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 | Archive 6 |
Several things need to happen for DRM to work without being the pain it is now. 1. A standardized method of marking and detecting a work with the copyright info embedded in the format of the media itself, needs to be established. This is most important to Audio works as most CD's only contain copyright info in print, and not in the audio encoding itself. 2. The marking standard established must not prevent any normal function of any device the media may encounter, it is only means of detection. 3. Instead of preventing copying, transcoding, or other potential piracy action, DRM enabled devices should allow such activity unrestricted as long as the copy includes and can be traced with the embedded copyright data, such that proper copyright compensation can be assessed, for anyone doing so for anything more than personal and fair use. Such a system as this would eliminate 80% of the issue on both sides, devices would retain all of their functionality, end users can make personal backups, convert and use in whatever format they wish, and copyright owners can detect high volume piracy distributors. Basically a standard method of digital watermarking.
End Users don't like DRM because they should be able to do whatever they want with their own copy, provided its not for profit or distribution.
OEM's don't want DRM because of the hassles with compatibility, and the potential for future circumvention or incompatibility. If devices are not altered in their expected functions then there should not be an issue.
Artists, Publishers and Copyright owners deserve compensation for their works, and such a method would provide a way to detect mass piracy and track its spread, while not restricting the individual use and fair use.
At some point afterwards there would need to be a moratorium on copyrighted works that do not have the standard embedded copyright data, and then if the publishers are diligent enough, no copy of a work would reach public hands, that was not traceable, and reproduction of copies without the copyright data is already protected under law.
Legal Research Needed: Is there a copyright notice in every audio file downloaded from iTunes? Does the fact that copyright info is not contained within most audio works (in the actual content vs. printed on packaging or delivery medium), make most existing electronic copies invalid or illegal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.251.169.70 ( talk) 23:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I think as long as there is one DRMed file playable, it can be duplicated as many versions of copies. The is no way blocking analog devices so far. Users want free spirited arts, they don't mind if only light-weight commercialization. Otherwise, both artists and audiences seek some ways else. (beancube) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.107 ( talk) 23:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:EL, a few well chosen links or readings are acceptable. Otherwise they should not be added. Wikipedia is Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files which this page became a few months ago.
I reviewed all of the External Links. Some of them were pure spam sites (i.e. rocksite), some were pure POV sites (EFF), some were specfic to a style of DRM that would only apply to a page on that (the Microsoft should only be on a page on Microsoft's DRM) and most importantly none of them added anything of value that couldn't be integrated into the article using that site as a reference.
The books can only be listed if they are directly related to a specific topic (not DRM in general) and then only a few should be listed.
If you want to obtain a Featured Article Status, then I implore you to follow this advice. -- KelleyCook ( talk) 17:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I am reverting all edits on 12 Dec 07 by MasterHomer and Iamacreditcard. These edits are being made with respect to this post as part of an attempt to falsify sources. If he intends to cooroborate any of his statements, he can do so with citation, however, until this occurs, I shall treat all of his posts as vandalism. Unedit ( talk) 20:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
These edits add nothing to the article, and so far as I am concerned are part of an attempt to assert a false claim; namely that DRM is the same as software copy protection, which is not true. I am reverting all the edits on this article by Imacreditcard and Masterhomer, and will continue to do so as nessisary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unedit ( talk • contribs) 23:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the below, because it is original research:
==Coding Quality== On the [http://drmlicense.one.microsoft.com/Indivsite/en/indivit.asp?force=1 download page for DRM], the source code has the following comment "https://Lets [sic] just die here if we have errors. How to report them is [[to be determined|TBD]]." Even Microsoft does not have long term confidence in the product (see this article in ''The Register'' "[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/11/21/file_swap_nets_will_win/ File swap nets will win, DRM and lawyers lose, say MS researchers]"). With the lock-down of the security kernel in Windows Vista to external security vendors, a new threat was introduced as system crackers learned to do what they could no longer do. [[Oliver Friedrichs]], the director of emerging technologies in the Symantec security response team, wrote in August 2006 "[http://www.symantec.com/enterprise/security_response/weblog/2006/08/assessment_of_vista_kernel_mod.html researchers and attackers can, and have, already found ways to disable and work around PatchGuard]". In good design practice, it is the responsibility of the designer to develop the test scripts, (for example in [[Iterative and incremental development]] and Microsoft's own ''Architecture Journal'' on [http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb491123.aspx Test-Driven Infrastructures]), and think of how an application may be broken. In the case of security, if the designer does not do it, a system cracker will do it for them (see this blog by George Ou on ZDNet "[http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?/?p=81 Microsoft blocks FairUse4WM v2 after 3 months of DRM free music]").
-- Superm401 - Talk 05:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Can someone modify this sentence?
The advent of personal computers as household appliances has made it convenient for consumers to convert media (which may or may not be copyrighted) originally in a physical/analog form or a broadcast form into a universal, digital form (this process is called ripping) for location and/or time shifting purposes, combined with the Internet and popular file sharing tools, has made unauthorized distribution of copies of copyrighted digital media (so-called digital piracy) much easier.
This is all one sentence in the article, but it appears that it should be two. I'm not sure exactly what was intended here or I'd fix it myself. Dansiman ( talk| Contribs) 03:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Just reading the opening section it seems that this article has an anti-DRM slant. (In contrast to WP's general attitude which respects copyrights, and makes a big point of doing so.) Over half of the intro is given to criticism of DRM, including calling it a "scheme" and giving wiki-links to 2 anti-DRM organizations. Borock ( talk) 13:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
<--- All those with an interest in the POVishness of this article (pro or anti) should consult the archives on the point before diving in to revise any perceived errors. This issue has been well and exhaustively thrashed out with the results (more or less) that you see in this article. There are those, myself included, who see the term Dig Rghts Mgmnt to be itself POV and a pernicious propagnadistic misuse of the language since the thing being protected is not rights (these vary widely across jurisdictions, and expire at various times in many jurisdictions), but sales revenue and market control.
DRM schemes are rarely (never to my knowledge) actually matched to the legal context within which they will exist, regularly assert control for which there is no support in law thus hijacking rights users would have in any other media (a kind of fraud, at least in equity), and have yet to my knowledge included an expiration date so the user gets his rights when the copyright expires or is abandoned, whereupon reverting to the public domain. Some folks with these views prefer the Dig Rest Mgmt term.
On the other side are those who regard the term as having been chosen by the industries involved and feel they should be allowed to use whatever term they wish (though in this case the term is not trademarked and so commercial control of speech terms and their use is at least dubious and at worst unsupportable on any grounds). Most of these folks prefer the Dig Rest Mgmt term.
Still others support the use of these schemes whatever the name inthe interest of commercial profit. Regardless of rights to use and keep material formerly held by users, and now unilaterally seized by engineering technology.
Still others think the entire business is entirely unconscionable and should be opposed, under whatever name, at every opportunity. Rights formerly held by users under affirmative copyright law should not be unilaterally abrogated and vitiated by commercial interests.
Still others regard the lack of control by creative artists of any aspect of this to be the unconscionable part and regard the commercial interests as the offending party, almost without regard to any protection schemes whatever the name used.
As you can see the variety of strongly held views on the subject mean that any article must thread a great many POV filters, including, of course yours.
If you don't like the present, hard won, 'balance', well then, be bold and revise as you see fit. Complaining about anticipated bias in the editors who will ruthlessly winnow your favored prose is not in the WP spirit of all being bold. ww ( talk) 23:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a great article, with good npov and an absolute wealth of links, footnotes, references etc. It's pretty authorative, even scholarly I guess. But look, most users go to an encyclopedia just for information, and with the greatest respect, I feel your Methods to bypass DRM could be made shorter. I wouldn't dream of hacking your page - instead, I'd like to offer you the following abstract I made for my own understanding (it also subsumes Analog Hole). Edetic ( talk) 09:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I had an edit reverted, and thought I'd throw in a quote from the sourced article. Am open to rephrasing, but the free-culture argument against DRM is not simply that it overreaches legally, but that it is technologically a chimera.
Cory: "Bob will only buy Pirates of the Caribbean if he can descramble the CSS-encrypted VOB -- video object -- on his DVD player. Otherwise, the disc is only useful to Bob as a drinks-coaster. So Alice has to provide Bob -- the attacker -- with the key, the cipher and the ciphertext.
Hilarity ensues.
DRM systems are usually broken in minutes, sometimes days. Rarely, months. It's not because the people who think them up are stupid. It's not because the people who break them are smart. It's not because there's a flaw in the algorithms. At the end of the day, all DRM systems share a common vulnerability: they provide their attackers with ciphertext, the cipher and the key" Mateo LeFou ( talk) 00:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I want to add a question. Why would users want to protect that publishing industry with greedy attitute? If the industry showed that kind of attitude, the users will eventually break from there. (beancube) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.107 ( talk) 23:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The introduction uses the phrase "time-shift" three times. What on earth is time-shifting, and could that be introduced? -- 166.70.188.26 ( talk) 17:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Add information about DRM and games. Mention censorship by game review sites re:drm critiques. The current spore controversy with DRM and the 1 star ratings on amazon.com (1400+ 1star ratings due to the DRM that is a restrictive securerom only allowing 3 installs before locking the key unless the user calls EA to request more installs (single increment only). DRM software as a persistant virus (ethical or not) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.147.132.206 ( talk) 17:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
This section was recently removed. I agree that it's wording was inadequate and deserved work, however the points made were worth inclusion. DRM does affect existing user rights under US copyright law in several ways, and this point is worth making here. And since it's worth making, it seems to be of some worth as a section whcih can be found in the TOC (a convenience to the reader sort of thing). Comments? ww ( talk) 13:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I just removed the following section as it is clearly POV. Please feel free to re-add this material with appropriate NPOV and citations. Vectro ( talk) 22:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act section outlines the enacted legal frameworks in the the US and the EU, but not other countries. I'm in Australia and the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000 came in as part of the US free trade agreement. [1] Not WIPO? I'm confused. Could someone please clarify this, and ideally the larger, international status of DRM? DLeonard 09:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
You may want to look into Article 11 of the 1996 WIPO copyright treaty. There is another article in that treaty saying you have to pull out of the treaty if you you don't like a specific article. 208.99.137.71 ( talk) 17:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm having trouble finding citations for the Amazon "Digital Locker", a pre-Kindle DRM setup that I believe was based on Adobe's Digital Reader. Sometime in 2005 (?) they removed support for it and locked out everyone who had purchased ebooks from them. This would be good to add to the obsolete section. Here is one comment that refers to it, but I am having trouble finding any authoritative sources. -- Autopilot ( talk) 22:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm a huge fan of Wikipedia but this article is disgracefully biased. Unfortunately I do not have the knowledge to edit it, but I wanted to add my voice to those who have requested a more prominent statement that the article does not meet standards for quality and bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill1008 ( talk • contribs) 12:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Smithereen ( talk) 21:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree as well, this is, perhaps, the most biased article I've ever read on Wikipedia. 217.174.50.55 ( talk) 17:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm absolutely stunned that this article is not tagged with some sort of flag indicating the high degrees of bias. The entire article reads like an anti-DRM primer - everywhere DRM is mentioned, there are explicit or implicit claims that it is effectively useless. The Introduction is a good example, the closing paragraph of the Introduction effectively makes DRM sound useless ("In practice, all widely-used DRM systems are eventually defeated or circumvented") without taking into account the varying degrees of success with DRM - for example PS3 DRM has NOT been defeated. Yes, it may be defeated eventually, just as eventually we will all be dead, but starting an introduction in an article on the human race with "Ultimately all human beings die" would seem odd, would it not? So why does this sort of crap fly in a Wikipedia article on DRM? Possibly because Wikipedia is proving itself widely irrelevant by the day due to an absolute lack of ability to control biased and agenda-laden content from creeping into every single nook and cranny on this site.
Frankly I don't have the time and patience to reedit this article, because the anti-DRM brigade would be out in a matter of minutes to reslant the whole thing back into its current state of nonsense, but it does bear the flag that this article is biased, so at least casual readers can be warned about the semi-propagandistic nature of the thing before they delve into! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.194.169 ( talk) 04:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
--just wanted to comment on the PS3 game DRM not being defeated in that many of the same reasons it's hasn't been hacked are the same reasons why it's struggling. -- 24.3.16.120 ( talk) 22:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
As opposed to say, PC gaming being almost completely subsumed by console gaming, because piracy and the lack of viable DRM has made PC gaming a relic? The PS3 is not struggling because of DRM, it is struggling due to a range of other issues. But more importantly, the "struggling PS3" is still outselling the PC as a platform for most games, despite there being many times more gaming PCs than PS3s! Also, someone has now added a completely biased and irrelevant link as a citation for the slanted quote I mentioned earlier ("In practice, all widely-used DRM systems are eventually defeated or circumvented"). Bravo Wikipedia! Onwards to new heights of user-driven crapulence.
There is an obvious...slant...to the article. Case in point is the section I just edited (the ebook DRM section): the Amazon deletion of versions of Orwell's works from consumer's Kindles was mentioned, with the statement of the comparison to such deletion being itself somewhat Orwellian, the Free Software Foundation running the "DRM is bad" line, and a statement that Amazon's CEO apologized. What wasn't stated in that section, and which was only linked to amidst the plethora of other links (and hidden within the "commentator's called it Orwellian" links) was the fact the reason Amazon took those versions of the books down and removed them from consumer's devices was because the publisher of the books didn't actually have the rights to publish the books. They were unauthorized copies up for sale on Amazon's ebook section, in other words: pirated books in and of themselves. Also lost within that shuffle was that Amazon gave the purchasers of said books a full refund. Reading the section as it was written before I edited it, one gets the notion that Evil Amazon went and deleted the books for no reason at all other than they don't want you to read what they don't want you to read (Orwellian indeed). Except that's not really the case.
