Talk:Digital rights management

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)

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)

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)

The beginning of the end!

Hello I am called Fernanda, greetings from London, I made such a strange topic to get your attention.............

Any relevant content like this should be praised so no need for thanks....

I make posts in several interfaces and it is what I´m making at the moment, lol!:) and that was part of the reason I visited here...to look for ideas to my site

II love reading as well as taking naps lol, and I also play a lot The Cure, my greatest hobbie at the time is poker, as most of you...I imagine....and also magic the gathering.

By the Way, I was raised In Chile from there it started my ceptical behaviour...lol

I always like to end my pots with a thing like this, like one poet once said "The sure cure to lure those mured in a cave is to show them what is pure"

Just a little waring you have to put anothers social network pluggins on your website, like linkedin, this is a perfect tool to get away from google penguin $.14.2, thas has been driving webmasters crazy, Google Staff are every time saying to do quality conten , but what is quality to Google :/?

Good Night to you all, See you guys tomorrow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.81.62.131 (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Is DRM access control technology, or access control and authorization technology?

SudoGhost claims that DRM is both in the edit summary of an recent revert, but the article describe DRM as just being a class of access control technologies. Which will it be? If no source exist to support that DRM is also authorization control technology, I will re-add my edit as by WP:RS (ie, using the wording as access control is defined with, rather then using wording that hint about authorization technology). I don't have a personal opinion on the outcome so long that the article do not contradict itself in the lead. Thanks. Belorn (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC) (Personal attack removed)

Given your editing focus on GNU, FSF, and Richard Stallman, it's an odd coincidence that your edit shares the exact wording that the FSF pejoratively uses in their campaign against DRM. Now my question is, why is "restrict" correct, whereas "limit" would not be, and how is this difference so strong that the article suddenly contradicts itself in the lede? - SudoGhost 00:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:TALKNO. I could join the mudslining if we want to use the talk page to find editor motives behind their edits, and post misrepresenting comments about those editors. This however is against Wikipedia guideline, and is neither the purpose for a talk page nor for that matter Wikiquette. For the record, I will add the the claim that my edit was somehow connected to FSF is completely false, and your claim that my editing is focused on GNU, FSF and Richard Stallman is baseless, a lie, and an obvious attempt to try mislead and direct any discussion about content away from talk page. This is all Im going to say about motives on this page, and further similar comments will be directly reported to civil noticeboard.

So, the reason why the word "restrict" is more precise language for access control technologies, rather than using the word "limit", comes down to preciseness. Limit can refer to something that limit granted permissions as well as restrictions. It is also important to be consistent with the sources, included those that defines the definition of access control technologies. If sources define access control technologies to mean "the selective restriction of access to a place or other resource", then thats the wording and definition we need to use here. Rewriting it as "the intent to limit the use" would be inconsistent and borderline WP:NPOV. I will thus ask again the unanswered question of above. Is DRM access control technology, or access control and authorization technology. I have sources that do describe DRM as access control technology (here p 466), but I can't find any that shows it to be authorization technology. This is the time for people to either provide sources or gently stop reverting edits of those that do. Belorn (talk) 07:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing I said falls under WP:TALKNO, and it was explained as it is relevant to the edit. It's disingenuous to claim offense when it's pointed out that you having "no personal opinion" is at odds with your editing on Wikipedia, and then in the edit summary of that same comment accuse someone else of letting their personal opinion affect the content of the article.

As for the sources, even the source you gave does not support your edit. It describes "...DRM components that, by their nature, limit the customer's freedom..." (page 5) and how it "limits access" and how "...DRM systems are able to limit the accessibility..." (page 6) and "...user identification systems are a prerequisite for DRM systems to be able to limit access to content..." (page 8), so sources describe DRM as "limiting". However, nowhere in that book does it use the word "restrict" to describe DRM in any capacity. Whether it is "access control technology" or "access control and authorization technology" is irrelevant, since reliable sources verify and reflect when the lede uses the word "limit" as opposed to "restrict" and to conclude that because it may or may not be ""access control and authorization technology"" should change how it is otherwise described with a term not reflected by reliable sources is WP:SYN. - SudoGhost 10:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

