Talk:Digital rights management

Biased

This article makes false analogies on the supporters' side. Although there is a small section on the opposing side, this article is still biased. Jimbo1qaz (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the article is quite long, please provide more detials as what analogies you consider false, and what information that is missing about the "opposing side" (by your definition). Belorn (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is clearly biased in my opinion. As a strong supporter of intellectual property rights, I am also a reasonably strong opponent to the way that DRM has been implemented and inflicted upon the market, especially through the US government/legal system. HOWEVER, this article, rather than educating the reader on DRM technologies and then campaigning against DRM, starts the anti campaign in the Introduction section (I don't mind the overview). The first part of the article should go more deeply into the technology, helping technologists to better understand how DRM works. This article is fairly devoid of any significant detail, unlike so many other excellent Wiki articles. I would be happy to provide this detail if others feel it is appropriate. As it stands, this article is mainly propaganda, and seem to violate the principles for which Wikipedia stands. Jonfspencer (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Completely agree. Also, the main argument against DRM is that there are methods to hack it. That's like an article on locks that invests 90% of time critizising the lock technology and the weaks points of locks and explaining how easy it's for profesional to open a lock and argumenting that door's lock technology goes against human freedom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.9.68.241 (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Digital "Rights" Management is a vague and inaccurate propaganda term

Digital "Rights" Management is a propaganda term. I think the article should be re-titled Digital Restrictions Management. No one has a "right" to enforce restrictions in hardware or software that I have purchased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.165.125 (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. It's not about what is and isn't propaganda. It's about what agrees with WP:TITLE, WP:COMMONNAME in particular. Most people know the term as Digital "Rights" Management. The Free Software Foundation's proponents are the only ones I know of who insist on interpreting the "R" as "restriction". Also, DRM is not designed to protect your "rights" over the software you use and don't own. It is designed to protect the rights of those who own the software. That is where the "Rights" comes from and what it applies to.

Finally, you are completely incorrect concerning your remark that "No one has a "right" to enforce restrictions in hardware or software that I have purchased".

Software - That would only be true if you owned the software in question. In reality, the software is at all times owned by whoever holds the copyright, usually the entity(ies) that created the software and without whom there would be no software at all. The only thing you own is the right to use the software under the terms and conditions prescribed by the copyright holder (much like how a landlord dictates terms and conditions to tenants). Under those terms and conditions, the owner of the software has every right to impose whatever restrictions they want that doesn't violate any laws on the people using their software. If you don't accept the terms, your only recourse is to find software which has agreeable terms (much like the tenants would find different property to rent).

Hardware - You are fallaciously equating drivers/firmware/controller software/etc with hardware. The hardware is yours and you can do whatever you want with it. The drivers, firmware, bundled software, etc; however; is software and is not your property (see above). If you don't agree with the terms imposed by the copyright holder, you must write your own software for the hardware.

In summary, since even the foundation of your argument has no merit, I see no reason whatsoever why this article's name needs to be changed. -XJDHDR (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. While the term "DRM" is indeed commonly used, its expansion into "Digital Rights Management" is not a common name. Compare the article for DVD where the expansion is only written in a separate "Etymology" section because the industry could never agree on what the proper expansion actually use, and changed it when its agendas changed (from "video" to "versatile", etc.). Moreover, the phrase "Digital Rights Management" is indeed, clearly, a propaganda term, newspeak. It leads the listener that DRM manages the content producer's rights, when in fact what it does is to invent new restrictions that were never rights. For example, video producers on VHS never had the right to prevent buyers from fast-forwarding over commercials in the beginning of the video, so how is the DVD's DRM (CSS) preventing of fast-forwarding, about managing rights? To summarize, I think the article should be named "DRM", and the industry-favored expansion "Digital Rights Management", and the contrarian expansion "Digital Restrictions Management" should be explained in the body of the article. Nyh (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Reasonable and balanced. Present both, and let the reader form their own opinion. Belorn (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

>While the term "DRM" is indeed commonly used, its expansion into "Digital Rights Management" is not a common name.

Can you please present your proof of this? The Free Dictionary and Dictionary.com both expand the R into "rights" and the first four pages of a google search for "DRM Digital management" has only four listings refer to the R as "restrictions". Three of the listings are sites are controlled by the FSF and the last is a PDF mentioning the FSF's campaigns (why am I not surprised?). Every other listing (36) uses rights. I was surprised to see that even the EFF refrains from defining the R as "restrictions". I'm simply not finding any evidence for your stance.

