Talk:Digital rights management

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Digital rights management article.
Article policies
Digital rights management is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
April 8, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Cleanup Taskforce article This article has been improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of quality. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details on this process, and possible ideas on how you can further improve this article!
Archive
Archives
  1. 2003 and 2004
  2. 2005
  3. 2006

Contents

[edit] HDCP Key Revocation

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)

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)

[edit] merge of Authorization Certificate into this article

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)

Agreed, removing merge tags. -- intgr 06:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies Heading

"Some WMDRM restricted files will install spyware such as Zango when the user agrees to retrieve a license to play the file," has been marked as "Citation needed" for several weeks now. What is the timeline for removing something like this? Any attempts I've made to find reputable sources have just led back to Wikipedia. Leaving this type of information in the article only makes it more difficult to find neutral third-party support later. I would just go ahead and delete it, but I am obviously very new to editing. Nonetheless, I move that this bullet should be deleted if third-party references are not found within the next couple days. TomTwerk 08:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The short answer: be bold. :)
The longer answer: There is no official timeline; several weeks is probably enough, especially if you tried looking for sources yourself. If you find something really dubious and without sources, you can remove it immediatelly, as the burden of proof lies with whomever wants to introduce new information, not with who wants to remove it. (Though naturally you're expected to act civilly when someone re-adds it, or disputes your removal) -- intgr 09:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I have personally experienced this type of attack embedded in a license key, perhaps not from that exact company. With rewording to make it historical it could be 100% accurate for sure. I am not sure if this is currently possible because the security in windows media has been greatly enhanced. Group Policy Manager can also be used to completely disable downloadable licenses such as these, thus eliminating the problem entirely (while not allowing the content to be played, chances are you didn't really want to see such trick content in the first place, it was probably a case of not knowing what it was until too late) Zaphraud 08:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apple's Jobs Urges End to Copy-Protected Music Files

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)

This probably qualifies only as WP:DUST MikeURL 20:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nonpersistent DRM

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.

[edit] "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)

Agree - this section is definitely worthy of inclusion. --Teque5

OK - We can certainly cite that (not quote verbatim). It does look like rather marginal marketing fluff to me. The same technology, with someone new trying to get in on it. How are they going to persuade everyone to interoperate with their format for instance? Ideally we need a more technical reference to put it in context, so we can understand how to incorporate it into the article. 172.213.231.215 08:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SECTION: Inclusion within GNU General Public License version 3

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.

[edit] NPOV dispute

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)

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)
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)
Sure, cleaning up unnecessary POV or general bias is welcome. -- intgr 16:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

(indentation reset) I have looked at most of the earlier posts both in the archives and on this talk page. And I can say the following: 1. I understand that the term Digital Rights Management is a term coined by the content-industry, an industry which has a very biased opinion about this technology.
2. I understand that calling it Digital Rights Management would be missleading as it doesn't actually manage any legal rights upon the user only restrictions.
3. I understand that calling it Digital Restrictions Management would perhaps give a more accurate description to someone who has none or slim to none understanding about the DRM concept.
However:
4. It is an undisputed fact that this technology known as DRM is by the vast majority who knows what the acronym stands for known as Digital Rights Management.
5. It is an undisputed fact that this page is to be an encyclopedic article about the technology known as DRM.
6. It is an undisputed fact that in an encylopedic article one should not be pushing for a particular organisations opinions upon the readers.
Consider theese situations:
In the article about pro-choice (abortion movement) the opposition strongly disagrees with the name pro-choice, since it doesn't give any choice to the woman, therefore they think that the term anti-life is more suitable and adds that to the article about the pro-choice movement.
In the article about microsoft, opposers of microsoft thinks that since microsoft doesn't really create software, they create suckware, they add MicroSuck into the article about microsoft and claim it is a more suitable term.
In the article about meat, extreme opposers to the meat industry thinks that meat is a bad term not really describing the suffering the animals have to go through so they add Murder into the begining of the article. etc etc
Not all of theese analogies will be apt, however, unless you can give concrete reason to why the alternate expansion Digital Restrictions Management is so different from all of theese situations that it deserves to be in bold in the very begining of the Digital Rights Management article I don't see a reason. For now though, I propose that it stays in the begining but not bolded like that. This action still gives it a very strong position and I feel that sometime later a more suitable place for the alternate expansion could be found, perhaps in a category named critic of DRM. Now becouse the alternate expansion is very tasteful and still informing about how the technology works I think it deserves a place in the article, just not such a prominent one and especially not bolded like that. Lyml 23:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)

