Talk:Digital rights management/Archive 3

message: Coldplay's new CD has rules    (added 2 Jan 06 by 84.109.75.239, ww)
: One point about the "no refund" disclaimer inside the packaging. INAL, but I think that creates conditions on the sale after the sale is complete, so would be legally invalid (for US and probably other countries too). --H2g2bob 03:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obnoxiety news: Coldplay 

message: Since the effects of DRM is always detrimental to the owner of the file, isn't it by definition a kind of malware?
:anon poster -- This is a common view, but is not entirely true, at least in theory. Being malware depends in part on whose ox is being gored. Sony, for instance (or some cretin there) seems to have thought that inserting a root vulnerability into your computer system when you played one of their protected audio CDs was a net benefit -- to them. Those who understand what is going on, and its significance, surely disagreed. In the long run, the furor about it all when it became publicly known probably made the entire effort a net loss to Sony. 
:And there is a not so theoretical problem here. It appears that all the anit-virus makers knew about Sony's rootkit installation, but decided that it didn't meet their definition of 'virus' and so did not bother to inform users of their software about this vulnerability, nor did they repair the 'problem'. Users who understood what was at stake presumably were not pleased to learn this. I was certainly not one. F-secure (of Finland), to their credit, were the only anit-virus maker who did so when it came to their attention. You may imagine how that affects my evaluation of the various anti-virus makers and their products and policies. Finnish phones and now Finnish anti-virus software. Leaping about naked in the snow on subzero winter days after leaving the sauna is probably next.  Brrr!
:A purely theoretical DRM system which prevented only those things which were not legal or licensed (and which changed what it prevented as real world events occurred such as copyright expiration, changes in license terms, ...) would not, in itself, be malware. No such DRM exists as the technical problem of designing or building DRM which behaved this way are so immense as to be, in my view, impossible. Probably for the indefinite future. And, of course, this non-malware sort of DRM would have to be error free (design and implementation) and not subject to alteration by pranksters or others when deployed. No one knows how to do this. Software systems have killed several people (whilst controlling or mal-controlling, industiral robots), have ruined spacecraft and rocket launches to very great loss (the first attempted ariane 5 launch, for instance), etc etc. 
:So your point that DRM is by definition malware is well taken in actual practice, though not in theory. Lawyers and marketing cretins seem nearly universally incapable of realizing this, though quite why is not entirely clear. Law school classes in which engineering reality is specifically prohibitied from affecting legal consideration, maybe? How to make this point in the article without POV bias (or being accused of POV) is much harder to figure out. 
:ww 19:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DRM = Malware 

message: Changed the para with this claim to delete the flat claim, replacing with forward looking observation and some perspective on the reasons why we're headed there. That's the way things are headed, but we're not there yet. After Vista, perhaps. 71.249.12.89 04:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DRM depends on Mandatory Access Control 

message: this paragraph, from "drm opponents": 
The use of DRM is a key part of implementation of corporate compliance policies such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, protecting corporate documents from unauthorized tampering and creating an audit trail which can be used to determine liability at board level within corporations for misdemeanors. This level of control is obviously unwelcome at certain levels. 
doesn't seem quite npov, or quite right. If it's true that DRM is key to Sarb-Ox, that's a factual piece of information that should probably go under the "other uses of drm" header, and the snarky sentence about "obviously unwelcome" taken out. This paragraph isn't discussing actual groups, as the other entries in this section do; it's hypothesizing. As described, Sarb-Ox could also be taken as an argument for drm. I don't know much about the subject, so didn't want to jump into editing it.. Brassratgirl 00:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch.  After spending a few minutes scratching my head over what was being states in this paragraph, I decided to remove it entirely.  If someone wants to identify what group(s) would be against DRM implementations for Sarb-Ox purposes, with a citation to a publication that makes this identification, they can add it in with much better language.  Warrens 01:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sarbanes-oxley & drm opponents 

message: Why are they listed in the "Lobbying organizations" section? I'm all but sure they are against DRM. - Sikon 17:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  EFF and DBD 

