Digg users now accuse the website of censorship and have made every effort possible to get the software code onto Digg's top 10 list of daily stories. Digg's text filters were unable to block some of the code posts, which instead of publishing the code itself, linked to external sites that displayed the 32-character string.
Users also are using their power to post high-ranking stories attacking Digg's ethics.
Gregory Alan Rutchik, founding lawyer of the Arts and Technology Law Group, told XBIZ that he's surprised Digg's users have come down so hard on the site, and that their actions are short-sighted and unfair.
"This 'revolt' would have little support in adult," Rutchik said. What sets the adult industry apart from mainstream, Rutchik said, is its use of community message boards as a feedback model. Those who don't play by the rules are ultimately bumped off.
Rutchik also said Digg is not protected by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act or a 1st-Amendment argument, and that the website is liable and prohibited from posting and linking to the DRM-breaking code.
Digg reportedly took action to remove the code posts after several members of the entertainment industry threatened a lawsuit, accusing the website of infringing on their intellectual property rights.
"In order for Digg to survive, it must abide by the law," Digg Chief Executive Jay Adelson posted on the site Tuesday. "We all need to work together to protect Digg from exposure to lawsuits that could very quickly shut us down."
However, users argued that the website, which was designed to be an open forum of free Internet exchange, was giving in too easily to large, bullying companies.
Now, Kevin Rose, cofounder of Digg, has announced the company will side with its users, which makes Digg vulnerable to Hollywood lawsuits that could ultimately shut it down for good.
"You'd rather see Digg go down fighting than bow down to a bigger company," Rose said. "We hear you. If we lose, then what the hell, at least we died trying."
Rutchik related Digg's case to a 2001 lawsuit against the creators of the online magazine 2600: The Hacker Quarterly. After posting DeCSS, the program used to break encrypted code on DVDs, 2600 was sued by several Hollywood production companies for copyright infringement and was not protected by the 1st Amendment, despite several pleas for appeal.
