advertisement
May 2, 2007 12:33 AM PDT

Unhappy Digg users bury site in protest

Digg.com users, very upset at the news aggregate site for deleting articles containing an encryption key that could be used to crack the digital rights management on HD DVDs, have inundated the site with thousands of recommendations to pages that contain the code. The protest was apparently heard by Digg administrators, who later reversed the ban.

On Tuesday night, the "All topics" category contained several pages of the most popular articles recommended by Digg readers populated only by links to sites that contained the code, as well as messages deriding the Motion Picture Association of America, a proponent of digital rights management and antipiracy measures. Many of the articles had upward of 4,000 recommendations from users.

A message purporting to be from Digg co-founder and CEO Jay Adelson posted to the site early Tuesday explained the rationale behind the site's former stance.

"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," the posting reads. "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."

Later, a message headlined with the code and credited to Digg co-founder Kevin Rose called Tuesday "a difficult day for us" and explained that site had reversed its earlier stance and would reluctantly allow articles containing the code to be referenced from the site.

"We had to make a call, and in our desire to avoid a scenario where Digg would be interrupted or shut down, we decided to comply and remove the stories with the code," according to the posting. "...You've made it clear. You'd rather see Digg go down fighting than bow down to a bigger company. We hear you, 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."

E-mail Steven Musil

If you have a question or comment for Steven Musil, you can submit it here. However, because our editors and writers receive hundreds of requests, we cannot tell you when you may receive a response.

Submit your question or comment here: 0 of 1500 characters

Steven Musil is the night news editor at CNET News. Before joining CNET News in 2000, Steven spent 10 years at various Bay Area newspapers. E-mail Steven.

Recent posts from News Blog
Man rescued after losing cell phone down toilet
CNET FAQ: Net neutrality demystified
India prods wireless providers on BlackBerry ban
If you care about Web, ignore this IPO
Senate committee: Look out, 'scam marketers'
Nasdaq 5,000: Ten years after the dot-com peak
Nvidia puts NForce chipset development on hold
Opera 10 browser is here
Add a Comment (Log in or register) (73 Comments)
  • prev
  • next
Nothing like caving in to criminals
by jtfan2004 (40 comments ) May 2, 2007 3:23 AM PDT
Way to go! Forget the fact that the reason for copyrights and patents is to protect the interests of the originators of the content. Cave in to criminals who 'protest' that their right to commit copyright infringment is being, um, infringed. Fantastic.
Reply to this comment
I compleatly agree
by ibeetle (261 comments ) May 2, 2007 3:48 AM PDT
I think this shows that the average Digg'er is a spoiled, self-
centered, child. This action taken by these children are going to
drive thousands of mature, level headed Digg users away.
Resulting in a complete destruction and demise of Digg.

There have already been hundreds of Pro- Code post talking
about how Digg has sold out and caved in to big business...
result many have left the site feeling betrayed. And there have
already been hundreds of post stating that they are closing their
Digg account because they feel Digg has been over run by
children behaving badly... result many more have left the site.

With reports of submissions "Rigged" to go the the Digg front
page. Moderators deleting post that "Digg" disagrees with, and
now this I wonder if Digg will survive. And if it does it what way
will it be changed.
View reply
not so easy
by rwahrens (44 comments ) May 2, 2007 3:54 AM PDT
This isn't such an easy subject.

At the surface, it may seem that your analysis is an easy one. However, if one examines the actions of the MPAA, one sees that their actions, through using an overly restrictive DRM scheme that actually artificially restricts the fair use rights of its customers, is the real reason for this protest by Digg users.

Call it the market in action, if you will. These are people that are angry that they are forced by the MPAA to submit to buying DRM-laced products that deny them the fair use rights that the law allows. This is their way of letting the MPAA know that they are angry and want that DRM removed.

I think, though, that Digg, as a site, may be protected by the law as an independent provider of a forum where users can submit content. Obviously, they are not in full control of their own site, so they may be able to fend off any attack by the MPAA. Time will tell.
View all 2 replies
+ 1
by ejevo (135 comments ) May 2, 2007 5:26 AM PDT
The thugs win again...
Slander (Prove they are criminals)
by umbrae (1072 comments ) May 2, 2007 6:20 AM PDT
It is actually legal under many circumstances to breach DRM and copy content. You have no proof that any of the Digg.com users plan to do anything illegal, and there is nothing illegal about linking to information about DRM.