It's a perfectly acceptable and neutral to call Digital Restrictions Malware Digital Restrictions Malware, because it objectively fits in the description of restrictions (its only purpose is to restrict) and it is a malware, in the meaning that it's software installed and used against the will of most of the people who suffer it, and whose purpose is to reduce functionality, jeopardize fair use, and turn others' computers against their owners in the benefit of a much ethically questionable third-party entity. Therefore, I propose that "DRM" and so-called "Digital Rights Management" is made to redirect to Digital Restrictions Malware. 82.159.69.56 08:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to a Document

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)

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)
What Intgr said. Especially if the paper is as you represent. ww 20:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, there is no bias there (to the best of what I saw). I will add the link to the document. Please let me know if anyone thinks it is inappropriate. Thanks. Lohat 09:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copy-restricted gamesaves

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)

[edit] Dat's Real Messed

DRM is so stupid, why qould I pay for an AAC that I cant even make use of when I can P2P an MP3 for free! DRM doesnt manage rigths it takes them away! RealG187 18:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Society long ago made a determination that cretivity was to be encouraged, and so created an incentive to do so in the form of a limited exclusive right to benefit from the use of the created material. There have been several attempts to extend that right into perpetuity; (the Conger, ended with the Statute of Anne around 1700) was an early example, and today's overreaching by the lawyers and the purblind another. Your objection should probably be addressed to that aspect of copyright, a good deal of which is included in current approaches to DRM. The blinders with which the suits and lawyers have (mis)specified desired behavior (as a matter of law), or misunderstood the possibilites of the mechanisms available, or that the technical folk have misunderstood and misrepresented it to them, are in my view the probable causes. Poor engineering, hubris, greed, stupidity, ... It's an old and probably eternal story. Some of the worst of which is reflected into legislation on the subject by legislators who are even less informed than the rest, and even more rash (likely in the service of what are called lobbyists in the US, and other things elsewhere).
And there is surely annoyance -- I suspect you share -- that the artists themselves are, as things are currently done, rarely those who benefit from that grant of exclusivity. The tangled tale of Creedence Clearwater is a ghastly exemplar. Lots of good music was almost certainly lost because of that idiocy and greed.
But again, it's not copyright itself which causes such distortions and injustices, but assorted other mechanisms including artist blindness toward the law and its machinations, which are the offending party. Would you object to paying for a song in some form if all or most of the payment went directly to the artists?
But, yes, it's all very annoying. ww 18:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
This is not the right place to debate your points of view. -- intgr 07:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction, 2nd paragraph

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)

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)

[edit] Table of DRM Technologies

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)

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)

