Talk:Digital rights management

merge w/ copy rotection?

This article needs to be merged with copy protection. -- Pde 06:30, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Disagree. There are copy protection methods that are not digital, hence cannot be classified as DRM. GRAHAMUK 06:50, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I also disagree. There is enough information specific to DRM to warrant a separate article.

Ditto. I don't reckon it's the same thing. Copy protection prevents copying, DRM doesn't — it controls (usually by preventing) use; as POV as that may sound, it is actually the truth of the matter, no? — SirPavlova

POV problems?, cover only technical aspects?

This page seems to have substantial POV problems, as well as many markup and presentation errors. It looks as if it was reformatted from an email message. I would suggest, at a minimum, that the main article ought to concentrate on just the technical aspects of DRM, and the politics in various countries should be moved to separate articles. 18.24.0.120 02:05, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I would disagree that 'technical aspects' of DRM (in its various forms which differ substantially technically) are currently separable from policy aspects, including political reactions. The engineering problem for DRM generally is a considerable one given the assorted expectations (legal, commercial, traditional, ...) of any DRM system. Furthermore, those establishing the 'protection expectations' for DRM (in re music, or movies, or ...) have unclear and to some extent mutually contradictory desires about the desired performance. For instance, prevent all unauthorized copying while interfering not at all with a customer's experience.

Until these problems are addressed, there is, can be, and will not be any 'technical solution'.

On the other hand, it is certainly possible to adopt DRM solutions which merely provide what the engineering supplies. Unfortunately, many of the provisions the engineering supplies are problematic under one or another existing law or regulation -- as for instance in the US, the 'fair use' provisions of copyright law. Or such provisions are in conflict with commercial desirata for a DRM policy, most notably convenience for customer and his use of the property.

It would be, perhaps, ideal if such a separation were possible, but the current state of things (engineering, law, copyright owners' desires, ...) do not permit. It's a structural problem(s) and this article ought not to allow readers to conclude (by absence of information on the point) that there are not such problems.

needed opponent's view; dead link

There was no opponent's view of DRM which I just added, and will expand upon. Some argue that DRM is nothing less then the beginning of the age of internet censorship, the digital imprimatur, so I think it important to share their viewpoints. Especially important since one opponent of DRM is Richard M. Stallman of Linux / GNU / GPL who calls it 'trusted computing', and wrote a story where DRM is the mainstay and people revolt for the 'Right to Read'. ShaunMacPherson

The link to Edward Felton's webpage is broken.

--Furrykef 00:39, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

DRM is wrong term for this

A more neutral term would be Digital Copy Protection (DCP). It's not a term that's in vogue, but it's clearly more NPOV. Connelly 03:44, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

IMHO the very term "digital rights management" expresses a non-neutral point of view, since what is being managed has no relationship to anybody's legal rights at all, neither those of the vendor who makes use of DRM nor the customer who buys DRM-protected material. The restrictions placed on the use of the material are whatever restrictions the seller wishes them to be, independent of the legal situation. One example of this was Adobe's release of an Adobe eBook Reader edition of "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"--which was based on Project Gutenberg's eText--which did not permit use of the "read aloud" text-to-speech feature of the software. The article addresses this by presenting the alternate reading of DRM as "digital restrictions management," but I feel there is still an issue. Dpbsmith 00:57, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Agree 100%. —Psychonaut 09:58, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Disagree strongly. Copyright law grants the (restricted under some -- more or less vanishing as changes are progressively made as on behalf of Disney in the US) the copyright holder the privilege of controlling the use of the copyrighted material by anyone else. If the copyright holder wants to prevent it being read aloud (as in the example cited) that's their privilege which will be enforceable at law; the various uses of copyrighted material are separable in law. Whether this separability or particular limitations on use grants make any sense in any particular context is another thing altogether. Whether the example text was copyrightable (though based on a public domain original) is another, and distinct, question.

Well, for the record... Alice's Adventures in Wonderland is well and truly in the public domain. Adobe never has claimed that it wasn't. Adobe never said they had created a derivative work or anything of the sort. In fact, they eventually acknowledged that their text was derived from Project Gutenberg's eText (which all have GPL-like language in them requiring redistributors not to place restrictions on it). Sure, a copyright holder has certain rights to control the use of their work. The point is that in the real world, the use of so-called DRM has no connection whatsoever to those rights. Adobe can and did use their technical mechanism to place restrictions on a work to which they held no rights whatsoever. They claimed it was a mistake, and (guessing here) it very likely was, in that I'll bet their system was set up to make restriction the default and nobody bothered to override the default for a case in which it was incorrect. DRM places all control in the hands of the vendor. Errors in the application tend to be one-sided, consisting of the vendor exercising "rights" that it does not, in fact, possess. The Adobe incident is an absolutely crystal-clear example of this.

The term DRM is indeed awkward, and in some usages is probably non-POV, but the Wikipedia is not the place to reform offending usage. The term is unfortunate, but it is the term in wide use -- however unfortunatly misused, sometimes in an attempt to pervert the discourse for private benefit -- and we're stuck with it in my view.

There will always be an issue in this instance (both terminological and otherwise) as long as there is no generally accepted solution to the conflict which now exists and which has every prospect of getting much more intense in the next few years. The release of 'Longhorn' which will apparently incoporate some (all) aspects of Palladium and the TCPA (whatever they're being officially called of late) will put the fox amongst the chickens in a large way. Next year if I understand the release schedule correctly. We here would do well to have the best possible account of the issues (under whatever term) available when the terminal material hits the rotating impeller.

On the Wikipedia, I think the solution is to set up redirects from this or that alternative term.

Sorry to complicate this further, but there is another definition of DRM floating around that focuses on it as a shared ruleset between vendor and consumer that happens to be implemented/enforced using digital technologies. In this view, it's a matter of contract: the vendor offers content under a specific set of conditions and a consumer decides whether or not to purchase accordingly. This is of course problematic itself for a variety of reasons including 1) the consumer often won't know what all the conditions are and had no voice in designing them; 2) is it a contract of adhesion if the content isn't fungible?; 3) should we let contracts trump fair use (US version; called other things elsewhere)?; 4) DRM can enable a vendor to exert control over content that it doesn't actually own the rights to in the name of controlling its physical media (assuming analog distribution).

To give the pro-DRM crowd its due, DRM is intended to re-level the playing field. The physical limitations of analog media meant that the content vendor was limited in the terms he could set on use of his content but it also pretty effectively limited the consumer's ability to undermine the vendor's return on his investment through mass piracy/redistribution/copying (however you want to look at it). Digital technologies enable property rights relationships that were previously impossible and, if pricing follows, could make more content available to more people via price differentiation. For example, your medieval Gutenberg Bible had to be sold with the understanding that you could use it forever and it could be freely copied, albeit slowly and at high cost. Now a digital book can (well, effectively maybe someday) be sold for short-term use only and without the ability to be copied. That digital version ought to be substantially cheaper than the digital analog of the Gutenberg Bible. I don't personally believe the pricing differential will follow appropriately, but that's at least one argument.

mysterious cruft! what to do?

In the article is a < sentence within > followed by EDIREC. Can anyone figure out what was intended here? I'll try to remember to come back and clean it out if no one can. ww 16:15, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oops, that would be my "EDIREC"...I've been linking up a couple of "REDIRECTs" today, and presumably some tab grabbed the keyboard focus at the wrong time, and I didn't notice that "addition" ;-) — Matt 16:37, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK. I don't have to remember now. Thanks, lowers the overhead load. ww 13:49, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

to what exactly?

Matt, I had in mind here the recent spate of organizational decisions to use Linux as the standard OS (in assorted countries, Munich, ...). Didn't want to say so for POV reasons. Got a way to say it that wouldn't be obscure (I agree with you there) or POV (by mentioning/'endorsing' a competitor)? ww 17:22, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think its quite legit to mention that organisations may be favouring, say, Linux over MS because of DRM, if that's a verifiable matter of fact. (Is DRM the only factor?) — Matt 17:38, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Matt, Without access to the inner thoughts of those concerned... That's too high a bar as a test to avoid POV.

My understanding, tagged as 'reliable' in my dustbin of a mind, is that such decisions are largely the result of several factors:

cost (initial and administrative) vs open source
reliability (even NT/2000/WP has bugs and bugs and goofs and goofs and ...); Linux / BSD not perfect, but orders of magnitude better
security (see above) and note in addition MS not so stellar record of getting crypto stuff right. Gutmann has documented a large goof in the core piece MS' CryptoAPI.
in the case of China the NSAkey flap over a string found in MS Windows (CryptoAPI, I believe it was) seems to have been a significant factor, as likewise the current flap over Chinese wireless standards being imposed on the chip/software industry

Which factor predominates in any particular procurement decision may not be identifiable, even if the decision maker is available for rubber hose interrogation by you or me or Imran. Linus and Arvindn seem to be more gentle souls, maybe they'd use soggy noodles.