As by BOLD and this discussion, I have now removed the mentioning of access control technology, and replacing it with the definition found in the book. The previous usage of the access control technology do not pass verifiability, so if you revert, you need to actually add a source that support what the complete text say. Have a nice day. Belorn (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a couple of reliable sources that supports the information in the lede, which I assume satisfies the matter. - SudoGhost 13:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it does not, but it helps. It stills leaves the contradiction that access control only talk in terms of restrictions, and not in the terms of permissions. We should keep out such contradiction from the article, or alternative, provide enough context to eliminate any confusions such contradiction is causing. I thus suggest that we add definitions of the access control, and clarify that such access controls do not include permission granting authorization technology, but I will wait to implement such edit until the dispute resolution regarding the personal attacks is concluded. Belorn (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to add the definition of access control, that's what the wikilink is for. I'm certainly not seeing any contradiction, especially not one that's supported by reliable sources. There doesn't appear to be any sources claiming that DRM doesn't include "permission granting authorization", yet plenty of sources that specifically state that it does, so there doesn't appear to be an issue with the lede, as far as reliable sources are concerned. - SudoGhost 14:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

If you have sources that say that DRM includes both access control and authorization technology, then as the very first post in this comment section said, add that and it will removed the contradiction of users reading the lead. I want to eliminate the contradiction that this article describe DRM as access control, but after visiting the access control, they a contradiction when this article talk about permissions. The way to solve the contradiction is either A), remove the mentioning/hinting of permission on this article, or B) add statement that show that DRM is not only access control technology but rather both access control and authorization technology. Either way solve the contradiction. Either way satisfies the matter of contradiction. Either way, I won't be posting here again until the DRN is concluded. Belorn (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You need to be more clear about what you're saying, because the article says nothing about "authorization technology" in any way. Reliable sources describe DRM as a type of access control. There's nothing contradicting that, and there's no cause to remove any mention of permissions on this article, because reliable sources also support that content. There's no contradiction in the lede, and if you believe there is, you need to specify exactly what it is you believe is contradictory, and back that claim up with reliable sources showing there's some type of contradiction. - SudoGhost 15:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

What are the competing edits here? Whether or not we should say "access control" or not? Looks like it's sourced. Is the access control article posing the problem? TippyGoomba (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

That is a possibility too. In the access control article, its it distinguish itself from authorization technology by being about restrictions rather than the act of granting permissions. If that distinguish feature is incorrect (ie, access control technology can both deal with restrictions as well as permissions), then fault is there are not here. I also looked at Information and Management Engineering: International Conference, ICCIC 2011, Held in Wuhan, China, (link), and it describe authorization middleware to be part of the DRM implementation. Belorn (talk) 07:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not clear what the dispute is about. You seem to be saying that the issue is that you think the act of granting accessing is distinct from the act of not denying access? That's a confusing notion. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The act of granting access is distinct from the act of restricting access in the context of software. One is called Access control, and the other authorization. However, after going through several books on the subject (some which I own), including those of experts in the field, I think the lead is missing a rather large point. Several of them do not describe DRM as access control technologies, but rather an undefined number of technologies, bind together for specific purpose. At the moment, I am collecting the different description to bring a more complete description to the lead and intro. Belorn (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

As an aside, can you point to a source that makes this distinction? It sounds like a semantic distinction. Back to the topic at hand, there are sources that use one or the other and some editor wants to mention one but not the other? Is that the dispute? TippyGoomba (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Correct. The edit in question is this one. I am not sure if it will be contested once I include a larger set of sources and include as much of the major definitions I can find, but if it is I will start up a RFC. I just want to be sure to first go through the clear majority of sources, primarily those made of commonly cited experts like Ross J. Anderson, Bruce Schneier, and Peter Guttmann and check that my current understanding of the subject is indeed an correct one. 95% there, but I do not want to take any shortcuts when starting an RFC. If Im missing works of equal notability as Security Engineering, Applied Cryptography, and godzilla crypto tutorial/Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection, post them and I will try to get a read before making the edit. Belorn (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

But those aren't the edits being discussed here. You guys are talking about "limit" vs "restrict". TippyGoomba (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Oh, I see now. Then you guys get into "access control" being bad because it's more like limit rather than restrict. How silly. I guess we'll wait until you collect your sources. I presume if you find that every is calling it "access control", that' what we'll put in the intro. Correct? At the moment, it sounds like you're trying to cherry pick sources. TippyGoomba (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

If there are any sources people want to bring up, feel free to mention them here. The only criteria I got is that the sourced material need to be well known in the field, and commonly cited by experts and researchers. If that is a too harsh requirement, then please suggest a better criteria. Belorn (talk) 02:42, 11 May 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)

