily add the key regardless. The concensus is not that the key should never be added to this article. We are not censoring opinion, if we censor, we censor because of illegality of the material (as we always have). I think that is stuff that almost any editor here will agree upon.

That still leaves many things to be decided upon: Is the number a critical part of the article, should we risk possible legal action. etc.

Yes there was a lot of discussion on IRC and the mailinglists, but much of the mailinglist archives are public, and I doubt the IRC conversations were KEY in achieving these conclusions. it was just random chat that allowed people to solidify their positions. P.S. i'm not an admin, but have participated in many of the related discussion. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The debate we are having right now is a priori evidence that no "consensus" exists. Consensus may have existed among admins, or even may have existed among the community at large, but clearly does not currently exist among the Wikipedia community at large.Konekoniku 16:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

How to use the number encyclopedically

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)

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)

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)

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)

US press containing the actual key

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)

Note: I've listed these in the story, in as compact a format as is feasible.

1. Gadgetell, May 2
2. WebProNews, May 2
3. Newsfactor, May 2
4. Wired News, May 3

The key was included in this PC Magazine column, mirrored at Yahoo! News. —tregoweth (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

AACS LA strikes back! Really! You watch out!

Anyone want to summarise this in a third of a sentence in the article? - David Gerard 10:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, article claim: "US news sources that have mentioned the key have also been served with notices." I am unaware of this. Anyone got a solid cite? I assume from context we don't just mean Digg here - David Gerard 10:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge request removal

Mineralè removed the {{mergefrom}} (and corresponding {{mergeto}} 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)

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)

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)

Now that the two articles have been merged, there is a fully protected double redirect at HDDVD Night. Would an admin care to fix that? Cheers. Will (aka Wimt) 16:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

DMCA to digg

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)

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)

Digg section

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)

Is there any legal word form the admins on the hex code's usage yet? --Darkstar949 18:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Go ahead and add the key

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)

The events of Digg's HD-DVD Night

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)

Fnord

Fnord —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.97.212.93 (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

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)

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)

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)

Wikipedia_is_not_censored

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

Suggest this subtopic for deletion --DCJoeDog 01:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Additionally, text which poses potential legal problems should be removed. Please do not add it back in. --Iamunknown 01:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If "potential" laws make you nervous or depressed... or paranoid... Gracenotes^T § 18:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability

Is the term "HD DVD Night" independently noted anywhere? --Iamunknown 02:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)--DCJoeDog 02:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Who was the person who named this page? I mean, this is speedy deletion material... The source is as far from a WP:RS as you can get!

That said I insist a merge is better than deletion, but I am just warning: we have to rename.--Cerejota 03:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

DMCA notices: 1201 anti-circumvention, not 512 copyright-infringing

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)

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)

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)

Title of article: AACS instead of HD DVD

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)

• I agree - that would be a more accurate title. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Double redirects fixed. -- nae'blis 18:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Muslix64's gender

"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).

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)

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)

Flag

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. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Le sigh. I do wish people would stop being dishonest when inserting the key into this article. Chris Cunningham 21:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This flag is part of a circumvention device, and thus illegal under the DMCA. I really think it is absurd that people think they can get around the DMCA by making the offending number into a flag. But the flag is just as illegal as the number (if you agree that its illegal), as the flag tells you how to get the number. Contrary to popular belief there is no 'safe harbor' provision in the DMCA for hosting parts of circumvention devices, in other words, even if it was removed when they received a take down notice, they could still get sued and would likely loose. There is no reason to expose Wikipedia to this kind of liability. --Ray andrew 17:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Flag image up for deletion

This image is being propsed for deletion. Its significance is explained here.

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)

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

Do not unilaterally remove the flag image

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)

Technical info

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)

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)

Excellent! That was the image I remembered. Chris Cunningham 22:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)