This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Anti-DRM bias pervades throughout the article. Here are three examples, listed in the format "'Beginning of example... end of example' followed by a critique':
"DRM vendors and publishers... Adobe eBook Reader."
Anti-DRM example given; no pro-DRM example given.
"In the extreme... legally permitted." The word "extreme" gives this form of DRM a negative connotation. Only opposing viewpoint given to describe trusted computing.
"Several laws... will require all computer systems... (See Professor Edward Felten's... matters)." Italicizing all implies that it would be bad for all computer systems to ahve DRM. "Freedom to Tinker" appears to be generally anti-DRM.
Similar examples abound. While never explicitly endorsing either side, word usage and lack of pro-DRM examples show an anti-DRM stance.
I agree that there is a bias in the DRM article. But can we just clarify your position on the trusted computing piece. Isn't Ross Anderson one of the most repected living cryptographers, developer of one of the US federal government Advanced Encryption Standard shortlisted standards Serpent (cipher) and a widely acknowledged expert in TCPA - rather than just some random quack? You or I may not agree with everything that he says, but wouldn't his views - expressed as his own - i.e. in quotes - be a very important part of a balanced NPOV discussion about a controvertial topic - rather than simply being removed? Rather than 'censorship', wouldn't a response to each part of his discussion be appropriate and enriching? -- Daedelus 19:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Seybold Report, Vol.4,No.22, February 23,2005
Not quite sure how this should be factored into the article, or perhaps it belongs in the eBooks article--I'm working on an eBook timeline--but it seems interesting. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:40, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've tried this wording:
I think the introductory paragraph, to be NPOV, somehow needs to capture these nuances succinctly. (I'm stating from my personal point of view):
"Digital Rights Management or digital restrictions management (abbreviated DRM) is an umbrella term for any of several technical arrangements which empower a vendor of content [sic]"
I might prefer the term, allow, or rather, aid.
I will not step into this, haphazard. As such, I will not "up and edit the thing, myself."
I would suggest that the text, after the [sic] would be edited, as so:
[...] aid a vendor of digital content, for controlling how the material will be used on any electronic device that would enforce such measures.
Summary of changes:
1) "empower" nixed; neither my nor your software does lend any "power" to anything.
2) "will" replacing "may".
3) phrase shortened to "digital", more shortly identifying the nature of the material
4) enforce being the operative manner of the thing.
I consider that the edited form of that sentence is more clearly definitive of the reality of what is being mentioned, there.
one of the bullets:
I found to be (somewhat) incorrect. Most DVDs consider the commercials as a chapter, if you hit skip chapter button, you can get to the main menu.
The FBI warnings are normally considered 2 chapters.
Just to let you now.
I found this article very informative
I find this paragraph rather not-NPOV:
"The presence of DRM infringes private property rights. The DRM component takes control over the rest of the user's device which they rightfully own (e.g. MP3 player) and restricts how it may act, regardless of the user's wishes (e.g. preventing the user from copying a song). All forms of DRM depend on the device imposing restrictions that cannot be disabled or modified by the user. In other words, the user has no choice."
I see that key points here are:
I think answer to 1. is "yes", but this can be argued about and it's connected with 2., i. e. should an owner of a nuclear reactor have the possibility to cause meltdown?
I've added words "DRM opponents argue that" in the beggining of the paragraph. -- Tweenk 18:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
(or Digital Restrictions Management, as it is referred to by its opposition)
Digital Rights Management (or Digital Restrictions Management as it is sometimes referred to), abbreviated DRM, is an umbrella term for any of several technical arrangements which empower a vendor of content in electronic form to control how the material can be used on any electronic device with such measures installed.
The name "Rights Management" implies a publisher exercise their legal right to charge a fee for their copyrighted works . However, nothing in DRM itself guarantees that its use will be restricted in this way. For example, DRM allows vendors to abridge the buyer's fair use rights if they choose, without providing buyers with any corresponding means of asserting them. Thus some have come to call the technology by the name "restrictions management."