I'm not sure how we can do much better in avoiding even the hint of POV. Even when it's the truth. What would you recommend on a technical basis if Munich came to you? The execs might decide otherwise for assorted reasons (fanatsies about 'better' support if they pay for $oftware, fear of swimming against the tide (the Canute courtier syndrome), terminal dumbth about the nature of open source (ie, =illegal hacking), ...), but what you recommend technically?

ww 18:15, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(What would I recommend? Well, Linux, but only because I don't support non-free software out of principle; not sure what would be best technically). As regards mentioning what motivates Munich etc., if access to their "inner thoughts" is required, I'm afraid it's not suitable for Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). For this, we really need some quotable source where group X states that they choose Linux over MS (in part) because of DRM. — Matt 18:51, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that most of the sources out there that mention those concerns (DRM in particular, with Windows media player) also tend to have an RMS-like views on Microsoft - and the two tend to be tied together, which causes a lot of folks to associate concerns about DRM with "tin foil hat-ism" or RMS and similiarily radical folks. Pakaran . 04:42, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ross Anderson is a strong opponent of trusted computing, and is fairly respectable in the "tin foil hat" stakes. — Matt 18:00, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Is that enough ':'. Darned things.

Two too many, but who's counting? — Matt 18:52, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I will defend RJA's rep on his behalf. He is not fairly respectable at all. There is no one more so. Including Schneier, who has been involved in some odd patent stuff in connection with a patent holding firm. I don't really understand it or quite how BS got flypapered (it's legal and contingent and all that; I don't have time to unravel it all, even if I were certain I could if I had time....). Fairly respectable doesn't in my view, cut the rhetorical (or factual) mustard in re RJA.

Anyone who thinks RJA wears even a metaphorical tin hat can just stuff his own tin hat where... Cautious phrasing is admirable, but can be carried too far into misleading trepidation. Or something. ww 18:29, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by this comment, but just to clarify, I meant that I consider Professor Anderson less of a crank than, say, Richard Stallman. — Matt 18:52, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ahemmmm. Undone by British understatement yet again. Never mind. ww 19:54, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

on the reversion this date

The anonymous edit here reverted removed w/o explanation some associated with DRM examples. Perhaps they shouldn't be here, but w/o any explanation of why, ... ww 16:11, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

DivX is referred to here as "a video compression protocol, akin to MPEG-4". In fact, DivX is an implementation of MPEG-4. I suggest "an implementation of the MPEG-4 video compression protocol." -Peter

Revision of definition

The paragraph previously read:

Digital Rights Management or Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) is an umbrella term for any of several arrangements by which the usage of (primarily) copyrighted digital work can be restricted by the owner of the rights to the work. The actual arrangements are called technical protection measures (although the distinction between the two terms is not particularly clear).

This is simply not correct and expresses the point of view of the vendors and users of DRM systems. There is absolutely nothing about DRM that connects its use to the "owner" of the rights to the work, or ensures that the restrictions enforced by the system are in accord with the owner's rights. The previous definition is analogous to defining "handcuffs" as "a system used by police to restrain criminals."

I basically agree, but feel we're caught in the flypaper of established usage, however not quite right. See earlier discussion above which is somewhat related to this point. There is certainly a lot of special pleading in this arena and the use/misuse of terms is an example. Indeed, much of the "it's our property and we should be aided by statute/police/prosecutors to protect our control of (and profiting from) it" arguement is skew to the history in any case. See Free Culture by Lessig (an expert legal scholar of this stuff) for some of the history. The 'Conger', ended in Queen Anne's time by Parliament, is merely an earlier example of what is going on now. ww 20:01, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Off topic, but is there any chance you could do up an article on the Conger? Provided you know enough, anyway. It sounds intriguing, I must say. — Me. (SirPavlova, but I forgot the password.)

Y'all can't seriously think this even remotely approaches a neutral take on the subject, can you?

Well, why don't you try and improve it then?—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 17:22, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Or, at least, please point out particularly problematic parts so that we can discuss what needs fixing. Thanks! — Matt 17:27, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I believe it is important to be factually correct, which this definition currently is not. The copyright holder is not one of the two possible entities that can directly control communications devices as only the device vendor or the owner can be in control.

Whether or not the vendor of the device, under a license agreement from the DRM vendor, should be in control of the device rather than its owner is a political debate. Whether these DRM vendors should be required by law to obey the license agreements of copyright holders, *only* those agreements, and *only* as far as those agreements are legal, is also an appropriate debate.

Clarifying who the two options are, and that the copyright holder is not one of those options, is a fact.

I have commented on this definition on my own site: http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/view/609

Dec 7, 2004

DMCA

Bias Throughout Article

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.

