Talk:Analog hole

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

*Ezra, Lisa M. (2005). The Failure of the Broadcast Flag: Copyright Protection to Make Hollywood Happy. Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal (Comm/Ent), 27 (Winter, 2005), p. 384-footnote 50, citing Analog Hole (no last access date)

Article's tone[edit]

The tone of this article is really condescending towards "non-technical" types. Counter-productive.

I am not getting that impression. It offers engineering level information. I don't find the "you don't have to be an engineer" comment offensive. To me it represents cutting through any engineering mysticism to say that this is just common sense. If anything, it is pointing out that average people should not be mystified and just use their common sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, the article seems quite clear and doesn't go into any excessive detail. While some users who are not aware of their computer's need to cache may identify with the judge in question, it is a fundamental clarification that is nessesary. A link to a cache definition may suffice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to add that this article sounds like it was written by a 13 year old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hardware manufacturers[edit]

Back in 1999, I bought a Philips audio CD recorder. I was amazed that it actually gave directions on how to use the "analog hole" to copy write-protected CDs!Rt66lt 05:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Not that amazing, Philips makes its money from hardware so if people want to use their equipment for piracy it's fine by them. It's the content providers that insist on DRM, not the hardware providers. Hardware people would love to remove DRM as hardware sales would go up.
While these seems off-topic for the discussion page, I agree. The main argument Disney used in the famous Disney vs Sony case regarding the ban of Sony's new VHS-recorders was the implication that ALL use of the product would be illegal. Sony and several other manufacturers at the time made very overt statements in their manuals that the VCR-recorder was to be used only for public-domain works or those works you personally have copyright ownership of. This warning is still listed in CD-recorders, DVD-recorders, and Mini-disc recorders.
In their defense, Phillips was simply showing that you CAN obtain copies of works you personally own. Beyond owning the copyright yourself, or making LEGAL back-up copies for personal use, you can also LEGALLY use any copyrighted work for projects termed to be "fair use". Just because a manufacture has chosen to physically/technically impede the distribution of an artistic work does NOT make it illegal to do so. Copyrights are government granted to stimulate innovation and public-good in supplying works for the public domain. The Mickey Mouse Protection Act of 2000 (aka Sonny Bono Act) has made this original intention difficult to demonstrate, due mostly to the contention by Disney and other lobbyists that copyright in a entitlement instead of a time-limited privilege designed to guarantee a first-to-market period to recoup development costs and establish market share. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


Not that I disagree with the author(s), but there is a lot of POV editorializing mixed in with the general information here. 02:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

hmm yeah, also one wonders if really all of this is true, like the comment on dithering: "Well, we will outlaw that too". One has a good laugh (or whatever the appropriate response) but the question is whether all of the content really fits with the Wikipedia criteria for objectivity. On the other hand, if there simply are no good arguments nor measures against the "analog hole", one could say that the author has done his/her best to show both sides of the story :) //IP-logged user 19 March 2007
The "Well, we will outlaw that too" does seem hypothetical. Lets see if we can pull together some specific deletion of weasel words and bring the points into neutral POV in a way that keeps the vigor of the original remarks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Should mention HDCP[edit]

I think there should probably be mention of HDCP as a copy-protection method that is attempting to plug the analog hole.

Good point, DRM and HDCP are closely related, but both circumventable with enough effort. The long-term implications of permanently restricting access to works which WILL eventually be public domain is particularly alarming here. While we've seen an massive increase in orphaned works due to the copyright length extensions, these efforts to permanently restrict distribution after the government-provided monopoly expires is troubling and challenges the constitutionality of current copyright lengths which seem to encourage the loss of works which society has solicited and encouraged by granting exclusive use to the artist or copyright owner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Recording streaming music[edit]

Interesting article. Another example is MySpace. If you open a recording program like the one that comes with Windows, you can record the songs on MySpace that are otherwise not possible to download. The same goes for other web, i.e. streaming, formats, although the limitation is that if your computer makes noises or if the stream is interrupted by the computer or internet connection, you have to restart it if you want to try again. MDuchek 21:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