Piracy scare quotes

I don't think the scare quotes just added around piracy are justified. The meaning of the word dates back centuries, and is not marked as a colloquialism in the OED. As the meaning in the context of this article is obvious and well-known, and it is not a colloquialism, and there is no reason for emphasis; it would seem the only remaining purpose of scare quotes would be to express sarcasm, irony, criticism or misuse. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The use of the word is not precise, "piracy" and "theft" are used for actions that the speaker would like to prohibit or prevent from being reaffirmed as legal, even if they are usually considered fair or private. It is better to get rid of the word everywhere, except for where it is a quotation which cannot be reasonably improved — and there quotes are OK, unless they only serve to emphasize the word many times (maybe sometimes the directly quoted part is bigger than one word). --AVRS (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You lost me completely. I am not talking about theft. Piracy is what it is. The word is precisely defined in the dictionary. The word is clear and used by most everyone of every side of every related issue, and is certainly not usually considered fair or private. Whether or not someone would like to change the related legality is not relevant. The scare quotes do nothing bad suggest a POV. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. – Steel 19:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. Copyright infringement is the more common, precise and correct term. The primary usage of piracy in dictionaries are always "the practice of attacking and robbing ships at sea", as defined by oxford, Cambridge and Webster. As per Wikipedia:NPOV, using precise and nonjudgmental language is always preferred. Belorn (talk) 09:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

You're going to need a source showing that copyright infringement is the more common term, since a quick Google search shows that DRM "piracy" is at least 20 times more common than DRM "copyright infringement". The "primary usage" in dictionaries is also irreverent; we quite obviously do not only use the primary definition of words on Wikipedia, and we're not looking at the word out-of-context. In context, the definition you gave is not the primary meaning by any stretch. Take a look at the sources already in the article; they overwhelmingly use the term piracy over copyright infringement. - SudoGhost 10:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

When discussing, maybe we should avoid using arguments commonly referred as arguments to avoid. Google statitics do not work as a stand-alone argument (see WP:GOOGLE and the related Wikipedia:GOOGLEHITS). If we want a impartial tone, lets look at places where such tone is used in the context of DRM. Take Digital Millennium Copyright Act which has several mentioning of DRM in relation to copyright infringement. On other hand, not a single word of piracy. Each time the concept is mentioned, they use the term "copyright infringement". This is just one example, but there is many more when looking at more "dry" documents related to DRM. Examples are patent applications for DRM technologies like [1] and [2], which I suppose are written by experts in the field? So I must turn the question and ask: What proof do you have have that piracy is more precise word than copyright infringement? Google hits that count blogs doesn't sound as a strong argument, and clearly not neutral. Belorn (talk) 08:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

If I were using WP:GHITS to argue the notability of a subject you'd have a point, but it discusses something completely different then what you're suggesting. That aside it's still not a "standalone argument", and its purpose was to highlight that your statement was terribly inaccurate, something which still stands true unless you can provide some evidence to back up your claim (and no, legal documents and patent applications are nowhere near indicative of common English usage). Google Scholar does not count blogs and it gives similar results, and that's not just going by the numbers but the content. I also don't know where you're going with the WP:NPOV thing. - SudoGhost 13:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

it is clear by your statements that there is some terribly irrational belief going on, as instead of providing evidence of your own you just try to ignore the evidence already provided when asked. It sad, as it put into questioning the assumption of good-faith when such question is being asked (as in, what ever evidence is provided gets just ignored). For the rest: WP:GOOGLEHITS is related to this discussed. Related, as in not actually about Search engine test, but deals with and addresses the same issues. WP:GOOGLE list under the heading: "What a search test can do, and what it can't" a subheading which is titled: "and search engines often will not:". It says: "Be neutral.". It also says under the heading of: "Search engines cannot:": "Guarantee the results are reliable or "true" (search engines index whatever text people choose to put online, true or false)., and, "Guarantee why something is mentioned a lot, and that it isn't due to marketing, reposting as an internet meme, spamming, or self-promotion, rather than importance..". However, if anyone feel that strongly that privacy is indeed the primary and most neutral term to use, feel free to go to Copyright infringement and try get that article to change title to reflect such beliefs. People has already tried it in the past, and failed. This discussion is just a reiteration of the same one. Belorn (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't even know where to start with that. For one, "ignoring the evidence"? I directly addressed what you said about the patent and legal document; that is as far from "ignoring" as is possible, so I can only assume you overlooked that part. That you were disagreed with does not make a comment irrational. You made a claim that "Copyright infringement is the more common, precise and correct term." but provided nothing to back up that claim (and again, legal documents and patent applications are not indicative of common English usage). Whether "true" or not, the results on Google Scholar show that your preferred term is not more common, the reasoning for it is irrelevant to how common a term is. Please also see WP:AAGF; if you are unable to back up your comment, do not then resort to attacking others. Comment on content, not the contributor; that you resorted to accusations of "irrational" and "questioning the assumption of good-faith" instead of addressing what was said speaks volumes as to the strength of your argument. Reliable sources (in the article and elsewhere) support the term, and contradict your claim that copyright infringement is more common. - SudoGhost 15:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I see absolutely no RMs on the copyright infringement article, so when you say "People has already tried it in the past, and failed" in regards to changing that title, where did you see that? It doesn't appear that any such discussion has ever taken place on that talk page or in its archives. - SudoGhost 01:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Copyright_infringement/Archive_1#Why_does_piracy_redirect_here.3F. Copyright infringement is the more common, precise and correct term in the context of law, by document produced by experts in the field. Copyright infringement, is in the context of law. It's more commonly used in books regarding law, mostly because copyright law doesn't mention the word piracy. Its more precise because it doesn't involve the legal implication of ships being attacked at the sea. Its more correct, because thats what the law actually says regarding infringement of copyright. Ignoring those just because Google doesn't give more hits to it rather than the term piracy is irrational and a comment regarding your comment, and not you. If you take it personal, I can't help you. Belorn (talk) 10:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

