Talk:Digital rights management/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

How to Handle DRM

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)

All known DRM systems are broken in significant ways. Either they are easy to circumvent and/or they restrict the users in significant ways that the users hate. And for what are they there? In pornography they rarely use DRM, but the estimate is that they only lose about 5% of profits due to users piracy. Is it worth destroying the users goodwill over 5% reductions?? At the end of the day, users buy materials because it makes them feel good. Why would they buy something that installs something in their computer as a backdoor or buy a CD that doesn't play on their computer's CD player or can't be transferred to their iPod or whatever? DRM = angered users = lost profit.WolfKeeper 23:46, 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)

External Links and External Readings.

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)

No, the books and web links should exactly deal about DRM in general. EFF's POV is important to know and we should link to their site. --mms (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait, you're saying that it's not right for an article on digital rights management to link to books that cover the subject of digital rights management? That really doesn't make any sense.

Your hate-on for external links is damaging the usefulness of the article. While it's fine to reduce the number of external links if some of them appear to only be "spam", but removing all of them is excessive. I want to see a rationale for every single removal, here on the talk page, or by one-at-a-time removal with edit summaries. We aren't in a hurry here... let's do this right. -/- Warren 17:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV isn't the absence of POV, it's the collection of POV, together with avoiding undue bias. If the EFF is biased, that's completely fine, provided they're notable, which they probably are.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Edits of MasterHomer / iamacreditcard

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)

The source comes from the ALA. It shows DRM can often be used to refer to measures on software. DRM in it self is a very new term and it's use is not concrete. That is what that sentence is inferring. Imacreditcard (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

ALA would appear to be incorrect if this is the case. A brief look at a Google search for DRM will show that DRM is only ever used in the context of protecting Digital Audio and Video content. I kindly ask that you make no further edits to the main article on this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unedit (talk • contribs) 20:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I added an additional reference. I ask that you do not revert my changes, and if you have any problem with my changes, you bring it up on the Talk Page per Wikipedia policy. I also ask that you refrain from adding information to my personal userpage. Imacreditcard (talk) 21:29, 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)

Removal

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 "//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)

Introduction

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)

POV

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)

Be bold and fix it. ;^) Binksternet (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. However, I really don't know hardly anything about the topic. Borock (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

DRM ultimately doesn't technically work very well at all, for very fundamental reasons; I'd hope and expect that the article would reflect this. This isn't just people slamming something they don't like, however much you like copyright, DRM doesn't protect it well.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 05:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, if that's the case the article should discuss that. My comment was only about the article, not about DRM pro or con. Borock (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I reluctantly reverted your edit which replaced accuracy with weasel words. In addition, your understanding of NPOV is not correct; NPOV is about balancing views on a particular topic within an article; I believe that broadly the article does this, but improvement can always be made. WP:LEAD says that the introduction has to reflect the article not any other thing. Given this justification you have given above for the tag, I am detagging the article. Basically, if you think the article is unbalanced you need to find information and add it to the article, and then update the lead to reflect that new information.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. DRM might very well be pure evil. As I said I know very little about it. However the wording of the opening section is very much one sided. I will try another attempt to make it a little more fair. Borock (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't count the number of words to decide whether something is balanced or not, and you don't remove words or names until both sides have the same number or any such nonsense. Balance is found when something is unbiased on the subject. That can in some cases mean that one side is completely removed (or nearly so.) If there are people saying positive things on DRM, then you can add them to the article, you don't remove information on the other side because nobody has bothered to add anything positive to another side of an argument; and sometimes there is nothing substantive to add anyway. The use of weasel words is a particularly bad idea. If somebody says something it should be quoted to them, not replaced with words like 'some', 'many' etc.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 13:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

We can have neutral language without equal parts positive and negative information. I don't think that we need to add positive information to the article on Adolf Hitler for it to be fair. But every article should be fair to its subject. Borock (talk) 04:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The "pro" side seems to get a single sentence, phrased in a rather negative way, while the "anti" side enjoys enough space to indulge in repeated and multiple cute word games based on the initials DRM. Sure, I could spend an hour helping balance the article, but judging from this talk page it would be reverted away in seconds. Peter (talk) 22:29, 12 September 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)

No, it wouldn't get reverted. The problem is that "Balance" on the subject of DRM would be a pretty hard thing to attain, considering that the vast majority of published opinion and discussion on the matter is negative. Whether you feel that's fair or not isn't relevant here; Wikipedia policy expects us to avoid giving WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to particular viewpoints; if a large majority of viewpoints are negative, that's what how the article needs to be balanced. You're quite welcome to invest some effort in finding other reliably-sourced viewpoints that help balance things out a bit, but... well, frankly, good luck with that. Warren -talk- 23:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Methods to bypass DRM

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)

• There are many methods to bypass DRM control on audio and video content. If the software that plays DRM-restricted audio files allows CD-burning, then one simple method is to burn the content to an audio CD then rip it into DRM-free files.

