Talk:Digital Rights Management

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

This article is being improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of article quality. It is likely to change frequently until completed. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details.

Archives
2003 and 2004 2005

Contents 1 Obnoxiety news: Coldplay 2 NPOV? 3 DRM = Malware 4 NPOV Digital Restrictions Management/Digital Rights Management 5 DRM depends on Mandatory Access Control 6 Beale Screamer and FreeMe 7 sarbanes-oxley & drm opponents 8 Digital Restrictions Management = POV claim 9 Cleanup taskforce 10 EFF and DBD 11 recent edits 12 Different from Copy Protection/TMP? 13 Clarifications made to 2nd paragraph 14 About Gerbrant's last edit 15 DRM = CRAP 16 AE vs BE spelling in recent edits 17 Removal of examples 18 Impossibility of secure DRM? 19 Let Me Get this Straight... 20 External links 21 POV removal 22 Lead sentence 23 Example techs 24 Another aspect of DRM

[edit] Obnoxiety news: Coldplay

Coldplay's new CD has rules (added 2 Jan 06 by 84.109.75.239, ww)

One point about the "no refund" disclaimer inside the packaging. INAL, but I think that creates conditions on the sale after the sale is complete, so would be legally invalid (for US and probably other countries too). --H2g2bob 03:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV?

This article has some point of view issues. Take this bit, for instance. Instead of an actual definition of trusted computing we get a silly conspiracy theory and some FUD:

However, trusted computing creates the prospect of a computer system which cannot be trusted by its owner, but rather its behavior can be remotely manipulated at any time, regardless of the legal merits of such manipulation. Most opponents have little faith that the courts or legislatures will be able to limit such manipulation to only that which is legally permitted.

There are some valid worries in there I'm sure, but they shouldn't be presented as fact. We should use the accepted definition, then mention the concerns as concerns. 24.39.223.104 05:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

24.29...:

The NPOV question has been the subject of multiple postings here (see above and above and above and ...). This objection, like many others, is a complaint without a proposed resolution. As before, please suggest a better wording, rather than merely noting alleged bias. In this case, the facts are as stated, whatever the wording. Trusted computing (or some other alternative phrase meaning the same thing), is in fact a way to prevent a computer from doing some things its user/pwner might wish. And, as is stateted in several places here, the resulting control of the computer may or may not match the owner/operator's actual legal rights. As for accepted definition(s), there is much manipulation of terms in this field, sufficiently so that it is seriously questionable there are 'accepted' definitions. Recall that Sony/BMG's stealthed rootkit installation was termed 'Rights Management' and "User Protection', not 'insecurity installation'. It's one of the biggest security breaches in history apparently.

Given the problems in this field (terminological, legal, marketing, engineering, cryptologic, ...), it is nearly certain that no presentation will satisfy all. WP should, as this article currently tries hard to do, attempt an even handed presentation, incuding problems that some vendors do not like to discuss or see discussed. If some object, let them suggest improvements. ww 22:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ww here. The objection stated is not specific enough that it could ever be addressed in principle. If 24.39.223.104 wants to try some specific change in wording or the like, we can work on that (which is what article editing does). But an a priori claim that the article is in some abstract, non-specific way POV doesn't warrant the NPOV tag. Try to improve it first, and if that doesn't work out after some sincere efforts, then tagging might become relevant. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DRM = Malware

Since the effects of DRM is always detrimental to the owner of the file, isn't it by definition a kind of malware?

anon poster -- This is a common view, but is not entirely true, at least in theory. Being malware depends in part on whose ox is being gored. Sony, for instance (or some cretin there) seems to have thought that inserting a root vulnerability into your computer system when you played one of their protected audio CDs was a net benefit -- to them. Those who understand what is going on, and its significance, surely disagreed. In the long run, the furor about it all when it became publicly known probably made the entire effort a net loss to Sony.

And there is a not so theoretical problem here. It appears that all the anit-virus makers knew about Sony's rootkit installation, but decided that it didn't meet their definition of 'virus' and so did not bother to inform users of their software about this vulnerability, nor did they repair the 'problem'. Users who understood what was at stake presumably were not pleased to learn this. I was certainly not one. F-secure (of Finland), to their credit, were the only anit-virus maker who did so when it came to their attention. You may imagine how that affects my evaluation of the various anti-virus makers and their products and policies. Finnish phones and now Finnish anti-virus software. Leaping about naked in the snow on subzero winter days after leaving the sauna is probably next. Brrr!

A purely theoretical DRM system which prevented only those things which were not legal or licensed (and which changed what it prevented as real world events occurred such as copyright expiration, changes in license terms, ...) would not, in itself, be malware. No such DRM exists as the technical problem of designing or building DRM which behaved this way are so immense as to be, in my view, impossible. Probably for the indefinite future. And, of course, this non-malware sort of DRM would have to be error free (design and implementation) and not subject to alteration by pranksters or others when deployed. No one knows how to do this. Software systems have killed several people (whilst controlling or mal-controlling, industiral robots), have ruined spacecraft and rocket launches to very great loss (the first attempted ariane 5 launch, for instance), etc etc.

So your point that DRM is by definition malware is well taken in actual practice, though not in theory. Lawyers and marketing cretins seem nearly universally incapable of realizing this, though quite why is not entirely clear. Law school classes in which engineering reality is specifically prohibitied from affecting legal consideration, maybe? How to make this point in the article without POV bias (or being accused of POV) is much harder to figure out.

ww 19:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Digital Restrictions Management/Digital Rights Management

Since there's actually debate about which is the correct expansion

Digital Rights Management vs Digital Restrictions Management

Can Rights Management actually claim to a NPOV?

The very fact that no common form of DRM actually protects the rights of the consumer (First Sale and Fair Use being prime rights) wouldn't the correctness of Restrictions Management make it the better true article title. i.e. since no title can claim NPOV the expansion closer to the facts of life should overrule.

It's very simple. The term Digital Rights Management was the original expansion, or rather DRM is the abbreviation of this. It should be understood however, that these rights are not rights in the judicial sense of the word, but in the computing sense, as in "access rights".

Since the way the term is now propagated is blurring this border, people alarmed by this development have started re-expanding DRM to Digital Restrictions Management.

