Talk:Copy protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Media (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Constant internet connection required[edit]

Recent games such as assassin's creed II and similar required constant internet connection to work. This is relevant and interesting as the protection had flaws (server overload caused genuine players to pause and wait mid game) and irritated gamers so much that the amazon ratings system gave the game a score of 1.0/5 based on hundreds of reviews, in protest of the copy protection method. This style of copy protection is becoming more and more prevalent and needs to be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Commercial Ad[edit]

A user posted a link to [1] which contains information relevant to copy protection of computer software. That is, the link was specifically on-topic. However, the link is, in my opinion, essentially an advertisement for a specific technology and while on-topic, does not really add much content to the article. I have no reason to believe the person who added this link has anything to do with the company in question. I removed the link and the user complained that it isn't really an advertisement. However, he did not reinstate the link, presumably wanting this subject to be discussed. So, discussion. Is the link given above appropriate to include in this article or should it stay out? --Yamla 16:43, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

There are many software copy protection methods available, and advertising for them all on this page wouldn't add much. Maybe add a link to a separate page for a list of copy prevention schemes / providers would help? 17:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a separate section listing commercially available software LM and DRM systems would be appropriate. However, I agree, it wouldn't contribute much. Maybe we can try to look for analyst reports that detail the top 5 systems or discuss incumbents and trends, and include that as an external link? I don't know of a report that's available under GFDL or compatible with it, however. A rambhia 21:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Report on the top 5? Something that you may not realise about copy protection is that its success depends on obscurity. Something else about CP is that analyst reports will be way off the mark. I know which is the best solution by far for certain types of media, but I would not promote it on Wikipedia Wallumbase (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Copy prevention[edit]

I really would like to say that I approve of calling it copy prevention, as copy protection seems to be POV like, in my opinion, calling an article about copyright infrigement 'piracy'. It is good to be on the lookout for these subtle POVs :). --ShaunMacPherson 21:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't like it, at all, because it's not called copy prevention. It is called copy protection. (Google of "copy protection" yields 751,000 hits; "copy prevention" yields 30,700, including the mirrors of this article.) Naming the article "copy prevention" is an attempt to legitimize the terminology, which is an illegitimate use of Wikipedia.
For the same reason, it would be fine to call copyright infringement 'piracy', because that is the accepted term: that is what it is called. We are writing an encyclopedia here, which necessarily reflects the reality of the world. Tempshill 20:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not taking a stand on copy-protection vs. copy-prevention, but I will follow up a bit on piracy. I looked up piracy in my copy of the Canada Criminal Code and it quite clearly ONLY refers to crimes involving ships (I don't recall the definition, but you know what I mean). Now, the recording industry may call it piracy but law enforcement (at least, here in Canada) generally does not, and most people just call it copying, not piracy. I believe as far as piracy is concerned, the wikipedia should describe illegal-acts-at-sea and provide a link to an article about the other meaning. It is factually incorrect to refer to copying music as piracy, at least here in Canada. I'm not an admin, though, and my opinion may not be in line with wiki policy. --Yamla 21:26, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)
Well, I would have several responses to this. Firstly, the term "piracy" is used in the U.S. Code and in some other countries' and localities' laws. More importantly by far, it's used constantly in the software community worldwide; it is the standard term for making copies that violate copyright law (and, I would add, is handy so we don't have to say the phrase "making copies that violate copyright law" all the time). The best way to provide information to our readers, who are just looking for an article on a subject they want to investigate, is to have the "piracy" article talk about whichever form of piracy they are probably going to look up, with alternative links at the top; or to use a disambiguation page if it's a close call. This is why this article should be named "copy protection" and not "copy prevention", which is a neologism that someone is trying to push by naming this article "copy prevention". Tempshill 17:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Soon, I plan to move the article to "copy protection" and make "copy prevention" a redirect to it, and edit the article accordingly, unless someone can come up with a great reason not to. This should be done because "copy protection" is the universal term; "copy prevention" is a neologism that is used by some miniscule number of people, as discussed above. "Copy protection" is not a POV term; it is just what it is called. The article was originally called "copy protection", and it should not have been moved here in the first place. Any serious objections? Tempshill 22:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The section regarding audio CDs needs a correction. From my experience, "copy protected" discs are only a nuisance, as the original has a 50% chance of not playing at all or not playing correctly, thus forcing the legitimate buyer to also buy a blank CD-R to copy the original so that s/he can actually listen to it on his/her equipment without problems (please note that the recording industry also gets money from the sales of blank recording media; there is legislation for it). The "copy protection" systems have never stopped anyone from ripping the discs' contents. Also, please add information about the "Tubular Bells 2003" debacle. After many CD and DVD players got damaged by the "copy-protected" disc, it disappeared from the charts. Please do an internet search for more information - I'm about to go to bed now and just adding these $0.02 before I go.