[edit] Cleanup

Doing some cleanup to this article. A lot of it appears to be original research/personal knowledge and needs sources and attribution. Also, a lot of sections can probably be condensed into a representative example or two rather than an exhaustive list (proponents, opponents, controversies, etc.) A good bit of the article also reads like an anti-DRM essay, which, while I fully understand (I hate it too!) isn't really good for an article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The second sentence of the article needs some work. No explanation is given why copy protection and tpm are distinct from DRM as claimed (which they aren't really anyway; they're under the "umbrella term") - the definition given for them just regurgitates the essence of DRM from the first sentence. How about moving it to the intro section? Also "scheme" seems to be overused in the article. Ripe 16:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ripe, I've reverted your changes to the lead section. Un-wikilinkig important words that are key to understanding the nature of the contention between "rights" and "restrictions" does nothing to aid reader understanding. Also, when working around acronyms, always write as if the acronym is fully expanded. Sentence formulations like "Some DRM such as FairPlay" makes no sense from a linguistic perspective. That's why words like "scheme" and "technology" are employed. Using acronyms in general is a bad idea because it leads to lazy English, and if there's one place in the article where we absolutely should not be lazy, it's in the lead section. -/- Warren 04:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
See Shinobu's discussion above; there seems to be consensus that that 'rights' in DRM means "access rights". Wikilinking to legal rights in that context is not correct. Legal/ethicalrights to fair use & personal property does have place in the discussion, but not in the context of defining the R in DRM. I unlinked restriction because it goes to a redirect page that's not informative. The applicable entry is the general usage one, which doesn't have its own page because wikipedia is not a dictionary. Being pointed to that disambig page adds nothing to the knowledge of anyone with a grasp of the English language. it's not even the first occurance of the word restrict in the article. Ripe 15:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, both variants of the term apply in some measure. How, precisely? It depends on who you ask. Some people view it in technical terms (typically groups like Microsoft that peddle a technological DRM solution; focus on "rights management"), whereas others such as the FSF draw more attention to the legal and moral issues; focus on "digital rights". Which is correct? I don't think there's a single correct answer here, nor are we going to have any luck finding a definitive declaration. We don't even know who coined the term!
As to the wikilinks: "Rights" are something that you're granted as an entitlement by law, whereas "restrictions" are focused more on what you aren't allowed to do. The wikilinks are there to help people gain some contextual understanding of the words themselves, which a simple dictionary definition isn't going to be sufficient to do. True, the restriction article is nowhere near as cohesive as right, but these are the words at the core of the debate. Read through Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context, and note, especially in the example at the end of the article, that it is suggested that linking simple words with complex meanings can aid in understanding. -/- Warren 23:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I still strongly disagree on both. Since the legal-rights interpretation doesn't have a verifiable source, the interpretation shouldn't be asserted by wikilinking it. On restriction, the very first item in the wikilink policy that you pointed to says to not link plain English words. There's no special meaning of the word specific to DRM. Ripe 01:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Should be in a lot better shape now. The article's currently at 33 kB, down from 57 at the beginning, and a lot of redundancy has been trimmed down. Also added sources where I could find them, some plausible but unsourced statements are left fact/attribution tagged. Definitely an important subject, and has the potential to be on the main page someday, hope to see it there! Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Implementing DRM

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)

[edit] DRM- the Mis-Understood monster?

I guess I know where the negativity surrounding DRM comes from. Music should be free, art, video, audio files should be free for the taking for anyone who wants them.

This is what our society has become- idiot elite running the show, every 12 year old with an Interweb connection- a pirate on the high seas; i've seen all good people filled with a boundless sense of entitlement that spans generations...

Reading some of the above comments- makes me more concerned about the overall understanding of DRM as a technology, the reasons for its use and why DRM will be around for EVAR, more powerful and even more restrictive than it is now.

Consumers and governments cry for interoperability- keep in mind the phrase, "Be careful what you wish for..." -Interoperability will provide for a higher level of restriction and control and even less freedom for a thing which was never meant to be free in the first place.

I can't go into your house and rip that CRAPpy water-color your kid did off the fridge and walk out and you should not be able to download my bands music without paying for it. Okay, I'm not in a band, I'm a nerd and I hate like floppy disks that I can't play my iPod music on my Zune- and that is the big issue. Or is it(?)

Is the whole "controversy" (which isn't really a controversy :~) based on the lack of Interoperability or is it that people would rather steal media than paying a few bucks a month to access it legally?

Artists, vidoegraphers, music groups have the right to protect their media from theft, right? Then surely they have the right to be able to monetize their assets.

Right now, the only way to accomplish both of those goals is through use of a file or application level DRM solution. DRM like most ScoobyDoo villians is not a Monster but soon, thanks to DRM, you will be able to download and stream every Scooby Doo episode, anytime, from any machine/handset. I think some of us here owe DRM an apology.

-dwyane hoobler

dwyanehoobler@hotmail.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.212.244.235 (talk) 08:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

DH,
You misunderstand the purpose of copyright. Since the Statute of Anne ca 1710, copyright has not been an unlimited grant of exclusivity to a creator or assignee. That Statuteextablished that the grant was for a limited time. Assorted other enactments by, for instance, the US Congress have further restricted the copyright grant. For instance, no band can establish their own royalty rate for broadcast -- it's handled by a joint mechanism (ASCAP and BMI in the US, and BPI in the UK) and by the print copy clearance mechanism for Xerox copies, the settlemenet the US Supreme Court made for video tape in the Betamax case, ... The piano roll folks also got a exception about a century ago, and so on. See Lessig's Free Culture for the historical background. So your assumption of an unlimited grant is ill made.
In fact, the assorted disputes today about DRM (some of which is reflected on this talk page and its archives) is about what provisions to make for this new media... ww 03:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm against DRM because it means that the user and owner of a computer hasn't control over the system. I can't accept that. --mms 20:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Full DRM?