>Compare the article for DVD where the expansion is only written in a separate "Etymology" section because the industry could never agree on what the proper expansion actually use, and changed it when its agendas changed (from "video" to "versatile", etc.).

Correlation does not imply causation. Disagreement over what DVD means does not mean that there is widespread disagreement over what DRM means. The evidence I see makes it quite clear that there is almost universal agreement that the R means rights.

>the phrase "Digital Rights Management" is indeed, clearly, a propaganda term, newspeak.

It is just as easily argued that "restrictions" is a propaganda term. Thus, it is better to stick with the common name. And, again, Wikipedia is not censored.

>video producers on VHS never had the right to prevent buyers from fast-forwarding over commercials ... so how is the DVD's DRM (CSS) preventing of fast-forwarding, about managing rights?

1- What proof do you have that they don't have this right now, even if they didn't at the time of making VHSs?

2- Even if they don't have the right to stop fast forwarding, how do you know that they don't have a good reason?

3- Even if they don't have the right or good reason, every system is abused. Just because there is one (potential) example of this abuse does not mean that DRM is abused by definition.

>I think the article should be named "DRM", and the industry-favored expansion "Digital Rights Management .. should be explained in the body of the article.

And I think it should remain the way it is. Digital rights management stays the way it is and DRM remains a disambiguation page.

>and the contrarian expansion "Digital Restrictions Management" should be explained in the body of the article

The Opposition to DRM section already does this, and it's perfectly fine right there. -XJDHDR (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, any dictionary which tries to define "DRM" will find itself trying to expand this acronym, and will end up claiming that it means "Digital Rights Management". The better question is - do people use this expansion? Did you ever hear anyone actually use the phrase "digital rights management" outside a dictionary?

Let me offer another analogy. Quakers call themselves "Friends". So we must call the article on them Friends? No, the rest of the world uses the name "friend" with a different meaning. Similarly, if the movie industry calls prohibiting fast-forward a content-owner "right", and the rest of the world doesn't, we are not obliged to call this a "right". Nyh (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

>any dictionary which tries to define "DRM" ... will end up claiming that it means "Digital Rights Management".

Actually, a dictionary's job is to provide all the commonly used definitions for a given word or phrase. The fact that the dictionaries don't even list restrictions as a definition is very telling in this regard. Furthermore, I didn't actually use dictionaries as my only source. The Google search result demonstrates conclusively that expanding the R as rights is, by far, the most common usage. Again, the Free Software Foundation and it's followers are practically the only ones who insist on defining the R as restrictions. I also recommend you look at SudoGhost's comment below.

>Quakers call themselves "Friends". So we must call the article on them Friends?

Did you actually read those articles, may I ask? Since the Friends article is about the popular sitcom of that name, I don't think that information about a real life religious group belongs there. The top of the article does, however, say: For the Religious Society of Friends, see Quakers. The Quakers article also states that they are also referred to as Friends.

>if the movie industry calls prohibiting fast-forward a content-owner "right", and the rest of the world doesn't, we are not obliged to call this a "right".

What a bunch of unnamed people believe is irrelevant. Facts are not determined by popular vote. You still haven't proven that IP owners have neither the right nor good reason to prohibit fast-forwarding, despite me asking you for proof already. And even if such proof is fashioned, you also need to prove that this sort of abusive behavior is what DRM is commonly used for, as opposed to a minor use. -XJDHDR (talk) 07:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - The article's subject is Digital Rights Management, that's what DRM stands for. Whether this is "propaganda" or not doesn't matter, it's what reliable sources use to describe the subject, even reliable sources that argue against DRM. The only thing I can recall that describes it as "Digital Restriction Management" is Defective by Design, and that's not by any means a common descriptor for the subject. The same group refers to Windows 7 as Windows 7 Sins, as a means of advocacy and awareness and while that's fine for them, that's not what Wikipedia is for. The article's title is and should be what reliable sources use to describe the subject, and "Digital Restriction Management" is a minority pejorative, not what the subject is referred to by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. - SudoGhost 19:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Substance is lacking

Can we get less of that hippie b...t and more details on DRM algorithms and implementations? Thanks. 178.49.18.203 (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The Technologies section could be improved by more technical structure, wiki-linking, and by asking the question "how is ... implemented". Please feel free to help and improve the article. Belorn (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

this article reads more like a persuasive essay than an encyclopedia entry. it needs a lot of work. 71.198.245.225 (talk) 12:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Not all piracy is undesirable to digital rights holders

As a proof (my experience) on this item:

1- I downloaded Paragon's Partition Manager and Drive Backup, PIRATED some years ago... 2- I tested those programs for almost 6-7 months, I don't remember. 3- Suddenly my boss asked me about the programs I've been using, performance, usability, etc. He asked me if it was necessary the use of such programs. 4- After the analysis of my usage and need of those programs, he asked about the cost and we proceeded to get the licenses.

