That's not what I'm saying. I agree that Digg shouldn't censor it. My point is that the original poster shouldn't have posted it.

Clearly, the intention of this particular number is to steal. It's not enough that pirates steal, but they have to publicize their behavior and tactics and encourage others to follow them. It's this type of publicity that fools people into thinking that somehow digital piracy isn't equivalent to walking into Best Buy and shoplifting.

I can only hope that one day these characters get caught and have to face the MPAA in court.

It's not stealing, nor is there implicit intention of stealing. This is a piece of information that is a part of every single HD-DVD player and every single HD-DVD disc. It is the nature of people to be curious, and to share their findings with their peers and to the world. This is how science and technology have advanced for centuries. Censorship strikes at core American values, which are based on more fundamental observations of human nature that apply to everyone in the world.

Furthermore "Stealing" is one of the worst possible words to use. Duplicating and distributing media is not stealing. The term Copyright Infringement and it's important not to conflate the two. In some cases, Copyright Infringement is a far more expensive than stealing, but they are not the same thing. Whenever something is stolen, there is -always- an identifiable victim, no matter how minor the victimization might be. There is always someone who has lost something. In the case of copying an HD-DVD, there is no such automatic loss.

Stealing someone's copyright is stealing. Plagiarism is stealing. Breaking an exclusive license agreement is not.

"handing a copied HD-DVD to a friend is stealing"

I don't agree. Handing a copied vhs isn't illegal. Its illegal to sell it to him. Perhaps the license on HD-DVD's is more strictly worded but no one is going to be criminally charged with copying a hd-dvd and giving it to a friend.

"represents a failure to appreciate creation, innovation and the advancement of arts and technology." WHAT?! Failure to recognize copying as theft? Tell that to art thieves.

What would happen if copyright law disappeared tomorrow? Would creation, innovation and the advancement of arts or technology halt? Would it slow? Would it grow? I think the fine arts throughout history are much more amazing than the crap hollywood puts out. Did they need copyright law? Why should the right of the cooperate citizen outweigh the right of a fan who would rebroadcast a work at their own expense?

One day we'll have the ability to copy physical objects just like we copy files today, and it would be as cheap. In fact we may see that technology in our lifetime. At that point, the whole concept of "stealing by copying" would be challenged as never before, and I believe it will surrender. All ethical or business issues aside, it will surrender for two simple reasons: (1) it would be practically impossible to prevent copying and (2) it won't actually do any serious harm to the author who considers herself to be "robbed" through copying.

More fancifully, what happens when someone decides to copy themselves, and copy themselves, and copy themselves, until they account for more than half the population of the earth, and then vote in a change of the property laws such that copying is not theft...

You may say the DMCA is a bad law. I'm inclined to agree. And if you choose to violate a bad law and risk the consequences, you'll be in some heroic company. But demanding that someone else, like Digg, violate the law and risk the consequences in your place seems a bit low.

Well, it's very simple: digg has two options, either fight, or shut down.

They've empowered their users, and their users have informed them in no uncertain terms that they will not accept censorship.

That doesn't mean that they have to fight, merely that if they want their community to remain largely as it is, they cannot censor. As the saying goes, they can't "have their cake and eat it too"

Can't you copyright a number? If you can copyright text, why not digits?

Because as far as we know, an arbitrary sequence of digits will eventually show up in the decimal expansion of pi. So if you can copyright a number, anyone who can calculate pi is a criminal.

But any sequence of text can be represented as a number, given a suitable encoding. And that number will show up in the decimal expansion of pi somewhere. So clearly, text should not be copywritable either.

I think I need to link to "What Colour are you bits?" ( http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/lawpoli/colour/2004061001.php ) again, just because the issue is so confused. Basically, it boils down to humans' conception of reality being incorrect, so things like authorship are assumed, even though there's no unforgeable way to represent them in reality.

Even worse, pi contains a (binary) program that hacks DRM, so Mother Nature is with us!