...and if you have a cheap sound card, the recording will sound terrible. 19:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The elite warez groups don't use cheap sound cards. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 17:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no degrade in quality even on the cheapest soundcards and onboard chipset, because the direct recording of playback audio is kept entirely within the digital domain. The signal never reaches the D/A and A/D converters, it is looped back internally, digitally, thus it's lossless. That feature is provided by the driver. Added by guest user LoneStar, 22. Sep 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Engineering vs. business and political views[edit]

It seems to me that while the 'Engineering vs. business and political views' section contains a lot of interesting information, it does seem to have a rather anti big-business agenda, rather than being an objective encyclopedic view of the matter.Joelholdsworth 09:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well how can we keep the main point, that what is being asked for is very likely physically impossible. It seems to me less anti-big business than a reminder that there is a bottom line physical reality which cannot be waved away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there are strong presumptions hiding here. For instance the "Consumer vs. professional equipment" section normalizes the idea of "copy-restricted media". In my eyes, that idea is highly repressive.
The "caching controversy".. Calling it a controversy, but if it is as the paragraphs entails, they were pretty much being idiots. (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

External links[edit]

I've deleted links that I feel don't meet WP standards. One is a "how-to" link that describes the drop-dead simple process of recording audio on a computer. The other is a software application that records media. I deleted the latter because Wikipedia isn't a linkfarm for solution providers. I deleted the former because "how-to" links are best put into WikiBooks or similar instructional sites. In fact, the "how-to" link is already in an instructional site, so it doesn't need to be represented here. I have no pro-DRM POV to push, I just like to see a lean, mean article. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

For anyone who's not aware of it (and I don't mean you, Binksternet), please note Wikipedia's three-revert rule which prohibits any one person from reverting (undoing) others' edits to an article in whole or in part more than 3 times in a 24-hour period. Coppertwig (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The original post of the External link by was on April 17, at 15:08. Logically the WP:3RR three-revert rule applies to Binksternet who on April 17, at 17:05 began a sequence of reversions, all of which are within the 24 hour period stated in the rule beginning April 17, at 17:05. Since the 24 hour period ends April 18, at 17:05 Binksternet first violated WP:3RR the three-revert rule by reverting user's original post on April 17, at 18:40, followed by six additional reversions, the last of which follows your warning regarding the 24 hour period of the WP:3RR rule. Logically the rule does not apply to any reinstatement or reinstator of the original post.
  1. 15:08, 17 April 2008 (12,030 bytes) (→External links)
  2. 17:05, 17 April 2008 Binksternet (11,922 bytes) (Undid revision 206256963 by (talk)revert "how to" link)
  3. 18:36, 17 April 2008 Binksternet (12,030 bytes) (Reverted edits by (talk) to last version by
  4. 18:40, 17 April 2008 Binksternet (12,030 bytes) (Reverted edits by (talk) to last version by Binksternet)
  5. 18:42, 17 April 2008 Binksternet (11,827 bytes) (removing links that fail WP:EL) (undo)
  6. 19:40, 17 April 2008 Binksternet (11,827 bytes) (→External links: deleting "how-to" link , deleting link to analog hole software provider)
  7. 19:53, 17 April 2008 Binksternet (11,827 bytes) (Reverted edits by (talk) to last version by Binksternet)
  8. 20:44, 17 April 2008 Binksternet (11,935 bytes) (delete link to software solution... not a linkfarm) (undo)
  9. 20:44, 17 April 2008 Binksternet (11,935 bytes) (delete link to software solution... not a linkfarm) (undo)
  10. 00:53, 18 April 2008 Coppertwig (12,033 bytes) ((null edit) , you are violating the WP:3RR three-revert rule. See Talk:Analog hole#External links.)
  11. 03:41, 18 April 2008 Binksternet (11,828 bytes) (Removing software solution link and "how-to" link per Talk) (talk) 06:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The sequence of edits is also at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR in case anybody wants to check it out. Over there, the timeline includes the instance of quick-tempered user page vandalism by our 71.100.x.x IP-hopping friend. Binksternet (talk) 08:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Less quick tempered than a wake-up call that the entire class is now committed to exposing your WP:POV based WP:VAN sprees. (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, Coppertwig. By "any one person", the rules include those editors who employ multiple user names and multiple anonymous IP addresses. Just clarifying. ;^) Binksternet (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
A new day, a new trimming. If you disagree with the link's removal, let's discuss it. Binksternet (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the Wikipedia philosophy is to provide all knowledge to all people and the Wikipedia proper is not a "How-to" encyclopedia, a provision had to be made from the beginning for accessing "How-to"s and utilizing them as vital references. Because they serve the purpose of vital references the Wikibooks was established in 2003 to accommodate them.