The actual arrangements are called technical protection measures, although the distinction between the two terms is not particularly clear. --See comment in Talk
When data is in analog form, digital management does not apply. Analog copy protection technologies are less useful to copyright holders for several reasons. It is usually easier to buy a new copy of an analog copyrighted work than to produce an equivalent copy independently. Producing an analog copy, instead of buying it, is often time-consuming, relatively expensive, and produces an inferior quality product; making the analog copy process unattractive and marginal.
Copyright holders have persistently objected to new techniques of copying and reproduction. Examples include controversies surrounding introduction of audio tape, VCR, and radio broadcast. The DRM controversy is a continuation of a long standing conflict between copyright holders and the use of any new technology for copying.
The situation changed with the introduction of digital technologies. It became possible to produce an essentially perfect copy of any digital recording with minimal effort. With the advent of the personal computer, software piracy became an issue in the 1970s. Development of the Internet in the 1990s virtually eliminated the need for a physical medium to perform perfect transfers of data (such as MP3 formatted songs).
Some would like to use DRM mechanisms to control other "proprietary information", particularly trade secrets and uncopyrightable facts in databases (see also database protection laws).
During my pass at a semi-major edit, I omitted the "restrictions" version of the acronym from the intro paragraph. My feeling is that that is probably the best approach, but don't want to act entirely unilaterally. I know many editors (like myself) are highly critical of DRM, but the alternative acronym expansion feels forced in the lead paragraph. Note that the explanation of it already occurs not too far into the main article. And I think the second paragraph (above the TOC) gives a good overview of the criticism, w/o needing each clever jab that we might make.
I definitely think the term digital restrictions management should be discussed in the article (as it currently is). But unless someone can provide an indication of the usage of the term in "serious" ways, rather than entirely parodically, I don't think it should be in the lead paragraph. By analogy, think of the industry term trusted computing and its probably more accurate version treacherous computing—yeah, the latter is probably more accurate, but it's still basically a rhetorical device by critics. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:02, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
I only did major revision, so far, on the first half of the article or so. Looking over the rather long DMCA section, it looks pretty out of place. I think the association is worth mentioning, but I'm thinking I should move the bulk of the DMCA/Skylarov/etc. discussion over to the article on DMCA itself. Thoughts?
It's not that I believe that we either can or should entirely separate the technical from the legal aspects. But having half the article on one specific USAian law unbalances it. DRM is a technology that may or may not be mentioned in particular laws (the technical mechanisms could exist w/o the DMCA); and moreover, there are places other than the USA where DRM content is used and sold. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:11, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
It's not a proper noun, and that's the way it is in the title. « alerante ✆ ✉ » 23:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You got a point there, but I think it is because DRM is a name of a legal action, so I would assume that it should be Digital Rights Management. -netMASA (I can't remember my password. Wikipedia can't either)
There is still a POV issue with the name "Digital rights management." The article says, correctly:
But if this is true, then the name "Digital rights management" is a misnomer.
Note that the names for other technical protection mechanisms simply refer to what the mechanism _does._
The lock on your car door is just called a "lock," not an "ownership rights enabler." Everyone understands that a lock locks out anyone who does not have the key, whether or not they have a legal right of access or not.
The name "Digital rights management" is objectively incorrect. This should be stated clearly up front. To accept the name "Digital rights management" without comment is to accept the point-of-view of one side. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Alan Cox is described as an 'Englishman'. Is this correct? Following up the links, it seems he works in Wales and writes a personal page in Welsh. Not many Englishmen know Welsh, so it's probable he's Welsh, not English. Blaise 16:58, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
An anon editor changed "perceptual quality" back to "perceived quality". I'm not sure whether it's because of the old audiophiles dislike for CDs vs. vinyl, or whether it reflect a minor inaccuracy in understanding the two words.
But it's definitely "perceptual quality" that is at issue. The is the qualities at issue pertain to the senses (as opposed to other qualities media might have: durability, cost, bitwise accuracy, etc). To say the quality is merely "perceived" allows that it may be so by inference, social pressure, etc. And moreover, it may be perceived that media X has better durability than media Y (perhaps with the insinuation that it's not really so, but just a widespread myth).
I don't want to rehash the analog/digital audiophile thing. Heck, I'm one of those that thinks CDs, especially in their first few years of use, were notably degraded versus vinyl. But, for example, if I were comparing OGG Vobis and MP3 in listener tests (as opposed to, say, algorithmic issues), it would be proper to speak of the "perceptual quality" of each encoding, not of the "perceived quality".
Actually, the same editor added the redundant "digital media files. The word "files" really isn't needed, but I'll leave it for now to promote harmony. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:51, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
For some reason, the last paragraph of the DRM opponents section was identical to the first paragraph of the DRM advocates section (with the exception of the word 'some'). It clearly belonged with advocates, so I just deleted it from the opponents section. I wasn't logged in at the time, so it'll show up as anonymous. Confuted 02:57, 2005 Aug 4 (UTC)
I came to this article half-expecting a Stallmanesque rant against capitalist content creators, but to my relief found instead a comprehensive, balanced description of everything relevant from opposing perspectives. Fantastic, if rare, example of the Wikipedia process working as it should. I'll remember this one.
68.173.44.202 22:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
The commercial links are carrying more and more advertorial content. Should these be separated from the non-commercial links, alphabetically sorted and the SEO targeted text trimmed? I'll be back to do this in a while but I'm sure that some of the regulars would be much better at doing this. -- Daedelus 14:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
The removal of straight commercial links made *some* sense - if you notice I raised the issue in the first place. Of course you might say it follows that we should be going around for example removing links to car-company web sites from car entries in the wiki.
HOWEVER, now I think that this is being taken a stage further and links to the official WWW Virtual Library (VL) pages on the topic are being removed.
WWW Virtual Library (VL) is the oldest catalogue of the Web, started by Tim Berners-Lee, the creator of html and the Web itself, in 1991 at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland. It is widely recognised as being amongst the highest-quality guides to particular sections of the Web. It is not a commercial catalogue and links to it are not commercial spam.
I also noticed that links to just about the only up to date list of companies providing DRM has been removed - presumably wiki readers must not have access to specifics only generalizations and should only have information about big brand names rather than exhastive lists. Anyway links that lead to comparative information about commercial products are not commercial links. Also disappeared was just about the only popular exposition of the relationship of Digital Rights Management and Kerckhoff's axiom of the primacy of keys over codes - I'm not sure how this is "commercial" (maybe the editor thought Kerckhoff was a brand name?) . Again there is the idea that links from the wiki should not allow understanding of specifics only generalizations. I think this unthinking overzealousness greatly weakens the value of the whole resource as an information source. -- Daedelus 19:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Exactly the right word:
coincidental adj : occurring or operating at the same time; "a series of coincident events" [syn: coincident, coinciding, concurrent, cooccurring, simultaneous]
I'm pretty sure I'm the first one to use that particular word in relating DRM restrictions to legal restrictions in the lead. Either way, it's quite precise. This is different from "accidental" BTW; but it's also different from insinuating a causal alignment is possible.
Of course, Dpbsmith's latest edit looks fine also. An earlier edit suggested "subset" which is just wrong. DRM restrictions might allow either more or less than legal restrictions relative to a particular act of copying. The point is that once a technology is fixed in concrete form, it can longer track changes in the legal status of a particular copyrighted work (which might change because of law, contract, court rulings, or through other external events). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
<---
Guys, I'm going to toss a few thoughts into the pot here, if only to reset the : counter. Control of reproduction rights in a work (then the only exemplar was literary) was thought to be perpetual at first. The Conger of 17th cent UK certainly thought and behaved so. The Statute of Queen Anne ended that. The US Constitution explicitly provided for a limited term of monopoly control, including reproduction, in 1787. Assorted enactments, court holdings and so on established a fair use doctrine, but we're still talking about literary stuff, plus now paper or photographic images. Very little to no international coordination as to copyright which annoyed Dickens (in one direction) and Twain (in the other) no end; just to name some prominent ones. Around 1900, player piano rolls, sound and moving film all pose considerable problems. In the US, and eventually elsewhere, there is established an obligatory performance license and an apparatus to collect such fees on behalf of the copyright owneres. In the twenties, radio broadcast added a twist to the sound recording copyright problem. Note, to this point, copyright term is still shortish, varies a bit between copyrighted things, and the longest available was the European literary right (life of creator plus fifty years if I recall correctly).
