AACS encryption key controversy: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
m Protected AACS encryption key controversy: Wilful evasion of hard regex blacklist [edit=sysop:move=sysop]
If you want ot be able to post the number, ask a dveleoper to remove it fomr the regex filter. Wilfully evading the site-wide regex filter is not acceptable.
Line 17:
-->
{{Current|date=April 2007}}
The '''AACS encryption key controversy''' arose in April 2007 when the [[Motion Picture Association of America]] and the [[Advanced Access Content System]] Licensing Administrator, LLC (AACS LA) began issuing [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]] (DMCA) [[DMCA takedown notice|violation notices]] <ref name="chill">{{cite web|url=http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=03218|title=AACS licensor complains of posted key|accessdate=2007-05-04|publisher=[[Chilling Effects]]}}</ref> to websites publishing a 16-byte [[hexadecimal]] number,<ref> beginning ''09'' ''F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0''</ref>, which is one of the [[cryptography|cryptographic]] [[Key (cryptography)|key]]s for [[HD DVD]]s and [[Blu-ray Disc]]s. The controversy escalated in early May 2007, when technology news site [[Digg|Digg.com]] received a notice and then removed numerous articles on the matter and [[banhammer|banned]] users reposting the information.
 
Because the encryption key may be used as part of [[circumvention device|circumvention technology]] forbidden by the DMCA, its possession and distribution has been viewed by the AACS, as well as some law professors, as illegal.<ref name="chill">{{cite web|url=http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?sID=03218|title=AACS licensor complains of posted key|accessdate=2007-05-04|publisher=[[Chilling Effects]]}}</ref><ref name="NYT">{{cite news |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/03/technology/03code.html |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=[[2007-05-02]] |last=Stone |first=Brad |accessdate=2007-05-03 |title=In Web Uproar, Antipiracy Code Spreads Wildly}}</ref> Since it is a 128-[[bit]] [[numerical]] value, it was dubbed an "[[illegal number]]" (compare with [[illegal prime]]).<ref>http://www.bloggernews.net/16450</ref><ref>http://ecyrd.com/ButtUgly/wiki/Main_blogentry_010507_1</ref><ref>http://bearnz.wordpress.com/2007/05/04/an-illegal-number/</ref> Opponents to the expansion of [[intellectual property]] rights criticize the idea of making a particular number illegal, which they feel should not and cannot be controlled by a single person or group.<ref>{{cite web | date=[[May 3]], [[2007]] | url=http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=1154 | title=Why the 09ers Are So Upset | work=Freedom to Tinker | author=[[Edward Felten]] | accessdate=2007-01-08 }}</ref>