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).

"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)

[edit] Dont be fooled by "Full DRM"!

I'd like to share my experience here. My friend gave me a mp3 player (bought from China) as my birthday present. On the giftbox, it mentioned that "Full DRM" is supported. But in fact, I have no idea what kind of DRM they are talking about. All the DRM songs I downloaded from web cannot be played. Maybe it can work with DRM9, but undoubtedly, it is another story on DRM 10 songs. So, dont be fooled by "Full DRM"!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Watsonchan414 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Proper casing: must not use capital letters

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] key leak - yes or no?

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)

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)
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)

[edit] Digital Audio Tape

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)

[edit] International enforceability

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act section outlines the enacted legal frameworks in the the US and the EU, but not other countries. I'm in Australia and the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000 came in as part of the US free trade agreement.[1] Not WIPO? I'm confused. Could someone please clarify this, and ideally the larger, international status of DRM? DLeonard 09:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ITunes Info Embedding

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)

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)

[edit] References, further reading, external links ...

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)

[edit] Further reading

  • Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture, published by Basic Books in 2004, is available for free download in PDF format. The book is a legal and social history of copyright. Lessig is well known, in part, for arguing recent landmark cases on copyright law. A Professor of Law at Stanford University, Lessig writes for an educated lay audience, including for non-lawyers. He is, for the most part, an opponent of DRM technologies.
  • Consumer's Guide to DRM, published in 10 languages (Czech, German, Greek, English, Spanish, French, Hungarian, Italian, Polish, Swedish), produced by the INDICARE research and dialogue project
  • Eberhard Becker, Willms Buhse, Dirk Günnewig, Niels Rump: Digital Rights Management - Technological, Economic, Legal and Political Aspects. An 800 page compendium from 60 different authors on DRM.
  • Fetscherin, M., Implications of Digital Rights Management on the Demand for Digital Content, provides an excellent view on DRM from a consumers perspective. [2]
  • Bound by Law, by James Boyle et al, at Duke University Law School (http://www.law.duke.edu/cspd/comics/zoomcomic.html), a comic book treatment of the US Fair Use doctrine (with some relevance to other jurisdictions, for example in the Commonwealth usually called Fair Dealing), that is a license fee or permission free, under statute and common law precedent, use of copyrighted material.
  • DRM on Open Platforms - A paper by Hagai Bar-El and Yoav Weiss on ways to partially close open platforms to make them suitable for DRM implementations. It has been released under a Creative commons by NC-SA license.
  • The Pig and the Box, a book with colorful illustrations and having a coloring book version, by 'MCM'. It describes DRM in terms suited to kids, written in reaction to a Canadian entertainment industry copyright education initiative, aimed at children.
  • Present State and Emerging Scenarios of Digital Rights Management Systems - A paper by Marc Fetscherin which provides an overview of the various components of DRM, pro and cons and future outlook of how, where, when such systems might be used.
  • DRM is Like Paying for Ice - Richard Menta article on MP3 Newswire discusses how DRM is implemented in ways to control consumers, but is undermining perceived product value in the process.
  • Challenges in Designing Content Protection Solutions - A paper by Hagai Bar-El and Discretix that addresses technical dilemmas and difficulties met when designing DRM products.

[edit] External links

[edit] How to Handle DRM

Several things need to happen for DRM to work without being the pain it is now. 1. A standardized method of marking and detecting a work with the copyright info embedded in the format of the media itself, needs to be established. This is most important to Audio works as most CD's only contain copyright info in print, and not in the audio encoding itself. 2. The marking standard established must not prevent any normal function of any device the media may encounter, it is only means of detection. 3. Instead of preventing copying, transcoding, or other potential piracy action, DRM enabled devices should allow such activity unrestricted as long as the copy includes and can be traced with the embedded copyright data, such that proper copyright compensation can be assessed, for anyone doing so for anything more than personal and fair use. Such a system as this would eliminate 80% of the issue on both sides, devices would retain all of their functionality, end users can make personal backups, convert and use in whatever format they wish, and copyright owners can detect high volume piracy distributors. Basically a standard method of digital watermarking.

End Users don't like DRM because they should be able to do whatever they want with their own copy, provided its not for profit or distribution.