Introduction of magnetic tape recording for consumers post WWII panicked the recording industry and they tried to strangle it at birth, just as the movie and TV people tried to do with the VCR some years later. The recording people tried again when digital recording techniques were developed, and the movie folks tried again and again with laser disks, CD-video, DVD-video, and so on. Still a limited length monopoly right, though the limit was expanding at publisher behest. Note not at creator behest, but the holder of the copyright which generally becomes some large enterprise whose business is not creation but exploitation those rights. The longest term possible is the only acceptable to such and so, in the US, they have expanded steadily. At current expansion rates, Mickey Mouse will never enter the public domain, though he's long exceeded the original life of the copyright Disney acquired on creation in 1922. Since the rights involved are arbitrary and exist only as the result of statute and precedent, it is inevitable that lawyers get rung in and this accounts for a good bit of the confusion.
So let's examine a specific case. I acquire a recording of Trent Lott and his Oxford Cheerleaders in 1970. All numbers (lyrics and music) are original and created that year, and the performance is also by the group. All copyrights have been retained by the creators and are therefore nicely in one place. No need to go nosing around on a copyright treasure hunt if I want to license; thouhg there are some automatic licenses (broadcast and such) that I have now. Assuming my little LP lasts long enough, all these copyrights will lapse ca 2060. But the US Congress has extended the copyright term several times and so expiration is receeding into the redshifted distance.
But, if I acquire a copy of a new recording of the same stuff in 2005 on a DVD with the surviving Cheerleaders doing their thing as well as teys till can, the situation is legally the same. The difference is that my new recording has a different expiration date as to the performance itself (it being the creation of the tottering Cheerleaders edition), and is protected by some sort of DRM. I cannot take my precious DVD elsewhere because there is regional locking. Not a copyright issue at all, merely a marketing control. I can't even really exercise my automatic right of copying for braodcast purposes, because I can't make a copy to send ot multitude of centrally programmed radio stations whose listeners are all drooling for the latest, geriatric, versions by the Cheerleaders. When the material goes into the public domain, the DRM will still prevent me from making copies which will then be my right. And until then, any additional license I negotiate with the holders will not be recognized by the DRM becasue the lawyers who specified it on behalf of large enterprise holders didn't include that.
When one understands the legal situation (a mess, and getting steadily boggier), supplier claims that this or that is their legal right and not yours are seen to generally wobbly. And regardless of any of that, the DRM you find will not match the legal situation, and rarely, even the supplier's claims as to the legal situation.
It's this disconnect between the legal 'reality', the actual DRM functionality, the engineering's actual possibilities if designed and enacted correctly, and the end user's impression of what his purchase has acquired that causes the troubles.
Some of this perspective deserves to be in the article, but I've tried, without much success, and success would in any case be lawyeristically contingent and fudgy and mostly unreadable. Might ruin the article. Still important though, since Vista is due out now Q2 next year and will supposedly contain some of this deep in the OS and imposed on all comers as an obligatory result. Readers will need some understanding of some of it. ww 07:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
"Although it has been argued that programs like DeCSS make copyright infringement easier, this system has never been effective in preventing illegal mass copying of DVDs by criminal gangs, even before the system was found to be flawed."
This doesn't make sense towards the end. Shouldn't it be 'even after the system', or 'until the system', depending on the meaning? -- Tom Edwards 09:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
In the preamble, it states "Some types of DRMs have been recently declared illegal in France and the European Community is expected to rule on a ban of DRM systems." Can anyone provide further information on this? Who expects the EC to rule a ban of DRM systems? Does anyone have a reference to further discussion on this please?-- Bc42 12:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
There is no ban in France: the French parliament is discussing a law about DRM, but nothing is final yet. Lucasbfr 18:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/12738
DRM boycotts hurt Sony's music sales - musicians frustrated Posted by Dan Bell (at CDFreaks) on 27 November 2005 - 15:07 - Source: BusinessWeek Online
From the article:
Can anyone tell me what this sentece means (and, preferably, then replace it)? Shinobu 14:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Anti-DRM bias pervades throughout the article. Here are three examples, listed in the format "'Beginning of example... end of example' followed by a critique':
"DRM vendors and publishers... Adobe eBook Reader."
