Talk:Copy protection

message: Recent games such as assassin's creed II and similar required constant internet connection to work. This is relevant and interesting as the protection had flaws (server overload caused genuine players to pause and wait mid game) and irritated gamers so much that the amazon ratings system gave the game a score of 1.0/5 based on hundreds of reviews, in protest of the copy protection method.
This style of copy protection is becoming more and more prevalent and needs to be mentioned.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.59.225 (talk) 10:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Constant internet connection required

message: A user posted a link to  which contains information relevant to copy protection of computer software.  That is, the link was specifically on-topic.  However, the link is, in my opinion, essentially an advertisement for a specific technology and while on-topic, does not really add much content to the article.  I have no reason to believe the person who added this link has anything to do with the company in question.  I removed the link and the user complained that it isn't really an advertisement.  However, he did not reinstate the link, presumably wanting this subject to be discussed.  So, discussion.  Is the link given above appropriate to include in this article or should it stay out? --Yamla 16:43, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
: There are many software copy protection methods available, and advertising for them all on this page wouldn't add much. Maybe add a link to a separate page for a list of copy prevention schemes / providers would help? 74.14.228.158 17:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps a separate section listing commercially available software LM and DRM systems would be appropriate. However, I agree, it wouldn't contribute much. Maybe we can try to look for analyst reports that detail the top 5 systems or discuss incumbents and trends, and include that as an external link? I don't know of a report that's available under GFDL or compatible with it, however. A rambhia 21:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Report on the top 5? Something that you may not realise about copy protection is that its success depends on obscurity. Something else about CP is that analyst reports will be way off the mark. I know which is the best solution by far for certain types of media, but I would not promote it on Wikipedia Wallumbase (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Commercial Ad

message: Copy prevention → Copy protection – This article was originally at Copy protection.  In November, Psychonaut cut and pasted the page to Copy prevention, and edited all instances of the term from "copy protection" to "copy prevention" within the article. He claimed the term "copy protection" violates NPOV.  Problem is, "copy prevention" is a neologism; "copy protection" is the universal term (Google backs me up here with 20 times more hits), and Wikipedia is not a soapbox to try to convince the world to stop using a universally used term that an individual objects to. Hence "copy protection" does not violate NPOV. — Tempshill 22:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
*Support per 'use the most common name' policy--"copy protection" gets 738k hits, "copy prevention" gets 36k. Niteowlneils 04:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

text: *Support. What Schoen said. – Smyth\talk 10:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

text: besides that copy protection never prevented anyone from copying anything  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually many people have been prevented by copying from copy protection. Just because all copy protection methods are circumventable doesn't mean they haven't prevented people from copying. How successful they have been in preventing people from copying is always going to be disputed but I don't think there is any dispute that they have prevented people from copying. This of course includes many end users who simply wanted to make a legal backup. Nil Einne (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed move back to Copy protection

message: **My apologies for cut-and-pasting the article; that was before I learned about the "move" function.  As for the arguments set forth, I concede that the term "copy protection" has more currency, but wish to note that it is neither universal nor accurate nor neutral.  The term "protection" carries the false implication that the works are in danger of being damaged, whereas the more neutral "prevention" simply refers to the function of the technology in question.  I think Tempshill is conflating the concepts of usage frequency and NPOV; the former does not necessarily imply the latter.  If it's Wikipedia policy that common terms are to be preferred for article titles even if they are POV, then I do not oppose moving the page.  But if there is no set policy on what to do when these two guidelines conflict, then I advise keeping the current NPOV title.  —Psychonaut 23:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: besides that copy protection never prevented anyone from copying anything  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually many people have been prevented by copying from copy protection. Just because all copy protection methods are circumventable doesn't mean they haven't prevented people from copying. How successful they have been in preventing people from copying is always going to be disputed but I don't think there is any dispute that they have prevented people from copying. This of course includes many end users who simply wanted to make a legal backup. Nil Einne (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Thanks everyone for your participation in the WP:RM vote, and to Violetriga for moving the page and adjusting the edit history.  I've gone through the article and edited the terminology accordingly.  The note on the terminology "copy prevention" remains of course.  Tempshill 23:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved

message: :showed a face composed of two different parts and asked when this pirate was hanged on a certain island. The player then had to match the faces on the wheel, and enter the year number that appeared on the island-respective hole. Its sequel had the same concept, but with magic potion ingredients.
I'm pretty sure the spinning wheel thing was used by games other then Monkey Island Nil Einne 12:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wheels 