Proposed move back to Copy protection[edit]

Copy preventionCopy protection – This article was originally at Copy protection. In November, Psychonaut cut and pasted the page to Copy prevention, and edited all instances of the term from "copy protection" to "copy prevention" within the article. He claimed the term "copy protection" violates NPOV. Problem is, "copy prevention" is a neologism; "copy protection" is the universal term (Google backs me up here with 20 times more hits), and Wikipedia is not a soapbox to try to convince the world to stop using a universally used term that an individual objects to. Hence "copy protection" does not violate NPOV. — Tempshill 22:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support per 'use the most common name' policy--"copy protection" gets 738k hits, "copy prevention" gets 36k. Niteowlneils 04:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Move back to original name. – AxSkov (T) 12:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Dragons flight 15:23, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. The two terms seem, to me, to be equally NPOV. However I would say "copy protection" is the more recognized term based on my internet research, dictionary research, and personal experience. --Wikiuser0 02:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I personally use the term "copy prevention" because I believe that the term "copy protection" has a built-in bias, of which I disapprove. I do this for the reasons described at the FSF's page about language. I hope that the term "copy protection" will become disused in favor of "copy prevention", and I try to do my part to make this happen. However, "copy protection" is by far the more widely recognized term due to the longstanding success of its proponents in getting the general public to use it. The case for using "copy prevention" as the title of the Wikipedia article is therefore somewhat weak. Just because "copy prevention" is a good neologism does not mean that it is not a neologism. I would support the move and urge describing (characterizing) the view that the phrase "copy protection" is biased; discussion of the problems with the established term are properly encyclopedic. But I don't see any way around the conclusion that the term is nonetheless established. (The fact that language that we use has cognitive biases that favor one side of a dispute is a good argument that NPOV is unattainable. Within Wikipedia, however, the unattainability or impossibility of NPOV does not seem to be an acceptable argument; all Wikipedia policy seems to favor "copy protection" here.) --Schoen 05:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. What Schoen said. – Smyth\talk 10:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, provided we have a redirect from copy prevention to copy protection. Probably worth adding a sentence in the introduction noting that the correct term is 'copy prevention' but that the common term is 'copy protection'. But that can happen after the movie. --Yamla 16:18, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. It's been called copy protection (as in protection from being copied) since at least the fairly early days of personal computers when Lotus used it on some of the early versions Lotus 1-2-3. BlankVerse 07:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


    • My apologies for cut-and-pasting the article; that was before I learned about the "move" function. As for the arguments set forth, I concede that the term "copy protection" has more currency, but wish to note that it is neither universal nor accurate nor neutral. The term "protection" carries the false implication that the works are in danger of being damaged, whereas the more neutral "prevention" simply refers to the function of the technology in question. I think Tempshill is conflating the concepts of usage frequency and NPOV; the former does not necessarily imply the latter. If it's Wikipedia policy that common terms are to be preferred for article titles even if they are POV, then I do not oppose moving the page. But if there is no set policy on what to do when these two guidelines conflict, then I advise keeping the current NPOV title. —Psychonaut 23:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
      • On redirect, I respectfully assert that it's near-universal, and that the NPOV argument is overacademic and silly. Tempshill 23:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, IMHO it is more POV to use a neologism used almost exclusively by people pushing an agenda rather than the term most commonly used by the general public. Niteowlneils 04:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