Mind you, I don't agree with HOW Amazon went about it (no reason to not tell consumers why before you do it, for one, or offer a refund if they agree to delete the unauthorized copy), but the reason WHY they did it makes sense and doesn't cast them as "evil" as the original section seemed to read. And Orwell, as a writer, would have actually stood up for his own rights over his own work, btw. His problem was censorship, which was NOT what Amazon engaged in. Therealspiffyone ( talk) 06:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Ambivalent.I've made a few edits, and I think it's more reasonable now. Danielbirns ( talk) 23:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
"Cracking a compiled version for the right key codes will not result in a redistributable cracked version because the internal algorithms that utilize the key codes also incorporate separate encrypted time of compile and other information, and will prevent installs after, say, 36 hours of compilation."
Um, this can be cracked too, the whole point of asm is that anything can be early exited or avoided. Repeat after me, "No DRM will stand uncracked forever". Is Chrism even notable enough to list here? It just uses a dubiously awarded prior art patent to do something very obvious (Which I am sure other companies have done before and never patented). Hullo exclamation mark ( talk) 23:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I undid the following addition and moved it here:
Latest news about DRM concerns french society Ubisoft wich, at this date (14/03/2010), is under attack by a group or russian pirates who called oupon the entire piracy community to flood Ubisoft servers with sole purpose to make them crash, making actual customers unable to play the concerned games (Assassin's creed 2 and Silent Hunter 5).Those games require constant connexion to Ubisoft servers (even for solo play). Ironically, the only people who did manage to play the games were pirates wich managed to have a perfectly working crack for Silent Hunter and a partial crack for Assassin's Creed. As i write these words, forums all over the world are being filled with DRM complaints. Future will tell us wether Ubisoft will bow to player's will or not.
Aside from the numerous spelling and grammar errors, the statements in the edit are not cited nor are they written with NPOV. Hartboy ( talk) 23:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The following statement in the lead of this article has been removed and subsequently reverted:
In practice, all widely-used DRM systems are eventually defeated or circumvented.
I believe there should be a discussion about whether the statement should stay, as I believe it should be removed from the lead, or moved to a different section of the article at the least.
The statement was removed originally because of concerns over its bias. I agree; I believe that while the statement itself may not be factually inaccurate, its inclusion in the lead may present bias in the form of undue weight. In addition, I don't believe that the source cited for the statement is verifiable. If, for example, the article would say
than the source is acceptable in that it presents the opinion of Doctorow, an outspoken opponent of DRM, making that statement as one of the reasons he is opposed to the practice. However, as it stands now, the source is being used to substantiate a factual claim that
and used in that way, the source fails as a reliable source. Can we get a consensus on the inclusion of this statement in the lead? Hartboy ( talk) 23:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Here's a great story about filmmaker Nina Paley (Sita Sings the Blues) who turned down an offer from Netflix because they would not use a DRM-free version of the film nor would they allow her to record a statement saying where DRM-free versions could be found. I offer this in case someone wants to build up a section about artists bypassing DRM. SteveCoppock ( talk) 01:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
This article seems to be entirely dedicated to, after explaining what DRM is, telling us why it's so bad. Is there nothing to be said in favour of DRM? I know it's widely hated on the Internet, but if you just read this article you'd have the impression that it's a completely discredited and universally discouraged practice, when in fact it's more widely used than ever. Obviously, there are good reasons for that, but this article doesn't do a good enough job of making them clear. For reasons of WP:NPOV, it needs to explain not just why so many people dislike DRM, but why so many companies like it and use it. Robofish ( talk) 13:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Cost of production, distribution and marketing? :/ Cost of production = the electricity needed to run their computers. Distribution = electricity needed to run their computers. Marketing = none. What is that? One or two hundred dollars max? Against Radiohead's tens of millions of fans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.49.169 ( talk) 18:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
The article currently has little or no discussion of piracy, consequent revenue losses to content-makers or copyright-holders, or the principle of copyrights. Seeing as it already discusses both the principled and practical shortcomings of DRM, it could stand to represent the justifications a little more fully. I'm prepared to make the necessary edits if somebody can point me to published sources on this side of the question. Kenji Yamada ( talk) 20:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The article also needs to mention that a recent federal appeals court ruling < http://arstechnica.com/software/news/2010/07/court-breaking-drm-for-a-fair-use-is-legal.ars> appears to allow one to legally remove DRM for "fair use". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.130.106 ( talk) 16:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
People may be looking for more information on just content security (security ranging from e-mail to web filtering to social media security). This could also be listed under "Unified Security". Web 2.0 has integrated all of these and many things have been redefined (see sonicwall.com or websense.com for such examples). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.15.64.200 ( talk) 14:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
“No fully working crack for Silent Hunter V has been confirmed.” — This passage is complete bullshit. A working crack had been released by the group SKIDROW two months after the game was published. I won’t link to the file itself but you can look it up for example in the German forum “MyGully.com”. The first working crack was posted there in May 2010. -- 88.153.2.141 ( talk) 03:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
This article needs a History section. This is an interesting story that needs to be told.
Etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielbirns ( talk • contribs) 00:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
There is a article on the subject here, but it only goes from 1998 and forward. Belorn ( talk) 00:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
The e-book section should also cover the increasingly popular so-called "social drm". This consists in embedding purchaser personal data in the final file in order to discourage piracy.
http://www.teleread.com/drm/social-drm-vs-traditional-mobipocket-style-drm-time-for-a-switch/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.16.35.87 ( talk) 13:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
As a wiki-user who seeks useful information on areas of interest, I'd have to judge this article as being very unfocused, very tendentious, very close to being a complete fail. I just bought an eBook reader and I came to the article to learn more about this aspect of electronic publishing and distribution. I thought I would find information about what DRM is and how it works. While I did find out a bit about these two basic questions, the article is overwhelmed by a barely restrained, highly tendentious back-and-forth concerning whether or not DRM is good or bad, right or wrong, pro or con, left or right, up or down, etc., etc.
Information about the mechanics of how DRM actually works is perfunctory and inadequate and almost absent compared to the wealth of information about how it DOESN'T or CAN'T work. I really think a good solid understanding of how DRM actually works should be established before any extended discussion of its inadequacy.
As a positive suggestion, I think the article should focus primarily on what DRM is, and how it works - and I think the "how" should be expanded by explaining much more of the mechanics. A short and to-the-point "criticisms" or "controversy" summary section should be included with a pointer to another, completely separate article about "Social Implications of DRM" or some such fuzzy sort of topic so that those who are interested in DRM per se can get the facts and information concerning DRM per se without having to wade through a lot of tendentious, argumentative banter inadequately disguised as "neutral points of view" by hiding behind "reliable sources." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan.A.Mick ( talk • contribs) 02:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to second this point of view. The article is basically a political rant. Although I agree with the author's politics, I came here to swot up on the technology to prepare for a job interview. To this end, the article is useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.136.82.13 ( talk) 14:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
It might be useful to list the 6 current DMCA exemptions (either explicitly or with a link to the DMCA article). Perhaps also adding a section on the justifications for why these exemptions in particular were granted (and why some other, potentially legitimate ones (like DRMs on online music) weren't granted). Npmakarov89 ( talk) 21:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I misssed that Tweakguides indeed do say this. I dismissed it out of hand (somewhat foolish) as non-sourced claim since good sources never have statements like that which can be proved incorrect by typing two words into google. Tweakguide is not a good source for this claim since the SafeDisc article mention reported problems, and a simple google search on SafeDisc + issue gives quite clear results to prove that there have indeed been reports of problems with SafeDisc. Now we could have a "TweakGuide say this, Group X, Y, Z say the opposite", including articles about a Microsoft patch fixing some of mentioned issues, but that would not improve that article in my point of view. Belorn ( talk) 19:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Microsoft have announced that support for their e-book Reader software will end next year, making activation of new copies impossible (which seems to be the case already). Hence drm protected .lit files will no longer be able to be opened on new hardware (or current hardware with a new OS). No support is being given to facilitate customers tranferal of files (ie, a legacy reader that does not need activating), so accessing legally purchased e-books only be done by illegally by breaking the drm (currently only possible with an activated version of the software anyway, as i have discovered).
Should this be added to the list of obselete drms that screw over legitimate consumers? As the list will only get longer, should it be moved to a sub-article Obsolete DRM formats? 82.12.149.177 ( talk) 15:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Is there any reason Steam isn't mentioned?
I think it would make the article clearer if the DRM was catagorized into it's own sections although I'm not sure if I've done it the correct way.
Pleasetry (
talk)
16:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
In fairness and good faith, I am asking the Wikipedia community to reconsider the revert on my recent to this article under Controversy/"DRM Free".
User:SudoGhost reverted my edit with the reason, "I don't think that source gives sufficient WP:WEIGHT to give that much information about a minor software company." I have no doubts that SudoGhost was acting in good faith, but upon reviewing the policy, I believe there is sufficient weight to include my edit into the article. Aside from the source I cited, the same information also appears on many other websites:
This extensive list is partial as there are many more sites that reported on the commentary. I chose that particular citation because it was simple and straight to the point, but the commentary can very easily be sourced elsewhere if needed (like Forbes). If the concern is a question of, did the CEO of CD Projekt Red make such a commentary at GDC? It's abundantly clear that he did. If the concern is that CD Projekt Red is a "minor" software company — certainly they are not a company among giants like Microsoft, but they are 18 years old and employed about 300 in 2008. I believe that is sufficiently indicative that there is enough experience within this company for the CEO to make such a qualified commentary. That, and to have garnered this much internet news attention would imply that the company may not be that minor. ChewableOJ ( talk) 01:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The list of publishers doing only DRM-free works is getting longer. In the world of ebooks, I think we reached around 37 publishers. Should there be a separate Web page for the list of DRM-free publishers? KarlDubost ( talk) 14:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
The license agreements of stock image companies, i.e. istockphoto, getty images are commonly used in online course development. Typically the “Standard license terms” is obtained as opposed to “Extended License Provisions.” I am interested in determining the restrictions to Standard license terms in this environment. Quite often the original courses are migrated to or hosted by organizations that do not posses the DRM. Wikipietime ( talk) 14:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Digital "Rights" Management is a propaganda term. I think the article should be re-titled Digital Restrictions Management. No one has a "right" to enforce restrictions in hardware or software that I have purchased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.165.125 ( talk) 14:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Can we get less of that hippie b...t and more details on DRM algorithms and implementations? Thanks. 178.49.18.203 ( talk) 19:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
this article reads more like a persuasive essay than an encyclopedia entry. it needs a lot of work. 71.198.245.225 ( talk) 12:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
This article makes false analogies on the supporters' side. Although there is a small section on the opposing side, this article is still biased. Jimbo1qaz ( talk) 21:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
This article is clearly biased in my opinion. As a strong supporter of intellectual property rights, I am also a reasonably strong opponent to the way that DRM has been implemented and inflicted upon the market, especially through the US government/legal system. HOWEVER, this article, rather than educating the reader on DRM technologies and then campaigning against DRM, starts the anti campaign in the Introduction section (I don't mind the overview). The first part of the article should go more deeply into the technology, helping technologists to better understand how DRM works. This article is fairly devoid of any significant detail, unlike so many other excellent Wiki articles. I would be happy to provide this detail if others feel it is appropriate. As it stands, this article is mainly propaganda, and seem to violate the principles for which Wikipedia stands. Jonfspencer ( talk) 21:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
As a proof (my experience) on this item:
1- I downloaded Paragon's Partition Manager and Drive Backup, PIRATED some years ago... 2- I tested those programs for almost 6-7 months, I don't remember. 3- Suddenly my boss asked me about the programs I've been using, performance, usability, etc. He asked me if it was necessary the use of such programs. 4- After the analysis of my usage and need of those programs, he asked about the cost and we proceeded to get the licenses.
So, yes, the "harmful" piracy, made Paragon's to sell two of it's products...
Same goes with MS-DOS, Windows, Office, Symantec's and McAfee's anti-viruses and utilities, the only reason behind the popularity of those packages it's because of the "harmful" piracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.247.28.2 ( talk) 19:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, folks! The Opposition section describes why some people oppose DRM, but it doesn't seem to describe why people oppose anti-circumvention legislation. Can you please expend the section to include that? Thanks! -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 23:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I just tried to clean the mess in this page, separating technical details from political, social, historical, biased or philosophical interpretations. Still there is a lot of work to do to clean this article and make it stand to wikipedia's expected quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.9.68.241 ( talk) 18:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
In favor of cleaner discussion, lets focus on the latest change to the lead. The methodology I used when collecting the sources was:
The result is this edit. I did not find that access control is general used to describe DRM. I have however yet to read the works of Bruce Schneier, and might update things afterwards. The edit itself might also use some fine tuning in the flow/language department, but I am waiting and see how other contributors in this discussion will react before I continue with more edits or opening an RFC as per previous discussion on DR/N. Thank you. Belorn ( talk) 12:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
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 | Archive 6 |
Several things need to happen for DRM to work without being the pain it is now. 1. A standardized method of marking and detecting a work with the copyright info embedded in the format of the media itself, needs to be established. This is most important to Audio works as most CD's only contain copyright info in print, and not in the audio encoding itself. 2. The marking standard established must not prevent any normal function of any device the media may encounter, it is only means of detection. 3. Instead of preventing copying, transcoding, or other potential piracy action, DRM enabled devices should allow such activity unrestricted as long as the copy includes and can be traced with the embedded copyright data, such that proper copyright compensation can be assessed, for anyone doing so for anything more than personal and fair use. Such a system as this would eliminate 80% of the issue on both sides, devices would retain all of their functionality, end users can make personal backups, convert and use in whatever format they wish, and copyright owners can detect high volume piracy distributors. Basically a standard method of digital watermarking.
End Users don't like DRM because they should be able to do whatever they want with their own copy, provided its not for profit or distribution.
OEM's don't want DRM because of the hassles with compatibility, and the potential for future circumvention or incompatibility. If devices are not altered in their expected functions then there should not be an issue.
Artists, Publishers and Copyright owners deserve compensation for their works, and such a method would provide a way to detect mass piracy and track its spread, while not restricting the individual use and fair use.
At some point afterwards there would need to be a moratorium on copyrighted works that do not have the standard embedded copyright data, and then if the publishers are diligent enough, no copy of a work would reach public hands, that was not traceable, and reproduction of copies without the copyright data is already protected under law.
Legal Research Needed: Is there a copyright notice in every audio file downloaded from iTunes? Does the fact that copyright info is not contained within most audio works (in the actual content vs. printed on packaging or delivery medium), make most existing electronic copies invalid or illegal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.251.169.70 ( talk) 23:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I think as long as there is one DRMed file playable, it can be duplicated as many versions of copies. The is no way blocking analog devices so far. Users want free spirited arts, they don't mind if only light-weight commercialization. Otherwise, both artists and audiences seek some ways else. (beancube) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.107 ( talk) 23:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:EL, a few well chosen links or readings are acceptable. Otherwise they should not be added. Wikipedia is Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files which this page became a few months ago.
I reviewed all of the External Links. Some of them were pure spam sites (i.e. rocksite), some were pure POV sites (EFF), some were specfic to a style of DRM that would only apply to a page on that (the Microsoft should only be on a page on Microsoft's DRM) and most importantly none of them added anything of value that couldn't be integrated into the article using that site as a reference.
The books can only be listed if they are directly related to a specific topic (not DRM in general) and then only a few should be listed.
If you want to obtain a Featured Article Status, then I implore you to follow this advice. -- KelleyCook ( talk) 17:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I am reverting all edits on 12 Dec 07 by MasterHomer and Iamacreditcard. These edits are being made with respect to this post as part of an attempt to falsify sources. If he intends to cooroborate any of his statements, he can do so with citation, however, until this occurs, I shall treat all of his posts as vandalism. Unedit ( talk) 20:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
These edits add nothing to the article, and so far as I am concerned are part of an attempt to assert a false claim; namely that DRM is the same as software copy protection, which is not true. I am reverting all the edits on this article by Imacreditcard and Masterhomer, and will continue to do so as nessisary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unedit ( talk • contribs) 23:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the below, because it is original research:
==Coding Quality== On the [http://drmlicense.one.microsoft.com/Indivsite/en/indivit.asp?force=1 download page for DRM], the source code has the following comment "https://Lets [sic] just die here if we have errors. How to report them is [[to be determined|TBD]]." Even Microsoft does not have long term confidence in the product (see this article in ''The Register'' "[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/11/21/file_swap_nets_will_win/ File swap nets will win, DRM and lawyers lose, say MS researchers]"). With the lock-down of the security kernel in Windows Vista to external security vendors, a new threat was introduced as system crackers learned to do what they could no longer do. [[Oliver Friedrichs]], the director of emerging technologies in the Symantec security response team, wrote in August 2006 "[http://www.symantec.com/enterprise/security_response/weblog/2006/08/assessment_of_vista_kernel_mod.html researchers and attackers can, and have, already found ways to disable and work around PatchGuard]". In good design practice, it is the responsibility of the designer to develop the test scripts, (for example in [[Iterative and incremental development]] and Microsoft's own ''Architecture Journal'' on [http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb491123.aspx Test-Driven Infrastructures]), and think of how an application may be broken. In the case of security, if the designer does not do it, a system cracker will do it for them (see this blog by George Ou on ZDNet "[http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?/?p=81 Microsoft blocks FairUse4WM v2 after 3 months of DRM free music]").
-- Superm401 - Talk 05:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Can someone modify this sentence?
The advent of personal computers as household appliances has made it convenient for consumers to convert media (which may or may not be copyrighted) originally in a physical/analog form or a broadcast form into a universal, digital form (this process is called ripping) for location and/or time shifting purposes, combined with the Internet and popular file sharing tools, has made unauthorized distribution of copies of copyrighted digital media (so-called digital piracy) much easier.
This is all one sentence in the article, but it appears that it should be two. I'm not sure exactly what was intended here or I'd fix it myself. Dansiman ( talk| Contribs) 03:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Just reading the opening section it seems that this article has an anti-DRM slant. (In contrast to WP's general attitude which respects copyrights, and makes a big point of doing so.) Over half of the intro is given to criticism of DRM, including calling it a "scheme" and giving wiki-links to 2 anti-DRM organizations. Borock ( talk) 13:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
<--- All those with an interest in the POVishness of this article (pro or anti) should consult the archives on the point before diving in to revise any perceived errors. This issue has been well and exhaustively thrashed out with the results (more or less) that you see in this article. There are those, myself included, who see the term Dig Rghts Mgmnt to be itself POV and a pernicious propagnadistic misuse of the language since the thing being protected is not rights (these vary widely across jurisdictions, and expire at various times in many jurisdictions), but sales revenue and market control.
DRM schemes are rarely (never to my knowledge) actually matched to the legal context within which they will exist, regularly assert control for which there is no support in law thus hijacking rights users would have in any other media (a kind of fraud, at least in equity), and have yet to my knowledge included an expiration date so the user gets his rights when the copyright expires or is abandoned, whereupon reverting to the public domain. Some folks with these views prefer the Dig Rest Mgmt term.
On the other side are those who regard the term as having been chosen by the industries involved and feel they should be allowed to use whatever term they wish (though in this case the term is not trademarked and so commercial control of speech terms and their use is at least dubious and at worst unsupportable on any grounds). Most of these folks prefer the Dig Rest Mgmt term.
Still others support the use of these schemes whatever the name inthe interest of commercial profit. Regardless of rights to use and keep material formerly held by users, and now unilaterally seized by engineering technology.