• Many DRM schemes use encryption. Software programs have been developed to intercept the data stream as it is decrypted out of the DRM-restricted file, then use this to construct a DRM-free file. To do this such programs require a decryption key. Programs for DVDs, HD DVDs, and Blu-ray Discs include universal decryption keys in the software itself. Programs for iTunes audio, TiVo ToGo recordings, and PlaysForSure songs, however, require the user's own key — that means they can only process content that the user has legally acquired under his or her own account.

• All forms of DRM for audio and visual material are subject to the "analog hole" - in order to play the material the digital signal must be turned into analog, and no DRM can control content in this form. However the conversion from digital to analog and back is likely to force a loss of quality, particularly when using lossy digital formats. HDCP is an attempt to restrict the analog hole.

No one having responded so far, I'll have at it. The canonical WP advice in such situations is Be Bold. Make a change and see how the other editors react. for myself, this is a very important topic with large connections to free speech and, as it has developed, mega-corporate control of law (defacto (digital control of things for which there is no legal basis for the control -- the e-book limitations, for instance) and dejure (the Mouse Haus' influence in revising US copyright law for its own benefit -- Mickey may never enter the public domain in violation of the entire spirit of the Constitutional provision) and culture.

It is also a complex technical topic, not so much to explain to Readers the obscure workings of the various approaches (none works the way the tech-blind lawyers and suits imagine), but because of the incompatible mess of the protection nirvana they so long for, even assuming the underlying technology actually could be made to work. They are making the lives of their customers very difficult -- imagine mice trying to coexist with a herd of elephants and they jostle and push for advantage. You get lots of squashed mice as a result, even if none of the elephants is really very interested in squashing them.

Both issues are of such importance as to justify a longer than WP culture would like article. The alternative, in the interest of brevity, is to make our gentle Reader's task of making some reasonable sense of the whole business, more difficult. A forest of pointers to other articles from which the Reader is expected to assemble a coherent picture of DRM. Not a skill widely available, not even among those whose very business it is to do such integration -- physicians, scholars, policy analysts, ... And so, in my view, WP should not in such instances, blindly rely on a brevity policy if the cost be poor concept purveyance to Readers. ww (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In support of my edit

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)

Right. The paragraph in question in the DRM article here has two claims:

1. "In practice, all widely-used DRM systems have been defeated or circumvented when deployed to enough customers."
2. "Protection of audio and visual material is especially difficult due to the existence of the analog hole, and there are even suggestions that effective DRM is logically impossible for this reason."

Does the Doctorow piece state claim #1?

"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. At this point, the secret isn't a secret anymore."- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 04:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if claim #2 is supposed to be supported by the Doctorow article. If so, it should say that DRM is impossible because you have to give the encryption keys to the consumer, not (as it claims now) because of the analog hole. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 01:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Both are true, but the Doctorow article concentrates mainly on crypto.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 04:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

WK is correct; phrasing should be along the lines of "logically impossible for *these reasons". The citation (as it stands) should remain attached to the first argument, not the paragraph as a whole, but that argument should be reworded to de-emphasize the "enough customers" angle, as the cryptographic problem Cory points undermines every single propagation of a work. Mateo LeFou (talk) 14:50, 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)

Introduction

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)

Time shifting- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

DRM and games

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)

Don't forget Mass Effect had controversey over DRM as well, and Bioshock. cncplyr (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Shortcoming section

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)

I removed part of the Shortcomings section because it contained completely unsourced and seemingly opinion-based information that was added by an anonymous editor a month and a half ago. That same editor's only other contributions to the encyclopedia was to spam several pages with a link advertising their DRM software that gets around the limitations they described in their contributions. So... make what you will of that.

WP:V requires sources to be provided... it should not come as a surprise to any long-time editor that unsourced information that can be construed as advancing an opinion will be removed from the encyclopedia. I may still remove quite a bit more if no sources are provided for what's still there. If you don't like this prospect, find and use sources from experts on the topic, that verify the information we are presenting.

As to the content itself: the section titled "Incompatibility With Old File Formats" is already discussed later in the section, under "Obsolescence". The section about read-only information is flatly false -- the existence of Rights Management Services proves this... and besides, is it really considered a "shortcoming" that the DRM can't be removed from a file that a company employing RMS wants to protect? This is what I mean by "opinion-based"... not all DRM is intended to stop you from making copies of movies, y'know. Warren -talk- 14:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I've no objection to most of the objections you cite. My problem with the summary removal of some of the points had to do with several variations of the consequences of most DRM regarding fair use of copyrighted material. Purchasers of such material have certain rights well established in US law (and elsewhere as well, as US copyright law is emulated in several jurisdictions), adn much (indeed perhaps all as I'm not personally aware of any DRM which recognizes these rights in any practical way) which DRM tramples upon, in a metaphorical sense. Hard to argue they are not shortcomings. so much so that inclusion in the article seems sensible.