besides that copy protection never prevented anyone from copying anything —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually many people have been prevented by copying from copy protection. Just because all copy protection methods are circumventable doesn't mean they haven't prevented people from copying. How successful they have been in preventing people from copying is always going to be disputed but I don't think there is any dispute that they have prevented people from copying. This of course includes many end users who simply wanted to make a legal backup. Nil Einne (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


Thanks everyone for your participation in the WP:RM vote, and to Violetriga for moving the page and adjusting the edit history. I've gone through the article and edited the terminology accordingly. The note on the terminology "copy prevention" remains of course. Tempshill 23:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


showed a face composed of two different parts and asked when this pirate was hanged on a certain island. The player then had to match the faces on the wheel, and enter the year number that appeared on the island-respective hole. Its sequel had the same concept, but with magic potion ingredients.

I'm pretty sure the spinning wheel thing was used by games other then Monkey Island Nil Einne 12:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC) They were, for example Pool of Radiance in 1988 used a wheel with multiple holes and runes. About the only creative thing monkey island wheels did was make it stylistically related to the game, which actually wasn't all that creative since that's what pretty much everyone did with their wheels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Should "Copy protection" be renamed as "Copy control" and merged with DRM?[edit]

It makes little sense to me to have separate copy protection and digital rights management articles. As far as I can tell, modern "DRM" and earlier "copy protection" mechanisms differ primarily in public-relations marketing strategy. The purpose is ultimately the same -- to exert control over the use and/or distribution of copies of information -- and the same arguments for and against copy protection apply almost equally to DRM. It seems silly (and POV) to me to have two separate articles. Wonderstruck 06:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

DRM doesn't have to protect from making copies - it could be a tracking mechansim like FairPlay —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Psychonaut and Wonderstruck, I also had this idea that, plainly, DRM should maybe just be merged into this page – as the same idea (only evolved technologies, plural, also plural for the older style), as copy protection is an older term, encompassing DRM (and more, such as Technological protection measures that redirects there, not here). FairPlay: "prevents users from playing these files on unauthorized computers [..] iTunes sends a unique machine identifier to Apple’s server". Is iTunes (that tracks?), being confused with FairPlay, that is only copy protection/DRM? In this article: "The term is also often related to, and confused with, the concept of digital rights management. Digital rights management is a more general term because it includes all sorts of management of works, including copy restrictions. Copy protection may include measures that are not digital". Does it have it backwards? Not clear what, unsourced, "all sorts of management of works" defers to. Of course DRM, can do more (such as cryptography), than some older analog only-schemes, such as Macrovision, as DRM is based on software, and not only in the analog domain. Copy protection is not however, something only (did it even start as such?) about the analog domain (some copy protection have to do with it, but so does DRM (because of the "analog hole"). DRM is just new copy production for newer technology. Is may be used more for media files than software, but copy protection while maybe starting with software, has been used for CDs (then DRM term not used). comp.arch (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
What a mess... protection vs prevention vs drm. When I read the DRM page it appears to be messy and confused. Then when I read the copy protection page I see the same confusion. Perhaps the problem is that the contributors are relying on what they can find already published on the web, most of which was PR that purposefully avoided the mention of the real innovators. In fact a lot of online evidence no longer exists because they have been and gone, their imitators will not be preserving their history, and it was before the time of Google and the Wayback Machine. I remember a time when copy protection was not a topic beyond speculation... theories that described processes that were not proven because at the time the world's most informed and talented programmers considered it both impossible and a useless concept. But you won't find any reference for this.Wallumbase (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

No to Copy Control was a short lived term exclusively used only for Music CD Protection, so that should remain seperate. Yes to DRM and Copy Protection are one in the same and should be merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyros1972 (talkcontribs) 14:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

old games protection[edit]

i feel like this part suggest old protections were not good, and not using described methods. How about Dungeon Master for example? See this link: [2] Vid512 14:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