message: One such removed the term criminalization fro the legalites discussion. This was in error as perhaps the most notable effect of much of this legislation is to move litigation from civil court (ie, torts) into criminal court. The act of copying some protected item has not be an a criminal offense hitherto. It is not scare language some of which recetn edits properly elided, but the fact. And so WEP notable. Reply from that editor, others? ww 02:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think the anon may be right.  Isn't it legislation such as the DMCA that makes it a criminal act, not the technology called DRM?  I could be wrong though, I'm not entirely clear on the history.  Was DRM only introduced at the same time as DMCA type legislation?  AlistairMcMillan 02:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The removal of 'criminalisation' was technically correct, since DRM itself cannot make anything illegal, since it isn't a law. I suggest that we just rewrite the sentence to note that certain legislation enforces DRM by criminalising certain activities: the statement would remain technically correct, and communicate the same basic facts as the original. RandyWang (raves/rants) 02:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But we already have a section on the DMCA that clearly states: that criminalizes the production and dissemination of technology that allows users to circumvent copyright protection methods, rendering all forms of DRM-stripping and circumvention software illegal.  Is it a requirement that we have the word "criminalise" in every section? AlistairMcMillan 02:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair call - I hadn't noted its section when I took a look at the diff. May as well just leave the change in place, methinks, since it's no less informative than before. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 02:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually RW, that's precisely one of the things DMCA makes illegal. AM is correct, even though he framed his answer in the form of a question. DMCA makes research into DRM operation, even if not a single copyright is violated, illegal. See the linked article on Skylarov. Check out Felten's website, and check Macfergus.com for Niels Ferguson's reluctance to tell anyone about the flaws he found in Intel's design, even though Intel is reported to have said it has no objection. Ferguson is concerned about being arrested by some prosecutor with not a lick of understanding of what's going on technically -- as long as a case can be made. This subject is a mess and requires perspective to understand. Even one of the threads which bear on it -- and there's lots, most technical in one way or another. ww 03:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent edits 

message: A series of recent edits changed quite a few -ised instances to - ized. While this is an admirable devotion to the UK flavour, it is contrary to WP practice which is officially to allow both, regard neither as 'correct',and to attempt to keep individual articles consistent. The anon editor should refrain from making such revision in future. ww 14:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AE vs BE spelling in recent edits 

message: Would it be worth mentioning that a secure DRM scheme is quite simply impossible to achieve on general purpose computing hardware? The argument goes as follows: Let's consider a DRM scheme intended to prevent copying of music files stored on a home PC. The scheme must clearly allow the user to play the music. Thus all information required to play the song is present on the user's computer. This might include some kind of ciphertext, decryption keys, signatures, certificates, whatever. The point is that every piece of information needed to make the music play is present. So it is possible to write an efficient algorithm which decodes the song and writes the bits to a file. Thus the entire scheme relies on security by obscurity - no-one but the proprietor of the DRM scheme knows the algorithm needed to do the decoding.
Of course, if the computer playing the music has a Trusted Platform Module the argument breaks down, because the official playback application can access keys stored in the TPM that an unofficial "pirate" decoder could not.
:Not so... The trusted computing model only protects (defends?!) against software attack. The resourceful pirate will simply pull things out of main memory
::Actually, one of the key components of Trusted Computing is Memory Curtaining, which would prevent pirates from pulling a key or the music out of main memory. Trusted Computing should secure DRM, although any implementation bugs probably would make this harder. -FutureDomain
Why make it so difficult? To play the music file it must at some point be converted into sound waves in the air. Now, even if you included a little big-brother device in every single microphone, which phones home about it every time the microphone is used, it is still perfectly possible to build a phonograph from scratch. That is, no matter how much  encryption and trusted hardware you stick into a music player, DRM can still be circumvented with a device invented before electricity was even used for lighting, let alone media playback. DRM is not a matter of making copying content impossible, it is a matter of making it less convenient than buying it by imposing a hassle upon anyone who would wish to circumvent it. Stallman got it right. It is a malicious feature aimed at making it painful to do something yourself rather than paying media distributors from doing so (redistributing the media from artist to user ). 137.205.236.52 02:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impossibility of secure DRM? 

message: Am I corrent in assuming that DRM makes it impossible to play non-certified files on DRM complient OS's. What Im getting at is, well Ill just show u:
1.  Download non-DRM identified content (i.e. Content off of Limewire that doesnt have a licence.
2.  Open it in Windows Media Player.
 
