I still don't get this reductio ad absurdum attack of DCMA. It's bad that you might be able to invoke DMCA against someone who quotes your integer with added published instructions on how to use it as a decryption key.

I'm not aware of any DMCA enthusiasts who've had the gall to send takedown notices to someone who publishes *only* the integer -- without contextual instructions on how to use it as a copyright circumvention device. In the Digg.com incident, wasn't the number being repeatedly reposted in the same thread that described the use you could put it to?

I keep thinking that protests against DMCA should be directed against the use of encryption to defeat reasonable and legal duplication of copyrighted material. As a nonlawyer, who's read some of the takedown notices and EFF editorializing, I still don't get that someone could successfully use DMCA to claim ownership of an integer string. For me, mocking that fantasy scenario muddies the water for protests against the real heinousness of DMCA. Maybe I 'm just too dense to realize that it's all tongue in cheek.

The courts will eventually test how much accompanying "context" is required to enforce a takedown notice against a published encryption key. But right now, I believe they'd need to establish there's *some* context other than the coincidental identity of the integer string.

The universal applicability of the HD-DVD key is confusing the issue. I might be mistaken, but I don't think (for instance) that Microsoft could use DMCA to take down a website whose homepage title is a Windows registration key *unless the site specifies that that's what the title is.*

If every software application in the world used the same (supposedly secret) registration key, you'd get the same kind of excitement about people "publishing" it. But, in my understanding of the (bad, should be revoked) law, the software publishers couldn't issue successful takedown notices unless the named websites also specified that the integer can be used to activate the software.

For your copyrighted Haiku key, the website you try to take down would have to contain instructions on using the integer to decrypt the Haiku. This isn't exactly equivalent to a court of law ruling that you own the integer. But it's bad enough -- in the context of the nuisance power given to corporations with deep pockets to harrass anyone "suspected" of "publishing" a "circumvention device."

But the RIAA is already harrassing college students *without* encryption keys and "circumvention devices."

The language used by AACS-LA's attack-dog lawyers in their takedown letters is that the proscribed information is "a technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that is primarily designed, produced, or marketed for the purpose of circumventing the technological protection measures afforded by AACS." (Emphasis added.)

The 09F9 decryption key is certainly a component or part of a technology used to circumvent the technological protection measures afforded by AACS.

Digg is not a threaded discussion group; Digg is a social networking site that votes on the popularity of submitted pages. What happened was that Digg users created many places on the Web and gave many, many Diggs (votes) to sites that provided the number alone, much faster than Digg's admins could remove the entries for those Web pages from Digg's database.

As far as I can tell, the AACS-LA has indeed sent takedown notices to publishers of the 09F9 key. The absurdity of this is what prompted the outcry and the rapid spawning of 09F9 pages.

The whole sordid story is told very well at Ed Felten's blog.

Can you show me a link to a takedown notice on a site that publishes the encryption key without labeling it or an explaining what to do with it?

I went through the takedown notice links I saw posted on BoingBoing and at the EFF site. The targeted websites in the notices I saw all published context that might establish the integer string as a "component" of a circumvention device, as prohibited in the (bad, should be revoked) DMCA.

What I don't believe (yet) is that any product vendor has had the nerve to issue a takedown notice against a site that publishes an integer string without some surrounding context that labels it (or explains how to use it).

What I saw on the Digg site was people posting the 09 key in comments on the original news story. The other thing (Digg users forcing URL links to the integer string to the top of the Digg site) is something I wasn't aware of.

The argument that Digg provided "context" associating those URL links with a "circumvention device" would be a lot weaker than an argument that they did this by publishing the integer string with associated context on a single website.

I also don't believe a takedown notice against a site that publishes only the integer string would be honored by any court in the United States. But I'm willing to concede that I might be naive about the probability of that horror movie becoming reality. The EFF, BoingBoing, and Ed Felten report the opinion that the DMCA can't be used against a site that *links* to a "circumvention device."

It still seems a bit of a stretch, to me, to be arguing that DMCA is absurd because it allows copyrights to be taken out on integer strings. I'd rather argue that DMCA is stupid and not in the public interest because it meddles with the fundamental property rights of consumers.