A proper History section should indeed address this. (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The introduction..[edit]

"is any technical measure designed to prevent duplication of information. Copy protection is often emotionally debated, and is thought to sometimes infringe on some users' property rights: for example, the legal right to make a backup copy of a DVD they have purchased, to install and use computer software on multiple computers, or to upload their music into their digital audio player for easier access and listening."

we don't need to know how emotionally debated it is at the very introduction. This part is poorly written and very biased. I thought a straight definition would fit a lot better, so I put this in instead.:

"Copy protection, also known as copy prevention or copy restriction, is a system for preventing the unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted media like movies, video games and music."

To me that seems to be a lot less biased- possibly a bit biased on the pro-copy protection side, but a lot less chunky, and it's referenced too. 05:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Games on audio cassette?[edit]

During the 1980s and 1990s, computer games sold on audio cassette and floppy disks were usually protected with a user-interactive method that demanded the user to have the original package or a part of it, usually the manual.

Am I missing something here? I don't know of any instance where a computer game could be sold on audio cassette. I also don't know of any other kind of game that would use an audio cassette but I suppose it's possible. In any case, fixing or explaining this sentence would be in order. Ham Pastrami 17:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Computer games were regularly shipped on audio cassette throughout the 1970s and early 1980s. So I think it's just you, unless you're trying to make a point too subtly. Nandesuka 21:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Yup... this is true. Computer games (and other programs) were sold on cassette.
Actually, it is not audio cassette, it's just a Data Tape but I am sure video games were sold on this medium. Df747jet 06:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
It was both (check the article). Some of the catridges were indeed audio compact cassettes used as data tapes. (Indeed the article specifically mentions audio compact cassettes and Compact Cassette mentions their use as a data storage mechanism) Nil Einne (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I had games on cassette tape some from Vic 20 and C64, they were PC ones too. If you played them they made funny noises, so therefor it was digital information BUT recorded in analog format. All computer data on it's lowest level is analog and that still includes modern HDD and Optical Media. Language and storage are different, one can be analog and the other digital. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyros1972 (talkcontribs) 14:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

hacker is probably incorrect term[edit]

Hacker - as defined in the appropriate Wikipedia page is mostly an experienced computer user, the right term for illegal decipherer is cracker. Can I change that?

==No, cracker's are people who gain unlawful access to a system.

Not necessarily, do you remember the "cracked by" intros of video games? Of course, in this case it was copy protection circumvention and traffic, which may still be unlawful. But those redistributors were commonly called crackers as well. I agree with the original poster that "hacker" is a more general term, but unfortunately, in widely publicised media it's generally used where technical people might use the term "cracker" (I have no idea if the term has weight in the legal system, though). But because of the common misconception, it still makes sense to use "hacker", when the article targets laymen... (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Copy protection for videotape[edit]

Macrovision uses a legal strategy of patenting its video AGC system, giving it a more straightforward basis to shut down manufacture of any device that descrambles it than often exists in the DRM world.

Does Macrovision have a patent on a descrambling device or a modified AGC system that will defeat its video blanking? If not, I don't see how its legal basis is established. I feel that this section could use some clarification and expansion in regards to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iain marcuson (talkcontribs) 23:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

PSP statement[edit]

Such a scheme has been used for the Sony PlayStation and cannot be circumvented easily without the use of a modchip. There is probably little easier than popping in a pandora's battery and hitting a few buttons to get around copyright protection on a PSP. Even sony has admitted piracy is rampant on the psp. Which reliable source has made this statement?--Crossmr (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Page move[edit]

I've reverted the July page moved back to "copy prevention". The rationale given in the 2005 move back still holds, and until such point as there's consensus to override we should use the most common name, regardless of whether certain parties hold it to be biased. This isn't FSFpedia. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

