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)

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.

ww

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. 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.

ww

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)

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