Still others think the entire business is entirely unconscionable and should be opposed, under whatever name, at every opportunity. Rights formerly held by users under affirmative copyright law should not be unilaterally abrogated and vitiated by commercial interests.
Still others regard the lack of control by creative artists of any aspect of this to be the unconscionable part and regard the commercial interests as the offending party, almost without regard to any protection schemes whatever the name used.
As you can see the variety of strongly held views on the subject mean that any article must thread a great many POV filters, including, of course yours.
If you don't like the present, hard won, 'balance', well then, be bold and revise as you see fit. Complaining about anticipated bias in the editors who will ruthlessly winnow your favored prose is not in the WP spirit of all being bold. ww ( talk) 23:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a great article, with good npov and an absolute wealth of links, footnotes, references etc. It's pretty authorative, even scholarly I guess. But look, most users go to an encyclopedia just for information, and with the greatest respect, I feel your Methods to bypass DRM could be made shorter. I wouldn't dream of hacking your page - instead, I'd like to offer you the following abstract I made for my own understanding (it also subsumes Analog Hole). Edetic ( talk) 09:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I had an edit reverted, and thought I'd throw in a quote from the sourced article. Am open to rephrasing, but the free-culture argument against DRM is not simply that it overreaches legally, but that it is technologically a chimera.
Cory: "Bob will only buy Pirates of the Caribbean if he can descramble the CSS-encrypted VOB -- video object -- on his DVD player. Otherwise, the disc is only useful to Bob as a drinks-coaster. So Alice has to provide Bob -- the attacker -- with the key, the cipher and the ciphertext.
Hilarity ensues.
DRM systems are usually broken in minutes, sometimes days. Rarely, months. It's not because the people who think them up are stupid. It's not because the people who break them are smart. It's not because there's a flaw in the algorithms. At the end of the day, all DRM systems share a common vulnerability: they provide their attackers with ciphertext, the cipher and the key" Mateo LeFou ( talk) 00:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I want to add a question. Why would users want to protect that publishing industry with greedy attitute? If the industry showed that kind of attitude, the users will eventually break from there. (beancube) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.107 ( talk) 23:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The introduction uses the phrase "time-shift" three times. What on earth is time-shifting, and could that be introduced? -- 166.70.188.26 ( talk) 17:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Add information about DRM and games. Mention censorship by game review sites re:drm critiques. The current spore controversy with DRM and the 1 star ratings on amazon.com (1400+ 1star ratings due to the DRM that is a restrictive securerom only allowing 3 installs before locking the key unless the user calls EA to request more installs (single increment only). DRM software as a persistant virus (ethical or not) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.147.132.206 ( talk) 17:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
This section was recently removed. I agree that it's wording was inadequate and deserved work, however the points made were worth inclusion. DRM does affect existing user rights under US copyright law in several ways, and this point is worth making here. And since it's worth making, it seems to be of some worth as a section whcih can be found in the TOC (a convenience to the reader sort of thing). Comments? ww ( talk) 13:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I just removed the following section as it is clearly POV. Please feel free to re-add this material with appropriate NPOV and citations. Vectro ( talk) 22:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act section outlines the enacted legal frameworks in the the US and the EU, but not other countries. I'm in Australia and the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000 came in as part of the US free trade agreement. [1] Not WIPO? I'm confused. Could someone please clarify this, and ideally the larger, international status of DRM? DLeonard 09:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
You may want to look into Article 11 of the 1996 WIPO copyright treaty. There is another article in that treaty saying you have to pull out of the treaty if you you don't like a specific article. 208.99.137.71 ( talk) 17:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm having trouble finding citations for the Amazon "Digital Locker", a pre-Kindle DRM setup that I believe was based on Adobe's Digital Reader. Sometime in 2005 (?) they removed support for it and locked out everyone who had purchased ebooks from them. This would be good to add to the obsolete section. Here is one comment that refers to it, but I am having trouble finding any authoritative sources. -- Autopilot ( talk) 22:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm a huge fan of Wikipedia but this article is disgracefully biased. Unfortunately I do not have the knowledge to edit it, but I wanted to add my voice to those who have requested a more prominent statement that the article does not meet standards for quality and bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill1008 ( talk • contribs) 12:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Smithereen ( talk) 21:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree as well, this is, perhaps, the most biased article I've ever read on Wikipedia. 217.174.50.55 ( talk) 17:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm absolutely stunned that this article is not tagged with some sort of flag indicating the high degrees of bias. The entire article reads like an anti-DRM primer - everywhere DRM is mentioned, there are explicit or implicit claims that it is effectively useless. The Introduction is a good example, the closing paragraph of the Introduction effectively makes DRM sound useless ("In practice, all widely-used DRM systems are eventually defeated or circumvented") without taking into account the varying degrees of success with DRM - for example PS3 DRM has NOT been defeated. Yes, it may be defeated eventually, just as eventually we will all be dead, but starting an introduction in an article on the human race with "Ultimately all human beings die" would seem odd, would it not? So why does this sort of crap fly in a Wikipedia article on DRM? Possibly because Wikipedia is proving itself widely irrelevant by the day due to an absolute lack of ability to control biased and agenda-laden content from creeping into every single nook and cranny on this site.
Frankly I don't have the time and patience to reedit this article, because the anti-DRM brigade would be out in a matter of minutes to reslant the whole thing back into its current state of nonsense, but it does bear the flag that this article is biased, so at least casual readers can be warned about the semi-propagandistic nature of the thing before they delve into! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.194.169 ( talk) 04:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
--just wanted to comment on the PS3 game DRM not being defeated in that many of the same reasons it's hasn't been hacked are the same reasons why it's struggling. -- 24.3.16.120 ( talk) 22:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
As opposed to say, PC gaming being almost completely subsumed by console gaming, because piracy and the lack of viable DRM has made PC gaming a relic? The PS3 is not struggling because of DRM, it is struggling due to a range of other issues. But more importantly, the "struggling PS3" is still outselling the PC as a platform for most games, despite there being many times more gaming PCs than PS3s! Also, someone has now added a completely biased and irrelevant link as a citation for the slanted quote I mentioned earlier ("In practice, all widely-used DRM systems are eventually defeated or circumvented"). Bravo Wikipedia! Onwards to new heights of user-driven crapulence.
There is an obvious...slant...to the article. Case in point is the section I just edited (the ebook DRM section): the Amazon deletion of versions of Orwell's works from consumer's Kindles was mentioned, with the statement of the comparison to such deletion being itself somewhat Orwellian, the Free Software Foundation running the "DRM is bad" line, and a statement that Amazon's CEO apologized. What wasn't stated in that section, and which was only linked to amidst the plethora of other links (and hidden within the "commentator's called it Orwellian" links) was the fact the reason Amazon took those versions of the books down and removed them from consumer's devices was because the publisher of the books didn't actually have the rights to publish the books. They were unauthorized copies up for sale on Amazon's ebook section, in other words: pirated books in and of themselves. Also lost within that shuffle was that Amazon gave the purchasers of said books a full refund. Reading the section as it was written before I edited it, one gets the notion that Evil Amazon went and deleted the books for no reason at all other than they don't want you to read what they don't want you to read (Orwellian indeed). Except that's not really the case.