Since in current usage both expansions are inherently POV, the only way to remain NPOV is to somehow mention them both, which we are doing in the article. Whether the new expansion should be mentioned here is open to debate and mainly based on click-through ratio: how many people looking up this expansion would also look up the article? I think that number to be near 100%. I think the usual lookup path will be: "user gets confronted by DRM in real life - what does this mean? - what does Wikipedia say? - enters DRM in search box - clicks through to the article". Shinobu 15:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

IMHO... saying the same thing as Shinobu... this is a problem that occurs with almost any accepted term that was coined by people who were promoting their own point of view. I hold it to be true that a) DRM stands for Digital Rights Management, i.e. if you asked people who use the initialism what it stands for, that is what the overwhelming majority would answer; b) Digital Rights Management is an extremely loaded term (like "intellectual property" or "caller ID" or "pro-life"/"pro-choice") whose very use presupposes things that aren't necessarily true. I don't agree that there is a debate about which is the commonly understood expansion. The debate is about how the initials ought to be understood. Both "Digital Rights Management" and "Digital Restrictions Management" are propaganda, but the former is the successfully promulgated propaganda. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

That was not the debate I meant - I meant whether the Restrictions expansion should be mentioned here @ DRM, as opposed to only here in the article. The thing is, we (i.e. Wikipedia) don't really want to promulgate either propaganda, or if that's impossible, at least we want to make sure that we're promulgating both to the same extent. Shinobu 16:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

(edit: I thought this discussion was being held on Talk:DRM. My bad.)

I would also like to add that with "succesfully promulgated" always comes the question "in what circles?" - I for one always use the Restrictions expansion, and so do a lot of people belonging to the particular sub-culture I seem to be a part of now and then. That we are less numerous is not really that relevant. After all, the point of view of "most people" is not necessarily neutral. The only way to deal with this is as I described before - tell how the moniker came to pass, why it's misleading, and why some of us choose to expand it differently. IIRC the article already does that. As for the appearance of the expansion on DRM, that should be based on click through ratio. I think this is nearly 100%, so I don't think it will be necessary, as I stated before. Shinobu 16:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DRM depends on Mandatory Access Control

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

[edit] Beale Screamer and FreeMe

Why nothing about this here?

[edit] sarbanes-oxley & drm opponents

this paragraph, from "drm opponents":

The use of DRM is a key part of implementation of corporate compliance policies such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, protecting corporate documents from unauthorized tampering and creating an audit trail which can be used to determine liability at board level within corporations for misdemeanors. This level of control is obviously unwelcome at certain levels.

doesn't seem quite npov, or quite right. If it's true that DRM is key to Sarb-Ox, that's a factual piece of information that should probably go under the "other uses of drm" header, and the snarky sentence about "obviously unwelcome" taken out. This paragraph isn't discussing actual groups, as the other entries in this section do; it's hypothesizing. As described, Sarb-Ox could also be taken as an argument for drm. I don't know much about the subject, so didn't want to jump into editing it.. Brassratgirl 00:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. After spending a few minutes scratching my head over what was being states in this paragraph, I decided to remove it entirely. If someone wants to identify what group(s) would be against DRM implementations for Sarb-Ox purposes, with a citation to a publication that makes this identification, they can add it in with much better language. Warrens 01:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Digital Restrictions Management = POV claim

NB: In respect of the discussion below, see the prior discussion referenced here (now in an archive page), on this and related alleged POV points, here.

The reversion of this change in the first sentence is due to the long history back and forth of POV accusations. Digital Rights Management is itself an attempt to bias the discussion by terminology choice. There are in fact no specifically digital rights (only existing IP rights transferred into a digital context) and the assorted attempts to protect those rights have characteristically (because the engineering does not well match the legal categories and permissions) attempted to protect rights the copyright holders do not have, in law, as for instance the right to make a copy of the material onto an 8-track for use in a car.

There is no satisfaftory name for these schemes, whether as a class or as an individual instance. Please note the long history of dispute on this topic as reflected on this talk page. Your position, with which I have some sympathy, can't be justified in the context of this WP article. ww 15:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, man, you're entitled to your opinion, but don't use Wikipedia to preach a preferred POV. Keep focused on producing encyclopedia-quality articles. This article is about, literally, "Digital Rights Management". The fact that some people have re-termed it "Digital Restrictions Management" as a form of criticism of the technology and concepts is important to mention, but it's not something that needs to be stated in very the first sentence of the article. An article's first responsibility, according to Wikipedia:The perfect article and Wikipedia:Lead section, is to clearly define what the subject is. The term is covered in the third paragraph of the lead section, which is a perfectly appropriate place for it. Warrens 19:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

W, No preferred preaching coming from me. You'll note that I have retained both terms. And have argued repeatedly above on both sides of the "It's all an infernal plot", and "It's justified to protect those rights", sides. So I decline the nomination, as both not nice, and wrong in fact.

If we have here a stylistic point in dispute, that is one thing. I disagree that the issue may be deferred to the 3rd para given the high intensity feelings surrounding the subject whatever it's called. It should be made clear early on, as a point WP may entirely encyclopedically make, that there is conflict re the terminology. Not an isolated position (see various above, eg, dpbsmith). So I would retain the note you have elided and early on too.

If, on the other hand, you are claiming that D Restic Man is POV, while D Rights Man, is NPOV, we could not agree less. EVERYONE attempts to control the debate by controlling the terminology (except of course me...:). Including editors of this article. Please refer to the long history of accusations of POV (in re this or that aspect, including the terms used) in regard to this article. See above and above and above... on this talk page. In fact this precise point is made by several here, including Lulu_of... This issue has been hashed out repeatedly for a long time, and you are coming into the affray at a late date.

The phrasing you have changed and rechanged had been stable for some time prior to your intervention. I suggest that its alleged bias is insufficient, even it it could be determined to be present, to damage the article's *OV and that it be retained, if nothing else, as a warning flag to the Average Reader for whom we are writing. Comment? Reaction? Anyone? ww 22:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I think the common expansion is highly POV, but we do a very good job on explaining what DRM is in the first sentence, including (last time I checked) that it has nothing to do with rights. As long as the reader gets that point, we're in the clear I think. I think having to expansions in the first para is very ugly. Considering that D.Ri.M. was the original expansion for DRM in this context, it might make sense to have that one first and have D.Re.M. in the second para or so. Shinobu 12:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you're not understanding the point at all. Let's say the U.K. Conservative Party decides that Tony Blair should be known as "Balony Bear", does this suddenly grant them the right to rewrite the article on Tony Blair, writing something like "Anthony Charles Lynton Blair (born 6 May 1953), also known as Balony Bear, is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"? No, absolutely not. Right? Should Microsoft be introduced as "Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ: MSFT, HKSE: 4338), also known as Micro$haft, is an international computer technology corporation?" No, absolutely not. Right? Alternate terminology coined by detractors and oppontents has precisely zero place in the introductory sentence of an article. None! We're an encyclopedia; we define things as precisely as possible, then we describe them, then we get to the issues. Trying to argue that the term "Digital Rights Management" is not a neutral phrase is completely irrelevant here; the creators of the technology call it Digital Rights Management, and so Digital Rights Management is what it shall be known as. You and I may not *like* the technology (I certainly don't), but whatever, we're here to write an encyclopedia, not to promote Free Software Foundation-approved opinions on subjects. So, in the context of writing a proper encyclopedia, should this subject be introduced as "Digital Rights Management (DRM), also known as Digital Restrictions Management is any of several technologies used by publishers?" No, absolutely not. Right? -/- Warren 18:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