Anti-DRM example given; no pro-DRM example given.
"In the extreme... legally permitted." The word "extreme" gives this form of DRM a negative connotation. Only opposing viewpoint given to describe trusted computing.
"Several laws... will require all computer systems... (See Professor Edward Felten's... matters)." Italicizing all implies that it would be bad for all computer systems to ahve DRM. "Freedom to Tinker" appears to be generally anti-DRM.
Similar examples abound. While never explicitly endorsing either side, word usage and lack of pro-DRM examples show an anti-DRM stance.
I agree that there is a bias in the DRM article. But can we just clarify your position on the trusted computing piece. Isn't Ross Anderson one of the most repected living cryptographers, developer of one of the US federal government Advanced Encryption Standard shortlisted standards Serpent (cipher) and a widely acknowledged expert in TCPA - rather than just some random quack? You or I may not agree with everything that he says, but wouldn't his views - expressed as his own - i.e. in quotes - be a very important part of a balanced NPOV discussion about a controvertial topic - rather than simply being removed? Rather than 'censorship', wouldn't a response to each part of his discussion be appropriate and enriching? -- Daedelus 19:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Seybold Report, Vol.4,No.22, February 23,2005
Not quite sure how this should be factored into the article, or perhaps it belongs in the eBooks article--I'm working on an eBook timeline--but it seems interesting. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:40, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've tried this wording:
I think the introductory paragraph, to be NPOV, somehow needs to capture these nuances succinctly. (I'm stating from my personal point of view):
"Digital Rights Management or digital restrictions management (abbreviated DRM) is an umbrella term for any of several technical arrangements which empower a vendor of content [sic]"
I might prefer the term, allow, or rather, aid.
I will not step into this, haphazard. As such, I will not "up and edit the thing, myself."
I would suggest that the text, after the [sic] would be edited, as so:
[...] aid a vendor of digital content, for controlling how the material will be used on any electronic device that would enforce such measures.
Summary of changes:
1) "empower" nixed; neither my nor your software does lend any "power" to anything.
2) "will" replacing "may".
3) phrase shortened to "digital", more shortly identifying the nature of the material
4) enforce being the operative manner of the thing.
I consider that the edited form of that sentence is more clearly definitive of the reality of what is being mentioned, there.
one of the bullets:
I found to be (somewhat) incorrect. Most DVDs consider the commercials as a chapter, if you hit skip chapter button, you can get to the main menu.
The FBI warnings are normally considered 2 chapters.
Just to let you now.
I found this article very informative
I find this paragraph rather not-NPOV:
"The presence of DRM infringes private property rights. The DRM component takes control over the rest of the user's device which they rightfully own (e.g. MP3 player) and restricts how it may act, regardless of the user's wishes (e.g. preventing the user from copying a song). All forms of DRM depend on the device imposing restrictions that cannot be disabled or modified by the user. In other words, the user has no choice."
I see that key points here are:
I think answer to 1. is "yes", but this can be argued about and it's connected with 2., i. e. should an owner of a nuclear reactor have the possibility to cause meltdown?
I've added words "DRM opponents argue that" in the beggining of the paragraph. -- Tweenk 18:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
(or Digital Restrictions Management, as it is referred to by its opposition)
Digital Rights Management (or Digital Restrictions Management as it is sometimes referred to), abbreviated DRM, is an umbrella term for any of several technical arrangements which empower a vendor of content in electronic form to control how the material can be used on any electronic device with such measures installed.
The name "Rights Management" implies a publisher exercise their legal right to charge a fee for their copyrighted works . However, nothing in DRM itself guarantees that its use will be restricted in this way. For example, DRM allows vendors to abridge the buyer's fair use rights if they choose, without providing buyers with any corresponding means of asserting them. Thus some have come to call the technology by the name "restrictions management."