message: It makes little sense to me to have separate copy protection and digital rights management articles.  As far as I can tell, modern "DRM" and earlier "copy protection" mechanisms differ primarily in public-relations marketing strategy.  The purpose is ultimately the same -- to exert control over the use and/or distribution of copies of information -- and the same arguments for and against copy protection apply almost equally to DRM.  It seems silly (and POV) to me to have two separate articles. Wonderstruck 06:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DRM doesn't have to protect from making copies - it could be a tracking mechansim like FairPlay  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  and , I also had this idea that, plainly, DRM should maybe just be merged into this page – as the same idea (only evolved technologies, plural, also plural for the older style), as copy protection is an older term, encompassing DRM (and more, such as Technological protection measures that redirects there, not here). FairPlay: "prevents users from playing these files on unauthorized computers [..] iTunes sends a unique machine identifier to Apple’s server". Is iTunes (that tracks?), being confused with FairPlay, that is only copy protection/DRM? In this article: "The term is also often related to, and confused with, the concept of digital rights management. Digital rights management is a more general term because it includes all sorts of management of works, including copy restrictions. Copy protection may include measures that are not digital". Does it have it backwards? Not clear what, unsourced, "all sorts of management of works" defers to. Of course DRM, can do more (such as cryptography), than some older analog only-schemes, such as Macrovision, as DRM is based on software, and not only in the analog domain. Copy protection is not however, something only (did it even start as such?) about the analog domain (some copy protection have to do with it, but so does DRM (because of the "analog hole"). DRM is just new copy production for newer technology. Is may be used more for media files than software, but copy protection while maybe starting with software, has been used for CDs (then DRM term not used). comp.arch (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

text: What a mess... protection vs prevention vs drm. When I read the DRM page it appears to be messy and confused. Then when I read the copy protection page I see the same confusion. Perhaps the problem is that the contributors are relying on what they can find already published on the web, most of which was PR that purposefully avoided the mention of the real innovators. In fact a lot of online evidence no longer exists because they have been and gone, their imitators will not be preserving their history, and it was before the time of Google and the Wayback Machine. I remember a time when copy protection was not a topic beyond speculation... theories that described processes that were not proven because at the time the world's most informed and talented programmers considered it both impossible and a useless concept. But you won't find any reference for this.Wallumbase (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should "Copy protection" be renamed as "Copy control" and merged with DRM? 

message: i feel like this part suggest old protections were not good, and not using described methods. How about Dungeon Master for example? See this link: 
Vid512 14:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A proper History section should indeed address this. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  old games protection 

message: "is any technical measure designed to prevent duplication of information. Copy protection is often emotionally debated, and is thought to sometimes infringe on some users' property rights: for example, the legal right to make a backup copy of a DVD they have purchased, to install and use computer software on multiple computers, or to upload their music into their digital audio player for easier access and listening."
we don't need to know how emotionally debated it is at the very introduction. This part is poorly written and very biased. I thought a straight definition would fit a lot better, so I put this in instead.:
"Copy protection, also known as copy prevention or copy restriction, is a system for preventing the unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted media like movies, video games and music."
To me that seems to be a lot less biased- possibly a bit biased on the pro-copy protection side, but a lot less chunky, and it's referenced too.
121.221.182.171 05:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The introduction.. 

message: Hacker  - as defined in the appropriate Wikipedia page is mostly an experienced computer user, the right term for illegal decipherer is cracker. Can I change that?
==No, cracker's are people who gain unlawful access to a system.
: Not necessarily, do you remember the "cracked by" intros of video games?  Of course, in this case it was copy protection circumvention and traffic, which may still be unlawful.  But those redistributors were commonly called crackers as well.  I agree with the original poster that "hacker" is a more general term, but unfortunately, in widely publicised media it's generally used where technical people might use the term "cracker" (I have no idea if the term has weight in the legal system, though).  But because of the common misconception, it still makes sense to use "hacker", when the article targets laymen... 76.10.128.192 (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  hacker is probably incorrect term 

message: Macrovision uses a legal strategy of patenting its video AGC system, giving it a more straightforward basis to shut down manufacture of any device that descrambles it than often exists in the DRM world.
Does Macrovision have a patent on a descrambling device or a modified AGC system that will defeat its video blanking?  If not, I don't see how its legal basis is established.  I feel that this section could use some clarification and expansion in regards to this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iain marcuson (talk • contribs) 23:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy protection for videotape 

message: Such a scheme has been used for the Sony PlayStation and cannot be circumvented easily without the use of a modchip. There is probably little easier than popping in a pandora's battery and hitting a few buttons to get around copyright protection on a PSP. Even sony has admitted piracy is rampant on the psp. Which reliable source has made this statement?--Crossmr (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  PSP statement 

message: I've reverted the July page moved back to "copy prevention". The rationale given in the 2005 move back still holds, and until such point as there's consensus to override we should use the most common name, regardless of whether certain parties hold it to be biased. This isn't FSFpedia. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I'm unfamiliar with the rationale you're referencing, it may not have been qualified, but I moved it again before noticing this section. However, I do disagree that the most commonly used phrasing should be used when bias is in question. Kleenexes are not facial tissues, and the article there reflects that. This article should similarly reflect encyclopedic content, not public image due to marketing (at best, some may go so far as to call it propaganda by the copyright middlemen industry.) 63.153.253.24 (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: I was thinking of maybe creating a category for DRM circumversion software such as Game Jackal or cheat cartridges. Any opinions? SharkD (talk) 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be most inappropriate!Wallumbase (talk) 06:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  DRM circumversion software 