People really call him Baloney Bear??! To each his or her own I guess. In this case, the question for WP is whose loaded terms to be featuring in some sense. The inventors of the term, those who object to this as a loaded characterization in the name, or someone else. Since we're writing an encyclopedia, we should make -- in cases such as these in which disputes run at high temperature -- no choice between loaded terminology. We should note, early, that there is dispute about the meaning of DRM, and thereby take no position on the question. As I noted that is the position arrived at long ago here, after considerable backing and forthing. We should let stable positions lie, in my view. ww 03:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

ww, please re-read WP:NPOV you are mis-understanding our policy on POV. The idea behind it is that we not insert our own POV into articles. Mentioning other people's POV is perfectly fine, see the section on "Writing for the enemy" in particular. AlistairMcMillan 04:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. And inclusion of D Res Mgt early is so mentioning, without, I admit, making a blunt declarative sentence on it. Which is why, in this matter, I'd prefer to mention the Restric expansion en passant, as it were. Always poor writing practice to whack readers over the head, at least in this sort of writing. ww 16:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Also the section on "Giving equal validity" while you are at it. The people who created DRM say it means Digital Rights Management, critics say Digital Restrictions Management is a closer meaning. We don't give equal validity to both points of view. Like Warrens said, we wouldn't put "Micro$haft" into the first paragraph of the Microsoft page.AlistairMcMillan 04:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

We can't give any validity at all to either expansion, and shouldn't do so by commission or omission. Not a WP thing as you note. All we can do is report a dispute about the meaning, and it's all we should do. In this case, no one (well not in this cycle of the controversy (so far)) is actually arguing that the alternative, strongly held by important folks in the software world (the most important of whom is a MacArthur Award winner), should not be included at all. It's a stylistic point in re where to put WP's recognition of the dispute. It being as political as it is, I'm in favor of noting both, early, and getting on with the discussion. Which is (has been and probably will be as long as momentus questions of control and profit are thought to stand or fall on this stuff) contoversial in and of itself. ww 16:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes we bloody well can give more validity to one. The people that created it called it "Digital Rights Management". That is the proper name. We don't give equal validity to alternate names invented by critics. Mentioning the critics alternate name in the third paragraph is where it belongs. AlistairMcMillan 16:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

And please stop saying there was a stable accepted position here. All discussion just tapered off and then an anonymous contributor re-inserted "Digital Restrictions Management" into the first sentence.[1] There was no consensus. And if there was a stable position it was the one without "D Restricted M" in the first sentence. AlistairMcMillan 04:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

If was the dying away of some of the accusations of bias that I was characterising as stability. Quiescence on debated WP articles is, I suspect, about as much stability as we will ever see. I've considered attempting reach stability by intervention and blocking and all that, but in some years here, I've not seen a case in which this did not pour oil on fire, not on troubled waters. So I've made a decision not to throw my (not so consequential, actually) weight around. Which is why I reached the conclusion that "quietus = (as much stability as we here will ever see in controversial articles)". ww 16:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that temperatures have gotten rather higher, and so I'd prefer to invite others to comment as characterizations have now trended in an unfortunate direction. Thus, Comments? Observations? Agreement, disagreement? By others than the recent participants above? ww 17:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You're not going to find much support around Wikipedia for making a change in favour of inserting a notable critic's reactive renaming of the technology into the very first sentence of the article. Really, you're not. No matter how much you may believe in the importance of the term "Digital Restrictions Management", it's our first obligation as an encyclopedia to define "Digital Rights Management" first, because that's the name of the article, and that's the subject of the article. Criticism always come after the definition. Always, always, always. Anyhow, Wikipedia:Third opinion and Wikipedia:Current surveys are available if you really feel an outside opinion is necessary here. -/- Warren 18:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe in RMS's term, and I'm not sure how you can get that out of my comments, here, or in the archive noted in the head note here (I've changed the pointer back to the archive, not to just one heading in it -- the 'rasslin has been ratehr more extensive than that). I'm opposed to POV -- ANYONE's POV -- and object to sneaking the POV into a name and having WP not note this attempt early and prominently. You've misread my (and others) purpose on this POV point, and the others which have regularly been raised here. But, as I told AlistairM, in a side discussion on this, I'm tapped out on this subject. I'm going to leave it to another time. ww 21:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Warren, AMM & others for bringing sanity to the DRM article. I'm just as much an opponent of DRM as everyone else here but the persistence of those who insist on the DReM term up front and the pervasive POV throughout the article is embarrassing to Wikipedia. There are great NPOV articles on issues with far more polarized zealots than DRM. I've tried some NPOVing of DRM in the past but was reverted - I'm glad others have more stamina. 71.232.63.11 02:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm jumping into this a bit late (and I hate DRM as much as anyone), but I think people are missing the point of the name Digital Rights Management. Nobody is claiming that the end user is being granted special rights via DRM that they don't have normally. The whole point is the word "Management". The copyright holder is trying to manage the limited rights you have when purchasing, say, an MP3 file. Those rights include downloading it, listening to it, etc. but do not include giving it away to all your friends. That's why the copyright holder must manage those rights. Now granted they do this by placing restrictions on what you can and cannot do, but in reality these restrictions are placed by the copyright laws and/or licensing agreement, DRM just attempts to set up technical hurdles to enforce whats there on virtual paper. But that doesn't change the name of the technology. Love it, hate it, as you wish-- but the real and proper name is "Digital Rights Management". --Rehcsif 19:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the leading paras a little, choosing to include the "restrictions" variation on the basis that:

1. It is a significant alternative title, with more than a quarter of a million hits for a simple google search of the term.
2. It was coined by Richard Stallman, a significant player in the debate.
3. It could easily be noted, and I did, that it was not an official name.

