![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This page has been cited as a
source by a notable professional or academic publication: Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal |
*Ezra, Lisa M. (2005). The Failure of the Broadcast Flag: Copyright Protection to Make Hollywood Happy. Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal (Comm/Ent), 27 (Winter, 2005), p. 384-footnote 50, citing Analog Hole (no last access date)
The tone of this article is really condescending towards "non-technical" types. Counter-productive.
I was just about to add that this article sounds like it was written by a 13 year old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.140.76 ( talk) 15:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Back in 1999, I bought a Philips audio CD recorder. I was amazed that it actually gave directions on how to use the "analog hole" to copy write-protected CDs! Rt66lt 05:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Not that I disagree with the author(s), but there is a lot of POV editorializing mixed in with the general information here. 128.175.205.71 02:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I think there should probably be mention of HDCP as a copy-protection method that is attempting to plug the analog hole.
Interesting article. Another example is MySpace. If you open a recording program like the one that comes with Windows, you can record the songs on MySpace that are otherwise not possible to download. The same goes for other web, i.e. streaming, formats, although the limitation is that if your computer makes noises or if the stream is interrupted by the computer or internet connection, you have to restart it if you want to try again. MDuchek 21:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no degrade in quality even on the cheapest soundcards and onboard chipset, because the direct recording of playback audio is kept entirely within the digital domain. The signal never reaches the D/A and A/D converters, it is looped back internally, digitally, thus it's lossless. That feature is provided by the driver. Added by guest user LoneStar, 22. Sep 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.2.0.145 ( talk) 16:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that while the 'Engineering vs. business and political views' section contains a lot of interesting information, it does seem to have a rather anti big-business agenda, rather than being an objective encyclopedic view of the matter. Joelholdsworth 09:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Well how can we keep the main point, that what is being asked for is very likely physically impossible. It seems to me less anti-big business than a reminder that there is a bottom line physical reality which cannot be waved away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.91.62.110 ( talk) 13:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I've deleted links that I feel don't meet WP standards. One is a "how-to" link that describes the drop-dead simple process of recording audio on a computer. The other is a software application that records media. I deleted the latter because Wikipedia isn't a linkfarm for solution providers. I deleted the former because "how-to" links are best put into WikiBooks or similar instructional sites. In fact, the "how-to" link is already in an instructional site, so it doesn't need to be represented here. I have no pro-DRM POV to push, I just like to see a lean, mean article. Binksternet ( talk) 19:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Since the Wikipedia philosophy is to provide all knowledge to all people and the Wikipedia proper is not a "How-to" encyclopedia, a provision had to be made from the beginning for accessing "How-to"s and utilizing them as vital references. Because they serve the purpose of vital references the Wikibooks was established in 2003 to accommodate them.
Although there are legitimate concerns about abuse of the External links section, your excuse for deleting a "how-to" link simply for the reason that it is a "How-to" link is bogus. Otherwise Wikibooks would not have been established in support of a place where "How-to"s can be accessed using internal links. The provision for external links to access "How-to"s has also been accepted and implemented so that Wikipedia users may find whatever "how-to" knowledge that is available, which they seek.
For example:
...and the list goes on and on.
You simply can not delete a link to a "How-to" for no other reason than it being a "How-to" without violating historical precedent, so I asked myself, "Why is he deleting this particular link and the one to a DRM removal software?" when there are only five external links in total and you know what Binksternet the answer I got was that you are trying to prevent Wikipedia readers from learning how an "analog hole" is implemented unless they go to the trouble of Googleing. Currently there is controversy over DRM so one possible reason is obvious.
To confirm this I checked your user page and found sufficient evidence of your purpose, followed by checking your contributions, which are filled to the brim with reversions, and soon realized the reason behind your reversions here is not as you claim.
The reason you "trimmed" these links and continue to "trim" them is not because you are desirous of serving the Wikipedia readership but rather to uphold your own POV, in violation of WP:POV.
Leave the links alone Binksternet. While you do not need them you have no right to deprive other users of them. It is not only the right of other users to have them but the philosophy of the Wikipedia to provide all people with all knowledge and that it shall.
