Talk:Digital rights management

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured article candidateDigital rights management is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 8, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 26, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

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

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 (talkcontribs) 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)
This is just not a good argument (w/SOPA), I checked out Obamacare that is a redirect, and it is in bold in the very first sentence. Yes, the official name is first. The difference is that acts of congress actually have an official name. DRM seems to be the common name by now, and those who proposed it do not have a monopoly on how an idea/word is used or if the word changes over time. DRM is not an implementation, it's an abstract idea, with (necessarily) mutually incompatible implementations. For those (their names), your argument applies. comp.arch (talk) 11:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
You keep repeating this falsehood that digital rights management is some abstraction. AGAIN, there are SCORES of patents that use digital rights management in their text implementing digital rights management technology. Abstract means something exists only as a thought or idea, but is not concrete. Do you actually believe all these patents and implementations aren't real? If they aren't, what's the big fuss? Objective3000 (talk) 12:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Patents are on devices, or the controversial software patents (so-called, "idea patents", because software (and math) always abstract/ideas, and code their implementation). Only devices (matter, and e.g. living things) are actual, everything else is an abstraction/idea. Software has always been abstract (CD ROM are not, but that is only a medium for software). Anyway, not all DRM uses hardware, just makes harder to break, and DRM doesn't strictly depend on patents. comp.arch (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Again, you are pushing a POV. And software isn't in the slightest abstract. The Patent Office does not agree with your concept of a patent. Objective3000 (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Converted <ref> tag to inline link ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Don't be silly, do you want to contradict major computer scientists on software (and also their stand on software patents in the brief above?). Introduction - School of Computing and Engineering: "Intangibility. Software is intangible [..] Software is abstract".[1] James Moor's "Three Myths of Computer Science" (1978) points out the inadequacies of the usual "abstract" software vs. "concrete" hardware distinction[2] "Software is abstract" S. Rosenberg (in "Dreaming in Code", pp 58)[3]
Even if I (and they) are mistaken on patents it is not important. Let's just leave patents aside(?) as this article isn't about patents, but DRM. Anyway, the only thing about patents I could find in the article: "They excluded patent rights from the range of the directive" comp.arch (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
AGAIN, there are scores of patents related to DRM. They use the term "digital rights management". Go tell the USPTO they're silly. Objective3000 (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Objective3000, I will kindly ask that you lower your caps and instead use bold and italic text for emphasis. Thank you. --Fandelasketchup (talk) 13:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
You're responding to a three year old edit. In any case, we'll see when someone brings this up for the 200th time. I'll likely respond in the same manner.Face-smile.svg O3000 (talk) 14:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok, so the proponents use that term. That is only what that means, it's not the patent jobs job to censor or have an opinion on these terms I think. Maybe, but probably not(?) they have a category for DRM. If we would use the patent office, as a dictionary, we would not say "airplace" or "aeroplane", but rather "flying machines": "they were granted U.S. Patent 821,393[6] for a "Flying Machine" "? comp.arch (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Have you ever received a patent? It is absolutely the job of the patent office to go over an application with a fine-toothed comb. You cannot make false claims in a patent. And, I said nothing about using patents as a dictionary. What I am saying, for the tenth time, is that "digital rights management" is the term used by the people that develop the technology, as shown by all of the patents. "Digital restrictions management" is not in any patent that I can find. Digital rights management is what DRM stands for. Objective3000 (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
And I'm saying the proponents/developers do not chose what term, WP:COMMONNAME, that is applied to it. Most who discuss DRM outside of patent applications, and some technical documentation, not only opponents, just say DRM, or "DRM-free", "anti-DRM". Most opponents of course do not want to say "digital rights management", avoiding validating that term. They don't always spell out as, DRM is just as known as say DVD. The difference is that DVD is a standard, DRM are many implementations with many different names. Those you'll never see in patent applications, but are very much also talked about — when not talking about the general idea or technology if you will. comp.arch (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2015 (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)
The name "Digital Rights Management" is a name which, if you read the words in context, implies a system which manages rights on a digital platform (or something else "digital"). The name does not suggest that it will grant you rights beyond what you are granted without the system. While I my opinion is that replacing "rights" with "restrictions" would be beneficial to the debate about DRM (since it more clearly describes what is happening), I cannot defend doing so in the context of wikipedia -- at least not untill DRM has shifted into being a short for "Digital Restrictions Management". As long as a proper description of DRM is presented, I'm quite happy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.167.145.44 (talk) 12:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The term was coined in a certain wording, but now has a cultural shift that surrounds it which contextualizes it differently. That different contextualization is relevant and becoming widely used by opponents...and there is nothing wrong with mentioning both. Wikipedia's job is to present a relevant, factual, and accurately sourced overview of a topic. I do not think a 3-paragraph-introduction about DRM would be complete without mentioning that one of the most notable things about it is the opposition to its premise. If that opposition has co-opted the terminology to push strongly enough to want to reword it, then mentioning that is important also. But as others have mentioned: you don't get to rewrite history in the process of providing context. It should be clearly visible that the people who pushed DRM called it "Digital Rights Management" when it was being promoted. Any other name must be mentioned as coming after-the-fact. Metaeducation (talk) 03:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I've taken the "just the facts, M'am" approach to this, thus Digital Restrictions Management no longer redirects to this page. That term is its own beast, created by an entirely different party from those who coined Digital Rights Management, has its own history, and belongs in its own disambiguation entry for DRM. This page belongs to the original artifact and should only link to the existence of the alternative interpretation. Deal? Metaeducation (talk) 04:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