Well, fix them. Just keep it factual. It's all of question of balance. It is very difficult to keep an even balance when the very name of the technology embodies a tendentious point of view. A pro-DRM example would be one which a) has been in use for a year or so without having been cracked, b) has not been rejected by consumers, c) iis not used in practice for any purpose beyond that of enforcing the actual legal rights of the IP owner. Offhand I can't think of a single such example, so I can't help. What exactly do you see as the big DRM success stories? Adobe eBook Reader? the Gemstar eBook devices? Microsoft Reader? The CSS encryption on DVDs? DivX? Flexplay/ez-D? The DataPlay technology? Sony's Key-2-Audio? Dpbsmith (talk) 02:09, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I second Dpbsmith's suggestion. There is a long history (see above) of complaint of bias here, but little actual work removing the alleged bias or providing balance. I would, as would Dpbsmith, provide the balance if I knew of any. From technical grounds I suspect there can't be an effective DRM scheme, but this is insufficient for a statement in the article explaining why there hasn't (isn't) one. Legally, the whole business is a swamp, and special interest pressure on legislatures world wide has made things worse. Please suggest something which provides the balance... ww 21:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Dpbsmith, for pointing out a phenomenon which is unfortunately pervasive here. For those interested in other areas of this debate, I've been struggling with anonymous users on trusted computing who have been attempting to insert an entire anti-DRM/anti-Microsoft rant by Ross Anderson as part of the article. Just today, I removed this stinker from computer security: "Unfortunately for users, a computer industry group led by Microsoft, in an attempt to market a different set of products and services, has taken the term "trusted system" and changed it to include making computer hardware that prevents the user from having full control over their own system". We need more eyes on this problem. It seems that when it comes to openly-hostile POV against proprietary software companies and content-producers, some Wikipedians turn a blind eye. Rhobite 00:16, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

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)

If you want to summarize Anderson's views in a few short sentences, be my guest. He is already represented in Trusted Computing, but if you feel his views should be given more discussion in the article, please edit it. I respect Anderson's academic contributions to computing, similar to my respect for RMS. But I'm not about to let someone paste paragraphs of Anderson's (or RMS's) irrational anti-MS ranting into a supposedly neutral article. Anderson's "FAQ" is an ugly, outdated opinion piece. Please don't pass it off as some neutral reference work. Some anonymous user was pasting it in with little editing - it's not appropriate for Wikipedia, no matter how respected its author is. One more thing, quotes or no, please don't accuse me of censorship. When I find garbage in articles, I delete it. I thought about whether it would be possible to boil down and remove the bias from Anderson's article. It's not possible. Most of it is simply speculation about what Microsoft "might" or "could" do with the evil power of TC. TC chips are shipping, and his apocalyptic predictions have yet to come true. Rhobite 02:33, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Adobe drops key DRM product

Seybold Report, Vol.4,No.22, February 23,2005

A few weeks ago, Adobe quietly announced that it is discontinuing its eBook server software, Content Server, which contains the DRM encryption functionality for PDF eBooks. Adobe no longer sells the product and will discontinue technical support for it in 2006...

Adobe’s abandonment of eBook technology leaves the technology in the hands of smaller vendors: eReader and MobiPocket, both of which produce eBook technology for handheld devices, and independent vendors of DRM for PDF files, such as Aries Systems and FileOpen — both also very small outfits...

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)

"Vendors choose restrictions that accord with their actual legal rights"

I've tried this wording:

the name "rights management" implies that vendors choose restrictions that accord with their actual legal rights, which is sometimes but by no means always the case.

I think the introductory paragraph, to be NPOV, somehow needs to capture these nuances succinctly. (I'm stating from my personal point of view):

The U. S. legal system does recognize the existence of copyrights. Even if you believe that "intellectual property" is a misnomer, that the realm of control has been inappropriately expanded, etc.
Most uses of DRM do bear a vague, rough correspondence to actual legal rights held by the vendor.
Nothing about DRM requires or even encourages it to be used in a way that matches the nuances and ambiguities of IP law. Any rough correspondence to actual rights is completely voluntary on the part of vendors.
Nothing about DRM ties it to the exercise of rights actually held by the vendor, Nothing about it even encourages vendors to use it responsibly.
Vendors are very concerned about their own rights and usually unconcerned about the fair-use rights of the customer, and in practice DRM almost invariably overreaches in the fringes and grey areas.
DRM shifts the balance of power. Traditional situation: waiters sing "Happy BIrthday" in a restaurant and gamble that Time-Warner won't go after them for royalties (grey area here is public performance versus fair use). The burden is on Time-Warner; restaurants will usually get away with it. However, if my Adobe eBook reader refuses to read "Alice in Wonderland" aloud, in practical terms there's next to nothing I can do about it. Burden is on me, and I'm not likely to spend days in call-center hell trying to reach anyone who cares about or is able to resolve the situation. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