It is the user's supreme right and the Wikipedia's inspired purpose that I and other Wikipedians intend to uphold. 71.100.174.134 ( talk) 05:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
<---What a mess! A simple deletion of a link I felt extraneous on an article I am not passionate about escalates into this tempest in a teapot. From the vantage point of a new day it appears that I got drawn in to this vortex because User 71.100.x.x vandalized my user page and then quickly turned to use POV accusation and threat on my Talk page. In short order I began to feel that User 71.100.x.x was enjoying an insulated existence shielded by his dynamic IP address from the rules of good Wiki conduct. We should be discussing content here but ad hominem attacks are hanging in the air. Let me answer the personal attacks first:
Because I have a demonstrated lack of POV in my history of participation here at Wikipedia, we need to move past any accusation of POV leveled at me and focus instead on the content under discussion. Binksternet ( talk) 16:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
This external link appears to be one of several hundred possible software solutions to recording media onto a computer. I removed this link because I didn't want to provide equal time to the entire list of free audio software. I see this link as failing WP:EL. Binksternet ( talk) 17:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
This link is a "how-to" link. By itself it is harmless. I deleted it because I didn't want this article to become bogged down with a long list of similar articles such as
etc. etc. A long list like this is often the result of a single foot-in-the-door entry under External links, unless vigorous preventive measures are taken. However, if the editors here come to the conclusion that they want such a list, feel free to copy and paste this list into the appropriate place. Let's hear from other editors about how they feel regarding a complete list of "how-to" links. Binksternet ( talk) 17:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Any objection to removing the link to AnalogHoleGaming? I've checked out the link and I can't find anything relevant yet to the subject of this article, especially as the analog hole tends not to apply to software...? Kmenzel ( talk) 08:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
"Media publishers who use digital rights management (DRM), to restrict how a work can be used, perceive the necessity to make it visible and/or audible as a "hole" in the control that DRM otherwise affords them."
Neverminding the hilarity of this statement, it gives "media publishers" a way to close the hole, doesn't it? I mean, who says there IS' acutally any kind of "necessity to make it visible and/or audible"? They're free to do what they want with their media, aren't they? -- 198.49.180.40 ( talk) 16:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
About the statement in the "Engineering vs business and political views" section, does anyone have any sort of citation for this? It really seems a bit silly and hard to believe, and if someone can't furnish proof on it, it should be removed. Runedance ( talk) 18:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
In the overview section it says:
"Naturally, the use of high quality conversion equipment reduces the amount of noise added, to the point where such noise is essentially imperceptible to the human senses. For instance, playing a video in a DVD player and using a DVD recorder to record the output can create a high-quality copy of the video."
This doesn't really sound right: noise is not added in this process: a perfect copy of the DVD is made. In my opinion this section is wrong - of course, I am no expert, but I feel that unless some citations can be added to this section, it should be removed.
-- Unnachamois ( talk) 03:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree that this is dubious. The claim in the article is not about the use of consumer-level equipment; it's expressed as an overarching general statement that claims to be rooted in information theory.
"In general, performing a digital-to-analog conversion followed by an analog-to-digital conversion results in the addition of noise in an information-theoretic sense relative to the original digital signal. This noise can be measured and quantified. Naturally, the use of high quality conversion equipment reduces the amount of noise added, to the point where such noise is essentially imperceptible to the human senses."
Since the original file is digital, it is possible for high-quality conversion equipment to make a perfect copy. The noise level added by the analog conversion just has to be sufficiently less than the discretization noise in the digital signal. The end result will be a copy that has every bit the same as the original, with zero errors. This is not impossible in an information-theoretic sense, nor even in a practical sense. This is because the original file doesn't have infinite information content to begin with, so a sufficiently low level of noise in the conversion will not affect any bits in the final copied digital file.
As an addendum, I think the author of that sentence was confused between a process that converts Analog-to-Digital-to-Analog and a process that converts Digital-to-Analog-to-Digital. The former will always result in theoretical signal degredation because the original analog signal contains infinite information (if a perfect copy, including what would normally be considered signal noise, is desired) and the intermediate digital version contains finite information. The latter, which is the basis of the "Analog hole", has an intermediate step that only loses information if the analog signal has too low signal-to-noise ratio, or the digital re-conversion has too low resolution. This would be the case if using a camcorder to record a movie in the theatre, but not if using properly-designed equipment to copy a storage disk.