No argument from me that the removed stuff was poorly written, needed better form, etc. ww (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed non-NPOV section

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)

DRM systems are generally very poorly engineered from a software standpoint, containing many flaws. Not only are most hackable/crackable, but most are not user-friendly, subject to severe errors and frequently require service by the issuing company due to errors in the licensing/issuing process. Needless to say, no customer wants to buy the rights to play something several times, merely because the software screws up.

The majority of DRM systems are proprietary and incompatible with each other. In addition, a disk with one sort of DRM may well not play on a system or computer that is produced by a competing manufacturer, despite having purchased the proper software and rights to do so. (This is a frequent complaint among computer users who have purchased the rights to play DVDs on their systems and cannot play them, despite having purchased all the required licenses.)

With these two problem areas, DRM has become a virtual (no pun intended) minefield for the non-computer savvy customer and a constant pain for the technically-minded. Most customers just want something that works and don't want to constantly have to call customer service.

International enforceability

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)

Amazon digital locker?

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)

Very biased article - brings Wikipedia into disrepute

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)

Why is this article not tagged with Bias?

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.

I would just like to mention one or two of the reasons the PS3 is struggling. First, the PS3 is significantly more expensive than the Xbox 360, Wii or even some gaming PCs. This fact alone means that a large portion of gamers will avoid the PS3. Second, it is easier for game companies to port game code from the PC to the Xbox 360 than from PC to PS3. The reason being that Windows and the Xbox are both created by Microsoft, which means the coding structure is very similar. So if a multi-platform game is available for the PC, it is more likely that it will be available for the Xbox than the PS3. In the case of console-only games, it is a case of who has the larger user base. Because the Xbox 360 is cheaper, this automatically means that the Xbox will have the larger user base.

Anyway, you people should really do your research and do some logical thinking before you make comments like the one above. Sure, it will take longer but you eliminate the chance that someone will come along later and make you look like a fool. I love getting into discussions like this. -XJDHDR (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "...you people should really do your research...": have a look at the worldwide sales figures. I wouldn't call the difference between sales of the XBox and the PS3 "significant". A personal observation is that every gaming store I see has more shelf space devoted to PS3 games than XBox games, so someone must be buying them. I've got nothing against the XBox, but I sure would like to be running the PS3 division that is "struggling" with only 35.7 million unit sales.  HWV258.  01:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

Chrism

"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)

03/14/2010 anonymous edit

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)

I think it is still a valid event to document but yes it could cite a reference etc. Hullo exclamation mark (talk) 07:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Lead edit dispute

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

• "Opponents of DRM cite its impracticality, noting that all widely-used DRM systems are eventually defeated or circumvented,"

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

• "All widely-used DRM systems are eventually defeated or circumvented,"

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)

I'm the one who removed the statement. I agree with what you said here. The statement may be true, but it's one point of view and therefore shouldn't be made in the editor's voice. On the other hand, if we attribute it to some particular party, I can't see why it should be in the lead. Kenji Yamada (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Though the comment is worded inappropriately here, i believe the editor may have been shooting for a reference to the "analog hole" problem of digital rights management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_hole). Although it would not be suitable to assert that all DRM protections ARE (IN FACT) circumvented, it is true that all DRM protections that concern the delivery of analog forms of data in a method perceptible by humans are circumventable.

Artists refusing distribution over DRM issues

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)

No positives?

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)

Greed? Hullo exclamation mark (talk) 12:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh sure, fall back on the stupid and biased "Corperations are greedy and selfish" conspiracy theory (which is highly inaccurate, BTW). In reality, most companies don't like DRM. They don't enjoy paying license fees for an item that then increases support costs and reduces PR. They have to use DRM though because the vast majority of their customers would rather pirate their work to death than pay for it. An unfortunate side effect of the "It's all about me!" philosophy.

At the end of the day, if you want a section that supports DRM, you will probably have to write it yourself. The reason for this is because DRM by itself provides zero benefits to the consumer, it's only goal is to stop those consumers from getting the media for free for as long as possible, hence it benefits only the company that uses it (and even then, to a limited extent). Since most of the people that visit this page are consumers, it is unlikely that any of them would be motivated enough to write support for DRM. -XJDHDR (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Humble Indie Bundle did alright without DRM. Anyway I think there are basically 3 groups of people, those implementing and using DRM, customers that don't know or care either way and those that know about DRM and do not like it. I'd guess that most of the people visiting this page are in the last category. Short of writing it yourself, getting someone in the first category to write it may be the only way to get "for DRM" points into the article. Hullo exclamation mark (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