If that is the discussion you were referring to, then that's not really helping your argument. A brief discussion from 2007 with no meaningful discussion and no consensus of any kind does nothing to support anything you've said, and that's assuming that this other article's title provides justification to remove any mention of piracy from this article, when it does not; reliable sources overwhelmingly use piracy in the context of this article. Still waiting for evidence to back up your claim, because a patent application and a brief discussion on another talk page aren't convincing. - SudoGhost 17:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't help if you do not find the DMCA authors who wrote the DRM relative paragraphs as experts in the field of DRM, or for that matter defines people who gets patents granted on DRM technologies as also not experts in the field of DRM. Through, I haven't seen any evidence backing up the claim that reliable sources overwhelmingly use piracy in the context of DRM outside your google searches, which by this discussion has been found to not be worth that much by your own words. Belorn (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

That evidence is already present in the article, that you still haven't looked is not my fault. However, I have no idea what you're trying to say or what that has to do with what some other article is called, but a discussion on some other article discussing that article's title means absolutely nothing on this article, especially given that it was a brief discussion with zero substance and no consensus on any matter. I can imagine you can't help me with something like that, because there's nothing there. - SudoGhost 05:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I said above that People had already tried it in the past to claim that piracy is a better term than copyright infringement, and failed to change consensus. If the discussion was not to your liking, then why are you complaining to me about it. Go and have a fun discussion there if you think the discussion should be something else. I only stated a fact, and after you asked for a link, I politely gave one to you. Afterward you trashed that gesture, but I guess I shouldn't have expected anything else. Belorn (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll assume you forgot what you said even though it's right here, because you claimed people tried to change that article's title. That is incorrect. You are more than welcome to discuss another article on that article's talk page, but that has nothing to do with this article, and to continue to bring it up only suggests that you have nothing of value to say concerning your aim on this one. . - SudoGhost 00:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't read what Dbsanfte said at 04:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC), or the following comment. Maybe you ignored it. Im not sure what your aim with this discussion is, maybe just mud slinging, but I honestly don't know. Belorn (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It would help if you didn't repeat my own words back at me, it makes them seem disingenuous. Pointing out that what you said is false is not "mud slinging" by any definition. However, that discussion does not support your claim that that article's title was under discussion. If there is some discussion which supports your claim you are more then welcome to bring it up, but if that's it then you are mistaken. However, even if that were the case it would not matter since that is a different article with a different scope. - SudoGhost 00:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

O, the words are completely sincere. I only reuse (share!) uncivil wording, in a token effort to point them out. Sincerely. But as to the talk page, I have already given you the url and specified the comment author and time of post. Wikipedia do not have individual comment links, so if you can't figure out which of 11 comments has that author and written at that time, there is nothing else I can do to help you.Belorn (talk) 00:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

This has quickly become pointless. See below. - SudoGhost 00:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Let us look at some very “dry” documents:

The Treaty on the International Registration of Audiovisual Works uses the term piracy.

186 countries belong to the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). They use the term piracy throughout their documents.

158 countries have signed the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). TRIPS defines “pirated copyrighted goods.”