Thought I should note this here, in case you want to change something. I'm pretty sure it no longer represents a POV claim, but I may have screwed it up. RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 12:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup taskforce

This page was added to my desk, so I've been bold and started cleaning the article up as much as I can. I'm removing a lot of content, for any of several reasons (mostly to do with the density of the text, readability, usefulness or general style). If you believe I've screwed up, please do not revert the page, but instead manually re-add the specific text that you believe was superior to my rendering, then post about it here. Thanks! RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 09:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Some things I've done:

• Rewrite the introduction. It was nowhere near as streamlined as it could have been, contained irrelevant info (eg, DRM's legal status in the European Union, when no mention was given to its status in any other country - moved this snippet further down the page).
• Removed the quotes section - moved to Wikiquote, and added reference.
• Prune the links section. Apologies if I removed something good, but I simply removed any website that wasn't obviously notable and worth a mention here - I left a couple in place that I was uncertain about, but I'll fix that when I have a chance to take a closer look at them.

I'll keep the list updated with major changes as I work on the article. RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 10:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

More changes:

• Largely rewrote the introduction, particularly removing the paragraphs on the debate: we don't need this here, since it's covered in detail elsewhere (and in the leading paragraphs of the article). Crufty, at best. RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 11:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Cleaned up Legal enforcement of DRM: it was very heavily POV-laden, made considerable reference to US-specific law (the fair use doctrine, for instance), and the list of problems associated with certain systems barely made reference to law. Added a note on the general legal situation of DRM, but I don't know enough to actually flesh it out - this is, nonetheless, a better header than an irrelevant note on TPM. RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 13:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Cleaned up the section on the DMCA: at least half its content was totally irrelevant to the Act itself, so I removed it all as redundant and cruft. I may re-add it elsewhere, if certain details were erased that shouldn't have been. I also removed some political POV statements, added a real introduction to the Act itself, and made mention of the other two important Copyright Acts: the EU Copyright Directive and the WIPO Copyright Treaty. RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 14:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I tweaked some wording. I think the following three points are absolutely essential:

• DRM "really" stands for Digital Rights Management, i.e. this are the phrase used by providers and users of the technology, and these are the words for which the initialism stands. Critics' attempt to redefine it as Digital Restrictions Management is a rhetorical device only.

As you know, strongly disagree, because of hte following point you make. ww 22:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Nevertheless, critics are correct in calling the phrase "Digital Rights Management" loaded, or a misnomer, because there is absolutely nothing about DRM that aligns its use with the provider's actual legal rights. The provider can use DRM to enforce arbitrary restrictions, including restrictions which it is not legally entitled to make.
• DRM overreach is not theoretical. It has unquestionably occurred. The occurrences may well have been due to mistakes on the provider's part (Adobe said this was true in the "Alice in Wonderland" case) or due to software bugs in the DRM implementation (e.g. malfunctions with Intuit's TurboTax product activation) but they are not hypothetical or potential.

concur, absolutely. ww 22:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Dpbsmith (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• You're correct, that critics' redefinition of the term is secondary to its actual definition. However, the term "digital restrictions management" effectively characterises their opposition to such systems as a whole, and is an important term in and of itself - hence the mention, with the obvious caveat that it was coined by Richard Stallman.
• Agreed. That should go in the ever more sparse-looking "legal enforcement" section, perhaps.
• Agreed.RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 13:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I heard the phrase before I became aware of Stallman using it. Cannot document it, needless to say, but it is a distortion to claim the term or opposition to DRM, is but yet another rms quixotic crusade. We are not doing well to support the rhetorical devices of the proponents by such comments, espeically in the article. NPOV forbids, in my view. ww 22:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I got curious, so I looked through newsgroup histories and found this post from a Phil Hunt in a May 21 2001 posting where he brings up the term "Digital Restrictions Management". The earliest reference I can find to RMS using the term is in October 2001, but I'm sure he was using it before then.

IMO, I think it comes down to this: DRM technologies were created by people (i.e. copyright holders) who had an interest in defining limits on who could access their copyrighted material. Default access is zero, and you are granted "rights" to use the item. Conversely, critics of DRM look at it the other way: people (i.e. copyleft holders) who have an interest in there being no limits on their copyrighted material view the default access as everyone, and anything that inhibits this is a "restriction". The key difference is that the people who favour "open" want other people's closed stuff (copyrighted music, etc.) to also be open, whereas the people who favour "closed", only favour it for their own stuff, but don't care if other people prefer "open" distribution. This distinction is what makes Digital Restrictions Management a valid term, though most definitely reactive, but it also validates Digital Rights Management as a phrase... whether or not one believes it's a "loaded" term (as Dpbsmith puts it) really comes down to ones personal beliefs about copyright/copyleft issues. That's why we need to be extremely careful with how we present and describe the terms in this article. Ww is quite right in that we can't be pigeonholing the copyleft viewpoint here as some kind of RMS crusade, because it really isn't. -/- Warren 23:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'd take some issue with this etymology of the Dig Res Mgm version. I don't think, even for rms, that it's a continuation undera differetn flag of an crusade for open source or rather free as in liberty software. Maybe someone should ask him. I think it is actually an appreciation for the unsupportable extension of holder control via a shaey and probably impossible use of technology, chiefly crypto. Certainly that's the problem I see, as I fully concede that the Mouse (and Metallica's stuff, and all the rest) is certainly the property of <whoever> with the proviso that the law in most places provides for several explicit exceptions. for instance, first sale, in US terminology. My objection is that NO ONE knows how to actually do what the holders have a right to control, and their attempts to do so have been clumcy and an interference with users existing rights. I do NOT defend piracy, though I do note that the people RIAA and MPAA (US) and BPI (UKL) have been chasing aren't very significant menetarily. And my opposition to DRM is not a pro-piracy one. Several active editors on this article share that position I think. That the law permist lawyers to make arguments to that effect is a another issue, and one that should be addressed. Pirates with real economic impact own or control industiral production and distribution facilities. Exagerrated damages are merely PR (or lobbying) motivated and are unwarranted. ww 23:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Would someone mind explaining how we say "...critics are correct in calling the phrase "Digital Rights Management" loaded, or a misnomer..." without breaking the NPOV rule? AlistairMcMillan 19:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahmmm. Well, ... By explicitly noting (evenhandedly) that the initials DRM are disputed between two alternative readings. And doing so early and prominently, so that neitehr side ends up using Wikipedia to futher its loaded version. It is not the province of anyone, or any single interest group, to assign a name to something, unless in commercial practice and that requires trademark or similar. I've heard not a whisper of such protection for thsi phrase, but in any case such protection cannot apply ot the underlying technique, only to a particular commercial implementation/product. Languages just don't work that way. Even trademark is not sufficient proctectin in law in some cases as for instance in the case of cellophane and some others, and which accounts for the continued employment of many lawyers at Xerox as they write letters attempting to defend the company's exclusive rights to the name. ww 23:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW Something else that probably needs fixed. The sub-sections of the external links section are composed almost entirely of internal links. AlistairMcMillan 19:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Do I hear Pittsburg here? ww 23:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Was this what you wanted? :) RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 23:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EFF and DBD