So, yes, the "harmful" piracy, made Paragon's to sell two of it's products...

Same goes with MS-DOS, Windows, Office, Symantec's and McAfee's anti-viruses and utilities, the only reason behind the popularity of those packages it's because of the "harmful" piracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.247.28.2 (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

That is the fallacy of composition. Being able to name one example of piracy leading to a sale does not prove that piracy is good in general and that IP owners should stop pursuing pirates. Similarly, you failed to back up with evidence your claim that the various popular software became popular due to piracy. in fact, this article quite soundly disproves your claims:

"...there's no solid evidence to substantiate the fact that a pirated copy leads to a purchase. In fact given that a pirated copy is a perfect duplicate of a retail copy, and hence there is no quality difference between the two, logically it would be rare for consumers to pirate a game, play it, and then go out and purchase essentially the same game again at additional cost. Certainly given the very large numbers of pirated copies via torrent which we see in the next section, if a large proportion of those people eventually purchased the game they had pirated, then PC game sales would be extremely high rather than being many times lower than the console equivalents."

Now, if you have any actual evidence to back your claims, we can see about adding it to the article. ATM, I see nothing useful. -XJDHDR (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I find your fallacy of composition argument to be invalid. The OP of this section is not claiming that all piracy is good in general, his claim is that not all piracy is bad, which I find a perfectly logical argument, albeit a rare one. Also your quote, and specificly the part stating "a pirated copy is a perfect duplicate" is pure fallacy. I have dealt with many copies of pirated software and very VERY few of them could be considered "perfect" copies. To me "perfect" implies the software would install and run exactly as if it had been purchased. I can assure you this is not the case in most all pirated copies of software. 70.180.161.153 (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Opposition to anti-circumvention legislation

Hi, folks! The Opposition section describes why some people oppose DRM, but it doesn't seem to describe why people oppose anti-circumvention legislation. Can you please expend the section to include that? Thanks! --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Page reorganitation

I just tried to clean the mess in this page, separating technical details from political, social, historical, biased or philosophical interpretations. Still there is a lot of work to do to clean this article and make it stand to wikipedia's expected quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.9.68.241 (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Such big changes cannot be easily checked (I guess that's why the bot reverted them). "just authenticating into the web site" is not more neutral than "controversial" (requiring Internet access for something that does not need it?). --AVRS (talk) 07:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The beginning of the end!

Hello I am called Fernanda, greetings from London, I made such a strange topic to get your attention.............

Any relevant content like this should be praised so no need for thanks....

I make posts in several interfaces and it is what I´m making at the moment, lol!:) and that was part of the reason I visited here...to look for ideas to my site

II love reading as well as taking naps lol, and I also play a lot The Cure, my greatest hobbie at the time is poker, as most of you...I imagine....and also magic the gathering.

By the Way, I was raised In Chile from there it started my ceptical behaviour...lol

I always like to end my pots with a thing like this, like one poet once said "The sure cure to lure those mured in a cave is to show them what is pure"

Just a little waring you have to put anothers social network pluggins on your website, like linkedin, this is a perfect tool to get away from google penguin $.14.2, thas has been driving webmasters crazy, Google Staff are every time saying to do quality conten , but what is quality to Google :/?

Good Night to you all, See you guys tomorrow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.81.62.131 (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Is DRM access control technology, or access control and authorization technology?