I've rewritten the offending paragraph (which basically resulted in it being shortened to a couple sentences). Feel free to improve my version.-- JB Gnome ( talk) 22:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I've removed the NPOV template, please use {{POV-section}} for sections or {{POV-statement}} for sentences, then detail issues here. This will help address them in a timely manner. - Roy Boy 05:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This page has been cited as a
source by a notable professional or academic publication: Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal |
*Ezra, Lisa M. (2005). The Failure of the Broadcast Flag: Copyright Protection to Make Hollywood Happy. Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal (Comm/Ent), 27 (Winter, 2005), p. 384-footnote 50, citing Analog Hole (no last access date)
The tone of this article is really condescending towards "non-technical" types. Counter-productive.
I was just about to add that this article sounds like it was written by a 13 year old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.140.76 ( talk) 15:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Back in 1999, I bought a Philips audio CD recorder. I was amazed that it actually gave directions on how to use the "analog hole" to copy write-protected CDs! Rt66lt 05:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Not that I disagree with the author(s), but there is a lot of POV editorializing mixed in with the general information here. 128.175.205.71 02:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I think there should probably be mention of HDCP as a copy-protection method that is attempting to plug the analog hole.
Interesting article. Another example is MySpace. If you open a recording program like the one that comes with Windows, you can record the songs on MySpace that are otherwise not possible to download. The same goes for other web, i.e. streaming, formats, although the limitation is that if your computer makes noises or if the stream is interrupted by the computer or internet connection, you have to restart it if you want to try again. MDuchek 21:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no degrade in quality even on the cheapest soundcards and onboard chipset, because the direct recording of playback audio is kept entirely within the digital domain. The signal never reaches the D/A and A/D converters, it is looped back internally, digitally, thus it's lossless. That feature is provided by the driver. Added by guest user LoneStar, 22. Sep 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.2.0.145 ( talk) 16:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that while the 'Engineering vs. business and political views' section contains a lot of interesting information, it does seem to have a rather anti big-business agenda, rather than being an objective encyclopedic view of the matter. Joelholdsworth 09:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Well how can we keep the main point, that what is being asked for is very likely physically impossible. It seems to me less anti-big business than a reminder that there is a bottom line physical reality which cannot be waved away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.91.62.110 ( talk) 13:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I've deleted links that I feel don't meet WP standards. One is a "how-to" link that describes the drop-dead simple process of recording audio on a computer. The other is a software application that records media. I deleted the latter because Wikipedia isn't a linkfarm for solution providers. I deleted the former because "how-to" links are best put into WikiBooks or similar instructional sites. In fact, the "how-to" link is already in an instructional site, so it doesn't need to be represented here. I have no pro-DRM POV to push, I just like to see a lean, mean article. Binksternet ( talk) 19:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Since the Wikipedia philosophy is to provide all knowledge to all people and the Wikipedia proper is not a "How-to" encyclopedia, a provision had to be made from the beginning for accessing "How-to"s and utilizing them as vital references. Because they serve the purpose of vital references the Wikibooks was established in 2003 to accommodate them.
Although there are legitimate concerns about abuse of the External links section, your excuse for deleting a "how-to" link simply for the reason that it is a "How-to" link is bogus. Otherwise Wikibooks would not have been established in support of a place where "How-to"s can be accessed using internal links. The provision for external links to access "How-to"s has also been accepted and implemented so that Wikipedia users may find whatever "how-to" knowledge that is available, which they seek.
For example:
...and the list goes on and on.
You simply can not delete a link to a "How-to" for no other reason than it being a "How-to" without violating historical precedent, so I asked myself, "Why is he deleting this particular link and the one to a DRM removal software?" when there are only five external links in total and you know what Binksternet the answer I got was that you are trying to prevent Wikipedia readers from learning how an "analog hole" is implemented unless they go to the trouble of Googleing. Currently there is controversy over DRM so one possible reason is obvious.
To confirm this I checked your user page and found sufficient evidence of your purpose, followed by checking your contributions, which are filled to the brim with reversions, and soon realized the reason behind your reversions here is not as you claim.
The reason you "trimmed" these links and continue to "trim" them is not because you are desirous of serving the Wikipedia readership but rather to uphold your own POV, in violation of WP:POV.
Leave the links alone Binksternet. While you do not need them you have no right to deprive other users of them. It is not only the right of other users to have them but the philosophy of the Wikipedia to provide all people with all knowledge and that it shall.