On the dictionary reference, I don’t understand what you mean by “primary usage.” Do you mean first definition? The first definition of rape in my copy of the OED is haste, speed, hurry. You have to get to the fourth definition before you get to ravishing of a woman. The English language is known for multiple uses of a word. There are about 55 definitions for the word be. The definition of piracy in the OED is on point to this article. In fact, it precedes the use of the word copyright. Of course, “copyright infringement” isn’t in the dictionary. Fact is, the word pirate is internationally known, not only in treaties, but I think there are now political parties with pirate or a variation of pirate in their names in 16 countries. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

That source is not within context of Digital rights management. Belorn (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Considering that your arguments about definitions and article titles only make sense out-of-context, context might be a good thing for everyone to keep in mind. - SudoGhost 15:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Considering that your arguments about arguments only make sense if one completely miss-read comments, staying in the context of copyright law is indeed a good thing when discussion infringement of copyright. That make sense. Talking outside the context of copyright would be bad, as there is parrots, ships, and one legged people who says "aarrr". Belorn (talk) 10:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure I misread nothing; however it seems you've misread a few things. For one, how is this true in the context of copyright law? It's not, so I really don't know what your comment above was all about. Secondly, the article's subject is digital rights managment, and that is the context of which is important since your arguments about what some other article is called isn't very relevant in that context, since article titles have specific reasoning that is not necessary outside of a title. - SudoGhost 18:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

That edit refer to Copyright infringement as it related to languages. its context is language, and since copyright is law, copyright infringement refer to the law text. the law do not mention piracy except on the high sea with boats. If you can find a dictionary in the singular context of DRM to prove that piracy has a special meaning within that context that doesn't exist elsewhere, feel free to provide such source.Belorn (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah...no. You got called out on your double-standard; that edit is patently false in the context of this article..."as it related to language"...not even close. If you're going to say that something should be kept in context, follow that advice yourself. This is not the Legalese Wikipedia, and you've still failed to back up your claims. - SudoGhost 05:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Now you go again, claiming falsehoods without presenting a shred of evidence yourself to support your claims. Do you think if you repeat it often enough it suddenly becomes true? In the meantime you just ignore what ever other evidence is provided, but I guess that goes along with the trend one can see in your comments. Belorn (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if you meant to respond to another comment or what, but either way what you said is not relevant in any way to what I said. I addressed your "evidence" multiple times now, so I'm not the one ignoring anything, you are. "Claiming falsehoods" would need to be backed up instead of making that kind of vague claim, because otherwise it looks like you're just trying to rather poorly sling mud to try to save face; it isn't very effective. - SudoGhost 23:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Feel free you backup the patently false context claim you had, or have I hit one of your falsehoods? I guess you think your uncivil comments will frighten me, but sorry, it is not working. I don't think anyone else think it does either. Belorn (talk) 23:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm Calling another's comments "uncivil" means nothing coming from you of all people. If you really can't see how this comment is inaccurate in the context of digital rights management, then that explains quite a bit. The primary usage of piracy in the context of this article has nothing to do with the high seas. That is as inaccurate as one can get. I'll assume you somehow overlooked that despite it being pointed out already. - SudoGhost 00:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you should read up on the template for Facepalm. Its use as an expression of abuse, mockery, or for the denigration of others is unacceptable. If there is doubt that a recipient would take it in good humor, you should not use it. TLDR: When using this template, don't be a dick.. And to be 100% clear, I don't see any good humor in what you write. I'll assume you somehow overlooked it. As to that comment, I have already pointed out earlier(maybe you didn't read it). The dictionary that 74.108.115.191 brought up, which the comment which you linked to is a reply to, that dictionary is not written in the context of this article. As such, that reply was written with the context that 74.108.115.191 brought up. In that context, ie, in the context of dictionaries, piracy primary usage as a term is to describe ships attacking other ships. it as accurate and "true" as it gets, but maybe not in your world. Belorn (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

"that dictionary is not written in the context of this article" That's kind of the entire point, and exactly what I've been saying this entire time, thank you for finally catching on. What you said is irrelevant in the context of this article; it's useless trivia at best and serves no purpose in a discussion related to this article. - SudoGhost 00:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Something we might fully agree on. 74.108.115.191 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADigital_rights_management&diff=560332476&oldid=560308915 comment was outside context of the article claims, and as such, any discussion following that line of thought is also outside context. Maybe if you began this discussion with that, instead of bringing in Google or attacking me, this discussion could had been 5 comments long. We will never know. Belorn (talk) 00:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you saw an attack in that, but I didn't intend one nor am I seeing it. Please see below. - SudoGhost 00:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It was a miss typing of my. Sorry. I meant attacking my comment (rather than the root issue of context). Your initial comment was not uncivil. Belorn (talk) 01:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Belorn, I provided three general sources showing that piracy is commonly used to refer to violation of intellectual property rights, and a fourth contradicting your claim that we must use something you call primary usage in dictionaries, and a fifth that shows the word piracy so common that it is used in the name of political parties in 16 countries, and an additional argument that piracy is not only in the dictionary defined as a centuries old word, but that it precedes the word copyright. You responded with ten words that did not address anything that I said, making a claim that this is not related to DRM. Piracy is obviously within the context of DRM as the various DRM methodologies were developed specifically to address piracy. You have produced no refs but just claim that refs made by others are somehow not relevant without any reasoning. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty convinced that this falls under WP:COMMONNAME. But I have enough doubts that I'm tempted to have a RfC. Thoughts? TippyGoomba (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

What part of WP:COMMONNAME would that fall under, and what do you mean it falls under WP:COMMONNAME? - SudoGhost 00:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I mean that sources commonalty use the term to mean a certain thing in this context. I'm appealing to the part of WP:COMMONNAME that says Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Doing a Google search on the search terms piracy in the context of copyright, and the term "copyright infringement", copyright infringement get more hits (43m vs 58m). Outside the context of copyrighted works, piracy gets more hits but I don't think that is relevant to this discussion. If, and that is a big if; if piracy is more common, then it still need to pass the unambiguous test and neutrality. [3] is one source where piracy (to pirate something) is seen as slang, which WP:POVNAME say that "Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious" is an example where Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality. In general, an RFC sounds as a good choice if someone want to change the title of copyright infringement to piracy (Law). How that would make things less unambiguous will be interesting to see. Belorn (talk) 10:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Why would you refer to pirate as slang? Slang is defined as vocabulary of persons of a low or disreputable character; language of a low and vulgar type, the cant or jargon of a certain class or period. But, pirate has been used in this context for centuries, used by respected authors and lawyers, is understood worldwide, is in treaties and United Nations documents, is in the names of political parties in 16 countries. This is nothing like slang. It even predates the term copyright infringement, which is simply legalese for piracy in some, not all, jurisdictions. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused by your last two sentences but the rest is convincing. How about we change every instance of piracy to copyright infringement? Any objections? TippyGoomba (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I would quite strongly object to ignoring reliable sources in favor of an editor's vague claim of Google search results (especially after their argument that such results are meaningless). - SudoGhost 20:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Try looking it like this, both copyright infringement and piracy are commonly used. The former is more encyclopedic. Can you provide evidence that piracy is more common? I'd be open to either, so long as we drop the scare quotes. TippyGoomba (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a legal dictionary, and not U.S. Centric. Piracy is a centuries old term used worldwide. Copyright Infringement is a legal term used in certain jurisdictions. Other jurisdictions use other terms and different jurisdictions have different interpretations. Piracy is also a more broad term that includes aspects, specific to DRM, which are not covered by copyright infringement. Also, I don’t understand why you would say that copyright infringement is more encyclopedic as it is a legal term used in some jurisdictions and limited to different aspects in different jurisdictions, where piracy is a general internationally known term. In fact, DRM often, if not usually, includes the ability to block making backups, which is NOT covered under copyright infringement. The word piracy is internationally better-known, is a spoken-language term, not a narrow, legal term with different meanings in different jurisdictions, is broader covering aspects not covered by copyright infringement, and everyone uses the term on all sides of all arguments. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

What exactly does more encyclopedic mean, and what sources, if any, have been provided that shows this? You don't have to take my word for it, take a look at the sources already in the article and you'll see which one is used more. I'm not suggesting that copyright infringement isn't used more often in legal documents; it absolutely is. However, in common English the term piracy is overwhelmingly used over copyright infringement as a term. When you take away the legal documents and only take into account the sources which are intended for most readers, the difference becomes staggering. - SudoGhost 05:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

It means that piracy is less formal than copyright infringement. I'm wondering about sources as well. TippyGoomba (talk) 06:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Terminology is not something many people write about, especially regarding a technical term. Just dong lazy searching, I found http://www.danataschner.com/copyright_infringement.html and http://obiegikultury.centrumcyfrowe.pl/the_circulations_of_culture_report.pdf talking about it. I also noticed that while its rather common to see double quotes around piracy, you never see that around copyright infringement. Food for thought? I would do a google search for *"piracy"*, but google can't be used to search for double quotation marks. Belorn (talk) 23:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Belorn, I can’t believe you just made this post. You used in your argument a Polish paper by an anti-copyright org and some random, unknown lawyer. I looked up the lawyer. His specialties, from his own site, are: Personal Injury: Auto Accidents, Slip & Fall, Medical Malpractice and Wrongful Death; Product Liability: Recalled or Unsafe Drugs, Medical Devices, Vehicles & Consumer Products; Absestos, Mesothelioma, & Other Toxic Exposure Injuries; Business, Commercial, Intellectual Property, Consumer Fraud, Class Actions, and Employment Disputes. That is, he’s an ambulance chaser. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

That is quite a red herring about changing some other article, given that the only one who has said anything about changing that article's title is you. Since we're discussing this article, please try to stay on topic. Exactly which search operands did you use Belorn, because for the life of me I cannot replicate your results. However, did you include either "DRM" or "Digital Rights Management" in your searches? That's extremely relevant, given that it's the subject of the article (and WP:NPOV specifically mentions that such names should be described in context). Wikipedia articles discuss what reliable sources say, and they say piracy when discussing DRM. Reliable sources hold more weight than whatever WP:OR you're drawing from something taken out of context from a website called onlineslangdictionary.com. The overwhelming use of piracy in such reliable sources (check the ones already in the article if you haven't) easily passes the WP:NPOV aspect as it's a significant viewpoint used by reliable sources. WP:POVNAME is about the title of an article, this discussion is, again, not about the title of an article. If you're interested in changing some article's title you're more than welcome to open an WP:RM where appropriate, but that is irrelevant to what reliable sources use when discussing this article's subject. - SudoGhost 18:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Please decide on one context, rather than going back and forth. First, SudoGhost proclaimed that we should stay in the context of Digital Rights Management, which I brought documents which showed that experts in the field will use copyright infringement when describing infringement in the context of Digital Rights Management. Then 74.108.115.191 uses documents from United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization like The Treaty on the International Registration of Audiovisual Works, and proclaimed that the context we worked was not limited to Digital Rights Management, but instead was referring to any kind of infringement of copyright. As can be read, that WIPO document has zero mentioning of DRM or Digital Rights Management. After that, I collect data about the term piracy in the context of copyright rather than limiting it to Digital Rights Management and found that there, a similar google search as done by SudoGhost showed that copyright infringement is more common that piracy (contrary to google searching for digital rights management and piracy/copyright infringement). Then SudoGhost go proclaim that we must limit to the context of Digital Rights Management, and do not care what term copyright infringement is commonly used when people describe infringement of copyright in the context of copyrighted works... Meh. Sorry, but its getting hard to keep track of what people want here, or even if there is a consensus about what the context is. If someone could structure the discussion a bit, maybe even summarize their views in a few short precise lines, we might be able to get somewhere. Belorn (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you know what context means, if you need to "pick one". Sources and information must be kept in the context in which it is given and as the information pertains to a given subject. Your Google search results (again, with what operands?)) mean nothing in the context of DRM, since you apparently did not include that in your search. If you're going to use that as an argument for the DRM article, that context is important because the information is meaningless without it. - SudoGhost 05:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

SudoGhost, you don't seem to understand what context mean, which kind of make it hard to follow what you are trying to say. It seems you have invented a unique interpretation of your own. if you don't want to tell what your special interpretation is, then collaboration will be quite hard. If we want to simple follow Wikipedia policy and procedure, we should only use the context relevant for each individual claim made in the article and naturally, it source. A Google search, any google seach, would then be irrelevant. If we do, each comment of yours which brought up Google searches has been out of context of the claims in the article. If you want some double-standard, and treat your out of context relevant because of some strange interpretation of what you think context mean, you again need to at least tell us what that interpretation is. Belorn (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, you missed the point by a mile. I'm not going to repeat what I just said above you, but it applies perfectly to what you said. A search outside of the context of this article is pointless. Sources must be viewed in the context in which they are given. This is not a complicated concept, yet you seem to struggle with it (but only, oddly enough, when it doesn't support what you're saying at the moment). - SudoGhost 00:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are straggling so hard to describing why your Google search is relevant when at the same time you seem to agree that the context is depended on each independent source. I guess because it doesn't support what you are saying, but beside that I mean... Belorn (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

That seems to be the issue, you're assuming things that aren't happening. I am not "straggling" to describe why a Google search is relevant. I used that as an example (one of many) to demonstrate that piracy is used as much if not more when discussing DRM and haven't mentioned it aside from clarifying when you mentioned it. That you took that and focused on it to the exclusion of all else is your issue, no one else's. - SudoGhost 00:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

If you bring examples that are as much in context as 74.108.115.191 dictionaries, those statements of yours will be contested. not to the exclusivity of other comments, but since you keep trying to defend such use of out-of-context examples, much of the discussion has been around it. If we however only look at the sources, and do a individual decision for each claim that has a source, we can uses piracy or "piracy" or copyright infringement. We don't find any conflict here on the talk page about that. Belorn (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

"Defend such out-of-context examples"? Nowhere, in any form, did I do any such thing and that comment in particular made me realize how pointless this discussion has become. The way you're wording things and patently ignoring what others say gives the appearance that you're not actually interested in discussing anything, but rather in talking at people. I got a bit caught up in this talk page, but now I'm actually looking at it, it appears I'm responsible for fueling that fire, and I apologize to others who have had to read all this nonsense. Belorn, sources use piracy when discussing DRM. Sources already in the article use the word piracy much more often than not. We can discuss Google, the titles of other articles, and other pointless things until we are all blue in the face, but it won't change that very simple thing. How you respond is entirely up to you, but I hope you'll see that you and I have been rather off-topic and that this isn't going anywhere meaningful. However, now that I see how pointless this discussion has become, I want no part of it but I hope a rationale discussion about what matters can continue. If not, then oh well; I'm sure that's my fault as much as anyone's and I apologize for not seeing that sooner. - SudoGhost 01:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The way you're wording things and patently ignoring what others say gives the appearance that you're not actually interested in discussing anything, but rather in talking at people. I wish you would realize why writing such things is bad, not only because of civility policy, but because it forces me to point to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADigital_rights_management&diff=561287269&oldid=561286487 . Regardless, I look forward to a polite short discussing regarding the section at the bottom of the page. It would be interesting to hear yours and others views regarding copy protection, and if its historical perspective is useful addition to the article. Belorn (talk) 01:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It appears that everyone wants to drop the scare quotes and now we're talking about piracy vs copyright infringement. (Correct me if I'm mistaken.) If so, would an RfC be appropriate for the piracy vs copyright infringement question. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

No. There is no requirement that we pick one term and use that to the total exclusion of the other. Both are perfectly acceptable for use in the article and both are widely used in 'official' and everyday language. Belorn, not for the first time, is getting himself in a muddle over absolutely nothing. – Steel 11:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the scare quotes are gone anyway, i didn't notice. I'm fine with using both terms interchangeably. Settling it with a RfC would be ideal, but I don't think it's worth the effort. TippyGoomba (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I am fine with leaving it at undecided. Noticed that about half the time the term piracy is used, it is in a claim without a source. Better to work on that first. Belorn (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

How do copy protection and copyright enforcement mechanisms relate to DRM

It seems implied by the article that pure copy protection or copyright enforcement mechanisms are not DRM but just related technologies. Typical example is CD product keys, but there are many other examples like checking the processor serial number (1980s), writing software that mark harddrive blocks as bad (in an effort to prevent OS copying tools from copying), and so on. However, checking with books like Security Engineering of Ross Anderson, it seems quite verifiable that such technologies was early form of DRM, and as the lead sources say's, copy protection is regarded by some as DRM. So to put it into a question: Should those technologies be baked into the article in a similar fashion as the sources has when they are describing DRM? Belorn (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Currently considering writing a summery section for copy protection, and use it as an historical perspective. Thoughts? Belorn (talk) 01:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Should references to digital rights management be replaced with the more accurate term digital restriction management?

Calling DRM digital rights management implies that you may gain some rights with DRM however DRM only takes away rights and imposes restriction on the user. Note that some companies will argue that those restrictions may be needed. Notice how the last sentence was unbiased but yet still used the word 'restriction' instead of 'rights'. This is an issue about accuracy not biasing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonic12228 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Might be a crappy name, but that's what people call it. WP:COMMONNAME applies. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

^ Yes but it is an incorrect term accuracy is important.Sonic12228 (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

That's why the article uses "digital rights management". The article should and does mention issues with DRM, but the article isn't going to ignore reliable sources and and create a new name for the subject just because we feel that the name doesn't fit our viewpoint. Take the Stop Online Piracy Act article for example. It is called that because that's what its name is and what reliable sources use, not because Wikipedia feels that the name is an accurate descriptor. Like that article, digital rights management is a name, not a descriptor. That we don't feel that the name is a good descriptor does not mean we can create our own name for the subject. - SudoGhost 20:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The name is what it is. Wikipedia has an article titled “Patriot Act” even though many, if not most, people believe that it is the antithesis of patriotism. There are vast numbers of such examples. But, that is the name. Wikipedia does not get to rewrite history in its image. An encyclopedia reports, it doesn’t evaluate or opine. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 00:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)