As I'm unfamiliar with the rationale you're referencing, it may not have been qualified, but I moved it again before noticing this section. However, I do disagree that the most commonly used phrasing should be used when bias is in question. Kleenexes are not facial tissues, and the article there reflects that. This article should similarly reflect encyclopedic content, not public image due to marketing (at best, some may go so far as to call it propaganda by the copyright middlemen industry.) (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

DRM circumversion software[edit]

I was thinking of maybe creating a category for DRM circumversion software such as Game Jackal or cheat cartridges. Any opinions? SharkD (talk) 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be most inappropriate!Wallumbase (talk) 06:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

BluRay BD+ / AnyDVD[edit]

Shouldn't the section on BD+ mention that this protection scheme, too, has already been compromised? In fact, it was broken even more quickly than CSS... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Copy Protected Paper[edit]

Copy Protected Paper has an hidden & encrypted message that cannot be digitally replicated and re-printed. What is replicated on a photo copy or fax is a robust copy/void warning message. When copied an “illegal copy” or “void” message shows brightly on the copy making any counterfeit copy obvious. Copy Proof Protected Paper is suitable for most printers and is court enforceable

If this paper doesn't prevent scanning or photographing by any camera, then it's not worth mentioning because colours can be seperated by the use of filters (using film or digital photography) to remove anything. Consider how money forgers can create colour separations from the original bank note for the different colour plates... and also reproduce watermarks and threads. Most printing apprentices get a guided tour of all departments in the mint (treasury printer) in their final year.Wallumbase (talk) 07:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The papers are suited for applicants where disclosure of information could compromise or damage the security or profitability of the user’s operation or otherwise embarrass the company, group or individual. Information can be printed or typed utilising standard reproduction methods (copiers, printing, typewriter, laser, inkjet printer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Copy Protected Paper External Links[edit]

Copy Protected Paper is an extremely specialist product and i have only found a few relevant links for this, please add more if you find any. Conquest Copy Protected Paper (Midlands & South England) Atlantis Copy Protected Paper (North England, Wales & Scotland) Copy Proof Paper Trade Supplier

More links needed, please add!

This is only watermarked paper, which can be reproduced by a commercial printer or a digital printer at home.. There is no point in advertising something that can easily be created by anyone. Please don't confuse it with copy protection.Wallumbase (talk) 06:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

NO this is NOT watermarked paper, it is "Copy Proof" Paper.

To confirm a few more detail on this, its a secure application for protecting paper, this security paper has an encrypted message that cannot be digitally replicated and re-printed. What is replicated on a colour copy is a robust copy/void warning message. Copy Proof Paper includes microscopic design with microscopic printing and special paper that works to hide the illegal copy message.

To view and verify the encrypted microscopic characters, you can use a magnifying glass or simply try to copy. Because of the encryption, this technology can be used to trace its origin and is also court enforceable. Paper can be used on any home or office printer, but can not be produced any home, office or digital printing.

Copy Proof Paper is secured agains't unwanted photocopies, faxes & computer scans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes just like pharmacy scripts, a scan or photocopy will have "COPY" or "VOID" on it. The technology actually can be seen if you hold it at the right angle under a light, we need more RS on these.

Also not sure if this is "Copy Protection" for general or just software? If it is juts software it should be renamed to "Software" or of course DRM but that word seems to no longer be used much. Tyros1972 (talk) 11:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Article Needs a Criticism Section[edit]

Oh, yeah. (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed general purpose copy protection methods[edit]

What is this gibberish section? Needs removed at worst, completely rewritten if the patent application # is real and relevant at least. Right now it reads like an off-the-cuff monologue by the author of the patent or some other interested party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it needs removing asap. The patent is dated 2008 and possibly an attempt to capitalise on a technique that I know already existed at that time.Wallumbase (talk) 06:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge Anti-piracy[edit]