Mind you, I don't agree with HOW Amazon went about it (no reason to not tell consumers why before you do it, for one, or offer a refund if they agree to delete the unauthorized copy), but the reason WHY they did it makes sense and doesn't cast them as "evil" as the original section seemed to read. And Orwell, as a writer, would have actually stood up for his own rights over his own work, btw. His problem was censorship, which was NOT what Amazon engaged in. Therealspiffyone ( talk) 06:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Ambivalent.I've made a few edits, and I think it's more reasonable now. Danielbirns ( talk) 23:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
"Cracking a compiled version for the right key codes will not result in a redistributable cracked version because the internal algorithms that utilize the key codes also incorporate separate encrypted time of compile and other information, and will prevent installs after, say, 36 hours of compilation."
Um, this can be cracked too, the whole point of asm is that anything can be early exited or avoided. Repeat after me, "No DRM will stand uncracked forever". Is Chrism even notable enough to list here? It just uses a dubiously awarded prior art patent to do something very obvious (Which I am sure other companies have done before and never patented). Hullo exclamation mark ( talk) 23:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I undid the following addition and moved it here:
Latest news about DRM concerns french society Ubisoft wich, at this date (14/03/2010), is under attack by a group or russian pirates who called oupon the entire piracy community to flood Ubisoft servers with sole purpose to make them crash, making actual customers unable to play the concerned games (Assassin's creed 2 and Silent Hunter 5).Those games require constant connexion to Ubisoft servers (even for solo play). Ironically, the only people who did manage to play the games were pirates wich managed to have a perfectly working crack for Silent Hunter and a partial crack for Assassin's Creed. As i write these words, forums all over the world are being filled with DRM complaints. Future will tell us wether Ubisoft will bow to player's will or not.
Aside from the numerous spelling and grammar errors, the statements in the edit are not cited nor are they written with NPOV. Hartboy ( talk) 23:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The following statement in the lead of this article has been removed and subsequently reverted:
In practice, all widely-used DRM systems are eventually defeated or circumvented.
I believe there should be a discussion about whether the statement should stay, as I believe it should be removed from the lead, or moved to a different section of the article at the least.
The statement was removed originally because of concerns over its bias. I agree; I believe that while the statement itself may not be factually inaccurate, its inclusion in the lead may present bias in the form of undue weight. In addition, I don't believe that the source cited for the statement is verifiable. If, for example, the article would say
than the source is acceptable in that it presents the opinion of Doctorow, an outspoken opponent of DRM, making that statement as one of the reasons he is opposed to the practice. However, as it stands now, the source is being used to substantiate a factual claim that
and used in that way, the source fails as a reliable source. Can we get a consensus on the inclusion of this statement in the lead? Hartboy ( talk) 23:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Here's a great story about filmmaker Nina Paley (Sita Sings the Blues) who turned down an offer from Netflix because they would not use a DRM-free version of the film nor would they allow her to record a statement saying where DRM-free versions could be found. I offer this in case someone wants to build up a section about artists bypassing DRM. SteveCoppock ( talk) 01:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
This article seems to be entirely dedicated to, after explaining what DRM is, telling us why it's so bad. Is there nothing to be said in favour of DRM? I know it's widely hated on the Internet, but if you just read this article you'd have the impression that it's a completely discredited and universally discouraged practice, when in fact it's more widely used than ever. Obviously, there are good reasons for that, but this article doesn't do a good enough job of making them clear. For reasons of WP:NPOV, it needs to explain not just why so many people dislike DRM, but why so many companies like it and use it. Robofish ( talk) 13:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Cost of production, distribution and marketing? :/ Cost of production = the electricity needed to run their computers. Distribution = electricity needed to run their computers. Marketing = none. What is that? One or two hundred dollars max? Against Radiohead's tens of millions of fans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.49.169 ( talk) 18:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
The article currently has little or no discussion of piracy, consequent revenue losses to content-makers or copyright-holders, or the principle of copyrights. Seeing as it already discusses both the principled and practical shortcomings of DRM, it could stand to represent the justifications a little more fully. I'm prepared to make the necessary edits if somebody can point me to published sources on this side of the question. Kenji Yamada ( talk) 20:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The article also needs to mention that a recent federal appeals court ruling < http://arstechnica.com/software/news/2010/07/court-breaking-drm-for-a-fair-use-is-legal.ars> appears to allow one to legally remove DRM for "fair use". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.130.106 ( talk) 16:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
People may be looking for more information on just content security (security ranging from e-mail to web filtering to social media security). This could also be listed under "Unified Security". Web 2.0 has integrated all of these and many things have been redefined (see sonicwall.com or websense.com for such examples). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.15.64.200 ( talk) 14:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
“No fully working crack for Silent Hunter V has been confirmed.” — This passage is complete bullshit. A working crack had been released by the group SKIDROW two months after the game was published. I won’t link to the file itself but you can look it up for example in the German forum “MyGully.com”. The first working crack was posted there in May 2010. -- 88.153.2.141 ( talk) 03:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
This article needs a History section. This is an interesting story that needs to be told.
Etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielbirns ( talk • contribs) 00:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
There is a article on the subject here, but it only goes from 1998 and forward. Belorn ( talk) 00:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
The e-book section should also cover the increasingly popular so-called "social drm". This consists in embedding purchaser personal data in the final file in order to discourage piracy.
http://www.teleread.com/drm/social-drm-vs-traditional-mobipocket-style-drm-time-for-a-switch/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.16.35.87 ( talk) 13:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
As a wiki-user who seeks useful information on areas of interest, I'd have to judge this article as being very unfocused, very tendentious, very close to being a complete fail. I just bought an eBook reader and I came to the article to learn more about this aspect of electronic publishing and distribution. I thought I would find information about what DRM is and how it works. While I did find out a bit about these two basic questions, the article is overwhelmed by a barely restrained, highly tendentious back-and-forth concerning whether or not DRM is good or bad, right or wrong, pro or con, left or right, up or down, etc., etc.
Information about the mechanics of how DRM actually works is perfunctory and inadequate and almost absent compared to the wealth of information about how it DOESN'T or CAN'T work. I really think a good solid understanding of how DRM actually works should be established before any extended discussion of its inadequacy.