Breaching DRM was not illegal before the DMCA and more and more provisions are added to it each day to re-enable our rights to fair use. I supposed you also support gangs that use extortion for "protection services". Because that is exactly what media companies do: they step beyond their authority to scare people into doing this when they have no legal leg to stand on.

I now have more respect for Digg.com, who is willing to stand up for their rights: even if their users had to protect for it to happen.
Only in the USA
by michaelbabcock (3 comments ) May 2, 2007 6:58 AM PDT
Only in the USA is the very large number in question even possibly illegal to post. Circumvention measures are not illegal in most countries in the world. There is nothing at all criminal about wanting to watch HD-DVD movies you own on PCs, Laptops or other hardware that don't have official players available, and keys like this one allow for that. You've drank too much of the kool-aid obviously.
View reply
Give me a fscking break!!!
by T38 (30 comments ) May 2, 2007 8:13 AM PDT
Wrong, wrong, wrong.

You are assuming that anyone who wants to use this key is a criminal and wants to steal content, but that is not the case. The problem is two-fold. First, the decryption keys are only available for Mac and Windows. Anyone using an open source operating system like Free/Net/Open-BSD or Linux cannot play their LEGALLY PURCHASED DVD-HD movies without this key being available. Second, their is a "Fair Use" provision in U.S. copyright law that states that it is perfectly legal to make archival copies of any legally acquired content you own, so long as you do not make the "archives" available to others.

The MPAA is trying to prevent either of these legal, reasonable uses of DVD-HD disks.

Like you, I have no sympathy for P2P file sharers who want to acquire music, movies, etc. in violation of copyright law. Unfortunately, what you and the MPAA seem to have forgotten is that not everyone who wants to use these encryption keys wants to use them to infringe upon copyright.
nothing like you being 100% wrong.
by catfish182 (4 comments ) May 2, 2007 9:09 AM PDT
I was there for the event and read many of the topics. It wasnt about the ability to use the code which few would it was about the admins taking away postings when they say its a social network where the user has the power. The issue was over how Digg was not letting the posts go though. So please next time look into it before thinking its about criminals when its not. Its about being told that you have the freedom to talk about what you want then being censored.
It's my understanding...
by rcsteiner (39 comments ) May 2, 2007 9:17 AM PDT
...that the number itself had already been published by its owner in a legal document available to the public. If this is true, digg stories referencing this number may no longer be violating copyright.

Also, arguments have been made in the past ad Nauseum that the copying of a movie for archival purposes or for media transformation falls under "fair use" in the US, regardless of the wording of the rather draconian DMCA, so the use that the code in question might be put to is not necessarily "illegal", at least when viewer in the spirit of past laws (the AHRA, etc.).
Criminals????
by obsolete_power (2 comments ) May 2, 2007 9:26 AM PDT
Criminals are people that murder or rape and not people that use
their intelligence to do something for the community. HD DVD
needed to be cracked to show that it is possible and maybe to try
and destroy them and I want that so if you want to call me a
criminal go ahead. I am not interested in stealing their ideas or w/
e. I just want to see HD DVD go down and this is the way to do
that. This is the only way we can have power over big corporations.
I am sick and tired of seeing other people get things they don't
deserve! **** HD DVD!
You own the HDDVD
by ablack6596 (5 comments ) May 2, 2007 11:01 AM PDT
You have to have the HDDVD of the movie for this to be useful. Which usually means that the person actually owns the HDDVD and wants to watch in on Linux or play it on their iPod. Things that users should be allowed to do if they buy a movie.