message: Shouldn't the section on BD+ mention that this protection scheme, too, has already been compromised? In fact, it was broken even more quickly than CSS...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.249.121.125 (talk) 06:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  BluRay BD+ / AnyDVD 

message: Copy Protected Paper has an hidden & encrypted message that cannot be digitally replicated and re-printed.
What is replicated on a photo copy or fax is a robust copy/void warning message.
When copied an “illegal copy” or “void” message shows brightly on the copy making any counterfeit copy obvious.
Copy Proof Protected Paper is suitable for most printers and is court enforceable
If this paper doesn't prevent scanning or photographing by any camera, then it's not worth mentioning because colours can be seperated by the use of filters (using film or digital photography) to remove anything. Consider how money forgers can create colour separations from the original bank note for the different colour plates... and also reproduce watermarks and threads. Most printing apprentices get a guided tour of all departments in the mint (treasury printer) in their final year.Wallumbase (talk) 07:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy Protected Paper

message: Copy Protected Paper is an extremely specialist product and i have only found a few relevant links for this,
please add more if you find any.
Conquest Copy Protected Paper (Midlands & South England) http://www.CopyProof.eu
Atlantis Copy Protected Paper (North England, Wales & Scotland) http://AtlantisCopyProof.ukgcn.com
Copy Proof Paper Trade Supplier http://CopyProof.ukgcn.com
More links needed, please add!
This is only watermarked paper, which can be reproduced by a commercial printer or a digital printer at home.. There is no point in advertising something that can easily be created by anyone. Please don't confuse it with copy protection.Wallumbase (talk) 06:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes just like pharmacy scripts, a scan or photocopy will have "COPY" or "VOID" on it. The technology actually can be seen if you hold it at the right angle under a light, we need more RS on these. 
Also not sure if this is "Copy Protection" for general or just software? If it is juts software it should be renamed to "Software" or of course DRM but that word seems to no longer be used much. Tyros1972 (talk) 11:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy Protected Paper External Links

message: Oh, yeah. 64.180.93.200 (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Needs a Criticism Section

message: What is this gibberish section?  Needs removed at worst, completely rewritten if the patent application # is real and relevant at least.  Right now it reads like an off-the-cuff monologue by the author of the patent or some other interested party.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.48.132 (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it needs removing asap. The patent is dated 2008 and possibly an attempt to capitalise on a technique that I know already existed at that time.Wallumbase (talk) 06:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed general purpose copy protection methods

message: Although there is some interspersed history here and there, the paragraphs are unreferenced, and they should ideally be moved into a History section, with dates, company names, notable products, etc... 76.10.128.192 (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article lacks History section 

message: It claims that the game corrupts a file on the disc?  This isn't possible, the playstation could not write to discs. 80.1.194.115 (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct. The source never mentioned corrupting data on the disk (only data in ram(?)). I have editted the entry on YOTD a little. However I'm still not convinced it is totally correct (Some of the things on this article about YOTD don't seem to me mentioned in the reference?). --Shanee753 (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spyro YOTD? 

message: I don't know why the previous discussion on moving never happened, or why an admin on this article's history "warned" a user for moving it previously. Consensus seemed pretty clear to me above. 63.153.253.24 (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirected, moved, and "Anti-piracy" merge kept intact 

message: The section "Examples" contains information already used before in the page. I've decided not to remove it, as other information is there too. Sobsz (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate information 

message: Is there any particular reason this article doesn't mention the two most widely known (/infamous) copy protection schemes for audio CDs, Sony's XCP and RCA/BMG's MediaMax CD-3? - dcljr (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No reason at all.  Feel free to add them (with the appropriate references). 86.153.133.193 (talk) 12:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two missing schemes 

message: Seeing it on superman 64 on commodore 64, called it a code card (watched it on AVGN, don't know if the developer officially calls that). Is there a way to make the search, when entered "code card", goes to a subsection titled "Early video games"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeleoj123 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  should we add "code card" as a redirec to to this page? 

message: Some commercial software used a hardware dongle plugged into a PC's parallel port as a form of copy prevention.  I remember reading a scathing review of a program whose dongle didn't have a passthrough, hence you had to juggle printer cables and dongle all the time. Mr Larrington (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Dongles

message: Software Copy Protection Sample.
File Copy Protection Plus Disc Copy Protection Challenge.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.95.170.125 (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: File Copy Protection

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Copy protection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010304013018/http://www.settlers3.com/forum/bulletin.htm to http://www.settlers3.com/forum/bulletin.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051015015043/http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jhalderm/papers/drm2002.pdf to http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jhalderm/papers/drm2002.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Copy protection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130614024159/http://www.wipo.int/enforcement/en/faq/technological/faq03.html to http://www.wipo.int/enforcement/en/faq/technological/faq03.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified