Talk:Digital rights management

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)