A short perusal of thepiratebay.org or isohunt.com will show how well DRM has kept people from pirating their work to death. On the other hand, I could download free audio books through my library (a service funded by my money), except it requires a special DRM encumbered player that only runs on Windows. I've known quite a few people to pirate loads of stuff, and almost all of them still pay for what they really like. The exceptions are cruel people and those who get sick of advertising and DRM blasted down their throats when they buy stuff. Radiohead released an album online, where customers could name any price they wanted at checkout (even free). Estimates place the average price at $5 (£2.50) per download (vs a standard contract of $1 per CD sold), which doesn't point to an "It's all about me!" philosophy or a need for DRM to keep people from getting free music or movies. It seems that people will pay for something they value instead of getting it for free, so there may be nothing to be said in favor of DRM. Jbo5112 (talk) 10:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I'll state right now that my experience with DRM's possible effects is mostly limited to PC and console gaming, which means I am not completely sure about effects in other sectors. Now that that's out of the way, I never said or implied that DRM completely stops piracy in it's tracks; only a madman would take that stance. However, anyone who tries to argue that DRM does not have any reducing effect on piracy is equally mad. So what exactly is the point of your first sentence? As a matter of fact, this article (under DRM causes piracy at least show that games not using DRM actually experience MORE piracy compared to games with DRM. Another example that isn't mentioned there is Assassin's Creed II vs Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. MW2 has a minor DRM system and it's PC release barely made 1 mil sales. AC2, however, has a very intrusive and overkill DRM and went uncracked for more than a month but there are rumours that the PC release sold over 2 mil copies. As I've already mentioned above, intellectual property owners don't like DRM for the reasons I've already mentioned so one has to at least ask why they continue using it. It's not like DRM is a new invention, it has been around for at least the last two decades. Surely DRM must be having at least some reducing effect on piracy, otherwise it's use would have been abandoned long ago.

As for the DRM-encumbered player, it doesn't surprise me that it only works on Windows at all, considering that the vast majority of PC users are in fact using Windows (around 90% in fact, as many surveys will tell you) and the same could be said for most software available. It is completely unreasonable to expect the player's creaters to almost triple their cost of production (whether that be time or money) to cater for an extra, at most, 10% of PC users.

Next, are you absolutely sure those people really bought what the liked or are they just saying that (statistics I've read show that, on average, for every legal copy of a certain item owned, there are 5 or 6 pirated copies owned by others)? Also, if they buy only what they really like, what about what they like or are ambivalent about? Do the intelectual property owners not deserve an income unless your friends really like their stuff? Additionally, with physical property, if you don't like something, you don't buy it and then you don't get to use it as a result. Trying to use it for free is illegal and results in you going to jail. Why is intellectual property any different? In fact, most/all arguments made in support of pirating intellectual property can be easily countered with a reference to a similar situation concerning physical property (including "demo-testing", there are more than enough reviews and actual demos available to judge whether you want something).

Next, people pirating because of advertising? First, I have never heard that argument before. Second, what the hell? There is absolutely nothing wrong with advertising! Advertising is basically the price you pay for getting something for free/cheap. If you don't want advertising, the solution is simple: fork out some extra cash for the non-ad version (the premium being what the ad owner would have received from you looking at the ads). As for DRM related piracy, I've already proven that in PC gaming at least, it is NOT using DRM that causes increased piracy, though I have no doubt that a few gamers that would have bought the game would pirate it instead due to DRM.

As for your Radiohead album quote, your argument lacks a number of crucial points. First, averages are good and all but they don't take into account the individual; $5 per CD may be caused by 100% of voters voting for $5 but it could just as easily be caused by 17% voting $30 and 83% voting $0 (in this case, after selling the album for $5, 13% will be overjoyed to pay only $5 while the last 83% will still pirate the CD because it is still too expensive). Second, you can't take a gross income figure and compare it to a nett profit figure. No accountant would be crazy enough to do that. What I mean is that $5 is what the customer pays for the CD (ie, cost of production, distribution and marketing still need to be deducted, costs that would normally be handled by the publisher are now handled by the intellectual property owner because they decided to do self-publishing). On the other hand, $1 per CD is the income given to the intellectual property owner by the publisher, NOT the price the customer has to pay for the CD, which is usually more than $5 per CD in the case of albums. The reason why this is so is another story which I would prefer telling another time.

As for the rest of your comment, I think what I have typed here and previously sufficiently addresses those. At the end of the day though, regardless of what you or anyone thinks about DRM, if we really want DRM to disappear, we need to fight the root cause of DRM, which is piracy. Piracy is a disease and DRM is one of it's symptoms. Any doctor will tell you that the key to good health is not to treat the symptoms but to cure the disease. Same thing here, if we want intellectual property owners to stop using DRM in their property, we need to eliminate or at least seriously reduce piracy, not argue with those owners until we're red in the face. By reducing piracy, I don't mean just your own but the piracy you see others commit around you every day. If you hate DRM, you must also hate piracy. You can't hate DRM but love piracy because it is piracy which originally spawned DRM. -XJDHDR (talk) 21:37, 28 August 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)

Nope! Try again! Cost of production = Electricity, sewerage, water, rent, repairs, maintenance, wages and salaries, internet bandwidth, taxes, reimbursements to copyright holders, losses due to piracy, etc. And this is nowhere near an exhaustive list. Albums are not some guy somewhere in the world with a full time job who goes home to compile music as a hobby. It is an actual business with expenses that run into the billions of dollars.

Distribution = cost to burn CDs, shipping CDs to shops, security (to make sure a pirate doesn't steal one then upload it), mark-up added by shops, electricity, bandwidth, repairs and maintenace of servers, etc (again, not an exhaustive list).

Marketing = advertising. You can't expect someone to maximise their sales by uploading the file somewhere or shipping some CDs to a shop and hope that people find it (and yes, telling people about the album on your home page is advertising). You have to actually spend some money to get the word out.

To clarify what I said earlier, regular album creation involves making some music then handing it to a publisher to sell (most artists can't afford to publish the music themselves). Of course, it is possible to self publish your work, which means that the artists will get all of the income, but it also means that if the album doesn't sell, the artists lose all of the money they invested, as opposed to the publisher losing money on a failure.

The publisher then markets the music, burns it to CD, ships it to the various shops and they then sell it. They then pay a portion of that income to the artists that created the music. Digital distribution, on the other hand, reduces the cost of distribution significantly (though it also means that those with low quality internet connections won't be able to buy the albums), maybe enough that some artists will be able to afford to risk self-publishing. Logically, this means that digital distribution of anything would be cheaper than selling retail (this makes me think of iTunes).

Anyway, my point is that Radiohead's $5 digital album is an example of self-publishing whereas Jbo5112's "vs a standard contract of $1 per CD sold" statement is an example of a publisher making a contract with the artists which means that the artists don't have to pay the expenses I mentioned above in return for a portion of the sales. So basically, the only thing Jbo5112 has proven with that example is that self-publishing has the potential of being more profitable than letting someone else publish your work. But even then, self-publising has it's own string of costs which go far beyond borrowing a server (you didn't mention paying for one) and plugging it in a socket (namely some of those I mentioned above).

So as for your argument, you can't expect to have a reasonable discussion with me if you start from a point of ignorance. You need have knowlege and understand of what you are talking about. Otherwise, I just waste my time proving you wrong. -XJDHDR (talk) 07:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"Nope! Try again! Cost of production = Electricity, sewerage, ... losses due to piracy, etc."

I'm sorry, since when does a loss of potential profits constitute an expenditure increase? 86.10.29.202 (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

When expense is used as a verb, it means to write off as an expense and this is exactly what piracy is. Once someone downloads a free item, it is highly unlikely that they will then buy what is, in all respects, exactly the same as what they already have. Hence, the potential income is written off. And as a result, this cost is transferred to the customer in the form of higher sales prices.

And if that isn't enough, one of the losses due to piracy comes in the form of pirates demanding free technical support from the people they have pirated something from, the problems being usually caused by the fact that they pirated the software to begin with. -XJDHDR (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:FORUM before continuing making more edits. The talk page is for improving the article, not for discussing piracy. As for NPOV, to cite NPOV: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". If there is "pro-drm" viewpoints that you think the article is missing, please provide some verifiable claims that they make and add them here or directly to the article by WP:BOLD. Belorn (talk) 06:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Add a section about justifications for DRM

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)

You could use this article as a starting point: Tweakguides.com Piracy article. Good luck! XJDHDR (talk) 18:36, 23 April 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)

New Entry for "Content Security"

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 crack for Silent Hunter V

“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)

Forums are not reliable sources of information; for all I know, those posts could be made by unsuccessful crackers who want to feel good about themselves. So basically, you need a reliable source before you can add information to this encyclopaedia. On the other hand, I was editing the Silent Hunter V article a few months ago and I think I recall mention of a working crack for the game there.

It should be noted that companies like Ubisoft would not need DRM if there was no piracy. It seems that uPlay has had a noticeable reducing effect on piracy as well, despite the complaints, since the DRM has now been implemented in games released after Settlers 7, such as HAWX 2 and POP: TFS. -XJDHDR (talk) 07:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It should also be noted that a significant number of people choose to pirate games as a protest against DRM. I remember an article about Ubisoft's new uber-DRM and the uproar it was causing in the consumer market, and later following a forum thread in which a few thousand people said they were going to express their discontent by downloading the game just to spite Ubisoft. So much for the standard "loss of potential profits" argument there. There's also the problem that DRM is often needlessly invasive and is almost always a source of some incompatibilities (and in at least one case - *cough*Sony - security vulnerabilities), so downloading the game illegally can actually lead to a gameplay experience with less problems. What I cannot fathom is how games companies construe DRM as even a partially viable solution to piracy. They spend 6 months and an absolute fortune on development and testing of the DRM system, plus more cash on support tickets when it's not working for some people. A couple of guys chatting over IRC break their DRM in a couple of weeks or less. In the case of Silent Hunters, the DRM was cracked in less than 2 hours. The ratio seems a little hard to sell. 86.10.29.202 (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Before I say anything in reply, I'm going to refer you and anyone interested to this article as I believe it to be the most comprehensive and accurate article on the matter of DRM and piracy in the video game industry.

>It should also be noted that a significant number of people choose to pirate games as a protest against DRM.

This is an example of Newton's Third Law - For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Video games did not originally have DRM bundled with it, it was the actions of piracy that eventually forced the hand of video game developers to utilise DRM. Even then, DRM only really became intrusive after the turn of the century when Bitorrent revolutionised the concept of anonymous file sharing. The article I linked to above also provides numerous examples which prove that piracy causes DRM, not the other way around.