The actual arrangements are called technical protection measures, although the distinction between the two terms is not particularly clear. --See comment in Talk
When data is in analog form, digital management does not apply. Analog copy protection technologies are less useful to copyright holders for several reasons. It is usually easier to buy a new copy of an analog copyrighted work than to produce an equivalent copy independently. Producing an analog copy, instead of buying it, is often time-consuming, relatively expensive, and produces an inferior quality product; making the analog copy process unattractive and marginal.
Copyright holders have persistently objected to new techniques of copying and reproduction. Examples include controversies surrounding introduction of audio tape, VCR, and radio broadcast. The DRM controversy is a continuation of a long standing conflict between copyright holders and the use of any new technology for copying.
The situation changed with the introduction of digital technologies. It became possible to produce an essentially perfect copy of any digital recording with minimal effort. With the advent of the personal computer, software piracy became an issue in the 1970s. Development of the Internet in the 1990s virtually eliminated the need for a physical medium to perform perfect transfers of data (such as MP3 formatted songs).
Some would like to use DRM mechanisms to control other "proprietary information", particularly trade secrets and uncopyrightable facts in databases (see also database protection laws).
During my pass at a semi-major edit, I omitted the "restrictions" version of the acronym from the intro paragraph. My feeling is that that is probably the best approach, but don't want to act entirely unilaterally. I know many editors (like myself) are highly critical of DRM, but the alternative acronym expansion feels forced in the lead paragraph. Note that the explanation of it already occurs not too far into the main article. And I think the second paragraph (above the TOC) gives a good overview of the criticism, w/o needing each clever jab that we might make.
I definitely think the term digital restrictions management should be discussed in the article (as it currently is). But unless someone can provide an indication of the usage of the term in "serious" ways, rather than entirely parodically, I don't think it should be in the lead paragraph. By analogy, think of the industry term trusted computing and its probably more accurate version treacherous computing—yeah, the latter is probably more accurate, but it's still basically a rhetorical device by critics. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:02, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
I only did major revision, so far, on the first half of the article or so. Looking over the rather long DMCA section, it looks pretty out of place. I think the association is worth mentioning, but I'm thinking I should move the bulk of the DMCA/Skylarov/etc. discussion over to the article on DMCA itself. Thoughts?
It's not that I believe that we either can or should entirely separate the technical from the legal aspects. But having half the article on one specific USAian law unbalances it. DRM is a technology that may or may not be mentioned in particular laws (the technical mechanisms could exist w/o the DMCA); and moreover, there are places other than the USA where DRM content is used and sold. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:11, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
It's not a proper noun, and that's the way it is in the title. « alerante ✆ ✉ » 23:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You got a point there, but I think it is because DRM is a name of a legal action, so I would assume that it should be Digital Rights Management. -netMASA (I can't remember my password. Wikipedia can't either)
There is still a POV issue with the name "Digital rights management." The article says, correctly:
But if this is true, then the name "Digital rights management" is a misnomer.
Note that the names for other technical protection mechanisms simply refer to what the mechanism _does._
The lock on your car door is just called a "lock," not an "ownership rights enabler." Everyone understands that a lock locks out anyone who does not have the key, whether or not they have a legal right of access or not.
The name "Digital rights management" is objectively incorrect. This should be stated clearly up front. To accept the name "Digital rights management" without comment is to accept the point-of-view of one side. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Alan Cox is described as an 'Englishman'. Is this correct? Following up the links, it seems he works in Wales and writes a personal page in Welsh. Not many Englishmen know Welsh, so it's probable he's Welsh, not English. Blaise 16:58, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
An anon editor changed "perceptual quality" back to "perceived quality". I'm not sure whether it's because of the old audiophiles dislike for CDs vs. vinyl, or whether it reflect a minor inaccuracy in understanding the two words.
But it's definitely "perceptual quality" that is at issue. The is the qualities at issue pertain to the senses (as opposed to other qualities media might have: durability, cost, bitwise accuracy, etc). To say the quality is merely "perceived" allows that it may be so by inference, social pressure, etc. And moreover, it may be perceived that media X has better durability than media Y (perhaps with the insinuation that it's not really so, but just a widespread myth).