OEM's don't want DRM because of the hassles with compatibility, and the potential for future circumvention or incompatibility. If devices are not altered in their expected functions then there should not be an issue.

Artists, Publishers and Copyright owners deserve compensation for their works, and such a method would provide a way to detect mass piracy and track its spread, while not restricting the individual use and fair use.

At some point afterwards there would need to be a moratorium on copyrighted works that do not have the standard embedded copyright data, and then if the publishers are diligent enough, no copy of a work would reach public hands, that was not traceable, and reproduction of copies without the copyright data is already protected under law.

Legal Research Needed: Is there a copyright notice in every audio file downloaded from iTunes? Does the fact that copyright info is not contained within most audio works (in the actual content vs. printed on packaging or delivery medium), make most existing electronic copies invalid or illegal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.251.169.70 (talk) 23:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

All known DRM systems are broken in significant ways. Either they are easy to circumvent and/or they restrict the users in significant ways that the users hate. And for what are they there? In pornography they rarely use DRM, but the estimate is that they only lose about 5% of profits due to users piracy. Is it worth destroying the users goodwill over 5% reductions?? At the end of the day, users buy materials because it makes them feel good. Why would they buy something that installs something in their computer as a backdoor or buy a CD that doesn't play on their computer's CD player or can't be transferred to their iPod or whatever? DRM = angered users = lost profit.WolfKeeper 23:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links and External Readings.

Per WP:EL, a few well chosen links or readings are acceptable. Otherwise they should not be added. Wikipedia is Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files which this page became a few months ago.

I reviewed all of the External Links. Some of them were pure spam sites (i.e. rocksite), some were pure POV sites (EFF), some were specfic to a style of DRM that would only apply to a page on that (the Microsoft should only be on a page on Microsoft's DRM) and most importantly none of them added anything of value that couldn't be integrated into the article using that site as a reference.

The books can only be listed if they are directly related to a specific topic (not DRM in general) and then only a few should be listed.

If you want to obtain a Featured Article Status, then I implore you to follow this advice. -- KelleyCook (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the books and web links should exactly deal about DRM in general. EFF's POV is important to know and we should link to their site. --mms (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Wait, you're saying that it's not right for an article on digital rights management to link to books that cover the subject of digital rights management? That really doesn't make any sense.
Your hate-on for external links is damaging the usefulness of the article. While it's fine to reduce the number of external links if some of them appear to only be "spam", but removing all of them is excessive. I want to see a rationale for every single removal, here on the talk page, or by one-at-a-time removal with edit summaries. We aren't in a hurry here... let's do this right. -/- Warren 17:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
NPOV isn't the absence of POV, it's the collection of POV, together with avoiding undue bias. If the EFF is biased, that's completely fine, provided they're notable, which they probably are.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits of MasterHomer / iamacreditcard

I am reverting all edits on 12 Dec 07 by MasterHomer and Iamacreditcard. These edits are being made with respect to this post as part of an attempt to falsify sources. If he intends to cooroborate any of his statements, he can do so with citation, however, until this occurs, I shall treat all of his posts as vandalism. Unedit (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The source comes from the ALA. It shows DRM can often be used to refer to measures on software. DRM in it self is a very new term and it's use is not concrete. That is what that sentence is inferring. Imacreditcard (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
ALA would appear to be incorrect if this is the case. A brief look at a Google search for DRM will show that DRM is only ever used in the context of protecting Digital Audio and Video content. I kindly ask that you make no further edits to the main article on this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unedit (talk • contribs) 20:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I added an additional reference. I ask that you do not revert my changes, and if you have any problem with my changes, you bring it up on the Talk Page per Wikipedia policy. I also ask that you refrain from adding information to my personal userpage. Imacreditcard (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

These edits add nothing to the article, and so far as I am concerned are part of an attempt to assert a false claim; namely that DRM is the same as software copy protection, which is not true. I am reverting all the edits on this article by Imacreditcard and Masterhomer, and will continue to do so as nessisary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unedit (talk • contribs) 23:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal

I've removed the below, because it is original research:

==Coding Quality== On the [http://drmlicense.one.microsoft.com/Indivsite/en/indivit.asp?force=1 download page for DRM], the source code has the following comment "//Lets [sic] just die here if we have errors. How to report them is [[to be determined|TBD]]." Even Microsoft does not have long term confidence in the product (see this article in ''The Register'' "[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/11/21/file_swap_nets_will_win/ File swap nets will win, DRM and lawyers lose, say MS researchers]"). With the lock-down of the security kernel in Windows Vista to external security vendors, a new threat was introduced as system crackers learned to do what they could no longer do. [[Oliver Friedrichs]], the director of emerging technologies in the Symantec security response team, wrote in August 2006 "[http://www.symantec.com/enterprise/security_response/weblog/2006/08/assessment_of_vista_kernel_mod.html researchers and attackers can, and have, already found ways to disable and work around PatchGuard]". In good design practice, it is the responsibility of the designer to develop the test scripts, (for example in [[Iterative and incremental development]] and Microsoft's own ''Architecture Journal'' on [http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb491123.aspx Test-Driven Infrastructures]), and think of how an application may be broken. In the case of security, if the designer does not do it, a system cracker will do it for them (see this blog by George Ou on ZDNet "[http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?/?p=81 Microsoft blocks FairUse4WM v2 after 3 months of DRM free music]").

--Superm401 - Talk 05:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

Can someone modify this sentence?

The advent of personal computers as household appliances has made it convenient for consumers to convert media (which may or may not be copyrighted) originally in a physical/analog form or a broadcast form into a universal, digital form (this process is called ripping) for location and/or time shifting purposes, combined with the Internet and popular file sharing tools, has made unauthorized distribution of copies of copyrighted digital media (so-called digital piracy) much easier.

This is all one sentence in the article, but it appears that it should be two. I'm not sure exactly what was intended here or I'd fix it myself. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 03:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Just reading the opening section it seems that this article has an anti-DRM slant. (In contrast to WP's general attitude which respects copyrights, and makes a big point of doing so.) Over half of the intro is given to criticism of DRM, including calling it a "scheme" and giving wiki-links to 2 anti-DRM organizations. Borock (talk) 13:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Be bold and fix it. ;^) Binksternet (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. However, I really don't know hardly anything about the topic. Borock (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
DRM ultimately doesn't technically work very well at all, for very fundamental reasons; I'd hope and expect that the article would reflect this. This isn't just people slamming something they don't like, however much you like copyright, DRM doesn't protect it well.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 05:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course, if that's the case the article should discuss that. My comment was only about the article, not about DRM pro or con. Borock (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I reluctantly reverted your edit which replaced accuracy with weasel words. In addition, your understanding of NPOV is not correct; NPOV is about balancing views on a particular topic within an article; I believe that broadly the article does this, but improvement can always be made. WP:LEAD says that the introduction has to reflect the article not any other thing. Given this justification you have given above for the tag, I am detagging the article. Basically, if you think the article is unbalanced you need to find information and add it to the article, and then update the lead to reflect that new information.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. DRM might very well be pure evil. As I said I know very little about it. However the wording of the opening section is very much one sided. I will try another attempt to make it a little more fair. Borock (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
You don't count the number of words to decide whether something is balanced or not, and you don't remove words or names until both sides have the same number or any such nonsense. Balance is found when something is unbiased on the subject. That can in some cases mean that one side is completely removed (or nearly so.) If there are people saying positive things on DRM, then you can add them to the article, you don't remove information on the other side because nobody has bothered to add anything positive to another side of an argument; and sometimes there is nothing substantive to add anyway. The use of weasel words is a particularly bad idea. If somebody says something it should be quoted to them, not replaced with words like 'some', 'many' etc.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 13:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
We can have neutral language without equal parts positive and negative information. I don't think that we need to add positive information to the article on Adolf Hitler for it to be fair. But every article should be fair to its subject. Borock (talk) 04:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Methods to bypass DRM