Both these pages seem very similar and even duplicate a fair about of content. Should I or someone else merge the pages totally or just move the examples on anti-piracy. I personally thing the whole anti-piracy page can be merged into Copy protection. --Shanee753 (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Digital rights management and Copy Protection are one in the same, I would merge those two for sure. Anti Piracy maybe slightly different though the article needs to be greatly expanded. Copy Control was a short lived term exclusively used for music CDs so that can be left alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyros1972 (talkcontribs) 14:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the articles have significant overlap in scope and should be merged. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 23:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
For the merge, provided that the word "piracy" is not used, except to show that it is a propagand term that seeks to put sharing into a bad light; since piracy equates sharing (of digital data) to piracy (which is attacking ships). link
In the same spirit... and for the time being... I recommend that the current article be renamed to Copy restriction, to show that the term refers to a restriction of users. "Protection" as in "Copy protection" missed the point, as the article is not about protection, but about the act of technically complicating copying, with the aim of restricting copying.
In any case... the article "Anti-piracy", inherently has a bad title. It should rather be termed: "Copy restriction"... so all for the merge. Hnfiurgds (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Article lacks History section[edit]

Although there is some interspersed history here and there, the paragraphs are unreferenced, and they should ideally be moved into a History section, with dates, company names, notable products, etc... (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Spyro YOTD?[edit]

It claims that the game corrupts a file on the disc? This isn't possible, the playstation could not write to discs. (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You're correct. The source never mentioned corrupting data on the disk (only data in ram(?)). I have editted the entry on YOTD a little. However I'm still not convinced it is totally correct (Some of the things on this article about YOTD don't seem to me mentioned in the reference?). --Shanee753 (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Redirected, moved, and "Anti-piracy" merge kept intact[edit]

I don't know why the previous discussion on moving never happened, or why an admin on this article's history "warned" a user for moving it previously. Consensus seemed pretty clear to me above. (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate information[edit]

The section "Examples" contains information already used before in the page. I've decided not to remove it, as other information is there too. Sobsz (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disc wobble[edit]

This was formerly a separate article, but someone apparently decided it wasn't noteworthy enough. If so, disc wobble needs to be mentioned in this article, but I'm not sure in which section (the article is kind of a mess right now...) ---SoledadKabocha (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

(From Disc Wobble)[edit]

This has nothing to do with copy protection. See Wobble frequency for the real purpose.