Although there are legitimate concerns about abuse of the External links section, your excuse for deleting a "how-to" link simply for the reason that it is a "How-to" link is bogus. Otherwise Wikibooks would not have been established in support of a place where "How-to"s can be accessed using internal links. The provision for external links to access "How-to"s has also been accepted and implemented so that Wikipedia users may find whatever "how-to" knowledge that is available, which they seek.

For example:

...and the list goes on and on.

You simply can not delete a link to a "How-to" for no other reason than it being a "How-to" without violating historical precedent, so I asked myself, "Why is he deleting this particular link and the one to a DRM removal software?" when there are only five external links in total and you know what Binksternet the answer I got was that you are trying to prevent Wikipedia readers from learning how an "analog hole" is implemented unless they go to the trouble of Googleing. Currently there is controversy over DRM so one possible reason is obvious.

To confirm this I checked your user page and found sufficient evidence of your purpose, followed by checking your contributions, which are filled to the brim with reversions, and soon realized the reason behind your reversions here is not as you claim.

The reason you "trimmed" these links and continue to "trim" them is not because you are desirous of serving the Wikipedia readership but rather to uphold your own POV, in violation of WP:POV.

Leave the links alone Binksternet. While you do not need them you have no right to deprive other users of them. It is not only the right of other users to have them but the philosophy of the Wikipedia to provide all people with all knowledge and that it shall.

It is the user's supreme right and the Wikipedia's inspired purpose that I and other Wikipedians intend to uphold. (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia is not censored. If you're having trouble settling your content dispute between two people, it's a good idea to bring more people into the discussion (but without violating the canvassing guideline). See, for example, WP:3O and WP:RfC (article content). Maybe there's a relevant Wikiproject where a message about this dispute could be posted.
I've posted a message to 71.100.x.x at User talk:Coppertwig#Message to 71.100.x.x.
I have in turn responded to that message and agree that the involvement of others such as an arbitrator can sometimes help resolve a dispute. (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the order of the messages here was shifted around. I found it confusing. Please avoid moving or editing other users' posts, or even your own most of the time. See Wikipedia:talk page. Coppertwig (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I can only guess that Binksternet's intent for rearranging the order of messages was to induce as much confusion as possible. Yet another example though of the reason restoration of the original and proper order are not rightfully restricted by any rule. (talk) 12:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
It would probably be a good idea to look at WP:Dispute resolution. Re your comment above: Please assume good faith. Coppertwig (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Again order of presumption is critical here. I am not the one bringing a dispute. I am the one asserting that the content I posted is valid and acceptable whereas Binksternet is the one who is disputing this through his deletions. It is up to him or to you to initiate a dispute resolution and not I. That is, if resolution is now to be pursued on a formal basis. (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
As I mentioned in the VPP discussion, and I will repeat here in case you miss it there, you appear to misunderstand policy. It is intrinsic on BOTH editors involved in a dispute to resolve it peacefully via discussion and in accordance with policy. Playing the blame game goes no where. Who is more at fault here is also mostly irrelevant, all that is relevant is how are you going to resolve this dispute? The first thing to do is to try and discuss it in a calm, logical, polite and WP:AGF way with the other party. If this leads no where, then it is normally wise to seek the opinion of an uninvolved party, particularly if there are only two people currently involved in the discussion (i.e. seek a third opinion). Who is the one to iniate either of these steps doesn't matter much. Also bear in mind that normal practice on wikipedia is WP:BOLD, revert, discuss. What this means is that while you are welcome to add new content (or remove existing content), if someone reverts your changes then the accepted pratice is to keep the previous stable version (i.e. before your changes) until a new consensus is reached. The only cases when this does not apply is when content is deleted for copyvio, BLP or other similar critical reasons in which case you should always keep the deletions until consensus is reached that there is no issue, regardless of what the previous stable version was like. Finally, it is generally intrinsic on editors seeking to make changes from an existing stable version to justify their changes to other editors if there is a dispute (however the editor reverting to the stable version should still try to initiate a discussion him or herself). Note that none of this justifies either editor involved in a dispute refusing to discuss the dispute. If you have attempted to discuss a dispute and the other editor has not explained why he or she does not agree, then the other editor is likely to be seen at fault regardless of who did what first Nil Einne (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