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

[edit] recent edits

One such removed the term criminalization fro the legalites discussion. This was in error as perhaps the most notable effect of much of this legislation is to move litigation from civil court (ie, torts) into criminal court. The act of copying some protected item has not be an a criminal offense hitherto. It is not scare language some of which recetn edits properly elided, but the fact. And so WEP notable. Reply from that editor, others? ww 02:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think the anon may be right. Isn't it legislation such as the DMCA that makes it a criminal act, not the technology called DRM? I could be wrong though, I'm not entirely clear on the history. Was DRM only introduced at the same time as DMCA type legislation? AlistairMcMillan 02:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The removal of 'criminalisation' was technically correct, since DRM itself cannot make anything illegal, since it isn't a law. I suggest that we just rewrite the sentence to note that certain legislation enforces DRM by criminalising certain activities: the statement would remain technically correct, and communicate the same basic facts as the original. RandyWang (^raves/_rants) 02:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

But we already have a section on the DMCA that clearly states: that criminalizes the production and dissemination of technology that allows users to circumvent copyright protection methods, rendering all forms of DRM-stripping and circumvention software illegal. Is it a requirement that we have the word "criminalise" in every section? AlistairMcMillan 02:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair call - I hadn't noted its section when I took a look at the diff. May as well just leave the change in place, methinks, since it's no less informative than before. RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 02:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually RW, that's precisely one of the things DMCA makes illegal. AM is correct, even though he framed his answer in the form of a question. DMCA makes research into DRM operation, even if not a single copyright is violated, illegal. See the linked article on Skylarov. Check out Felten's website, and check Macfergus.com for Niels Ferguson's reluctance to tell anyone about the flaws he found in Intel's design, even though Intel is reported to have said it has no objection. Ferguson is concerned about being arrested by some prosecutor with not a lick of understanding of what's going on technically -- as long as a case can be made. This subject is a mess and requires perspective to understand. Even one of the threads which bear on it -- and there's lots, most technical in one way or another. ww 03:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Different from Copy Protection/TMP?

This article says drm is often confused with two other terms: copy proptection, and technical protection measures. Unfortunately, the explanation of the differences was terribly ineffective, at least for me. Here is what it says about drm: "technologies used by publishers to control access to digital data". The article then describes copy protection and tmp as follows: "technologies that control or restrict the use and access of digital media". No wonder people can't tell the difference! Can someone please explain the difference to me and/or make changes so that the differences are clearer? Thanks. Danielx 21:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The difference is subtle at first glance, but there is a big difference: DRM systems are more "active" in that there is often some kind of direct communication between the provider and consumer of DRM content to confirm that the content may be used. iTunes Music Store is a good example of this; if you copy a DRM-protected iTMS purchase to another computer, that computer needs to be authorised over the Internet before you can play the song. A techncial protection measure is more passive... consider DVD's: Content Scrambling System provides protection of digital content, but is built into the product itself but requires no communication with an outside source. Copy protection is again different than both of these; regional lockout and Macrovision are two different technical approaches to preventing DVD copying.

You're quite right in noting that this article could be more clear about this, though. Hope this helps... -/- Warren 21:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarifications made to 2nd paragraph

I've removed the reference to DRM being needed to prevent loss of revenue from unauthorised copying, as that's irrelevant. DRM does not prevent loss of revenue except indirecty, it prevents unauthorised copying, distribution or access. Obviously the indirect (hoped for) effect of DRM is one (but not the only) motive for using DRM. (Note that some copyright holders, e.g. Cory Doctorow, claim that DRM causes loss of revenue in at least some cases. That could be in interesting topic to discuss somewhere, but I don't believe it belongs on this page.) In any case, DRM can obviously be applied to works which are given away for free, so the "loss of revenue" argument is at best a side-issue.

I've also removed the description of Digital Restrictions Management as rhetorical. Both Rights and Restrictions are loaded terms used for rhetorical reasons, and it is unfair to single out the anti-DRM POV for special treatment without doing the same for Rights. That would be clumsy, especially in the opening paragraphs, so better to treat both POV matter-of-factly and on an equal footing. Limeguin 04:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

As has been discussed previously, we don't give equal validity to the actual name of the thing and a name that critics use to deride the thing. AlistairMcMillan 13:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

AM, As you say, it has been discussed previously. And many more times than just inthe last month or so. And it is not as you imply, settled. I was a participant in most (all) of those discussions, on either side on occasion, and I do not see that cosensus was reached as to how to handle this aspect of POV.

Limeguin makes precisely the point I (and many) have been making for a very long time, though using different words. It's NOT permissible to permit one POV to frame the discussion by claiming ownership of a term (in this case the expansion of a 3 ltr abbr, DRM). This IS non-neutral, and WP shouldn't be doing that, per long-standing policy. We should actually BE neutral in our accounts, not merely formally so. A review neutrality here by refering to the discussion on this talk page, much of it now archived though still available, will turn up claims of POV of one kind or another beginign with, IIRC, the very first comment here (in re a rather lower quality and far less complete article). POV problems are not resolvable by adopting (or permitting control of) loaded meaning and connotations for the terminology used. This is the definition of POV in a serious sense, after all. We should certainly leave Limeguin's version (or something like it) of the present phrase and I still think that alternative meanings of DRM whould be early (ideally in the first sentence) and equally prominent. Only then will WP have avoided taking any stance in a very seriously controversial and important issue. ww 19:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are either mis-understanding or mis-representing Wikipedia policy. Please read the section "Balancing different views" in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ. We are not supposed to give equal validity to both points of view. "Digital Restrictions Management" is a rhetorical device, which is exactly what we should say it is. AlistairMcMillan 20:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Alistair, Digital Rights Management is equally a rhetorical device. "Rights" is one of those terms like Motherhood and Freedom that everyone is in favour of (or at least give lip-service to). If we write as if Rights was a neutral word, and single out Digital Restrictions Management for special treatment by emphasising the rhetorical nature of it without a corresponding, equally prominent note on the rhetorical nature of Rights, we are explicitly supporting one POV over another. We have a better balance by not mentioning rhetoric at all.