3.  WMP scans for DRM Header.
4.  If it can't find one it doesn't play it.
5.  Then reports you for using illegal files.
Am I correct in assuming that this is the process that DRM compliant software uses? 
Thanks,
H a m m o
: That's not the case. DRM is like encryption for files. If a file has DRM, it will only play on certain machines, and/or for a certain time limit, etc. If a file does not have DRM (ie, it's unencrypted), it can be played on any machine forever.
: To play DRM'd files you need a special media player (whichever the authors tell you). Normally that's WMP or iTunes. But you would not be able to play it with an open source media player (eg vlc).
: Things you get on peer to peer networks are DRM-free, but there may be copyright issues.
: A different, but related issue is that some companies install spyware on your PC (normally through a trojan), which can stop you burning certain types of CDs. See Extended Copy Protection for an example. The EFF's website may also have some information.
: It's worth noting that Windows Media Player has a privicy statement somewhere in the options, and it's not that bad (eg, they won't send what files you play to anyone, if I remember correctly). However, using Windows Vista will completely undermine that.
: Some good and bad news there I suppose --h2g2bob 13:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it depends on the specific DRM being used. Some systems are designed to allow only authorized software to work, and block everything else. Others are designed to specifically block forbidden software, while allowing both permitted and unknown. -- kenb215 talk 02:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let Me Get this Straight... 

message: I removed this from external links, but it's still quite interesting so I'm shoving it here.
* Paradigmatic example of legislators hearing a very general computer buzzword ("caching" ) associated with infringement cases and banning it, not realizing it was a universal computer memory technique.  Article itself demonstrates difficulty of explaining this to general public, writer does not seem to realize every computer and most digital devices of any kind would have to be destroyed.
--h2g2bob 14:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: This article has a significant POV against DRM. This is probably inherent of the topic, as most Wikipedia editors tend to be computer literate, and most, thought by no means all, computer literate people (me included) tend to be against DRM. It will probably be hard, perpetual work, but I am going to try and make the article more NPOV. If you have any complaints, please post here before reverting to discuss. I will try to check the page as often as I can. -- kenb215 talk 02:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw the edit as leaving just an alternate name in, while moving any politically-motivated debate for after the lead section, as it is in there now. But if consensus is against this, I'll stay away from the lead for some time. -- kenb215 talk 17:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV removal 

message: I changed the lead sentence from this:
:Digital Rights Management (generally abbreviated to DRM) is any of several technologies used by publishers (or copyright owners) to control access to and usage of digital data (such as software, music, movies) and hardware, handling usage restrictions associated with a specific instance of a digital work.
to this:
:Digital Rights Management (generally abbreviated to DRM) an umbrella term for any of several technologies used by publishers or copyright owners to control access to and usage of digital data or hardware, and to restrictions associated with a specific instance of a digital work or device.
My main goal here was to reduce the number of parentheses.  Three is far too much for a lead sentence in an encyclopedia article.  I also introduced the phrase "umbrella term"; it seems appropriate, since specific implementations of DRM use different terminology.   -/- Warren 21:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead sentence 

message: There's another aspect regarding DRM that is not really touched on in this article. I just bought Half-Life2. It's version of DRM requires that users have an Internet connection and an account with a webserver in order to play the game (either single-player or multiplayer). That's all fine and good, but that means this game will only be playable so long as that webserver remains operational. Should the company ever go under (like, say, the makers of the Thief games did), then Half-Life2 and its spinoffs will likely become unplayable. To just add such a statement would probably violate NPOV and NOR - are there any sources that could be cited regarding this concern? There is a brief reference to DRM affecting archivability of data, but that's not quite the same thing as affecting the operation of purchased software. (Plus the DRM rights holder for the game has also demonstrated its ability to choose who has access to the game/data and who does not). 23skidoo 15:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try this and this. There hasn't been any other serious analysis of/research into this sort of thing, as far as I know. --Tom Edwards 15:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This, too. --Tom Edwards 16:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another aspect of DRM 

message: I got a question for any experts on the subject: On the internet, there is an abundance of sources (all of them several years old, AFAIK) speaking of the Lucky Green patent incident. For underinformed laymen like me: The story goes something like, he filed a patent on using Trusted Computing for commercial purposes right after a conference where some Microsoft spokesperson talked about it, negating a commercial intent of Microsoft on the grounds of "we didn't even know it could be used for that". Sorry for any inaccuracies... I just wondered why there is no mention of that incident anywhere on wikipedia? Mostly, I'd like to know how things finally turned out, because there don't seem to be any up to date sources. Kncyu38 14:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lucky Green / Trusted Computing 

