If you have a specific duty of confidentiality towards me, created by contract, privilege or otherwise, then I decline to waive your duty.

But in the general case, absent a specific duty, then there is simply no remedy against a member of the general public for their publication of a truthful fact.

In the specific case under discussion here, AACS LA, their agents, and others operating under their authority knowingly, willfully and voluntarily published their supposedly “secret” number. They have no right at all to object to the public’s discussion of their revealed “secret”.

If you have a specific duty of confidentiality towards me, created by contract, privilege or otherwise, then I decline to waive your duty.

But in the general case, absent a specific duty, then there is simply no remedy against a member of the general public for their publication of a truthful fact.

In the specific case under discussion here, AACS LA, their agents, and others operating under their authority knowingly, willfully and voluntarily published their supposedly “secret” number. They have no right at all to object to the public’s discussion of their revealed “secret”.

Civil disobedience is a protest against an unjust law. But Congress simply lacks the power to abridge people’s freedom to print truthful facts. Hence, no law broken—and no civil disobedience.

Not to belabor the point, but I’m really curious. Do you think it would be ok (both legally and morally) for me to publish your social security number, bank account number, home address, mother’s maiden name, phone number, current prescriptions, medical history, past employment record, and any prior record of incarceration here and elsewhere? All truthful facts? Is that consistent with your interpretation of the first amendment? (I’m not baiting here, I’m just trying to understand your statement above regarding congress’ powers).

engima_foundary… good point. It rather obliterates my automobile analogy. I am following my intuition here but when I think of things (especially in the world we live in today) that require me to go get zip tied, I just don’t think of DCMA. It seems like a rather tenuous connection to the first amendment.

Civil disobedience is a protest against an unjust law. But Congress simply lacks the power to abridge people’s freedom to print truthful facts. Hence, no law broken—and no civil disobedience.

Hmmm…well I totally agree there; however the First Amendment and issues of War and Peace (and by extension, discrimination, which is really a form of violence) are ones that are so central to the well-being of society that in those two cases, civil disobedience is required.

Required.

(as in NOT optional.)

I think we’ve reached a point of diminishing returns.

Best wishes.

My mistake. I thought it was you offering that as a compromise position. Weren’t you suggesting that futile-to-enforce speed limits were ok now that they have been moderately improved and there are no cases remaining in the courts? I should have read your post more carefully.

Personally I still think I should be allowed to go 150 mph on I-95 since I have a vehicle with the means to do it. I simply don’t buy the argument that I’m hurting anyone by doing it, they just need to speed up too. I’m beginning to come around to your way of thinking and you are giving me the moral courage to say to hell with Carter’s speed limits. I suggest if you still drive slowly, use the right lane.

I have no idea how anyone could possibly determine that a change in the DMCA could be qualitatively equivalent to a 10mph increase in the speed limit. So no, I can’t accept your offer of a compromise position.

I’m also not terribly interested in waiting. I would like to hurry the process along, and civil disobedience that underscores the futility of the law is one way to do so. I am sorry that you don’t approve.

True, but it has basically nothing to do with the point I was making. This is starting to feel like squeezing a water balloon.

But if you’re saying that a change in the DMCA laws that was qualitatively equivilent to a moderate 10mph increase in speed limits, and some passage of time to “age” the DMCA laws like Carter’s speed limits, would be sufficient to make you happy with the law and ready to follow it, I think we are all done. Just have to figure out what that little tweak to DMCA would be and then wait.

Speed limits have been increased in most states in (relatively) recent years, and one reason is that a whole lot of people not only thought they were set too low, but basically refused to obey the lower limit.

I doubt, though, there is a court case anywhere in the country that challenges the constiutionality of speed limits. They have been with us a lot longer than the DMCA.

You are misunderstanding my point, I may not have been clear. I didn’t say that the Digg episode is a mess (although it will probably turn out to be one for Digg). I was attempting to say that if the bar for civil disobediance is this low in this domain and becomes a norm of public behavior and is applied to other domains, we will find ourselves in the position where everyone with a passionate position on anything decides which laws apply to them. I think that would be a mess. And just to be clear, I’m not arguing a cauality from DRM to other stuff; I’m simply saying that widespread use of civil disobedience for every quitodian cause would be at best a pain in the ass (like strike days in France) and at worse a real mess.

Personally I think speed limits suck and have only reluctantly adhered to them. They hardly strike me as a kind of natural law like “don’t kill.” I’m sure somewhere in the courts is a case arguing that they are set too low. Until that is settled I think I’ll just go as fast as I want, and after it is settled I will still go as fast as I want because it is my inalienable right. You may think that speed limits are a rational limit on my behavior but I say that is just your opinion and need have no bearing on my behavior. Furthermore, if you think my going fast is somehow endangering you I’ll just say stop being a dinasaur, find a business model that works, and go fast too.

What kind of mess gets made when people disobey the DMCA, as happened on Digg last week?

Also, I’d like to state that the scope of the law isn’t fully settled. There was one relevant court decision in NY (the 2600 case) about seven years ago, which was upheld by the Second Circuit and never appealed to the Supreme Court. So those of us who feel the law is unconstitutional don’t have a firm statement by the Supreme Court telling us we’re wrong. The only way to test the constitutionality theory is to have a test case.