>...and later following a forum thread in which a few thousand people said they were going to express their discontent by downloading the game just to spite Ubisoft.

First, I suspect that you are exaggerating. And even if "a few thousand" is an accurate figure, for a game that makes a million sales, that adds up to fractions of 1%. In other words, hardly a cause for concern. I also remember Ubisoft releasing Prince of Persia without DRM expecting massive piracy and the dozens of people stating that they would buy the game just to spite Ubisoft. Despite the spiting, PoP was massively pirated and Ubisoft never released another game without DRM as a result.

>There's also the problem that DRM is often needlessly invasive and is almost always a source of some incompatibilities (and in at least one case - *cough*Sony - security vulnerabilities), so downloading the game illegally can actually lead to a gameplay experience with less problems.

Again, piracy causes DRM so the logical thing to do, if you hate DRM, is to do your part to rid the world of piracy (which is exactly what I'm doing, BTW). Additionally, if people are really worried about security vulnerabilities, they would not pirate stuff. Pirated and cracked software is widely known as THE most common method of obtaining malware. Of all the malware infections I've ever seen, only one was not caused by piracy. Additionally, the article linked above provides evidence that Daemon Tools and Alcohol 120% engage in rootkit-like behavior yet there is no campaign anywhere trying to get rid of them.

>What I cannot fathom is how games companies construe DRM as even a partially viable solution to piracy. They spend 6 months and an absolute fortune on development and testing of the DRM system, plus more cash on support tickets when it's not working for some people.

It's because their research suggests that it will ultimately improve profits to the point that the associated expenses get paid off and more. How this happens is due to impatient casual pirates (which forms the majority of pirates) choosing to buy the game rather than waiting for a crack to be released. A business is all about making a profit so it is illogical to argue that a company will deliberately and knowingly try to reduce those profits. As for support, they will probably overall lose support tickets due to less pirates demanding free tech support (which forms around 50% of Bethesda's volume, BTW).

>A couple of guys chatting over IRC break their DRM in a couple of weeks or less.

This is the common misconception that DRM must completely eliminate piracy otherwise it's a failure. It's the same as arguing that a physical lock on a building must completely eliminate break-ins. In many ways, DRM (a digital lock) is directly comparable to a physical lock and the article above elaborates on this.

>In the case of Silent Hunters, the DRM was cracked in less than 2 hours.

Incorrect! The internet connection requirement was cracked within two hours but the DRM itself was still effective because the default game was incomplete and required that internet connection to load up the files required to make the game complete. This meant that people who used the crack couldn't play the game at all. Cracking the DRM required the acquisition of those files stored on the server and this took almost two months in the case of Assassin's Creed 2 and even longer in the case of SH5. I highly doubt that many would be willing to wait this long to download a free + complete game.

Overall, pirates are the scum of the earth because they cause game prices to constantly go up and force me to deal with all this DRM **** until the game company eventually decides to patch it out the game (I will not download the cracks due to the aforementioned malware risk). And your excuses, they are nonsense. The Humble Indie Bundle eliminates every common excuse made in support of piracy yet around 25% of downloads from the official website alone were due to pirates. -XJDHDR (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:FORUM before continuing making more edits on the talk page. The talk page is for improving the article, not for discussing piracy.Belorn (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

History needed

This article needs a History section. This is an interesting story that needs to be told.

• locking to floppy disks is probably one of the earliest
• locking to dongle
• floating licenses

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)

Social DRM?

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)

Unfocused - Tendentious- Fail

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)

Please be aware that specific technology implementation of drm often has its own article where the technical specifics are described. This article is for the broad overview of the subject, and thus technical details is likely not listed here. That said, this article could clearly be improved, and adding more technical details shared by all forms of drm, or subset of drm technology would be good. Belorn (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

DMCA Exemptions

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)

no major reports of protection-related issues from safedisc

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)

No problem, we all make mistakes. As for SafeDisc's reported problems, I just deleted two paragraphs from the issues section of SafeDisc's article because they do not have citations and appear to have been that way for at least two years. I will admit though that I was unaware of SafeDisc having a reported security vulnerability. So I agree, the passage is probably better the way it is. -XJDHDR (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

microsoft reader obsolete drm

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)

Steam plus Computer software categories

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)

Reverted Edit

In fairness and good faith, I am asking the Wikipedia community to reconsider the revert on my recent edit 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:

• Forbes
• GameSpot
• Kotaku
• Joystiq
• Computer and Video Games
• Gamefront
• Shacknews
• VG 24/7
• Overclocker's Club
• Ausgamers (Australia)
• TFTS

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)

As no objections have been entered here in three days, I am reposting my edit. Although I'll use the Forbes link as my citation, this time. ChewableOJ (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

List of DRM free publishers

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)

DRM in On Line Education Workspace

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 vague and inaccurate propaganda term

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)

Oppose. It's not about what is and isn't propaganda. It's about what agrees with WP:TITLE, WP:COMMONNAME in particular. Most people know the term as Digital "Rights" Management. The Free Software Foundation's proponents are the only ones I know of who insist on interpreting the "R" as "restriction". Also, DRM is not designed to protect your "rights" over the software you use and don't own. It is designed to protect the rights of those who own the software. That is where the "Rights" comes from and what it applies to.

