Talk:Digital rights management/Archive 2

message: Seybold Report, Vol.4,No.22, February 23,2005
:A few weeks ago, Adobe quietly announced that it is discontinuing its eBook server software, Content Server, which contains the DRM encryption functionality for PDF eBooks. Adobe no longer sells the product and will discontinue technical support for it in 2006...
:Adobe’s abandonment of eBook technology leaves the technology in the hands of smaller vendors: eReader and MobiPocket, both of which produce eBook technology for handheld devices, and independent vendors of DRM for PDF files, such as Aries Systems and FileOpen — both also very small outfits...
Not quite sure how this should be factored into the article, or perhaps it belongs in the eBooks article--I'm working on an eBook timeline--but it seems interesting. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:40, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adobe drops key DRM product 

message: I find this paragraph rather not-NPOV:
"The presence of DRM infringes private property rights. The DRM component takes control over the rest of the user's device which they rightfully own (e.g. MP3 player) and restricts how it may act, regardless of the user's wishes (e.g. preventing the user from copying a song). All forms of DRM depend on the device imposing restrictions that cannot be disabled or modified by the user. In other words, the user has no choice."
I see that key points here are:
# Should the user really have full control of his device?
# Does making an illegal or harmful action impossible infringe private rights?
# How can we determine user wishes at the hardware level? Obviously, we can't. So then, to what extent preventing illegal actions can limit private rights?
I think answer to 1. is "yes", but this can be argued about and it's connected with 2., i. e. should an owner of a nuclear reactor have the possibility to cause meltdown?
I've added words "DRM opponents argue that" in the beggining of the paragraph. --Tweenk 18:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infringement of private rights? 

message: It's not a proper noun, and that's the way it is in the title. « alerante ✆ ✉ » 23:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't digital rights management be in lowercase? 

message: "Although it has been argued that programs like DeCSS make copyright infringement easier, this system has never been effective in preventing illegal mass copying of DVDs by criminal gangs, even before the system was found to be flawed."
This doesn't make sense towards the end. Shouldn't it be 'even after the system', or 'until the system', depending on the meaning? --Tom Edwards 09:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This passage is suggesting that systems like CSS didn't have an effect on preventing the mass copying, even before DeCSS showed that it was flawed Johme 16:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DeCSS problem 

message: In the preamble, it states "Some types of DRMs have been recently declared illegal in France and the European Community is expected to rule on a ban of DRM systems."  Can anyone provide further information on this?  Who expects the EC to rule a ban of DRM systems?  Does anyone have a reference to further discussion on this please?--Bc42 12:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  European legislation 

message: From the article:
:In Europe, there are several dialog activities, that are uncharacterized by its consensus-building intention:
Can anyone tell me what this sentece means (and, preferably, then replace it)? Shinobu 14:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Un''characterized?