Let’s Digg into it
Friday, May 04, 2007
Digg faced a Google-esque controversy this week when Chester Millisock, a 24 year old programmer, was banned from the Digg community for posting a quasi-known encryption on how to illegally copy high definition DVDs and then reregistered and bumped the code up for millions of viewers to take note. When Digg tried to intervene, users were outraged, citing freedom of speech as Millisock’s right - as well as their own - to post and view the information. At first, I was proud of Digg for standing up to the big bad corporate giants. This ethical dilemma of technology cracking the entertainment industry is getting old. Yes, technology is moving forward, and yes, if you want your salaries to remain in the six figures, media moguls, you must move with and beyond it. But then I found out that the information in question is apparently illegal to publish. BusinessWeek’s Catherine Holahan’s article on the issue, explains that this code has been circling for years and in 2000, publishing it was declared illegal in the Universal City Studios vs. Reimierds case. So, Digg is clearly breaking the law by displaying the information. At 1pm on May 1st, Jay Adelson, Digg CEO, blogged to this point by stating, quite rationally, that whether users “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.” His common sense left users so unsatisfied that at 9pm on that same day, Kevin Rose, Digg Founder, presented an alternative stance, which was the clear favorite "We hear you,” Kevin blogged, “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." That is a bold statement to make in a world where Viacom is suing Google for what some might argue is a similar complaint. Then again, can a company that relies so heavily on its users afford to take the opposite stance? Digg lawyers thought so, but their advice was obviously not heeded. Instead, Kevin rose – pun intended – to this PR crisis communications occasion by positioning Digg as strictly pro user. His risk implies that he has ample faith that the power of the people will prevail should – maybe more like when – Digg goes to court. Or maybe Kevin realized that he could not risk a boycott and that they need the audience Digg has built up to keep those ad dollars flowing. I wonder what investors Greylock and Omidyar have to say about this. Will Diggers stand by their fearless leader or will the law prevail? We will have to stay tuned. Labels: digg, pr
posted by Gina Bolotinsky
0 comments
Post a Comment
0 Comments:
Home
 |
