Talk:Copy protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of Computing WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to computers and computing. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale

Contents

[edit] Commercial Ad

A user posted a link to [1] 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)
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)

[edit] Copy prevention

I really would like to say that I approve of calling it copy prevention, as copy protection seems to be POV like, in my opinion, calling an article about copyright infrigement 'piracy'. It is good to be on the lookout for these subtle POVs :). --ShaunMacPherson 21:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't like it, at all, because it's not called copy prevention. It is called copy protection. (Google of "copy protection" yields 751,000 hits; "copy prevention" yields 30,700, including the mirrors of this article.) Naming the article "copy prevention" is an attempt to legitimize the terminology, which is an illegitimate use of Wikipedia.
For the same reason, it would be fine to call copyright infringement 'piracy', because that is the accepted term: that is what it is called. We are writing an encyclopedia here, which necessarily reflects the reality of the world. Tempshill 20:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not taking a stand on copy-protection vs. copy-prevention, but I will follow up a bit on piracy. I looked up piracy in my copy of the Canada Criminal Code and it quite clearly ONLY refers to crimes involving ships (I don't recall the definition, but you know what I mean). Now, the recording industry may call it piracy but law enforcement (at least, here in Canada) generally does not, and most people just call it copying, not piracy. I believe as far as piracy is concerned, the wikipedia should describe illegal-acts-at-sea and provide a link to an article about the other meaning. It is factually incorrect to refer to copying music as piracy, at least here in Canada. I'm not an admin, though, and my opinion may not be in line with wiki policy. --Yamla 21:26, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
Well, I would have several responses to this. Firstly, the term "piracy" is used in the U.S. Code and in some other countries' and localities' laws. More importantly by far, it's used constantly in the software community worldwide; it is the standard term for making copies that violate copyright law (and, I would add, is handy so we don't have to say the phrase "making copies that violate copyright law" all the time). The best way to provide information to our readers, who are just looking for an article on a subject they want to investigate, is to have the "piracy" article talk about whichever form of piracy they are probably going to look up, with alternative links at the top; or to use a disambiguation page if it's a close call. This is why this article should be named "copy protection" and not "copy prevention", which is a neologism that someone is trying to push by naming this article "copy prevention". Tempshill 17:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Soon, I plan to move the article to "copy protection" and make "copy prevention" a redirect to it, and edit the article accordingly, unless someone can come up with a great reason not to. This should be done because "copy protection" is the universal term; "copy prevention" is a neologism that is used by some miniscule number of people, as discussed above. "Copy protection" is not a POV term; it is just what it is called. The article was originally called "copy protection", and it should not have been moved here in the first place. Any serious objections? Tempshill 22:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


The section regarding audio CDs needs a correction. From my experience, "copy protected" discs are only a nuisance, as the original has a 50% chance of not playing at all or not playing correctly, thus forcing the legitimate buyer to also buy a blank CD-R to copy the original so that s/he can actually listen to it on his/her equipment without problems (please note that the recording industry also gets money from the sales of blank recording media; there is legislation for it). The "copy protection" systems have never stopped anyone from ripping the discs' contents. Also, please add information about the "Tubular Bells 2003" debacle. After many CD and DVD players got damaged by the "copy-protected" disc, it disappeared from the charts. Please do an internet search for more information - I'm about to go to bed now and just adding these $0.02 before I go.

[edit] Proposed move back to Copy protection

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)

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)
  • Support. Move back to original name. – AxSkov (T) 12:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Dragons flight 15:23, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. The two terms seem, to me, to be equally NPOV. However I would say "copy protection" is the more recognized term based on my internet research, dictionary research, and personal experience. --Wikiuser0 02:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I personally use the term "copy prevention" because I believe that the term "copy protection" has a built-in bias, of which I disapprove. I do this for the reasons described at the FSF's page about language. I hope that the term "copy protection" will become disused in favor of "copy prevention", and I try to do my part to make this happen. However, "copy protection" is by far the more widely recognized term due to the longstanding success of its proponents in getting the general public to use it. The case for using "copy prevention" as the title of the Wikipedia article is therefore somewhat weak. Just because "copy prevention" is a good neologism does not mean that it is not a neologism. I would support the move and urge describing (characterizing) the view that the phrase "copy protection" is biased; discussion of the problems with the established term are properly encyclopedic. But I don't see any way around the conclusion that the term is nonetheless established. (The fact that language that we use has cognitive biases that favor one side of a dispute is a good argument that NPOV is unattainable. Within Wikipedia, however, the unattainability or impossibility of NPOV does not seem to be an acceptable argument; all Wikipedia policy seems to favor "copy protection" here.) --Schoen 05:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. What Schoen said. – Smyth\talk 10:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, provided we have a redirect from copy prevention to copy protection. Probably worth adding a sentence in the introduction noting that the correct term is 'copy prevention' but that the common term is 'copy protection'. But that can happen after the movie. --Yamla 16:18, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. It's been called copy protection (as in protection from being copied) since at least the fairly early days of personal computers when Lotus used it on some of the early versions Lotus 1-2-3. BlankVerse ∅ 07:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

    • 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)
      • On redirect, I respectfully assert that it's near-universal, and that the NPOV argument is overacademic and silly. Tempshill 23:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, IMHO it is more POV to use a neologism used almost exclusively by people pushing an agenda rather than the term most commonly used by the general public. Niteowlneils 04:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

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)
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)

[edit] Moved

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)

[edit] Wheels

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)

[edit] Should "Copy protection" be renamed as "Copy control" and merged with DRM?

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)

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)

[edit] old games protection

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: [2] Vid512 14:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The introduction..

"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)

[edit] Games on audio cassette?

During the 1980s and 1990s, computer games sold on audio cassette and floppy disks were usually protected with a user-interactive method that demanded the user to have the original package or a part of it, usually the manual.

Am I missing something here? I don't know of any instance where a computer game could be sold on audio cassette. I also don't know of any other kind of game that would use an audio cassette but I suppose it's possible. In any case, fixing or explaining this sentence would be in order. Ham Pastrami 17:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Computer games were regularly shipped on audio cassette throughout the 1970s and early 1980s. So I think it's just you, unless you're trying to make a point too subtly. Nandesuka 21:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Yup... this is true. Computer games (and other programs) were sold on cassette.
Actually, it is not audio cassette, it's just a Data Tape but I am sure video games were sold on this medium. Df747jet 06:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
It was both (check the article). Some of the catridges were indeed audio compact cassettes used as data tapes. (Indeed the article specifically mentions audio compact cassettes and Compact Cassette mentions their use as a data storage mechanism) Nil Einne (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] hacker is probably incorrect term

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?

[edit] Copy protection for videotape

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)