message: I believe that this article should, whilst not delving completely into the topic, mention the safeguards Big Media had built into HDCP in the case of a key being discovered.  If the discovered key belongs to a hardware device (HDTV, BluRay player etc.) the content providers have the authority under the license to revoke that key, potentially leaving the device in question unusable for high-definition content.  It's an important topic in the gamut of DRM and one that isn't often talked about.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.140.78 (talk) 08:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this is an interesting topic, but would argue that it properly belongs under the HDCP page, rather than DRM Ianbetteridge (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  HDCP Key Revocation 

message: This article does not deal, except in passing with implementational details, and so the proposed merger is inappropriate for this article as it has developed. It is already somewhat long and additional detail would be ill-advised for that reason. With the immiment release of Vista, DRM will be a very large topic as Vista has builtin degradation mechanisms which are poorly designed, forcing owners of expensive peripherals to junk them if they wish to run Vista in a protected data context. See Peter Gutmann review of the cost implications of Vista for some of the gory details. This article will be expanding considerably in the near future. I suggest we leave implemenational issues to other articles. I do suggest a link to the Authorization Certificate article here however. 
Opposed. ww 00:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, removing merge tags. -- intgr 06:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge of Authorization Certificate into this article 

message: Apple CEO Steve Jobs stunned the tech and music industries Tuesday with a surprising challenge to the music industry to allow online stores — such as Apple's iTunes and Napster — to sell digital music files without the so-called digital-rights management (DRM) anti-piracy controls. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250576,00.html Crocoite 01:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This probably qualifies only as WP:DUST MikeURL 20:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apple's Jobs Urges End to Copy-Protected Music Files 

message: I believe there should be a mention and short summary of Nonpersistent DRM. Here is a verbatim quote from Business Week's article A Few More "Thoughts on Music". I've bolded the most noteable part.
==="Nonpersistent" DRM===
There's another option that involves a different approach to copyright protection. It's called "nonpersistent" DRM. Karl Hirsch, the CEO of a DRM technology firm called Protexis described it to me like this: When you buy a song from an online store, it comes protected in such a way that it goes only to the person who bought it. Once you prove you're the person who paid for it, the song is "unwrapped," after which you have essentially no limits on what you can do with it. Put it on an iPod. And a Sansa. And a Zune, if you like. Plus three computers you have lying around the house—whatever suits your fancy.
This is pretty close to the way things works with a CD now. When we buy a CD, we can make copies for friends on a cassette tape or a recordable CD. A friend visiting with a laptop can rip the tracks from your CD to his computer, without having to pay the record label for the rights (although the industry considers this is a no-no—but that's another story, or column as the case may be). But the most important thing is that most people who buy a CD use it honestly after the initial transaction takes place.
And that transaction would be tracked by an independent third party, responsible to both the music retailer and the labels to make sure everyone gets paid. If Joe's Online Music Bistro sells 10,000 copies of the latest Norah Jones single, while iTunes sells 500,000 copies, each vendor's numbers get reported to the label the minute the song gets "unwrapped" by the consumer.
Under this nonpersistent model, the label and the artist still get paid for the initial transaction, which is by far the most important transaction, after which the consumer operates under an honor system, which in truth most people follow.
Most people. But not all people. You can augment a nonpersistent DRM system by adding limitations to the file once it has been unwrapped, Hirsch says. You could create a second layer within it that limits the number of copies you can make, but which is device-agnostic, meaning you could play that limited number of copies on whatever combination of devices you chose. Naturally Protexis offers just such a service—in the outlined scenario it would be the trusted third party that tracks and reports on sales. Hirsch's idea is certainly interesting. 
--Eptin 20:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonpersistent DRM 

message: There's another option that involves a different approach to copyright protection. It's called "nonpersistent" DRM. Karl Hirsch, the CEO of a DRM technology firm called Protexis described it to me like this: When you buy a song from an online store, it comes protected in such a way that it goes only to the person who bought it. Once you prove you're the person who paid for it, the song is "unwrapped," after which you have essentially no limits on what you can do with it. Put it on an iPod. And a Sansa. And a Zune, if you like. Plus three computers you have lying around the house—whatever suits your fancy.
This is pretty close to the way things works with a CD now. When we buy a CD, we can make copies for friends on a cassette tape or a recordable CD. A friend visiting with a laptop can rip the tracks from your CD to his computer, without having to pay the record label for the rights (although the industry considers this is a no-no—but that's another story, or column as the case may be). But the most important thing is that most people who buy a CD use it honestly after the initial transaction takes place.
And that transaction would be tracked by an independent third party, responsible to both the music retailer and the labels to make sure everyone gets paid. If Joe's Online Music Bistro sells 10,000 copies of the latest Norah Jones single, while iTunes sells 500,000 copies, each vendor's numbers get reported to the label the minute the song gets "unwrapped" by the consumer.
Under this nonpersistent model, the label and the artist still get paid for the initial transaction, which is by far the most important transaction, after which the consumer operates under an honor system, which in truth most people follow.
Most people. But not all people. You can augment a nonpersistent DRM system by adding limitations to the file once it has been unwrapped, Hirsch says. You could create a second layer within it that limits the number of copies you can make, but which is device-agnostic, meaning you could play that limited number of copies on whatever combination of devices you chose. Naturally Protexis offers just such a service—in the outlined scenario it would be the trusted third party that tracks and reports on sales. Hirsch's idea is certainly interesting. 
</blockquote>
--Eptin 20:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Nonpersistent" DRM

message: The following block of text was removed from the frontpage because it was poorly integrated and lacked a clear relation to the article. Feel free to add it again and comply with wikipedia standards.  This looks like a copy-paste to me.
The first proposed draft of the GPLv3 (released on 2006-01-16) contains language intended to neutralize the harmful effects of DRM (interference with users' rights to examine, alter, and redistribute) when implemented using GPL'd software.  Although the draft in no way prohibits the use of GPL'd code in DRM systems, it does require binaries (or source code) to be distributed not only with source code, but also with the necessary cryptographic keys and other required mechanisms needed to modify the software and still have it interoperate.  It also contains language intended to exclude GPL'd DRM code from the scope of the DMCA (and similar statutes elsewhere) anti-circumvention provisions.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Teque5 (talk • contribs) 10:12, 13 Feb 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SECTION: Inclusion within GNU General Public License version 3 

message: I tagged this article with the NPOV tag for the following reasons:
Even the first paragraph makes me frown, wikipedia has stated that an article should describe the article, not be a page about critisism about the subject. My suggestion for fixing this would be to split this article into one article talking only about the technical meaning of drm without any personal opinions being drawn in and one discussing critisism of DRM showing both sides of the debate. Lyml 20:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy very strongly discourages separating all criticism off to a separate article.  The only generally acceptable case where this is done is if WP:SUMMARY-style article editing is being employed to reduce an article's overall length.  Aside from that, there's really not all that much that can be said about the technical aspects of "DRM" in general because it's a broad term that covers a wide range of technologies and implementations.  -/- Warren 20:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  After reading this article again, aswell as reading through the neutral point of view articles I see your point, however I still think this article is using to many loaded terms and I have as a response to that tooned down the digital restrictions section. That is, I removed the bold wich gives a strong emphasis on Digital Restrictions Management to make it into a milder tone removing focus from what seems to be the most blatant POV piece of this article. Lyml 23:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, cleaning up unnecessary POV or general bias is welcome. -- intgr 16:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The term "Digital Restrictions Management" was put forth by detractors of the technology, sure, but the phrase is quite widely used and is important in framing the debate that consumes most of the article... are they rights or restrictions?  It's an important part of the subject being discussed -- it's a generic term, not a trademark or something, so the definition itself is up for debate.  Bolding it in the lead also helps reduce the amount of vandalism that we get from the vandals who want to come in and edit the article to lead off with that term, instead of "Rights".  That may sound like a dumb reason, but it does actually work.   -/- Warren 22:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am opposed to bolding it like that personally I don't even think it deserves a place in the summary, Digital Restrictions Management is as you said it just a term put forth by by opposers. Having it like this is about equal to writing: "The Pro-Choice choice movement known as the anti-life movement by..." in the pro-choice article about abortion. We shouldn't be pushing for a deragatory term used almost exlusively by opposers of the technology as the same could be said about the abortion debate names. Protecting it against vandalism by bolding it in an attempt to appease the vandals is not something that should be done. I'm removing the boldness again as it puts to much focus on that term and shows a glaring POV in the article. Lyml 18:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your objection (or many similar variants thereof) has long been reflected, almost from the first comment on this talk page, (much now in the archives, which you should review for the background to the current structure and phrasing of sensitve parts of this article), and has been the subject of considerable to'ing and fro'ing for quite some time. My own preference is quite different than yours. I think WP should not allow DRM to be exclusively or most prominently read as Dig Rig Man, for I think that is POV and allows a polemical control of the naming of the subject. I have long advocated for early and prominent placement of the Dig Res Man reading, so as to reduce that particular sort of NPOV. I have acquised to the views of others, including Warrens in this and settled for less prominent placement than I think NPOV. Do please review early posts on this in the talk page. ww 20:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: We've addressed all this in prior discussions.  You've yet to bring anything new to the discussion that should lead us away from giving the most common alternate expansion some prominence.  Look, I appreciate that you're new to working on the encyclopedia, so I encourage you to read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and its ancilliary articles, in their entirety, so that you can come to an understanding of how we're supposed to present conflicting views.  Have a look at Wikipedia:Consensus, too.  User:Ww and I may have strongly differing viewpoints in the the issue of the prominence of "Digital Restrictions Management", but we've all invested a lot of time and thought into the lead section as it stands now, and IMO it's a satisfactory compromise.  We're not talking about promoting offensive or derogatory terminology to the lead section here; it's merely a different, perhaps equally valid way of defining the name of the thing we're talking about.  Read the articles on right and restriction for further backgrounding on the issue at hand.  -/- Warren 00:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree with Warrens. Digital Restrictions Managment is a commonly associated term, it is entirely encyclopedic to make the link early on. Further it is a succinct way of representing an major viewpoint on the subject. I think it still needs more prominent placement of technical as oppose to moral/legal objections to DRM and I may add those when I get a chance. 172.213.231.215 07:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute 

message: I tried to add a link to a paper that lists many of the obstacles in implenting DRM. It's: Challenges in designing content protection solutions. The paper was written by a company that sells DRM products. However, the paper itself is completely technical and does not endorse any product. The link itself is to a mirror of the paper (the authors website) and not to the vendor. Are there any opinions on whether or not it can be linked to according to the Wikipedia policy? Lohat 14:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Cited papers needn't be unbiased/neutral, as long as it is clear from the article, who holds these positions, and implies what biases they might have. For details, see describing points of view, and reliable sources. Note that these are guidelines, and not policies. For neutral papers by recognized (enough) sources, this needn't be done if the position is not disputed. -- intgr 16:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What Intgr said. Especially if the paper is as you represent. ww 20:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to a Document 

message: The article says:
:The Playstation 2 version of Ape Escape: Pumped & Primed creates copy-restricted game saves which cannot be transferred between memory cards. This is the first known instance where a publisher has enforced DRM on private data, rather than just data copyrighted by the publisher.
I'm pretty certain that a few Dreamcast game saves were also copy-restricted, long before that. Phantasy Star Online, for example. - Stormwatch 00:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy-restricted gamesaves 

message: Last sentence, 2nd paragraph, Introduction section:
"And usually have, as the legal uses permitted in law are hard to match to the technical (ie, in almost all cases cryptographic systems) properties of the various DRM schemes."
doesn't make sense to me - what usually has, and what is it that they usually have? It isn't clear to me - you mean most DRM schemes have additional restrictions? But that's just what was said in the previous sentence.  And it isn't good style to start a sentence with 'And'.  Maybe the author could clarify a bit, or reword it?
Awmorp 14:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My interpretation is that this is intended to note that cryptosystem designs permit certain things and not others, and that the intentions and desires of copyright holders rarely match. I would add somehow, that what the technical aspects of a DRM scheme rarely matches the actual legal situation of the copyrighted material. For instance, there are legal exceptions (statutory in some cases and common law in others) to the exclusivity of copyright holders privileges. For instance, parody use, quotation in reviews, radio broadcast, private use of sheet music, first sale (in the US) and fair dealing (Commonwealth), .. .None of which may the copyright holder prohibit. Someone should squash all that into a single replacement sentence. ??? ww 06:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction, 2nd paragraph 