The piracy groups have already been releasing HD movies a long time, posting the code on Digg does nothing to help them, they would have already had it anyways.
See more comment replies
Why is that?
by sirkism (4 comments ) May 2, 2007 4:13 AM PDT
I understand if someone published the number on the digg server. But I thought it was safe to link to sites from digg?
Reply to this comment
Democracy at work
by michaelbabcock (3 comments ) May 2, 2007 7:03 AM PDT
Americans claim to have a democracy. A government that works by the people, for the people. Well the people want the right to view their DVDs, HD-DVDs, Blu-Ray Discs, listen to their music on CDs and MP3 players, content they legally paid for, without hassle and restriction. They want the right to use DVD-rippers to store their movies and watch them easily (granted by a supreme court recently) and don't want big companies telling them what they can and can't do with the content and entertainment they paid for. Well, here's democracy -- if they want it, they should fight for it, and they should get it. You're either a democracy, or you're not. Let's see who wins this time -- special interests, or the people.
Reply to this comment
I concur
by rwahrens (44 comments ) May 2, 2007 7:12 AM PDT
completely!
wrong
by dandrcomputer (1 comment ) May 2, 2007 8:55 AM PDT
This country happens to be a republic, not a democracy.
In a democracy the people can vote themselves any right they want. You want to banish all lefthanders; in your democracy you can vote yourself that right by a simple majority.
In a republic the people are constrained by laws laid down in a framework (which we call The Constitution) and must honor basic rights, even those of the minorities. One of these long-held rights is the right to profit from one's own work and to protect that work from those who would seek to copy it and profit from it themselves.
If you need to have a copy of your movie to "protect it from your kids", here's an outlandish thought, buy it!
I do not buy the argument that you want to copy a movie for your own "archive". Those types of arguments are at the very least disingenuous, and are more probably a bold-faced lie.
View all 5 replies
the big problem
by RayGentry (20 comments ) May 2, 2007 7:41 AM PDT
The big problem with this whole scenario is that posting information is not illegal. It's legal to post instructions about how to make a bomb. Some people could use it (I suppose for something legal) for blowing up an old building on their farm lot or something that technically wouldn't be illegal. But the big worry is that if that information is posted, someone will use it for something illegal. It is still legal to post that information though, as long as you don't tell people to do illegal things with it. For the sake of the country, it's a lot more worrisome for me to know that any nut job can find out (easily) how to make a bomb. But it's still legal for them to post it. This may have some financial implications when people use it illegally, but it should be available so that people who want to watch BluRay or HDDVD on Linux or something can.
Reply to this comment
Well...
by rcsteiner (39 comments ) May 2, 2007 9:19 AM PDT
The source code to Windows is "information" in many senses, and yet the posting of such code would likely result in a court action because it would violate existing copyright law.
And your point is?
by T38 (30 comments ) May 2, 2007 8:40 AM PDT
Yes, the producer of the content has the right to set terms and limits upon use...within reason.

However, the consumer ALSO has the right to protest what they perceive to be unfair or unrealistic limitations in an effort to convince the producer that said limits and restrictions are unreasonable.

That is what the Digg users did--they protested the MPAA's Mafia-like tactics and unrealistic terms, and by doing so focused a lot of attention on the problem of DRM.
Reply to this comment
Wow
by xpose (34 comments ) May 2, 2007 8:44 AM PDT
I cannot believe that worked. Im glad I was a part of it.
Reply to this comment
Everybody's Wrong...
by System Tyrant (1453 comments ) May 2, 2007 9:01 AM PDT
and that's the problem. The MPAA and RIAA want to control how the content is used and distributed and the consumer want to be able to use it in any manor they choose (which includes illegal sharing).

As a consumer I don't like DRM or anything that stops my right to use the movie or music that I've purchased. However, as a consumer I must respect the rights of the content owner and use it as agreed upon which means I don't share it illegally.

Now as far as the whole Entitlement Generation crap goes. It started with the baby boomers. My father and mother are baby boomers and they had no problem copying audio tapes or VHS movies back in the day or sharing music or movies with people. The only difference between now and then is it's a whole lot easier and cheaper to do today than it was back then. We are not products of our own generation, but products of the previous generation.
Reply to this comment
It's legal to share media in Europe and Canada
by heffeque (3 comments ) May 2, 2007 9:54 AM PDT
It's legal to share media in Europe and Canada, and probably in a lot of other countries too. The MPAA and the RIAA can't enforce in other countries laws that don't exist in them.
View reply
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
by Hardrada (359 comments ) May 2, 2007 9:09 AM PDT
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Reply to this comment
Sweet!
by T38 (30 comments ) May 2, 2007 9:29 AM PDT
Subject says it all :)
You heard wrong
by talonh (1 comment ) May 2, 2007 9:50 AM PDT
The 5 major recording studios were found to have been guilty of price fixing and collusion.
Reply to this comment
Not everyone is wrong
by T38 (30 comments ) May 2, 2007 9:51 AM PDT
You are still assuming that everyone who wants the DRM crap removed is wanting to illegally share the content. This isn't necessarily the case.