- Authr rephrased this as "However, while the name of the technology implies that vendors can only impose restrictions that accord with their actual legal rights, the technology itself does not actually limit them to such restrictions." However, if we say that digital restrictions technology is also a name for the technology, than we cannot refer to the name of the technology. I took another stab at it but I don't like my own phrasing, either. There's a sort of double negative in talking about whether "restrictions" are "limited." Dpbsmith (talk) 23:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps something like this:

The name "rights management" suggests that these restrictions accord with vendors' actual legal rights; however the technology itself does not limit the control of vendors to such rights, thus the name used by opponents, "restrictions management." Authr 01:23, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Oh, maybe the phrase should be "does not limit the vendor's control to the exercise of such rights" because "control of vendors" sounds like the vendors are being controlled rather than controlling, and, and, and, I dunno, "exercise of such rights" sounds better to me than "such rights." Dpbsmith (talk) 01:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I got hung on the word "empower"

"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.

chapter skip

one of the bullets:

inclusion of commercials on the "unskippable track" on DVDs reserved for the copyright notice;

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

Infringement of private rights?

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:

Should the user really have full control of his device?
Does making an illegal or harmful action impossible infringe private rights?
How can we determine user wishes at the hardware level? Obviously, we can't. So then, to what extent preventing illegal actions can limit private rights?

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)

Commented out text in article

In preface

(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

In intro

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).

Where to put Digital Restrictions Management

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)

According to the GNU Project / FSF, the "restrictions" version is a prefered phrase term [1] (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html). It should be mentioned early, in a well-visible way, though not necessarily in the very first sentence. Besides, the name itself, both in case of DRM and "trusted computing", is fundamentally a rhetorical device too. Opinions, comments? --Shaddack 22:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The "restrictions" rendering is nowhere near as common as the "rights" version, so I don't think it necessarily needs to be mentioned early or in a prominent fashion. — Matt Crypto 22:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Btw. I endorse Shaddack's compromise (an elaboration of my idea): put a footnote up front, and bold the "restrictions" phrase in the discussion of critics. But Matt Crypto is also certainly right that "restrictions" is in nowhere nearly as common usage as "rights."

Just because a phrase is fundamentally a rhetorical device doesn't mean it's not the proper name of the thing. For example, the term copyright embodies a particular legal and ideological concept (rhetoric) about the reproduction of texts. It's just that that rhetorical device is old enough to have made it to a the lexicon. Likewise, it's rhetorical to talk about the Great Smoky Mountains National Park or Peter the Great. I'm not opining on the greatness of either thing, but someone was when the names attached. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:00, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

DMCA section out of place

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)

Shouldn't digital rights management be in lowercase?

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)

Now unbalanced on the pro-DRM side

There is still a POV issue with the name "Digital rights management." The article says, correctly:

Arguably, a technology cannot, in principle, know what legal restrictions and rights apply in a specific jurisdiction, usage context, under an external contract, or to an individual author, owner, or publisher."

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)

I strongly disagree with dpbsmith here. I dislike DRM every bit as much as s/he does. But it's not POV to acknowledge that the term exists. The article contains quite a bit of critical material, so it's not like it is a copyright-industry PR piece.

The lock analogy is worth pursuing. It's true that the term "lock" isn't "ownership rights enabler"; but companies that make locks really do attach trade names to their products. A company might market a "TotalProtection" brand lock, or "HomeSecurity" brand, or a "CrackProof" brand, etc. (I invent those examples, they may or may not actually exist). If we were to write an article on Acme Co.'s TotalProtection brand lock, that doesn't mean that we believe it really offers "total protection" (which it obviously would not). In fact, the text of the article might discuss design problems with the lock; or discuss people who disagreed with the deceptive advertising embodied in the name.

But for all that, the article title—and first couple sentences—should still use the trade name without comment. We want to know what it is before we present criticisms or parodic terms. Likewise with "Digital rights management". Like it or not, that's the term advanced by a lot of content industry. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:00, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

dpbs, You are certainly correct that DRM is a misnomer, but misnomerhood is something English speakers seem tolerant of. As I have noted before (above), I think we're stuck -- by usage -- with a less than reasonable term, and it's not a WP thing to correct misnomers widely accepted. We here are describing (or trying to) the actual world, not correct its mistakes in this or that respect. Reluctantly, I must disagree with your suggestion that we attempt correction. Perhaps more text noting the misnomer -- rather along the lines you note here -- might be appropriate? Comment? ww 22:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alan Cox

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)

Perceptual vs. perceived

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)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Digital_rights_management"