"Black Marketing" Scammer Soils Ragnar's Name

A new post on Search Engine Watch points out that one opportunistic Digg scammer is parading around under the name of “Ragnar Danneskjold.”
Unfortunately, this wannabe pirate fails to grasp the difference between stealing from a tyrannical government bureaucracy and stealing from a private company.
Digg has its terms-of-use in place for a reason; it protects the value of their service and the integrity of their company. Whatever you think of Digg’s value and integrity, it’s theirs — not yours — to build or destroy.
Those of us who understand and revere the symbolism of Ragnar Danneskjold’s actions don’t appreciate seeing you slink around under the guise of a “noble capitalist” when you’re nothing of the sort.
So go read Atlas Shrugged again, punk — it’s not an endorsement of anarchy.
UPDATE (7:14 p.m.): Since I wrote this post, “Ragnar” (who appears to consider himself a libertarian, politically) has contacted me and provided additional information about his service.
Naturally, he takes issue with my characterization that his company is stealing from Digg. I am still mulling over the relevant issues; in the interim, it’s probably best to quote from what he wrote to me, and let that speak for itself.

I understand and agree with the moral foundation of capitalism. I do not think that Digg is party to this transaction. The transaction to analyze is the sale of an advertisement. Digg could easily do this themselves, just as StumbleUpon and Netscape do. Digg does not own their users’ actions any more than we do, so we are simply competing with Digg for their users’ activity on Digg.
Your argument [that my business model is like stealing from a store] is akin to a competing store arguing that your store is violating their rights by attracting customers to your store, away from theirs. I’ll modify this analogy to say that the competitor store and the customer signed a contract saying the customer couldn’t buy from your store. You attracting those customers, for you, has nothing to do with the contract the customers signed with the other store.
Yes, we are encouraging users to violate Digg’s terms of service. However, we never signed that contract. Their is no moral imperative to respect a contract that two people unrelated to you have signed, only contracts that you freely enter yourself. Also, Digg’s terms of service specify the consequences of violating the contract: termination of the Digg account. It is Digg’s prerogative to terminate an account, no one is preventing them from doing so.
[…] We aren’t stealing services. The only service Digg provides is a medium for communication between users, and this is free anyway. Placement on Digg’s front page is not the service Digg claims to offer. We offer that service.
In answer to the charge that even PayPal, their payment processor, will likely disapprove of their business model:
We are not violating Digg’s terms of use. We do not accept money to Digg things, which is the clause in question. Paypal will make money on our transactions, so why would they shut us down? PayPal has no moral agenda besides making money… same with our company. Even if PayPal blocked us we could find a different medium, or make our own.
[…] In general, remember that we have not signed any contract with Digg. Also, we are not trying to ruin public trust in them. Again, if less people use Digg, the value of our service goes down. We aim to be able to mask our gaming activity, as the top users have, so that Digg continues to appear clean.
Thanks for the scrutiny. Feel free to publish any of the things I have said to you, but please do not release my name.

These points certainly make the issue more refined (and interesting) than I had concluded from my own original and brief analysis of their business.
I continue to find something unsavory about paying people to violate their own contract with another company — particularly when those payments could sharply compromise the perceived value and integrity of Digg’s service. If I were Digg, I’d definitely be calling my legal team.
It seems analogous to paying people to shill bid on your items (or your clients’ items) on eBay, no?