<---What a mess! A simple deletion of a link I felt extraneous on an article I am not passionate about escalates into this tempest in a teapot. From the vantage point of a new day it appears that I got drawn in to this vortex because User 71.100.x.x vandalized my user page and then quickly turned to use POV accusation and threat on my Talk page. In short order I began to feel that User 71.100.x.x was enjoying an insulated existence shielded by his dynamic IP address from the rules of good Wiki conduct. We should be discussing content here but ad hominem attacks are hanging in the air. Let me answer the personal attacks first:

  • I am not pushing a POV that Analog hole readers shouldn't be allowed to see an instructional website on how to use the hole to get around DRM. I hold the position that readers who want to find out how are easily able to search for and locate a multitude of such sites.
  • I didn't rearrange the text here on this Talk page in order to confuse. What I found confusing was the insertion by User 71.100.x.x of his Talk page entry between Coppertwig's and mine, losing track of chron order and using two colons for indentation just like mine. Because his entry was so large and complex, and because it was on the same indent level as mine, it made my Talk page entry virtually disappear. I picked up the inserted entry and put it in line with that user's other entries here. I also added my own new Talk entry which was immediately deleted by User 71.100.x.x as he moved his insertion back into place.
  • None of my edits push the POV that DRM is good and anti-DRM activity is bad. Anyone is welcome to look through my edit history and check. Or check the history page of Digital rights management where you'll see a few low level maintenance edits from me such as anti-vandalism service and removal of unencyclopedic Talk page discussion from the main article.

Because I have a demonstrated lack of POV in my history of participation here at Wikipedia, we need to move past any accusation of POV leveled at me and focus instead on the content under discussion. Binksternet (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[edit]

This external link appears to be one of several hundred possible software solutions to recording media onto a computer. I removed this link because I didn't want to provide equal time to the entire list of free audio software. I see this link as failing WP:EL. Binksternet (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not post this link but rather found the link here and visited the software. In our research we always disable our Internet connection when testing or running new software. In the case of Analog Whole, however, we discovered that it would not run without an active Internet connection and rather than hiding this fact announced to us that an Internet connection could not be found. Our suspicion is that this particular software may be uploading the resulting MP3 file to its own library without asking us for permission and possibly for the purpose of resale. While we support Fair Use we do not feel that such an upload is covered by Fair Use, so aside from posting this information in the body of the article perhaps under a subtitle of blacklisted software we do not support provision of the link. As with all knowledge any can be used for rightful or wrongful purpose. By withholding a link one can show non support of obvious wrongful purpose but depriving others of the reason for not providing the link and a warning that the software may be acting in this way would be equally as wrong. (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC) How to use the "Analog Hole"[edit]

This link is a "how-to" link. By itself it is harmless. I deleted it because I didn't want this article to become bogged down with a long list of similar articles such as

etc. etc. A long list like this is often the result of a single foot-in-the-door entry under External links, unless vigorous preventive measures are taken. However, if the editors here come to the conclusion that they want such a list, feel free to copy and paste this list into the appropriate place. Let's hear from other editors about how they feel regarding a complete list of "how-to" links. Binksternet (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This list of links is obviously raw and has not been properly screened by any editor. Many of these links turn out to be nothing more than links to retail audio software. The last link, however, appears to be both free of charge and free of ill purpose. On those conditions I would support publication of that link. However, Binksternet, the reason for stating as Wikipedia policy that the number of external links should be minimized is so that editors will not use them to replace article text, whereas a large number might be justified which had special attributes that could not be provided in the body of the article. Although not an external link at this point, a link to the list of free audio software would possibly be a very good example. (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
As a continuation of this thread - I'd like to remove the Implementations link in "See also". The WikiBooks article does not add to the content of this article, and the implementations section only contains links within the list above that was removed a few months ago. This indirect insertion just seems unnecessary. 71.100.x.x - if you'd like to add the external links, why not just copy them over? --Jiuguang (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Jiuguang, your purpose here is to stalk and kill the edits of User:Julie Dancer due to your difference with her article in the Wikia which uses logic to define, to support and to defend her right to believe in a traditional God, since you were raised as a Chinese Communist atheist in Beijing. You need to leave Julie alone and to stop deleting her edits for that reason.
hahaha really wasn't expecting to read something like that when i navigated onto this page! Unnachamois (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

link to AnalogHoleGaming[edit]