This is a great article, with good npov and an absolute wealth of links, footnotes, references etc. It's pretty authorative, even scholarly I guess. But look, most users go to an encyclopedia just for information, and with the greatest respect, I feel your Methods to bypass DRM could be made shorter. I wouldn't dream of hacking your page - instead, I'd like to offer you the following abstract I made for my own understanding (it also subsumes Analog Hole). Edetic (talk) 09:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  • There are many methods to bypass DRM control on audio and video content. If the software that plays DRM-restricted audio files allows CD-burning, then one simple method is to burn the content to an audio CD then rip it into DRM-free files.
  • Many DRM schemes use encryption. Software programs have been developed to intercept the data stream as it is decrypted out of the DRM-restricted file, then use this to construct a DRM-free file. To do this such programs require a decryption key. Programs for DVDs, HD DVDs, and Blu-ray Discs include universal decryption keys in the software itself. Programs for iTunes audio, TiVo ToGo recordings, and PlaysForSure songs, however, require the user's own key — that means they can only process content that the user has legally acquired under his or her own account.
  • All forms of DRM for audio and visual material are subject to the "analog hole" - in order to play the material the digital signal must be turned into analog, and no DRM can control content in this form. However the conversion from digital to analog and back is likely to force a loss of quality, particularly when using lossy digital formats. HDCP is an attempt to restrict the analog hole.
No one having responded so far, I'll have at it. The canonical WP advice in such situations is Be Bold. Make a change and see how the other editors react. for myself, this is a very important topic with large connections to free speech and, as it has developed, mega-corporate control of law (defacto (digital control of things for which there is no legal basis for the control -- the e-book limitations, for instance) and dejure (the Mouse Haus' influence in revising US copyright law for its own benefit -- Mickey may never enter the public domain in violation of the entire spirit of the Constitutional provision) and culture.
It is also a complex technical topic, not so much to explain to Readers the obscure workings of the various approaches (none works the way the tech-blind lawyers and suits imagine), but because of the incompatible mess of the protection nirvana they so long for, even assuming the underlying technology actually could be made to work. They are making the lives of their customers very difficult -- imagine mice trying to coexist with a herd of elephants and they jostle and push for advantage. You get lots of squashed mice as a result, even if none of the elephants is really very interested in squashing them.
Both issues are of such importance as to justify a longer than WP culture would like article. The alternative, in the interest of brevity, is to make our gentle Reader's task of making some reasonable sense of the whole business, more difficult. A forest of pointers to other articles from which the Reader is expected to assemble a coherent picture of DRM. Not a skill widely available, not even among those whose very business it is to do such integration -- physicians, scholars, policy analysts, ... And so, in my view, WP should not in such instances, blindly rely on a brevity policy if the cost be poor concept purveyance to Readers. ww (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In support of my edit

I had an edit reverted, and thought I'd throw in a quote from the sourced article. Am open to rephrasing, but the free-culture argument against DRM is not simply that it overreaches legally, but that it is technologically a chimera.

Cory: "Bob will only buy Pirates of the Caribbean if he can descramble the CSS-encrypted VOB -- video object -- on his DVD player. Otherwise, the disc is only useful to Bob as a drinks-coaster. So Alice has to provide Bob -- the attacker -- with the key, the cipher and the ciphertext.

Hilarity ensues.

DRM systems are usually broken in minutes, sometimes days. Rarely, months. It's not because the people who think them up are stupid. It's not because the people who break them are smart. It's not because there's a flaw in the algorithms. At the end of the day, all DRM systems share a common vulnerability: they provide their attackers with ciphertext, the cipher and the key" Mateo LeFou (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Right. The paragraph in question in the DRM article here has two claims:
  1. "In practice, all widely-used DRM systems have been defeated or circumvented when deployed to enough customers."
  2. "Protection of audio and visual material is especially difficult due to the existence of the analog hole, and there are even suggestions that effective DRM is logically impossible for this reason."
Does the Doctorow piece state claim #1?
"DRM systems are usually broken in minutes, sometimes days. Rarely, months. It's not because the people who think them up are stupid. It's not because the people who break them are smart. It's not because there's a flaw in the algorithms. At the end of the day, all DRM systems share a common vulnerability: they provide their attackers with ciphertext, the cipher and the key. At this point, the secret isn't a secret anymore."- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 04:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if claim #2 is supposed to be supported by the Doctorow article. If so, it should say that DRM is impossible because you have to give the encryption keys to the consumer, not (as it claims now) because of the analog hole. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 01:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Both are true, but the Doctorow article concentrates mainly on crypto.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 04:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
WK is correct; phrasing should be along the lines of "logically impossible for *these reasons". The citation (as it stands) should remain attached to the first argument, not the paragraph as a whole, but that argument should be reworded to de-emphasize the "enough customers" angle, as the cryptographic problem Cory points undermines every single propagation of a work. Mateo LeFou (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

The introduction uses the phrase "time-shift" three times. What on earth is time-shifting, and could that be introduced? --166.70.188.26 (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Time shifting- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)