It is the user's supreme right and the Wikipedia's inspired purpose that I and other Wikipedians intend to uphold. 71.100.174.134 ( talk) 05:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
<---What a mess! A simple deletion of a link I felt extraneous on an article I am not passionate about escalates into this tempest in a teapot. From the vantage point of a new day it appears that I got drawn in to this vortex because User 71.100.x.x vandalized my user page and then quickly turned to use POV accusation and threat on my Talk page. In short order I began to feel that User 71.100.x.x was enjoying an insulated existence shielded by his dynamic IP address from the rules of good Wiki conduct. We should be discussing content here but ad hominem attacks are hanging in the air. Let me answer the personal attacks first:
Because I have a demonstrated lack of POV in my history of participation here at Wikipedia, we need to move past any accusation of POV leveled at me and focus instead on the content under discussion. Binksternet ( talk) 16:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
This external link appears to be one of several hundred possible software solutions to recording media onto a computer. I removed this link because I didn't want to provide equal time to the entire list of free audio software. I see this link as failing WP:EL. Binksternet ( talk) 17:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
This link is a "how-to" link. By itself it is harmless. I deleted it because I didn't want this article to become bogged down with a long list of similar articles such as
etc. etc. A long list like this is often the result of a single foot-in-the-door entry under External links, unless vigorous preventive measures are taken. However, if the editors here come to the conclusion that they want such a list, feel free to copy and paste this list into the appropriate place. Let's hear from other editors about how they feel regarding a complete list of "how-to" links. Binksternet ( talk) 17:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Any objection to removing the link to AnalogHoleGaming? I've checked out the link and I can't find anything relevant yet to the subject of this article, especially as the analog hole tends not to apply to software...? Kmenzel ( talk) 08:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
"Media publishers who use digital rights management (DRM), to restrict how a work can be used, perceive the necessity to make it visible and/or audible as a "hole" in the control that DRM otherwise affords them."
Neverminding the hilarity of this statement, it gives "media publishers" a way to close the hole, doesn't it? I mean, who says there IS' acutally any kind of "necessity to make it visible and/or audible"? They're free to do what they want with their media, aren't they? -- 198.49.180.40 ( talk) 16:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
About the statement in the "Engineering vs business and political views" section, does anyone have any sort of citation for this? It really seems a bit silly and hard to believe, and if someone can't furnish proof on it, it should be removed. Runedance ( talk) 18:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
In the overview section it says:
"Naturally, the use of high quality conversion equipment reduces the amount of noise added, to the point where such noise is essentially imperceptible to the human senses. For instance, playing a video in a DVD player and using a DVD recorder to record the output can create a high-quality copy of the video."
This doesn't really sound right: noise is not added in this process: a perfect copy of the DVD is made. In my opinion this section is wrong - of course, I am no expert, but I feel that unless some citations can be added to this section, it should be removed.
-- Unnachamois ( talk) 03:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree that this is dubious. The claim in the article is not about the use of consumer-level equipment; it's expressed as an overarching general statement that claims to be rooted in information theory.
"In general, performing a digital-to-analog conversion followed by an analog-to-digital conversion results in the addition of noise in an information-theoretic sense relative to the original digital signal. This noise can be measured and quantified. Naturally, the use of high quality conversion equipment reduces the amount of noise added, to the point where such noise is essentially imperceptible to the human senses."
Since the original file is digital, it is possible for high-quality conversion equipment to make a perfect copy. The noise level added by the analog conversion just has to be sufficiently less than the discretization noise in the digital signal. The end result will be a copy that has every bit the same as the original, with zero errors. This is not impossible in an information-theoretic sense, nor even in a practical sense. This is because the original file doesn't have infinite information content to begin with, so a sufficiently low level of noise in the conversion will not affect any bits in the final copied digital file.
As an addendum, I think the author of that sentence was confused between a process that converts Analog-to-Digital-to-Analog and a process that converts Digital-to-Analog-to-Digital. The former will always result in theoretical signal degredation because the original analog signal contains infinite information (if a perfect copy, including what would normally be considered signal noise, is desired) and the intermediate digital version contains finite information. The latter, which is the basis of the "Analog hole", has an intermediate step that only loses information if the analog signal has too low signal-to-noise ratio, or the digital re-conversion has too low resolution. This would be the case if using a camcorder to record a movie in the theatre, but not if using properly-designed equipment to copy a storage disk.
I've rewritten the offending paragraph (which basically resulted in it being shortened to a couple sentences). Feel free to improve my version.-- JB Gnome ( talk) 22:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I've removed the NPOV template, please use {{POV-section}} for sections or {{POV-statement}} for sentences, then detail issues here. This will help address them in a timely manner. - Roy Boy 05:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)