Any objection to removing the link to AnalogHoleGaming? I've checked out the link and I can't find anything relevant yet to the subject of this article, especially as the analog hole tends not to apply to software...? Kmenzel (talk) 08:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

"Necessity to make it visible and/or audible" - really?[edit]

"Media publishers who use digital rights management (DRM), to restrict how a work can be used, perceive the necessity to make it visible and/or audible as a "hole" in the control that DRM otherwise affords them."

Neverminding the hilarity of this statement, it gives "media publishers" a way to close the hole, doesn't it? I mean, who says there IS' acutally any kind of "necessity to make it visible and/or audible"? They're free to do what they want with their media, aren't they? -- (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

"Cache ban"?[edit]

About the statement in the "Engineering vs business and political views" section, does anyone have any sort of citation for this? It really seems a bit silly and hard to believe, and if someone can't furnish proof on it, it should be removed. Runedance (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Dubious statement in Overview...[edit]

In the overview section it says:

"Naturally, the use of high quality conversion equipment reduces the amount of noise added, to the point where such noise is essentially imperceptible to the human senses. For instance, playing a video in a DVD player and using a DVD recorder to record the output can create a high-quality copy of the video."

This doesn't really sound right: noise is not added in this process: a perfect copy of the DVD is made. In my opinion this section is wrong - of course, I am no expert, but I feel that unless some citations can be added to this section, it should be removed.

--Unnachamois (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not bit perfect for three reasons. First, the copy of the DVD lacks menus. Second, the analog path between the DVD player's video DAC and the DVD recorder's video ADC adds noise. Third, the DVD recorder's real-time MPEG-2 encoder adds noise. We're talking about the analog hole between two consumer-electronics DVD devices, not DVDFab Decrypter and a PC DVD burner. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 19:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is dubious. The claim in the article is not about the use of consumer-level equipment; it's expressed as an overarching general statement that claims to be rooted in information theory.

"In general, performing a digital-to-analog conversion followed by an analog-to-digital conversion results in the addition of noise in an information-theoretic sense relative to the original digital signal. This noise can be measured and quantified. Naturally, the use of high quality conversion equipment reduces the amount of noise added, to the point where such noise is essentially imperceptible to the human senses."

Since the original file is digital, it is possible for high-quality conversion equipment to make a perfect copy. The noise level added by the analog conversion just has to be sufficiently less than the discretization noise in the digital signal. The end result will be a copy that has every bit the same as the original, with zero errors. This is not impossible in an information-theoretic sense, nor even in a practical sense. This is because the original file doesn't have infinite information content to begin with, so a sufficiently low level of noise in the conversion will not affect any bits in the final copied digital file.

As an addendum, I think the author of that sentence was confused between a process that converts Analog-to-Digital-to-Analog and a process that converts Digital-to-Analog-to-Digital. The former will always result in theoretical signal degredation because the original analog signal contains infinite information (if a perfect copy, including what would normally be considered signal noise, is desired) and the intermediate digital version contains finite information. The latter, which is the basis of the "Analog hole", has an intermediate step that only loses information if the analog signal has too low signal-to-noise ratio, or the digital re-conversion has too low resolution. This would be the case if using a camcorder to record a movie in the theatre, but not if using properly-designed equipment to copy a storage disk.

I've rewritten the offending paragraph (which basically resulted in it being shortened to a couple sentences). Feel free to improve my version.--JB Gnome (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

NPOV removed[edit]

I've removed the NPOV template, please use {{POV-section}} for sections or {{POV-statement}} for sentences, then detail issues here. This will help address them in a timely manner. - RoyBoy 05:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)