Finally, you are completely incorrect concerning your remark that "No one has a "right" to enforce restrictions in hardware or software that I have purchased".

Software - That would only be true if you owned the software in question. In reality, the software is at all times owned by whoever holds the copyright, usually the entity(ies) that created the software and without whom there would be no software at all. The only thing you own is the right to use the software under the terms and conditions prescribed by the copyright holder (much like how a landlord dictates terms and conditions to tenants). Under those terms and conditions, the owner of the software has every right to impose whatever restrictions they want that doesn't violate any laws on the people using their software. If you don't accept the terms, your only recourse is to find software which has agreeable terms (much like the tenants would find different property to rent).

Hardware - You are fallaciously equating drivers/firmware/controller software/etc with hardware. The hardware is yours and you can do whatever you want with it. The drivers, firmware, bundled software, etc; however; is software and is not your property (see above). If you don't agree with the terms imposed by the copyright holder, you must write your own software for the hardware.

In summary, since even the foundation of your argument has no merit, I see no reason whatsoever why this article's name needs to be changed. -XJDHDR (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. While the term "DRM" is indeed commonly used, its expansion into "Digital Rights Management" is not a common name. Compare the article for DVD where the expansion is only written in a separate "Etymology" section because the industry could never agree on what the proper expansion actually use, and changed it when its agendas changed (from "video" to "versatile", etc.). Moreover, the phrase "Digital Rights Management" is indeed, clearly, a propaganda term, newspeak. It leads the listener that DRM manages the content producer's rights, when in fact what it does is to invent new restrictions that were never rights. For example, video producers on VHS never had the right to prevent buyers from fast-forwarding over commercials in the beginning of the video, so how is the DVD's DRM (CSS) preventing of fast-forwarding, about managing rights? To summarize, I think the article should be named "DRM", and the industry-favored expansion "Digital Rights Management", and the contrarian expansion "Digital Restrictions Management" should be explained in the body of the article. Nyh (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Reasonable and balanced. Present both, and let the reader form their own opinion. Belorn (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

>While the term "DRM" is indeed commonly used, its expansion into "Digital Rights Management" is not a common name.

Can you please present your proof of this? The Free Dictionary and Dictionary.com both expand the R into "rights" and the first four pages of a google search for "DRM Digital management" has only four listings refer to the R as "restrictions". Three of the listings are sites are controlled by the FSF and the last is a PDF mentioning the FSF's campaigns (why am I not surprised?). Every other listing (36) uses rights. I was surprised to see that even the EFF refrains from defining the R as "restrictions". I'm simply not finding any evidence for your stance.

>Compare the article for DVD where the expansion is only written in a separate "Etymology" section because the industry could never agree on what the proper expansion actually use, and changed it when its agendas changed (from "video" to "versatile", etc.).

Correlation does not imply causation. Disagreement over what DVD means does not mean that there is widespread disagreement over what DRM means. The evidence I see makes it quite clear that there is almost universal agreement that the R means rights.

>the phrase "Digital Rights Management" is indeed, clearly, a propaganda term, newspeak.

It is just as easily argued that "restrictions" is a propaganda term. Thus, it is better to stick with the common name. And, again, Wikipedia is not censored.

>video producers on VHS never had the right to prevent buyers from fast-forwarding over commercials ... so how is the DVD's DRM (CSS) preventing of fast-forwarding, about managing rights?

1- What proof do you have that they don't have this right now, even if they didn't at the time of making VHSs?

2- Even if they don't have the right to stop fast forwarding, how do you know that they don't have a good reason?

3- Even if they don't have the right or good reason, every system is abused. Just because there is one (potential) example of this abuse does not mean that DRM is abused by definition.

>I think the article should be named "DRM", and the industry-favored expansion "Digital Rights Management .. should be explained in the body of the article.

And I think it should remain the way it is. Digital rights management stays the way it is and DRM remains a disambiguation page.

>and the contrarian expansion "Digital Restrictions Management" should be explained in the body of the article

The Opposition to DRM section already does this, and it's perfectly fine right there. -XJDHDR (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, any dictionary which tries to define "DRM" will find itself trying to expand this acronym, and will end up claiming that it means "Digital Rights Management". The better question is - do people use this expansion? Did you ever hear anyone actually use the phrase "digital rights management" outside a dictionary?

Let me offer another analogy. Quakers call themselves "Friends". So we must call the article on them Friends? No, the rest of the world uses the name "friend" with a different meaning. Similarly, if the movie industry calls prohibiting fast-forward a content-owner "right", and the rest of the world doesn't, we are not obliged to call this a "right". Nyh (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

>any dictionary which tries to define "DRM" ... will end up claiming that it means "Digital Rights Management".