I'm removing the reference to the term "propoganda" in the second paragraph and replacing it with "misnomer". It may be deliberate propoganda: I'd wouldn't be surprised to learn that the term Digital Rights Management was invented by some advertising or PR consultant. But let's assume that the choice was well-intentioned and not deliberately chosen to manipulate people's thinking on the topic ("People love rights, and if anyone objects you can say they want to take away the artists' rights"). But we don't know that this was deliberate propoganda. However, it certainly is a misnomer! After all, DRM doesn't manage "rights" at all -- it manages restrictions. I know that some will argue that the Rights in DRM refers to the copyright holder's rights, but that's not true either: to give an example, DRM can and has been used to prevent eBooks from being read aloud. There is no right under copyright law for "no read aloud" rights. Likewise there is no "right" to prevent re-sale, and yet many DRM systems operate to prevent re-sale. Rights are granted by law, not by computer software. (Also, the term "misnomer" doesn't imply deliberate manipulation.)

It is enough to single out Restrictions as a minority viewpoint, used by critics. There are controversies where one side is way out on the fringe (e.g. Holocaust denial). This is not one of them. I'm not suggesting that we give both Rights/Restrictions equal treatment, but I do insist that we don't unfairly bias the discussion towards the Rights POV merely because that's the term used in the popular press. After all, an encyclopedia is meant to do more than merely parrot corporate press releases as the IT press so often does. Limeguin 02:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I've changed "misnomer" to "misleading"; that's the actual word used in the citation, so that's the word we should use.

The way and order in which we present the DRM etymology is about as precise, neutral, and accurate as we're going to be able to get. No matter how much you, I, or other editors believe the "R" ought to be "Restrictions", the fact is that the term "Digital Restrictions Management" wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the phrase "Digital Rights Management", which is the phrase used by the people who created the technology. Please read through Wikipedia:Neutral point of view very, very carefully for a better understanding of why the article lays things out as it does. I've explained this before on this talk page, too, but it basically comes down to this: Even if millions of people called Dick Cheney "The Big Dick", or Microsoft "Micro$haft", that absolutely does not grant us the latitude to pre-empt the official name, as decided by its creators. -/- Warren 03:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

W, Great name choice! But I have to disagree that your analogy is apt. Microsoft has no meaning outside product / company identification. Like Kodak (a meaningless term chosen because George Eastmen though 'K' sounds would be helpful in the marketplace, in the account I've heard). Digital Rights Mgmt has such meaning outside mere labeling. Limeguin is correct in this instance that, regardless of intent by its first user, it is an attempt to bias the discussion as it is not any legal rights to which the term refers. DRM schemes are controlling 'rights' that holders have no legal basis for asserting, at least in countries with copyright law more or less consonant with international understanding in the developed world. DRM does not achieve a reduction in piracy, as claimed by its advocates (the pirates with disk pressing plants have not been noticeably impeded), but does have a significatn effect in changing the terms of the legislative debate (such as there has been, ie, almost nil in the US). As such, it's propaganda and NPOV.

I have been arguing in re this article (see archives almsot from the earliest note) that we are stuck with this term (priority has established a fact of name on the ground, just as sandwichs are not called bread holders), but that we should note early, and prominently, that there is considerable controversy about the meaning of DRM. It is _not_ POV to do so, as there does exist a substantial corporate, legal, and public interest in this quite real dispute. It is not merely another quixotic rms v the world crusade, though his voice is prominent. The word 'Rights' in an expansion of DRM is biasing rhetoric and most defintely should be noted here.

Indeed, it should be noted at the same point DRM is introduced, thus doing the best we can to remove the biasing sting. Not somewhat later as one point among many, some legally technical, some cryptographically technical, some computer security technical. We may expect our Average Reader's eyes to glaze over somewhat in those necessary sections (or while following pointers). The controversy itself must be covered, but not necessarily at the very beginning in my view. What should be done is to alert our Average Reader, for whom we are supposedly producing an NPOV introduction/overview in this and all articles, that there's a nomenclature problem. Kind of like highways signs in mountains warning about "Fallen Rocks Next 2 Miles (or 3km, for those with more rational mensuration systesm)".

I believe this so strongly that I will continue to resist attempts by either side to attempt to achieve rhetorical advantage here (in the hope, I suppose, of achieving a similar advantage in the mind of the Average Reader, up which which WP should not put). I have long done so here, and will continue to do so.

I welcome Limeguin to the fray on the side of NPOV and neutrality in the rhetorical wars. ww 18:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About Gerbrant's last edit

(1) The essay is written by Richard Stallman. From the page itself "This essay is published in Free Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman."

(2) The paragraph about DRM starts with the words "Digital Rights Management software is..." That section is headlined "Digital Rights Management". The table of contents at the top of the page includes the phrase "Digital Rights Management". "Digital Restrictions Management" is mentioned once, as an alternative alongside "Digital Restrictions Malware" and handcuffware".

(3) The intent of the page as a whole essay is clear. Richard is recommending that people avoid using certain words or phrases. The essay does not use the DRestrictionsM phrase throughout, and it does not even recommend it as the only alternative.

(4) While we are on the subject of the FSF (who didn't write the cited essay), they do use the phrase Digital Rights Management "officially". For example, the bottom of http://www.fsf.org/licensing/compliancelab.html.

So if everyone could please stop changing the article to reflect what they personally want to say instead of what the cited source says, that would be real cool. AlistairMcMillan 18:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Who is the president of the FSF. Also that it is a selected essay, means that the FSF supports it. NoExec changed the link to a page showing indeed clear support of the FSF for the DReM expansion.
2. It has to (otherwise lengthy circumlocutions would have been necessary). It's a list of words and phrases to be avoided. Check the other items on the list - they also include the word or phrase to be avoided.
3. True, but it has propagated the DReM expansion, among others.
4. NoExecs link is to a newer page. I don't know why the FSF hasn't made its older pages consistent, but the content of the newer page is unambiguous.