SudoGhost claims that DRM is both in the edit summary of an recent revert, but the article describe DRM as just being a class of access control technologies. Which will it be? If no source exist to support that DRM is also authorization control technology, I will re-add my edit as by WP:RS (ie, using the wording as access control is defined with, rather then using wording that hint about authorization technology). I don't have a personal opinion on the outcome so long that the article do not contradict itself in the lead. Thanks. Belorn (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC) (Personal attack removed)

Given your editing focus on GNU, FSF, and Richard Stallman, it's an odd coincidence that your edit shares the exact wording that the FSF pejoratively uses in their campaign against DRM. Now my question is, why is "restrict" correct, whereas "limit" would not be, and how is this difference so strong that the article suddenly contradicts itself in the lede? - SudoGhost 00:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:TALKNO. I could join the mudslining if we want to use the talk page to find editor motives behind their edits, and post misrepresenting comments about those editors. This however is against Wikipedia guideline, and is neither the purpose for a talk page nor for that matter Wikiquette. For the record, I will add the the claim that my edit was somehow connected to FSF is completely false, and your claim that my editing is focused on GNU, FSF and Richard Stallman is baseless, a lie, and an obvious attempt to try mislead and direct any discussion about content away from talk page. This is all Im going to say about motives on this page, and further similar comments will be directly reported to civil noticeboard.

So, the reason why the word "restrict" is more precise language for access control technologies, rather than using the word "limit", comes down to preciseness. Limit can refer to something that limit granted permissions as well as restrictions. It is also important to be consistent with the sources, included those that defines the definition of access control technologies. If sources define access control technologies to mean "the selective restriction of access to a place or other resource", then thats the wording and definition we need to use here. Rewriting it as "the intent to limit the use" would be inconsistent and borderline WP:NPOV. I will thus ask again the unanswered question of above. Is DRM access control technology, or access control and authorization technology. I have sources that do describe DRM as access control technology (here p 466), but I can't find any that shows it to be authorization technology. This is the time for people to either provide sources or gently stop reverting edits of those that do. Belorn (talk) 07:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing I said falls under WP:TALKNO, and it was explained as it is relevant to the edit. It's disingenuous to claim offense when it's pointed out that you having "no personal opinion" is at odds with your editing on Wikipedia, and then in the edit summary of that same comment accuse someone else of letting their personal opinion affect the content of the article.

As for the sources, even the source you gave does not support your edit. It describes "...DRM components that, by their nature, limit the customer's freedom..." (page 5) and how it "limits access" and how "...DRM systems are able to limit the accessibility..." (page 6) and "...user identification systems are a prerequisite for DRM systems to be able to limit access to content..." (page 8), so sources describe DRM as "limiting". However, nowhere in that book does it use the word "restrict" to describe DRM in any capacity. Whether it is "access control technology" or "access control and authorization technology" is irrelevant, since reliable sources verify and reflect when the lede uses the word "limit" as opposed to "restrict" and to conclude that because it may or may not be ""access control and authorization technology"" should change how it is otherwise described with a term not reflected by reliable sources is WP:SYN. - SudoGhost 10:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

As by BOLD and this discussion, I have now removed the mentioning of access control technology, and replacing it with the definition found in the book. The previous usage of the access control technology do not pass verifiability, so if you revert, you need to actually add a source that support what the complete text say. Have a nice day. Belorn (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a couple of reliable sources that supports the information in the lede, which I assume satisfies the matter. - SudoGhost 13:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it does not, but it helps. It stills leaves the contradiction that access control only talk in terms of restrictions, and not in the terms of permissions. We should keep out such contradiction from the article, or alternative, provide enough context to eliminate any confusions such contradiction is causing. I thus suggest that we add definitions of the access control, and clarify that such access controls do not include permission granting authorization technology, but I will wait to implement such edit until the dispute resolution regarding the personal attacks is concluded. Belorn (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to add the definition of access control, that's what the wikilink is for. I'm certainly not seeing any contradiction, especially not one that's supported by reliable sources. There doesn't appear to be any sources claiming that DRM doesn't include "permission granting authorization", yet plenty of sources that specifically state that it does, so there doesn't appear to be an issue with the lede, as far as reliable sources are concerned. - SudoGhost 14:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

If you have sources that say that DRM includes both access control and authorization technology, then as the very first post in this comment section said, add that and it will removed the contradiction of users reading the lead. I want to eliminate the contradiction that this article describe DRM as access control, but after visiting the access control, they a contradiction when this article talk about permissions. The way to solve the contradiction is either A), remove the mentioning/hinting of permission on this article, or B) add statement that show that DRM is not only access control technology but rather both access control and authorization technology. Either way solve the contradiction. Either way satisfies the matter of contradiction. Either way, I won't be posting here again until the DRN is concluded. Belorn (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You need to be more clear about what you're saying, because the article says nothing about "authorization technology" in any way. Reliable sources describe DRM as a type of access control. There's nothing contradicting that, and there's no cause to remove any mention of permissions on this article, because reliable sources also support that content. There's no contradiction in the lede, and if you believe there is, you need to specify exactly what it is you believe is contradictory, and back that claim up with reliable sources showing there's some type of contradiction. - SudoGhost 15:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