In order to play a legally-purchased-brand-new-in-the-box DVD on my Linux desktop at home, I have to download software to decrypt the DVD, download the decryption key (what the Digg users were posting), and finally download a utility to set the region for the DVD drive (google "DVD region code" if you don't know what I'm talking about). Tell me which part of this is immoral or even a violation of the MPAA's licensing?

I have NEVER used a peer to peer network to acquire or post media in violation of the author's copyrights -- I respect their intellectual property, and I don't believe it is morally acceptable to deprive someone of their livelihood simply because I am cheap. I just want to be able to play a freaking DVD on the OS that I have chosen to run on my desktop. Is that REALLY so unreasonable? Does that make me a criminal?
Reply to this comment
Still wrong...
by System Tyrant (1453 comments ) May 2, 2007 12:07 PM PDT
if you live in America. You are still breaking the law regardless whether it's fair or not or covered under fair use.

Since I've never lived anywhere, but the USA I can't say that about anywhere else.
View reply
Hey...what do you know?
by phantomsoul (47 comments ) May 2, 2007 10:12 AM PDT
Someone actually listens to the users. I guess when your users threaten the well-being of your site, that becomes much more of a risk than some copyright lawsuit.

Talk about a break-through -- fellow Internet users, unite!
Reply to this comment
Fan the Flames
by rich966 (40 comments ) May 2, 2007 10:14 AM PDT
Since the MPAA is guilty of criminal action each and very day by posting fake torrents on P2P netwrk sites and using those to track down file-sharers and by price fixing and several other civil rights violations; I choose to pay the person who will be able to provide me with the content that I want on the terms that I want.

The rise of Netflix and DVD copying software has allowed me to bypass directly paying the MPAA and movie studios for the content which they choose to market at an unreasonable cost.

This is just like watching free broadcast TV and having the show itself be paid for by the commercials and not me.

Netflix + DVD Copy Software = Free Market.
Reply to this comment
Can the Digg mob stop the War in Iraq?
by ccarey (18 comments ) May 2, 2007 12:39 PM PDT
With the Digg mob standing up to the DCMA it made me think...If hundreds of thousands of people can see when something is wrong and stand up for our rights in regards to freedoms of speech when it comes to HD-DVD backup & archive why couldn?t that same power of the people be harnessed to send a clear message to congress on the War in Iraq?

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://digg.com/world_news/Can_the_Digg_mob_stop_the_War_in_Iraq" target="_newWindow">http://digg.com/world_news/Can_the_Digg_mob_stop_the_War_in_Iraq</a>
Reply to this comment
Stop the War in Iraq?
by DerbyDaddy (5 comments ) May 2, 2007 1:58 PM PDT
Reading ccarey's post confirm's my suspicions that idiot's still roam unfettered and free in this nation. The "hundreds of thousands" you "believe" need to be motivated already have those freedom of speech rights. That is the real "inconvenient truth" that exposes the sad illusions of CBS television, mainstream media, and a few thousand clueless supporters like yourself.
No matter what illegal is illegal
by jesmac418 (35 comments ) May 2, 2007 5:06 PM PDT
I do not support DRM and I do not like the implications of it. But trying to get around it is illegal. Just because we do not like a law does not mean it's ok to break it. You need to fight to have DRM removed and not try to work around it.
You that do this,are only adding "fuel to the fire" so too speak.You are the reason DRM was created!
Copy protection is nothing new. I really think this has all started simply because digital media can be duplicated so exactly that it is very hard to tell it from the master. I can not offer a solution to a very complex problem. But I do know that posting hacks for getting around copy protection will only create more protectionist feelings in the media.
Reply to this comment
Fair Use
by lilredsammy (7 comments ) May 2, 2007 6:45 PM PDT
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use" target="_newWindow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use</a>