In light of WP:COMMONNAME, I don't see that there's a case for replacing the term "digital rights management" with "digital restrictions management" in this article. However, web and literature searches suggest that the latter term is used often enough in journalistic and scholarly literature (and moreover by individuals and organizations unconnected with Richard Stallman, the term's originator) to justify its inclusion in the lede. I have updated the article accordingly, and cited some of these sources in the section on opposition to DRM. I'd be happy to discuss whether any of these sources should be substituted; the ones I selected demonstrate the term's actual use, though it's easy to find secondary sources which attest to the term's currency among DRM critics. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The sources you added are very much the exception, one of which wasn't even in English and so does not indicate usage in the English language, and these sources do not demonstrate common usage to the point that it warrants mentioning it in the lede as if it is a commonly used alternative name for the subject, per WP:VALID. It is a term that has prominence in regards to the subject of Defective by Design, as most sources that mention that topic use this term, but in regards to this topic, that of DRM, it is very much a minority term used so seldom that if it even warrants a mention, it is little more than a brief sentence in the article, as that is proportional to what reliable sources show. It does not, however, need to be presented in the lede as a commonly used alternative name when it is not, when reliable sources do not support that kind of prominence in the article. - Aoidh (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
What we have here is simply one person's opinion against another's: I say that the term "digital restrictions management", while admittedly less common, is still sufficiently widespread to warrant a mention in the lede, whereas you say that it is not. Let me ask you this: generally speaking, what evidence would you consider sufficient to establish that any given alternate term is sufficiently prominent to be mentioned in the lede of an article? If it's a certain absolute number, or relative proportion, of uses in reliable sources, please state it, and we'll see whether it's reflected in the available literature in this case. (Though if that approach is too OR for you, perhaps you would be satisfied with secondary and tertiary sources which don't use the term itself, but rather attest that the term is in common use by other sources?) —Psychonaut (talk) 09:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I tell you what, you find twenty reliable sources in English that use the term "Digital Restrictions Management" in a way that's not associated with the FSF or the EFF, and uses the term in place of Digital Rights Management and not side-by-side, and I'll consider what you say to have some merit. Short of that, I think Wikipedia's policy on neutrality is very clear on this, given the thousands of reliable sources that can very easily be found that use the term "Digital Rights Management", if not even twenty could be found that use this other term, then it doesn't belong in the lede. - Aoidh (talk) 01:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
About "thousands of reliable sources" vs. "not even twenty [for] the other term". I know google isn't everything and most of the sources are not "reliable", but see my most recent thread here, where I say: "Digital rights management" only the vastly fewer 962,000 articles. Yes, "Digital restrictions management" even fewer (than the alternative spelling): 33,400
33,400/20=1670. Are you saying unreliable sources of the alternative term outnumber the reliable 1670:1? The reliable ones only being 0,000598802% of the total? Because, DRM is an idea/concept, any of the spellings is real as a concept, just as, the concept "people". Implementations of DRMs, are, to name a few, Apples' FairPlay, Microsoft's PlayForSure, OMA DRM, SecuROM, etc. Those who made the first (or any) implementation do not have a monopoly on what to call some idea. See are allowed to call it just DRM, and list both meanings, starting with the "official" one. comp.arch (talk) 11:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Would you stop with the Google counts? They are meaningless. DRM is not simply an idea. It is a class of technologies with scores of patents. You have been asked for a reliable source. You gave none. You have been asked for a patent that uses restrictions instead of rights. You gave none. DRM stands for Digital Rights Management. Adding an alternative name pushed by a activist group is a violation of WP:NPOV, and a rather serious one. Objective3000 (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I fully expected patenties (assumed proponents) to not use the "sarcastic", if you will, term. You've however been proven wrong, see: below is, however, a list of patents refering to that term (and the "official" one), seemingly agree that those two terms are synonyms (I only checked first two patents). You would only possibly be right, if "digital restrictions management" patents, where for something completely unrelated. Anyway, patents are be-all and end-all, of what the right word for a concept is. Imagine there had never been ANY patent on this, you would still have implementations of DRM. And the patents are about specific(?) implementations of technology ("ideas"), not the general concept of DRM. comp.arch (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I looked at more than two. The titles and headers use the correct term. The text sometimes adds the sarcastic version as the "disparaging term used by opponents". Patents are written by lawyers to avoid loss of rights and they go out of their way to make certain all bases are covered. None of the patents refer to the sarcastic version as the real meaning behind DRM. You continue to try to push a POV into the lede. Objective3000 (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
On "a violation of WP:NPOV, and a rather serious one", maybe if adding the term to the lead at the time the sarcastic, term came up. By now, in some form the "restricting" issue should be in the lead, as there was a huge backlash to DRM, and Apple a proponent, e.g. dropped DRM famously for music. "DRM-free", "anti-DRM" etc. are terms, probably agreeing with the sarcastic term (at least the latter). Nobody says "digital rights management"-free, if would feel odd, to be against rights.. With these terms as popular as they are now, emphasizing DRM (not spelled out) more, e.g. in the article's title seems to be in order. The tables seem to have turned, only having one of the spelled out variants in the lead seem now WP:NPOV, as there are two opposing sides and WP should not be biased by only showing one. comp.arch (talk) 13:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
OK Aoidh, most or all of the 70-odd sources in the first list below should meet your criteria. These are apparently reliable sources which use the term "digital restrictions management" or "digital restriction management" exclusively, with no reference to "digital rights management". I've also included three separate lists: one for sources which acknowledge both "digital rights management" and "digital restriction(s) management" but express a preference for the latter, another for sources which acknowledge both terms without expressing a preference for either, and finally one for sources which acknowledge both sources but express a preference for the former. This last list is still relevant as it shows that even among those using the majority term, the minority term is considered sufficiently popular to mention when introducing or discussing the subject.
Extended content

