We cannot discuss the morality of the Digg incident in a vacuum. Is it moral for record labels to set minimum retail prices on CD's? Is it moral for entertainment conglomerates - who themselves produce next to nothing - to capture the vast majority of profits from creative entertainment? And most relevantly, is it moral to take away the expected and commonsense rights that attach to the purchase of a movie (like the right to skip commercials, to play the movie anywhere in the world, to automate the removal of objectionable material) and then (if the oligopolist so chooses) to sell those rights back to those they were stolen from?

One more - is it moral when a radio station can be fined $300,000 for broadcasting a swear word but a parent (or someone acting on their behalf) can be fined $150,000 for REMOVING a swear word from a movie?

Before Hollywood and its cheerleaders discuss moral decay they need to take a good hard look inside their own walls.

By the way, James's statement is incorrect. What was posted was not a "hack" but just a key, in the form of a number, useless without the software to go with it. What that number and software prevent is not "stealing movies" but merely viewing movies on players not authorized by the licensing organization. If you don't have the disc, knowing that number doesn't allow you to conjure up the movie. And if you do have the disc, you don't need that number to make an exact copy of the disc. That number is about control of the viewing experience - not copying. Posting that number is about as immoral as cutting the tag off of your mattress.

I think the commentary on the Digg problem way outclasses the problem itself--Digg's just trying to get publicity. This get sued to get publicity thing worked well once--for Rio. If you measure success by pulling off a marketing trick to secure a financial benefit by drawing a lawsuit--it has FAILED in some rather notorious instances. As I understand Digg-boy's rationale, Digg won't "bow" to a big company. OK, maybe the mighty Digg will "bow" to a little company. I'm sure there's a "little" company that is affected by Digg's publication of whatever it is they are publishing.

Maybe Digg-boy will "bow" to a court order? Maybe not. If not, it's a one way trip to the slammer.

Here's a newsflash for Digg-boy: If you go to jail, your "community" of anonymous Digg-ees will not be there with you, and you'll be doing some bowing in the slammer. Not nearly as much fun