Actually, a dictionary's job is to provide all the commonly used definitions for a given word or phrase. The fact that the dictionaries don't even list restrictions as a definition is very telling in this regard. Furthermore, I didn't actually use dictionaries as my only source. The Google search result demonstrates conclusively that expanding the R as rights is, by far, the most common usage. Again, the Free Software Foundation and it's followers are practically the only ones who insist on defining the R as restrictions. I also recommend you look at SudoGhost's comment below.

>Quakers call themselves "Friends". So we must call the article on them Friends?

Did you actually read those articles, may I ask? Since the Friends article is about the popular sitcom of that name, I don't think that information about a real life religious group belongs there. The top of the article does, however, say: For the Religious Society of Friends, see Quakers. The Quakers article also states that they are also referred to as Friends.

>if the movie industry calls prohibiting fast-forward a content-owner "right", and the rest of the world doesn't, we are not obliged to call this a "right".

What a bunch of unnamed people believe is irrelevant. Facts are not determined by popular vote. You still haven't proven that IP owners have neither the right nor good reason to prohibit fast-forwarding, despite me asking you for proof already. And even if such proof is fashioned, you also need to prove that this sort of abusive behavior is what DRM is commonly used for, as opposed to a minor use. -XJDHDR (talk) 07:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - The article's subject is Digital Rights Management, that's what DRM stands for. Whether this is "propaganda" or not doesn't matter, it's what reliable sources use to describe the subject, even reliable sources that argue against DRM. The only thing I can recall that describes it as "Digital Restriction Management" is Defective by Design, and that's not by any means a common descriptor for the subject. The same group refers to Windows 7 as Windows 7 Sins, as a means of advocacy and awareness and while that's fine for them, that's not what Wikipedia is for. The article's title is and should be what reliable sources use to describe the subject, and "Digital Restriction Management" is a minority pejorative, not what the subject is referred to by the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. - SudoGhost 19:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Substance is lacking

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)

The Technologies section could be improved by more technical structure, wiki-linking, and by asking the question "how is ... implemented". Please feel free to help and improve the article. Belorn (talk) 14:58, 29 October 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)

Biased

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)

Since the article is quite long, please provide more detials as what analogies you consider false, and what information that is missing about the "opposing side" (by your definition). Belorn (talk) 00:38, 21 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)

Completely agree. Also, the main argument against DRM is that there are methods to hack it. That's like an article on locks that invests 90% of time critizising the lock technology and the weaks points of locks and explaining how easy it's for profesional to open a lock and argumenting that door's lock technology goes against human freedom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.9.68.241 (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Not all piracy is undesirable to digital rights holders

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)

That is the fallacy of composition. Being able to name one example of piracy leading to a sale does not prove that piracy is good in general and that IP owners should stop pursuing pirates. Similarly, you failed to back up with evidence your claim that the various popular software became popular due to piracy. in fact, this article quite soundly disproves your claims:

"...there's no solid evidence to substantiate the fact that a pirated copy leads to a purchase. In fact given that a pirated copy is a perfect duplicate of a retail copy, and hence there is no quality difference between the two, logically it would be rare for consumers to pirate a game, play it, and then go out and purchase essentially the same game again at additional cost. Certainly given the very large numbers of pirated copies via torrent which we see in the next section, if a large proportion of those people eventually purchased the game they had pirated, then PC game sales would be extremely high rather than being many times lower than the console equivalents."

Now, if you have any actual evidence to back your claims, we can see about adding it to the article. ATM, I see nothing useful. -XJDHDR (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I find your fallacy of composition argument to be invalid. The OP of this section is not claiming that all piracy is good in general, his claim is that not all piracy is bad, which I find a perfectly logical argument, albeit a rare one. Also your quote, and specificly the part stating "a pirated copy is a perfect duplicate" is pure fallacy. I have dealt with many copies of pirated software and very VERY few of them could be considered "perfect" copies. To me "perfect" implies the software would install and run exactly as if it had been purchased. I can assure you this is not the case in most all pirated copies of software. 70.180.161.153 (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Opposition to anti-circumvention legislation

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)

Page reorganitation

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)

Such big changes cannot be easily checked (I guess that's why the bot reverted them). "just authenticating into the web site" is not more neutral than "controversial" (requiring Internet access for something that does not need it?). --AVRS (talk) 07:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Changed lead

In favor of cleaner discussion, lets focus on the latest change to the lead. The methodology I used when collecting the sources was:

• Read works of identified experts in the field
• Collected sources with high Google Scholar ranking for the search term "Digital rights management", but with the additional requirement of neutral language.
• Collected sources from top search results of Google Books on the search term "Digital rights management", but with the additional requirement of neutral language.
• Minor extra searched regarding different definitions for content protection vs Digital rights management.
• Keeping an eye out of circular loops. Found minimum one research paper which used a edited version of the article lead without attribution.
• Once collecting the sources, checked if the word "access control" and "access control technologies are mentioned anywhere to double check.

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)

Looks good. TippyGoomba (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)