Read and Understand before you speak. I have the right, provided by law to do this.
View reply
Civil Disobedience?
by T38 (30 comments ) May 3, 2007 8:10 AM PDT
Remember reading about MLK or Mahatma Gandhi in your high school history courses? They used civil disobedience to challenge laws and to create a more equitable world. This is essentially the same thing: DMCA restricts fair use of a product that consumers are paying their hard-earned money to purchase, and Digg was the location of the first large-scale protest of this very bad law. Especially in light of the Sony rootkit fiasco, DRM+DMCA=oppression of the consumer.
still disagree with you
by RayGentry (20 comments ) May 2, 2007 5:10 PM PDT
But like tons of people have said on here already. According to copyright laws, personal archival is allowed. If i have to have this key to do that, then fine. Speeding is illegal, but having a car that can speed is not. It's the same thing. I'm not doing anything illegal with the information or just by decrypting it. People could, but the point is that there are legitimate uses for it, so they should just deal with it.
Reply to this comment
You are wrong!
by lilredsammy (7 comments ) May 2, 2007 6:12 PM PDT
A contract requires my signature. Purchasing an item does NOT. I don't purchase contracts. Yes I did SIGN a contract with a bank to purchase my house and car. What if I had enough money to pay cash for them? They are still mine. I can burn my house with the car in the garage. I can do what I want with them. A dvd or cd or whatever is no different. It is my property.
Reply to this comment
You don't live in America do you.
by System Tyrant (1453 comments ) May 3, 2007 8:10 AM PDT
By buying a DVD you agree to use it as it was intended by the content owner and applicable laws.

On a side note you don't own the content on a DVD. You only own the DVD. When buying a DVD you only buy the right to view the content in the manor which the content owner agrees to.

As the MPAA stands today if you buy a DVD for private home viewing then you can't copy it to a computer or to an iPod etc. You only have the right to use it in a DVD player for private viewing in your home.

Now with that said. If you copy every DVD you own to your media server for private home viewing then I seriously doubt the MPAA is going to come knocking at your door. Hell, I doubt that they would come knocking if you copied every DVD you rented to your media server. However, you start distributing those movies then I would expect that knock.
Slavery; Prohibition; Boston Tea Party
by lilredsammy (7 comments ) May 2, 2007 6:23 PM PDT
Why was Slavery overturned? Why was Prohibition overturned? Why was there a Boston Tea Party? It was not popular! It was wrong! It could not be controlled! Why are all laws changed? If nobody questions a law then we are not citizens, we are servants/subjects.
Reply to this comment
Why?
by System Tyrant (1453 comments ) May 3, 2007 8:17 AM PDT
"Why was Slavery overturned?"

Because it was inhuman treatment of people. Slavery still exist today though in some parts of the world.

"Why was Prohibition overturned?"

Because people continued to drink and because of the increasing amount of deadly alcohol. Remember, though, that many people still went to jail for breaking the law.

"Why was there a Boston Tea Party?"

Unfair taxation without proper representation.


"It was not popular! It was wrong! It could not be controlled! Why are all laws changed? If nobody questions a law then we are not citizens, we are servants/subjects."

I agree 100% that people should question every law passed. More over they need to be very vocal about laws that are either to heavily one sided or just completely unfair. However breaking the law is still breaking the law.
FairUse
by lilredsammy (7 comments ) May 2, 2007 6:38 PM PDT
FairUse allows me to back up MY hd-dvd.
Reply to this comment
Court.
by System Tyrant (1453 comments ) May 3, 2007 8:18 AM PDT
Try to use that excuse in court and see how far it gets you.
Flash point ... now's the time
by Michael Christenson II (1 comment ) May 2, 2007 7:02 PM PDT
Why? Because this is the flash point for civil disobedience and freedom right here, right now!

<h3 id="title"><a href="http://blog.digg.com/?p=74" target="_blank">09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0</a></h3><h3 id="title"><a href="http://blog.digg.com/?p=74" target="_blank">09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0</a></h3><h3 id="title"><a href="http://blog.digg.com/?p=74" target="_blank">09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0</a></h3><h3 id="title"><a href="http://blog.digg.com/?p=74" target="_blank">09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0</a></h3> ... To your hearts content.