message: I think the table should be organized either alphabetically by technology or chronologically. What order makes most sense and why? Stagefrog2 01:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While alphabetic ordering is likely to be the most fair, it is inherently arbitrary. I'd vote for chronological ordering, but that introduces the problem of getting reliable release dates. -- intgr 03:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of DRM Technologies 

message: What about adding a section on implementing DRM? The whole article seems to be focused on the DRM controversy, and while thats needed, it would be good to have a couple sections on how it is implemented.
FutureDomain 14:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implementing DRM 

message: I found that there are some players claimed that Full DRM is supported.
And most of them are having DRM ported in the chip.
What is Full DRM?
Is it specific DRM technology that provided by microsoft?
I wonder if DRM is ported in the chip is stable for different DRM site and usage scenerio, as those players are low cost comparing with others in the market. I really doubt about what does "Full DRM" means.
By the way, if it is support DRM 10, does it mean that it is able to do all DRM feature, such as metering?
Any idea? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chcchris (talk • contribs) 03:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Full DRM", like many phrases, has no particular agreed upon meaning. DRM scheme A has been incompatible with DRM schmee B and both with DRM scheme C and so on. I suspect what's involved here is marketing puffery from the player maker or vendor. Like much of the marketing blarney we encounter, it has little actual meaning. ww 03:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full DRM? 

message: This is obvious and shouldn't have to be explained, but digital rights management is not a proper noun: i.e. it is not a protocol, a publication, a standard, or anything else that would make it deserving of capitalisation in the English language.  Therefore, it absolutely must not be capitalized.  I ask an administrator to fix this error as soon as possible.  (The correct title has an edit history, but it is devoid of any article content.)  –radiojon 05:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a fine opinion to have, but your assertion isn't backed up by reliable sources.  The vast majority of our sources (and a majority of what you're going to find in use around the Internet) use capital letters.  That's why Wikipedia does the same.  If you want to demonstrate otherwise, do so with sources, not with an emphatically-stated opinion.  -/- Warren 05:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A google search will show that there is no standard for capitalization. Based on Wikipedia's manual of style this should be changed to lowercase letters, as "digital rights management" is not a proper noun. Whatever we decide on, though, please keep it consistent throughout the article. Currently the titla and lead section use lowercase and the rest of the article uses caps. Rhobite 03:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Warren is wrong in his assertion as per Rhobite... even the title of the article has the correct usage!!!--Cerejota 04:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have corrected this articles use of capital letters. It was only a minor problem, and only three letters were changed to their lowercase version. Lyml 08:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper casing: must not use capital letters 

message: Are we going to mention the Blu-Ray encryption key or whatever it is (I'm not entirely sure) leak?
On either this page or the Blu-Ray page?  and if so, is anyone going to post the key, or is it going the be mentioned without any indication of what the key is?  I think we should, but I'm not very boned up on what the rules are, and I'd be reluctant to do it myself anyway as I don't really get the full issue.  So what's going to happen? --Anoma lee 02:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We certainly should note it. I'd suggest we be bold. If you understand the issue (and ideally can source it), I'd suggest that you note it here. With perhaps a pointer here from the Blu-ray article. And if you can't write it up fully, an idication that Blu-ray DRM may have been compromised might be appropriate. Be bold... ww 04:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the key itself would be unencyclopedic - its inclusion in the article would not really enlighten the reader. The fact that the key has been widely disseminated and references to it are relevant however. Ripe 17:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  key leak - yes or no? 

message: Digital Audio Tape was developed "mid-80s", whereas Compact Discs were on the market in 82. I think someone needs to find a source to the assertion that consumer DAT failed b/c of copying potential as opposed to CDs being both market-ready sooner & handier. Ripe 15:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digital Audio Tape 

message: I absolutely think the embedding of identifying information in downloaded tracks is relevant to any discussion on DRM, which explains this reversion Diff --RandomHumanoid 08:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you're wrong. This is at best a privacy issue, not a digital rights management issue. Please take a moment to re-read the description of what the term "digital rights management" means, and help us keep a coherent article by keeping anything unrelated to DRM out of the article.  Thanks.  -/- Warren 17:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ITunes Info Embedding 

message: These all need to be evaluated for their quality and relevance. Printed and academic literature seems to be underrepresented as well. —Ruud 23:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References, further reading, external links ...