Pronet Advertising

The Reason Why Digg Removed That Story

Many people have contacted me today wondering why Digg is censoring content, and wanting me to 'expose' it. Well, to be honest, the answer is that they had to, and they were right to do it. For those that don't know what I'm talking about, a story that made it to the front-page of Digg earlier was removed from all views on the site and the url for the site where the content originated from has been blocked from being submitted to Digg.

The story in question refers to, and asks the readers to spread the HD-DVD Processing Key for all movies that have been released in the format so far. If you try to submit content from the site you get the following message:

While Digg community members are disappointed by Digg's actions and feel like the site shouldn't have removed the story (what is being perceived as content censoring), they don't understand the complete picture. First of all, here is Digg's DMCA policy:

Digg will promptly process and investigate notices of alleged infringement and will take appropriate actions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") and other applicable intellectual property laws.

Furthermore, as Jonathan points out, the DMCA has a specifically designated safe harbor protection clause for online service providers referred to as an "Information Location Tool" (i.e. Digg). Under the clause the following kinds of services are provided safe haven:

referring or linking users to an online location containing infringing material or infringing activity, by using information location tools, including a directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link

However, and this is important: Digg, which is the "Information Location Tool" in this case, is only protected under the safe haven clause only as long as:

...they have no knowledge of the infringement, remove access to the material once notified and register a DMCA agent with the United States Copyright Office (USCO).

So if you want Digg to be around, stop complaining and understand that Digg had to do this, even if they didn't want to do it. This is not censorship, merely self-preservation.

**Disclaimer: I am a Netscape Navigator.

Enjoy the post? Here are some more that may interest you.

• Search Engine Strategies San Jose
• How To Get The Most Out of Shoemoney Tools Beta
• Online SEO Tools - The Ultimate Collection

Michael Daum, May 1, 2007

“Bad censorship on Digg” — Well, I suppose this sort of thing is inevitable. It’s disappointing though. Seems like a page with a key to unlock HD-DVD’s was dugg pretty heavily earlier today. In an unprecedented move, Digg responded with full content-based censorsh...

Marketing Pilgrim, May 1, 2007

“The Diggocracy Strikes Again” — Muhammad Saleem at Pronet Advertising reported this morning on a story that got banned on Digg. The story in question refers to, and asks the readers to spread the HD-DVD Processing Key for all movies that have been released in the format so far. Digg ...

CJ Millisock, May 1, 2007

What infringement?

Jeremy Steele, May 1, 2007

Digg users just like to yell and scream and call for their mommy when someone does something against their opinion. That is all.

engtech, May 1, 2007

Don't blame Digg for taking it down, blame the DMCA for them being able to take it down.

engtech, May 1, 2007

Don't blame Digg for taking it down, blame the DMCA for them being legally forced to take it down.

This is what the DMCA was created for.

Ross, May 1, 2007

The taking down of the story due to a specific request could in some cases be understandable. You'll find that the bigger deal is that not only are they removing those articles but also any articles that talk about the wider implications or indeed contain any criticism of Digg.

Look at the front page and you'd think nothing was happening. Then look at digg spy and you'll see that around 1 in every 4 or 5 active stories concerns this story.

The real reason why they are capitulating and other sites such as Slashdot and Reddit are not is because they have taken sponsorship money from HD-DVD and this has interfered with their editorial decisions.

Muhammad Saleem, May 1, 2007

Just as I thought. Jay has posted the following on the Digg blog, largely echoing what I said above.

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

EATTHIS, May 1, 2007

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

This is only a number... Is bad for you?

lux, May 1, 2007

"This is not censorship, merely self-preservation."

that is a straight (voluntary none the less!) march to the Gulag.

Justin, May 1, 2007

Regarding the statement:

This is not censorship, merely self-preservation.

Removing a story (particularly a popular one) due to the nature of it's content most certainly is censorship. While the DMCA makes it illegal to not censor the content once you've received proper notice (and thus it is self-preservation), removing the article is still censorship.

Instead of dissappearing the page, a better response in an open community would have been to remove the link and replace the page with an explanation of the DMCA notice. Even better would be providing the complaint to Chilling Effects for archival purposes. This is exactly what Google has done for at least three years (for an example, notice the bottom of search results for site:xenu.net.)

In short, there are ways of maintaining DMCA compliance with a mediated degree of censorship, and Digg fell short.

me, May 1, 2007

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

Stephen Glauser, May 1, 2007

I don't think that there is much an argument as to whether or not this is censorship, as they clearly censored this article. However, I believe that they were legally obliged to remove the posting in question.

I'm not going to hate on Digg for it, anyway.

Anonymous, May 1, 2007

The largest issue is that they fail to detail their conflicts of interests since Digg is sponsored by HD-DVD.

Sami, May 1, 2007

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5b D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5b D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

Ben, May 1, 2007

It has been established that Digg's parent company has accepted sponsorship deals from HD-DVD, specifically sponsorship of the Revision3 podcasts.

Seamus, May 2, 2007

So if you want Digg to be around, stop complaining and understand that Digg had to do this, even if they didn't want to do it. This is not censorship, merely self-preservation.

you sound like one of those DIGG pussies who bowed down to pressure over the posting of a number.