If we can't stand now with something so simple, when can we stand? I suggest you go to every possible place you can comment or blog and post the code. Do it as soon as possible, as often as possible!
Reply to this comment
Deception, Rootkit, Mayhem
by Tokimemofan (9 comments ) May 8, 2007 12:10 AM PDT
The way I understand DMCA and fair use You can back up dvds or any other media but the DMCA creates a legal Catch 22. To summarise it up, you have to break the law, specificaly Anti-Circumvention clause of the DMCA. This is a classic example of two laws conflicting with each other.
The current Deception, Rootkit, Mayhem [DRM] crap combined with outdated busness practices
Reply to this comment
Sorry about the double post, just read this one
by Tokimemofan (9 comments ) May 8, 2007 12:31 AM PDT
The way I understand DMCA and fair use You can back up dvds or any other media but the DMCA creates a legal Catch 22. To summarise it up, you have to break the law, specificaly Anti-Circumvention clause of the DMCA. This is a classic example of two laws conflicting with each other.
The current Deception, Rootkit, Mayhem [DRM] crap combined with outdated busness practices are at fault. Also, you cannot call every illegal copy a lost sale. If someone in Japan downloads a movie that will never be released there then the copyright holder never had the sale to begin with. Piracy can be beneficial under some circumstances too, for those that want solid proof look up "anime."
(73 Comments)
  • prev
  • next
 
advertisement
Latest News
  • CNETNews: Yahoo app searches for Android, iPhone apps http://cnet.co/j9VAAA

  • stshank: This reporter eagerly awaits the dirt on Itanium's roadmap that could be dug up by the HP-Oracle spat (now lawsuit) http://bit.ly/iBlxM4

  • AndroidAtlas: Yahoo AppsSpot gets to know you, makes recommendations http://cnet.co/iSEWHs

  • stshank: I wonder if Google might offer its video piracy detection technology as a third-party paid service to others? Hmm. http://cnet.co/mi3nPJ

  • crave: Jelly Belly phone cases: Scratch 'n' sniff your iPhone http://cnet.co/mHQSRW

  • b1g1nj4p4n: #vancouver, cut this crap out, you're upsetting my friends. & #boston, stop gloating like you wouldn't behave the same way if you lost!

  • b1g1nj4p4n: dear #pidgin, i love you but you have to get an in-program update path already. this is getting ridiculous...

  • b1g1nj4p4n: srsly prague i'm all for worker's rights, BUT I AM NOT IMPRESSED w/ YOUR TRANSIT STRIKE. oooh charmingly empty streets [goes to get camera]

  • b1g1nj4p4n: Google and Skyhook estimates and reveals your Wi-Fi connected device's previous location: http://cnet.co/iIRWkj (via @declanm)

  • b1g1nj4p4n: holy moley guys and gals. PRAGUE. it feels like SF. might have to never leave...

  • KentGerman: I don't understand why people get so upset that they riot after their sports team loses.

  • crave: Tetris drops onto TVs, every other product around http://cnet.co/lkpZGu

  • CNETNews: Apple software update hints at new wireless gear http://cnet.co/izSHZU

  • lturrentine: RT @techdadreview: How to launch Android apps by plugging in headphones: http://t.co/tG7t5En <-- I want an Android phone so I can use this.

  • CNETNews: CIA Web site down; LulzSec claims responsibility http://cnet.co/loGnDB

  • jeffbakalar: Was really pulling for Vancouver but alas, Tim Thomas does it again. He earned it. Happy for him. Bittersweet night. Oh, is it October yet?

  • crave: preGame 54: E3 2011 wrap-up; Alice: Madness Returns http://cnet.co/kPGhTC

  • CNETNews: Google's new doodle eclipses everything http://cnet.co/jJZB5L

  • CNETNews: Geo-privacy bills aim to curb warrantless tracking http://cnet.co/k6Qhbr

  • nidopal: The best iPad 2 contender to date goes head-to-head with, none other than, the iPad 2. Let the fanboy battle begin! http://t.co/U0a35SK

Bounty set for negating Lodsys patents

scoop The group that's gone after a number of mobile app developers and big companies alike is now having its four patents targeted for invalidation by a crowdsourced research group.

Cable operators to Netflix: Bring it on

Cable operators at the NCTA's Cable Show say they are happy to compete with Netflix, but they don't think the streaming-video service will be able to afford the cost of sports programming.

About News Blog

Recent posts on technology, trends, and more.

Add this feed to your online news reader

advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right