I think NoExecs edit will be satisfactory to us all, so let's just leave it at that. Shinobu 10:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

(1) RS wrote the essay, FSF support it. That does not mean FSF wrote it.

(2) Yep, but if they use the term DRightsM, then it is false to say that they don't use it.

(3) Great. But again, if we say "he suggests people use", then that is true. Saying he exclusively uses "DRestrictionsM" is false.

(4) Again. The FSF use the DRightsM phrase. Saying they use DRestrictionsM exclusively is false.

And I'm sorry, but no, NoExecs edit is not satisfactory. If we aren't going to explain the DRestrictionsM thing properly in the intro, perhaps we just shouldn't mention it at all. AlistairMcMillan 00:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Splitting hairs, are we? Anyway, I've seen your last edit, and I really hope everyone is okay with it (I am), because too much squibblingsquabbling has been going on about it already, really. Oh, not mentioning DReM at all would not be NPOV, so that's not an acceptable solution (not for me and, I hope, not for you either). Shinobu 12:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

S, I wish to call your attention to a critically important point. I have checked and squibbling cannot be what you meant. If it was not a typo (a problem with which my fingers quiver in digital resonance), I suggest that what was meant was squ_a_bbling and that we correct all references to squibbling here in the interest of (hyper)correctness. Let the squabbling contiue!!

Sigh... Where is Rodney King when we need him? <-- rhetorical (and so appropriate) question ww 19:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

:-) Yes. It's the work of the embarrassing little typo fairy. And while we're being hypercorrect: contiue? Seriously though, I think we've squabbled quite enough. Shinobu 01:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DRM = CRAP

Since I couldn't find it in the article anywhere, I thought I'd better note here that DRM is also being referred to as CRAP, an acronym for "Content Restriction, Annulment and Protection". [ælfəks] 00:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Source? AlistairMcMillan 06:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There are a few that show up with a Google search. Here's one.Brian 19:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)btball

Yesterday, I added the sentence

ZDNet Executive Editor David Berlind also suggested the term Content Restriction, Annulment, and Protection or CRAP for short.<ref>{ {cite web|url= http://news.zdnet.com/2036-2_22-6035707.html |title=A lot of CRAP|accessdate=2006-09-07} }</ref>

just after the sentence explaining that some critics expand DRM as Digital Restrictions Management.

I believed this critical alternative name to be worthy of mention in the article, but an hour later it was removed as "inappropriate" by Warrens. Alphax was disappointed not to find it in the article. I too still believe this alternative name should be mentioned, attributed to ZDNet Executive Editor David Berlind, with some source, but I'm not going to start an edit-war over this.

— Adhemar 07:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ironically enough, Russians often expand the acronym "DRM" with additional letters so it becomes the Russian word for crap. - Sikon 07:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

If there is an authorative source for that, even that snippet of information is worthly of inclusion in the article, IMHO. — Adhemar 12:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[2] [3] [4] are the Google search results for words that are cross between "DRM" and "der'mo" (дерьмо), Russian for crap, and are used to refer to DRM pejoratively - on Linux.org.ru, the "Russian Slashdot", and SecurityLab.ru. Although it probably isn't notable enough to warrant a note. - Sikon 14:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Put simply, it doesn't belong in the Wikipedia:Lead section of the article. The lead isn't your (or anyone's) personal dumping grounds for POV-laden commentary about the technology, or what the Russian translation of the acronym'd format of the name is... in-depth criticism belongs in the body of the article, and things like the Russian translation belong, at best, in a "Trivia" section, and even then it's hard to justify its inclusion as encyclopedic. It doesn't contribute substantially to a knowledge-based definition of what Digital Rights Management is.

And that's what it comes down to, really. The content and wording of the lead section as it stands right now is very carefully balanced to state clearly what Digital Rights Management -is-, and to clearly state the primary controversy. If you or someone you read on the Internet thinks that "DRM = CRAP", fine, but surely you appreciate that it sounds like a churlish joke rather than sober, encyclopedic commentary. It's certainly not important when defining the subject as a whole... at best it goes into the DRM Opponents section. -/- Warren 15:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the lead section has been the subject oa considerable amount of discussion here. The current version is unsatisfactory to some, including myself, on grounds that it too readily concedes the terms of discussion to one side with a clear agenda. I favored (see comments above) an earlier and more prominent notice to the reader that DRM is a controversial name for the underlying topic and that there are other expansions. In this case, i agree with Warrens that this addition should not be in the lead, but if present at all, in the body of the article. That a prominent technical journalist coined the term and acronym, perhaps biases it toward inclusion, especially as it has become used in the blogoshere. ww 18:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked a bit around and changed my opinion on the Russion дерьмо – I do not consider that worthy of inclusion. I agree with Warrens that Content Restriction, Annulment, and Protection sounds like a churlish joke, but sounding like a joke is not always a good reason for non-inclusion. I might agree that the term suits better in the Opponents section (or a Trivia section) than in the third paragraph.

So the central question is: does David Berlind's term Content Restriction, Annulment, and Protection (CRAP for short) belong in the article? [And if so, should en.w.o/wiki/CRAP link or redirect to the article?]

Pro: Shortly after Berlind coined it, the term made its way through the blogosphere. People (like Alphax) have heard of it – and (might) come to Wikipedia to look into the details of the term.

Contra: It's bound to fall in disuse. (That's a prediction, not a fact. You never know.)

— Adhemar 19:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

As suggested by Warrens, I added the CRAP note in the section on Opponents. Let's see if someone objects. — Adhemar 18:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AE vs BE spelling in recent edits

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

[edit] Removal of examples

The examples section was removed recently and damages the article in so doing. Without examples, the article becomes rather over abstract and so less informative to the Average Reader. Should be restored.

In addition, the examples of softwae which removes various DRM schemes was also removed. It should be restored for exxentially the same reason.

Comments? ww 04:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Review WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files for a better understanding of why AlistairMcMillan removed those lists. That said, it'd certainly be feasible to make a separate "List of Digital Rights Management implementations" type of article where those lists could live in a fashion more suitable to how we do things at Wikipedia. -/- Warren 05:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the policy you cite, but suggest that it is wrongly applied in this instance. We cannot convey to the Average Reader, via expository prose only (too abstract as a matter of good writing -- if a criterion is getting an understanding into the mind of the Average Reader), as we have at present, the nature of DRM. If only because some Readers are better at putting together a sense of what's being discussed from a list of examples than from what remains in this article. A fact of human psychology, a charactristic of those for whom we write; we are not writing solely for ourselves here. The lists as existed had the (more or less -- they were hardly ideal, though much better than nothing) considerable virtue of illustrating the issues in concrete cirrcumstances. In addition, several of the items in the list allowed the Reader to contemplate DRM in the isolation of a specific deployemnt instance, unbeset by other aspects of the subject.