As a positive suggestion, I think the article should focus primarily on what DRM is, and how it works - and I think the "how" should be expanded by explaining much more of the mechanics. A short and to-the-point "criticisms" or "controversy" summary section should be included with a pointer to another, completely separate article about "Social Implications of DRM" or some such fuzzy sort of topic so that those who are interested in DRM per se can get the facts and information concerning DRM per se without having to wade through a lot of tendentious, argumentative banter inadequately disguised as "neutral points of view" by hiding behind "reliable sources." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan.A.Mick ( talk • contribs) 02:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to second this point of view. The article is basically a political rant. Although I agree with the author's politics, I came here to swot up on the technology to prepare for a job interview. To this end, the article is useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.136.82.13 ( talk) 14:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
It might be useful to list the 6 current DMCA exemptions (either explicitly or with a link to the DMCA article). Perhaps also adding a section on the justifications for why these exemptions in particular were granted (and why some other, potentially legitimate ones (like DRMs on online music) weren't granted). Npmakarov89 ( talk) 21:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I misssed that Tweakguides indeed do say this. I dismissed it out of hand (somewhat foolish) as non-sourced claim since good sources never have statements like that which can be proved incorrect by typing two words into google. Tweakguide is not a good source for this claim since the SafeDisc article mention reported problems, and a simple google search on SafeDisc + issue gives quite clear results to prove that there have indeed been reports of problems with SafeDisc. Now we could have a "TweakGuide say this, Group X, Y, Z say the opposite", including articles about a Microsoft patch fixing some of mentioned issues, but that would not improve that article in my point of view. Belorn ( talk) 19:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Microsoft have announced that support for their e-book Reader software will end next year, making activation of new copies impossible (which seems to be the case already). Hence drm protected .lit files will no longer be able to be opened on new hardware (or current hardware with a new OS). No support is being given to facilitate customers tranferal of files (ie, a legacy reader that does not need activating), so accessing legally purchased e-books only be done by illegally by breaking the drm (currently only possible with an activated version of the software anyway, as i have discovered).
Should this be added to the list of obselete drms that screw over legitimate consumers? As the list will only get longer, should it be moved to a sub-article Obsolete DRM formats? 82.12.149.177 ( talk) 15:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Is there any reason Steam isn't mentioned?
I think it would make the article clearer if the DRM was catagorized into it's own sections although I'm not sure if I've done it the correct way.
Pleasetry (
talk)
16:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
In fairness and good faith, I am asking the Wikipedia community to reconsider the revert on my recent to this article under Controversy/"DRM Free".
User:SudoGhost reverted my edit with the reason, "I don't think that source gives sufficient WP:WEIGHT to give that much information about a minor software company." I have no doubts that SudoGhost was acting in good faith, but upon reviewing the policy, I believe there is sufficient weight to include my edit into the article. Aside from the source I cited, the same information also appears on many other websites:
This extensive list is partial as there are many more sites that reported on the commentary. I chose that particular citation because it was simple and straight to the point, but the commentary can very easily be sourced elsewhere if needed (like Forbes). If the concern is a question of, did the CEO of CD Projekt Red make such a commentary at GDC? It's abundantly clear that he did. If the concern is that CD Projekt Red is a "minor" software company — certainly they are not a company among giants like Microsoft, but they are 18 years old and employed about 300 in 2008. I believe that is sufficiently indicative that there is enough experience within this company for the CEO to make such a qualified commentary. That, and to have garnered this much internet news attention would imply that the company may not be that minor. ChewableOJ ( talk) 01:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
The list of publishers doing only DRM-free works is getting longer. In the world of ebooks, I think we reached around 37 publishers. Should there be a separate Web page for the list of DRM-free publishers? KarlDubost ( talk) 14:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
The license agreements of stock image companies, i.e. istockphoto, getty images are commonly used in online course development. Typically the “Standard license terms” is obtained as opposed to “Extended License Provisions.” I am interested in determining the restrictions to Standard license terms in this environment. Quite often the original courses are migrated to or hosted by organizations that do not posses the DRM. Wikipietime ( talk) 14:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Digital "Rights" Management is a propaganda term. I think the article should be re-titled Digital Restrictions Management. No one has a "right" to enforce restrictions in hardware or software that I have purchased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.165.125 ( talk) 14:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Can we get less of that hippie b...t and more details on DRM algorithms and implementations? Thanks. 178.49.18.203 ( talk) 19:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
this article reads more like a persuasive essay than an encyclopedia entry. it needs a lot of work. 71.198.245.225 ( talk) 12:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
This article makes false analogies on the supporters' side. Although there is a small section on the opposing side, this article is still biased. Jimbo1qaz ( talk) 21:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
This article is clearly biased in my opinion. As a strong supporter of intellectual property rights, I am also a reasonably strong opponent to the way that DRM has been implemented and inflicted upon the market, especially through the US government/legal system. HOWEVER, this article, rather than educating the reader on DRM technologies and then campaigning against DRM, starts the anti campaign in the Introduction section (I don't mind the overview). The first part of the article should go more deeply into the technology, helping technologists to better understand how DRM works. This article is fairly devoid of any significant detail, unlike so many other excellent Wiki articles. I would be happy to provide this detail if others feel it is appropriate. As it stands, this article is mainly propaganda, and seem to violate the principles for which Wikipedia stands. Jonfspencer ( talk) 21:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
As a proof (my experience) on this item:
1- I downloaded Paragon's Partition Manager and Drive Backup, PIRATED some years ago... 2- I tested those programs for almost 6-7 months, I don't remember. 3- Suddenly my boss asked me about the programs I've been using, performance, usability, etc. He asked me if it was necessary the use of such programs. 4- After the analysis of my usage and need of those programs, he asked about the cost and we proceeded to get the licenses.
So, yes, the "harmful" piracy, made Paragon's to sell two of it's products...
Same goes with MS-DOS, Windows, Office, Symantec's and McAfee's anti-viruses and utilities, the only reason behind the popularity of those packages it's because of the "harmful" piracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.247.28.2 ( talk) 19:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, folks! The Opposition section describes why some people oppose DRM, but it doesn't seem to describe why people oppose anti-circumvention legislation. Can you please expend the section to include that? Thanks! -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 23:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I just tried to clean the mess in this page, separating technical details from political, social, historical, biased or philosophical interpretations. Still there is a lot of work to do to clean this article and make it stand to wikipedia's expected quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.9.68.241 ( talk) 18:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
In favor of cleaner discussion, lets focus on the latest change to the lead. The methodology I used when collecting the sources was:
The result is this edit. I did not find that access control is general used to describe DRM. I have however yet to read the works of Bruce Schneier, and might update things afterwards. The edit itself might also use some fine tuning in the flow/language department, but I am waiting and see how other contributors in this discussion will react before I continue with more edits or opening an RFC as per previous discussion on DR/N. Thank you. Belorn ( talk) 12:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)