I don't want to rehash the analog/digital audiophile thing. Heck, I'm one of those that thinks CDs, especially in their first few years of use, were notably degraded versus vinyl. But, for example, if I were comparing OGG Vobis and MP3 in listener tests (as opposed to, say, algorithmic issues), it would be proper to speak of the "perceptual quality" of each encoding, not of the "perceived quality".
Actually, the same editor added the redundant "digital media files. The word "files" really isn't needed, but I'll leave it for now to promote harmony. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:51, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
For some reason, the last paragraph of the DRM opponents section was identical to the first paragraph of the DRM advocates section (with the exception of the word 'some'). It clearly belonged with advocates, so I just deleted it from the opponents section. I wasn't logged in at the time, so it'll show up as anonymous. Confuted 02:57, 2005 Aug 4 (UTC)
I came to this article half-expecting a Stallmanesque rant against capitalist content creators, but to my relief found instead a comprehensive, balanced description of everything relevant from opposing perspectives. Fantastic, if rare, example of the Wikipedia process working as it should. I'll remember this one.
68.173.44.202 22:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
The commercial links are carrying more and more advertorial content. Should these be separated from the non-commercial links, alphabetically sorted and the SEO targeted text trimmed? I'll be back to do this in a while but I'm sure that some of the regulars would be much better at doing this. -- Daedelus 14:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
The removal of straight commercial links made *some* sense - if you notice I raised the issue in the first place. Of course you might say it follows that we should be going around for example removing links to car-company web sites from car entries in the wiki.
HOWEVER, now I think that this is being taken a stage further and links to the official WWW Virtual Library (VL) pages on the topic are being removed.
WWW Virtual Library (VL) is the oldest catalogue of the Web, started by Tim Berners-Lee, the creator of html and the Web itself, in 1991 at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland. It is widely recognised as being amongst the highest-quality guides to particular sections of the Web. It is not a commercial catalogue and links to it are not commercial spam.
I also noticed that links to just about the only up to date list of companies providing DRM has been removed - presumably wiki readers must not have access to specifics only generalizations and should only have information about big brand names rather than exhastive lists. Anyway links that lead to comparative information about commercial products are not commercial links. Also disappeared was just about the only popular exposition of the relationship of Digital Rights Management and Kerckhoff's axiom of the primacy of keys over codes - I'm not sure how this is "commercial" (maybe the editor thought Kerckhoff was a brand name?) . Again there is the idea that links from the wiki should not allow understanding of specifics only generalizations. I think this unthinking overzealousness greatly weakens the value of the whole resource as an information source. -- Daedelus 19:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Exactly the right word:
coincidental adj : occurring or operating at the same time; "a series of coincident events" [syn: coincident, coinciding, concurrent, cooccurring, simultaneous]
I'm pretty sure I'm the first one to use that particular word in relating DRM restrictions to legal restrictions in the lead. Either way, it's quite precise. This is different from "accidental" BTW; but it's also different from insinuating a causal alignment is possible.
Of course, Dpbsmith's latest edit looks fine also. An earlier edit suggested "subset" which is just wrong. DRM restrictions might allow either more or less than legal restrictions relative to a particular act of copying. The point is that once a technology is fixed in concrete form, it can longer track changes in the legal status of a particular copyrighted work (which might change because of law, contract, court rulings, or through other external events). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
<---
Guys, I'm going to toss a few thoughts into the pot here, if only to reset the : counter. Control of reproduction rights in a work (then the only exemplar was literary) was thought to be perpetual at first. The Conger of 17th cent UK certainly thought and behaved so. The Statute of Queen Anne ended that. The US Constitution explicitly provided for a limited term of monopoly control, including reproduction, in 1787. Assorted enactments, court holdings and so on established a fair use doctrine, but we're still talking about literary stuff, plus now paper or photographic images. Very little to no international coordination as to copyright which annoyed Dickens (in one direction) and Twain (in the other) no end; just to name some prominent ones. Around 1900, player piano rolls, sound and moving film all pose considerable problems. In the US, and eventually elsewhere, there is established an obligatory performance license and an apparatus to collect such fees on behalf of the copyright owneres. In the twenties, radio broadcast added a twist to the sound recording copyright problem. Note, to this point, copyright term is still shortish, varies a bit between copyrighted things, and the longest available was the European literary right (life of creator plus fifty years if I recall correctly).