So, while the policy is, in my view, a good one, it cannot apply in this instance (or similar ones) in which the list actually contributes to understanding in the mind of the Average Reader. The usual lists I've seen here are certainly to be abhorred and properly so. But not all are so. In some cases, the goal of writing a good ency. article takes precedence.

A separate article has the virtue of keeping length down (not a goal to be followed blindly if it results in lowered explanatory effect in the article) and of avoiding boredom (again not a goal to be followed blindly). Neither list in this case would help with Average Reader understanding if put in a separate article. However, the information in the lists (much of which is not in the rest of the article) should not be lost and so a separate article would at least keep it available, if at the cost of reduced understanding by the Average Reader. ww 14:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments? ww 04:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Would it be posible to have a list (short) of Devices, and applications which can be used as an alternative to DRM protected devices, such that people exspressing an intrest in DRM free solutions can see a list, and those who come to the artical, can see who/what is DRM free.

[edit] Impossibility of secure DRM?

Would it be worth mentioning that a secure DRM scheme is quite simply impossible to achieve on general purpose computing hardware? The argument goes as follows: Let's consider a DRM scheme intended to prevent copying of music files stored on a home PC. The scheme must clearly allow the user to play the music. Thus all information required to play the song is present on the user's computer. This might include some kind of ciphertext, decryption keys, signatures, certificates, whatever. The point is that every piece of information needed to make the music play is present. So it is possible to write an efficient algorithm which decodes the song and writes the bits to a file. Thus the entire scheme relies on security by obscurity - no-one but the proprietor of the DRM scheme knows the algorithm needed to do the decoding.

Of course, if the computer playing the music has a Trusted Platform Module the argument breaks down, because the official playback application can access keys stored in the TPM that an unofficial "pirate" decoder could not.

Not so... The trusted computing model only protects (defends?!) against software attack. The resourceful pirate will simply pull things out of main memory

[edit] Let Me Get this Straight...

Am I corrent in assuming that DRM makes it impossible to play non-certified files on DRM complient OS's. What Im getting at is, well Ill just show u:

1. Download non-DRM identified content (i.e. Content off of Limewire that doesnt have a licence.

2. Open it in Windows Media Player.

3. WMP scans for DRM Header.

4. If it can't find one it doesn't play it.

5. Then reports you for using illegal files.

Am I correct in assuming that this is the process that DRM compliant software uses?

Thanks,

H a m m o

That's not the case. DRM is like encryption for files. If a file has DRM, it will only play on certain machines, and/or for a certain time limit, etc. If a file does not have DRM (ie, it's unencrypted), it can be played on any machine forever.

To play DRM'd files you need a special media player (whichever the authors tell you). Normally that's WMP or iTunes. But you would not be able to play it with an open source media player (eg vlc).

Things you get on peer to peer networks are DRM-free, but there may be copyright issues.

A different, but related issue is that some companies install spyware on your PC (normally through a trojan), which can stop you burning certain types of CDs. See Extended Copy Protection for an example. The EFF's website may also have some information.

It's worth noting that Windows Media Player has a privicy statement somewhere in the options, and it's not that bad (eg, they won't send what files you play to anyone, if I remember correctly). However, using Windows Vista will completely undermine that.[5]

Some good and bad news there I suppose --h2g2bob 13:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it depends on the specific DRM being used. Some systems are designed to allow only authorized software to work, and block everything else. Others are designed to specifically block forbidden software, while allowing both permitted and unknown. -- kenb215 talk 02:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I removed this from external links, but it's still quite interesting so I'm shoving it here.

• Paradigmatic example of legislators hearing a very general computer buzzword ("caching" ) associated with infringement cases and banning it, not realizing it was a universal computer memory technique. Article itself demonstrates difficulty of explaining this to general public, writer does not seem to realize every computer and most digital devices of any kind would have to be destroyed.[6]

--h2g2bob 14:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV removal

This article has a significant POV against DRM. This is probably inherent of the topic, as most Wikipedia editors tend to be computer literate, and most, thought by no means all, computer literate people (me included) tend to be against DRM. It will probably be hard, perpetual work, but I am going to try and make the article more NPOV. If you have any complaints, please post here before reverting to discuss. I will try to check the page as often as I can. -- kenb215 talk 02:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

<below from User talk:Kenb215>

I've reverted your entire change to the lead section of this article. Sorry. We've been through the debate about the positioning and importance of the criticism of the technology, more than once, on the talk page. Please review those discussions. The key here is that we define "Digital Rights Management" -- literally, those three words and their precise meaning -- before we get into criticism and politically-motivated rebrandings by detractors. This is vitally important for an encyclopedia that prides itself on neutrality, and aims for high informative value. Hopefully you're in agreement with this. Thanks. -/- Warren 06:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw the edit as leaving just an alternate name in, while moving any politically-motivated debate for after the lead section, as it is in there now. But if consensus is against this, I'll stay away from the lead for some time. -- kenb215 talk 17:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead sentence

I changed the lead sentence from this:

Digital Rights Management (generally abbreviated to DRM) is any of several technologies used by publishers (or copyright owners) to control access to and usage of digital data (such as software, music, movies) and hardware, handling usage restrictions associated with a specific instance of a digital work.

to this:

Digital Rights Management (generally abbreviated to DRM) an umbrella term for any of several technologies used by publishers or copyright owners to control access to and usage of digital data or hardware, and to restrictions associated with a specific instance of a digital work or device.

My main goal here was to reduce the number of parentheses. Three is far too much for a lead sentence in an encyclopedia article. I also introduced the phrase "umbrella term"; it seems appropriate, since specific implementations of DRM use different terminology. -/- Warren 21:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Example techs

I would find it informative if the article would mention some examples of common DRM-formats(like windows media drm etc) linked to corresponding articles.

[edit] Another aspect of DRM

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

Try this and this. There hasn't been any other serious analysis of/research into this sort of thing, as far as I know. --Tom Edwards 15:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This, too. --Tom Edwards 16:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)