It may be that Philips intended this as part of a copy protection system (and the powerpoint presentation would suggest that) however, it has never been deployed in that role. The wobble has only ever been used as a method of controlling the rotational speed of CD/DVD/BD burning drive (and coding certain information in the modulated wobble for DVD+R(W) and BD-R(E) discs. (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Further: this wobble was intended for factory pressed non recordable discs. Such discs have no wobble on the recorded track even to this day. The wobble used on recordable media although a related idea (in that there is a wobble) is a completely different applcation of the idea. For this application the correct redirect is to Copy protection. (talk) 12:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Your proposed target article, Copy protection, does not mention the word "wobble." Until it does, redirecting there is undesirable; please think about our readers and not just isolated facts. (Although the RCAT {{R to article without mention}} exists, it is only to be used in exceptional cases.)
Generally on Wikipedia, redirects based on informal names or even common mistakes are accepted; see {{R to technical name}} (which may not apply in this case), {{R for convenience}}, {{R from incorrect name}}, etc.
The fact that Wobble frequency does not mention copy protection just means that there are at least two articles that need improvement, that is, Wobble frequency (which needs to clarify the distinction between the normal mechanism and the copy-protection mechanism) and Copy protection (which needs to have a mention of wobble added at all). --SoledadKabocha (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
@SoledadKabocha: (I have moved the discussion here because the talk page should have been redirected too. I have also moved your post on my talk page here because it is discussing the article).
The proposal (and consensus) to redirect the article to Copy protection was not mine. It was the result of a proposed deletion. That may have been nine years ago, but the redirect was never carried out (I just rectified the omission). The target article did not mention wobble then any more than it does now, so nothing has changed. Personally, I believe that the original article should have been simply deleted because it discusses a dead end technology that was never deployed. Wikipedia generally does not devote articles to dead ends mainly because they are not notable. The original article name is wrong anyway because 'disc wobble' is something completely different to 'groove wobble', the former being undesirable.
To logically extent your argument, a redirect to Wobble frequency would be inappropriate because that article does not mention copy protection. If it bothers you that much, a section could be added to this article to mention the groove wobble idea, but it doesn't need to say much as it never happened and was not notable. (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I admit I have difficulty making every argument logically airtight given practical time constraints—that is, Wikipedia is not my whole life.
The best way I can explain my point is that notability can change (usually for the better), as can consensus in general. (I am aware that the literal meaning of the Notability is not temporary section implies that notability has been established in the first place, which may not hold here. I am just using it as an example of a changing consensus type.) Therefore, please don't undo the hard work of others based on a potentially-outdated consensus about notability, without discussing through the proper formal processes whether that consensus still holds.
The burden is on both of us to find sources that prove or disprove that copy-protection wobble is "a dead[-]end technology that was never deployed," something that could well have factually changed. I admit I have not done so yet, but the problem is not solely a matter of time (see above), as the official documentation on most video-game consoles is proprietary.
Perhaps the merge request should have specified Copy protection rather than Wobble frequency as the target article, but I digress. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
As someone who regularly authors optical discs of (nearly) all types and who has been involved with video systems for more decades than I wish to admit, I can tell you that the Philips scheme has never been commercially deployed. It is not up to me to prove this statement. The WP:BURDEN of proof lies with any user who wishes to include this information in any article. The original aticle only contains one extant reference (and that is from a WP:PRIMARY source). I have just reviewed the Philips source material again. The article has not interpreted this source well (I cannot comment on the other source as it is dead). The technique seems to be designed to build into video players an ability to detect (re)writable discs and to refuse to play those that have an encrypted video recorded on them (a 'so called' bit copy). Like many schemes, the technique is flawed for a number of reasons but the main one is that most (if not all) copying utilities make a decrypted copy which would be indistiguishable (at least by this system) from a genuinely authored original unencrypted disc (such as from a DVD recorder or video camera editing utility). (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for not remembering correctly what WP:BURDEN said; I mistakenly thought of it as "adds or removes" rather than the correct word "restores." In particular, I apologize for not re-reading it beforehand, but I was using the word "burden" in an informal sense anyway.

Even if the specific scheme described in the former article has never been deployed and therefore is unlikely to gain additional notability, it does not necessarily mean that there is no similar deployed scheme that could be described under the title "Disc wobble." (Again, I admit I am remiss in not having looked at the existing sources or searching for new ones, but I am genuinely somewhat busy.)

I have no actionable suggestions at present; I would have to think about this for some (indefinite) time.