Introduction of magnetic tape recording for consumers post WWII panicked the recording industry and they tried to strangle it at birth, just as the movie and TV people tried to do with the VCR some years later. The recording people tried again when digital recording techniques were developed, and the movie folks tried again and again with laser disks, CD-video, DVD-video, and so on. Still a limited length monopoly right, though the limit was expanding at publisher behest. Note not at creator behest, but the holder of the copyright which generally becomes some large enterprise whose business is not creation but exploitation those rights. The longest term possible is the only acceptable to such and so, in the US, they have expanded steadily. At current expansion rates, Mickey Mouse will never enter the public domain, though he's long exceeded the original life of the copyright Disney acquired on creation in 1922. Since the rights involved are arbitrary and exist only as the result of statute and precedent, it is inevitable that lawyers get rung in and this accounts for a good bit of the confusion.
So let's examine a specific case. I acquire a recording of Trent Lott and his Oxford Cheerleaders in 1970. All numbers (lyrics and music) are original and created that year, and the performance is also by the group. All copyrights have been retained by the creators and are therefore nicely in one place. No need to go nosing around on a copyright treasure hunt if I want to license; thouhg there are some automatic licenses (broadcast and such) that I have now. Assuming my little LP lasts long enough, all these copyrights will lapse ca 2060. But the US Congress has extended the copyright term several times and so expiration is receeding into the redshifted distance.
But, if I acquire a copy of a new recording of the same stuff in 2005 on a DVD with the surviving Cheerleaders doing their thing as well as teys till can, the situation is legally the same. The difference is that my new recording has a different expiration date as to the performance itself (it being the creation of the tottering Cheerleaders edition), and is protected by some sort of DRM. I cannot take my precious DVD elsewhere because there is regional locking. Not a copyright issue at all, merely a marketing control. I can't even really exercise my automatic right of copying for braodcast purposes, because I can't make a copy to send ot multitude of centrally programmed radio stations whose listeners are all drooling for the latest, geriatric, versions by the Cheerleaders. When the material goes into the public domain, the DRM will still prevent me from making copies which will then be my right. And until then, any additional license I negotiate with the holders will not be recognized by the DRM becasue the lawyers who specified it on behalf of large enterprise holders didn't include that.
When one understands the legal situation (a mess, and getting steadily boggier), supplier claims that this or that is their legal right and not yours are seen to generally wobbly. And regardless of any of that, the DRM you find will not match the legal situation, and rarely, even the supplier's claims as to the legal situation.
It's this disconnect between the legal 'reality', the actual DRM functionality, the engineering's actual possibilities if designed and enacted correctly, and the end user's impression of what his purchase has acquired that causes the troubles.
Some of this perspective deserves to be in the article, but I've tried, without much success, and success would in any case be lawyeristically contingent and fudgy and mostly unreadable. Might ruin the article. Still important though, since Vista is due out now Q2 next year and will supposedly contain some of this deep in the OS and imposed on all comers as an obligatory result. Readers will need some understanding of some of it. ww 07:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
"Although it has been argued that programs like DeCSS make copyright infringement easier, this system has never been effective in preventing illegal mass copying of DVDs by criminal gangs, even before the system was found to be flawed."
This doesn't make sense towards the end. Shouldn't it be 'even after the system', or 'until the system', depending on the meaning? -- Tom Edwards 09:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
In the preamble, it states "Some types of DRMs have been recently declared illegal in France and the European Community is expected to rule on a ban of DRM systems." Can anyone provide further information on this? Who expects the EC to rule a ban of DRM systems? Does anyone have a reference to further discussion on this please?-- Bc42 12:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
There is no ban in France: the French parliament is discussing a law about DRM, but nothing is final yet. Lucasbfr 18:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/12738
DRM boycotts hurt Sony's music sales - musicians frustrated Posted by Dan Bell (at CDFreaks) on 27 November 2005 - 15:07 - Source: BusinessWeek Online
From the article:
Can anyone tell me what this sentece means (and, preferably, then replace it)? Shinobu 14:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)