What are the competing edits here? Whether or not we should say "access control" or not? Looks like it's sourced. Is the access control article posing the problem? TippyGoomba (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

That is a possibility too. In the access control article, its it distinguish itself from authorization technology by being about restrictions rather than the act of granting permissions. If that distinguish feature is incorrect (ie, access control technology can both deal with restrictions as well as permissions), then fault is there are not here. I also looked at Information and Management Engineering: International Conference, ICCIC 2011, Held in Wuhan, China, (link), and it describe authorization middleware to be part of the DRM implementation. Belorn (talk) 07:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not clear what the dispute is about. You seem to be saying that the issue is that you think the act of granting accessing is distinct from the act of not denying access? That's a confusing notion. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The act of granting access is distinct from the act of restricting access in the context of software. One is called Access control, and the other authorization. However, after going through several books on the subject (some which I own), including those of experts in the field, I think the lead is missing a rather large point. Several of them do not describe DRM as access control technologies, but rather an undefined number of technologies, bind together for specific purpose. At the moment, I am collecting the different description to bring a more complete description to the lead and intro. Belorn (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

As an aside, can you point to a source that makes this distinction? It sounds like a semantic distinction. Back to the topic at hand, there are sources that use one or the other and some editor wants to mention one but not the other? Is that the dispute? TippyGoomba (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Correct. The edit in question is this one. I am not sure if it will be contested once I include a larger set of sources and include as much of the major definitions I can find, but if it is I will start up a RFC. I just want to be sure to first go through the clear majority of sources, primarily those made of commonly cited experts like Ross J. Anderson, Bruce Schneier, and Peter Guttmann and check that my current understanding of the subject is indeed an correct one. 95% there, but I do not want to take any shortcuts when starting an RFC. If Im missing works of equal notability as Security Engineering, Applied Cryptography, and godzilla crypto tutorial/Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection, post them and I will try to get a read before making the edit. Belorn (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

But those aren't the edits being discussed here. You guys are talking about "limit" vs "restrict". TippyGoomba (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Oh, I see now. Then you guys get into "access control" being bad because it's more like limit rather than restrict. How silly. I guess we'll wait until you collect your sources. I presume if you find that every is calling it "access control", that' what we'll put in the intro. Correct? At the moment, it sounds like you're trying to cherry pick sources. TippyGoomba (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

If there are any sources people want to bring up, feel free to mention them here. The only criteria I got is that the sourced material need to be well known in the field, and commonly cited by experts and researchers. If that is a too harsh requirement, then please suggest a better criteria. Belorn (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Changed lead

In favor of cleaner discussion, lets focus on the latest change to the lead. The methodology I used when collecting the sources was:

• Read works of identified experts in the field
• Collected sources with high Google Scholar ranking for the search term "Digital rights management", but with the additional requirement of neutral language.
• Collected sources from top search results of Google Books on the search term "Digital rights management", but with the additional requirement of neutral language.
• Minor extra searched regarding different definitions for content protection vs Digital rights management.
• Keeping an eye out of circular loops. Found minimum one research paper which used a edited version of the article lead without attribution.
• Once collecting the sources, checked if the word "access control" and "access control technologies are mentioned anywhere to double check.

The result is this edit. I did not find that access control is general used to describe DRM. I have however yet to read the works of Bruce Schneier, and might update things afterwards. The edit itself might also use some fine tuning in the flow/language department, but I am waiting and see how other contributors in this discussion will react before I continue with more edits or opening an RFC as per previous discussion on DR/N. Thank you. Belorn (talk) 12:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. TippyGoomba (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Piracy scare quotes

I don't think the scare quotes just added around piracy are justified. The meaning of the word dates back centuries, and is not marked as a colloquialism in the OED. As the meaning in the context of this article is obvious and well-known, and it is not a colloquialism, and there is no reason for emphasis; it would seem the only remaining purpose of scare quotes would be to express sarcasm, irony, criticism or misuse. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)