(P.S. You should create an account, if only to be able to participate fully in our formal deletion processes. Keep in mind that professional credentials do not carry any positive or negative weight and in particular do not overrule other policies on sourcing.) --SoledadKabocha (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no similar scheme. There is (currently) no copy protection scheme that by this means or any other relies on detecting whether the disc being played is a pre-mastered disc or a writable disc. For the reasons that I have given, IMHO that makes the technique non notable. In any case, writing a properly encrypted DVD disc to a writable medium requires specialist recordable media not generally available and specialist DVD writers that are able to not only write the key data but also can write the video files in a precise known location on the disc (as the location is a component part of the CSS key). The DVD burner in your PC does not have this capability.
One does not require an account to participate in any discussion or any deletion proces. "Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" (my emphasis). (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
From WP:AFDHOWTO (a section of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion): "Only a registered, logged-in user can complete steps II and III. ... You must sign in to nominate pages for deletion." (All emphasis is in original text.) This results from the requirement to create a subpage for the discussion of the specific article. I admit that this isn't quite germane to the discussion, as the proper deletion process would be Redirects for discussion (RFD) rather than AFD if we wanted to delete what is now the redirect at "Disc wobble"—which we don't, because we should explore other alternatives before pursuing deletion. (RFD does not require an account, since it does not require creation of subpages. I was just clarifying that my statement about creating an account was not without reason, and I don't want to rule out the possibility that some deletion may eventually be needed.)
As for factual matters, I again apologize for what may be my (uncited) misconception that disc wobble is in use on at least one commercially-available video-game console. It is not currently my top priority to work on sourcing this material. As such, I need to take a break from this discussion for a while, and I will not be taking any action on the relevant articles for the foreseeable future either. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
You didn't read it fully. An IP can create an AFD. As you say he cannot complete steps II and III. There is an alternate mechanism where these two steps get completed on the IP's behalf. (talk) 14:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I believe the disc authentication mechanism for the original PlayStation relies on modulation of a wobble on the lead-in, encoding the string "SCEI", "SCEA", or "SCEE" depending on the intended region. The Wikipedia article section PlayStation (console)#Copy protection and the document "How PS1 security works." mention it. To find other sources that could be used in the article, search the web for playstation scea disc wobble. --Damian Yerrick (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
You may correct (though your reference doesn't mention it). However, that scheme, if it exists, is a system where a specific wobble pattern is included on the pre-mastered disc and should not be copyable to a writable disc (i.e. would be absent from a copy). This is at variance with the scheme being discussed (originally in the article that this discussion was moved from) where a player looks for the wobble present on a writable disc but absent fom a pre-mastered disc.
If the scheme exists then it would not be exempt from being included in this article as it is entirely relevant. Unfortunately, not only does your reference above not mention it, but the reference given in the article you linked doesn't mention it either. I have had a trawl of several sources on the PS1 protection and though they all more or less support each other on most of the schemes the PS1 incorporates including the 'SCEx' , none mention anything about any wobble or indeed how the 'SCEx' is encoded. I have therefore made an edit request at Talk:PlayStation (console) requesting that the reference be marked as [not in citation given] or (preferably) that the claim be deleted as unreferenced and unverifiable. (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC), I acknowledge that I may have misleadingly implied that participation in AFD should be all or nothing. I did not make clear that I respect any reasons you have for not wanting to create an account at present.
I am also aware that the section mentioned by Damian Yerrick is tagged {{failed verification}} for a valid reason. Again, I will not be taking any action on article content in the near future, as Wikipedia is not really a top priority for me right now. Sorry for wasting everyone's time. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 07:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
No problem. At I thank your responding. (talk) 09:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Just dropping by to say that having a redirect from "disc wobble" to a page that makes zero mention of it is nonsense. If it's not sufficiently notable for inclusion in this article, please someone kill the redirect. I feel like people are approaching this really academically and ignoring the perspective of ignorant users (that is: the target audience of any encyclopedia) like myself who search for "disc wobble" and are shunted off to a page whose only mention of the word "wobble" is in the tiny note informing you that you were redirected from the article on disc wobble. It's really frustrating, and to make it to the talk page and discover that it's just essentially the outcome of a pissing contest and not an honest mistake is kinda surreal. (talk) 03:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Two missing schemes[edit]

Is there any particular reason this article doesn't mention the two most widely known (/infamous) copy protection schemes for audio CDs, Sony's XCP and RCA/BMG's MediaMax CD-3? - dcljr (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No reason at all. Feel free to add them (with the appropriate references). (talk) 12:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

should we add "code card" as a redirec to to this page?[edit]

Seeing it on superman 64 on commodore 64, called it a code card (watched it on AVGN, don't know if the developer officially calls that). Is there a way to make the search, when entered "code card", goes to a subsection titled "Early video games"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeleoj123 (talkcontribs) 22:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


Some commercial software used a hardware dongle plugged into a PC's parallel port as a form of copy prevention. I remember reading a scathing review of a program whose dongle didn't have a passthrough, hence you had to juggle printer cables and dongle all the time. Mr Larrington (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

File Copy Protection[edit]

Software Copy Protection Sample. File Copy Protection Plus Disc Copy Protection Challenge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)