Sources, apart from the EFF and FSF, which use the term "digital restriction(s) management" exclusively:

  1. David Berlind. "Sony rootkit: The untold story". ZDNet, 18 November 2005.
  2. Cătălin Hrițcu. Technologies for Digital Restrictions Management. Smiling, 8 January 2006. (Self-published by a widely published and cited computer and communications security researcher; meets WP:RS per the WP:UGC exception.)
  3. Lloyd Kaufman. Sell Your Own Damn Movie! Burlington, MA: Focal Press, 2013. ISBN 978-0-240-81520-6.
  4. Stephen J Davidson, Stuart D Levi, and Lawrence Rosen. Open Source Software 2007: Risks, Rewards and Practical Realities in the Corporate Environment. New York: Practising Law Institute, 2007. ISBN 978-1-4024-0972-1.
  5. Stefan Krempl. "Wrapped up in Crypto Bottles." Telepolis, 9 March 2003. Heinz Heise Verlag. (An interview with EFF co-founder John Perry Barlow, though unlike Barlow the interviewer himself uses the term "digital restrictions management".)
  6. Johan Söderberg. Hacking Capitalism: The Free and Open Source Software Movement. New York, NY: Routledge, 2012. ISBN 978-0-415-95543-0.
  7. Edgar Holleis. "Smart Embedded Appliances Networks – Security Considerations". In Christoph Grimm, Peter Neumann, and Stefan Mahlknecht, eds. Embedded Systems for Smart Appliances and Energy Management, pp. 67–86. Heidelberg: Springer. ISBN 978-1-4419-8794-5.
  8. Jean-Henry Morin. "Towards Socially-responsible Management of Personal Information in Social Networks". In John Breslin, Thomas N. Burg, Hong-Gee Kim, Tom Raftery, and Jan-Hinrik Schmidt, eds. Recent Trends and Developments in Social Software, vol. 6045 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 108–115. Berlin: Springer, 2010.
  9. Jon Gorman. "A Systems Librarian's Cataloging Daydream". In Elaine R Sanchez, ed. Conversations with Catalogers in the 21st Century, pp. 74–94. Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited, 2011. ISBN 978-1-59884-702-4.
  10. Poul-Henning Kamp. "GBDE – GEOM Based Disk Encryption". In Proceedings of BSDCon '03. USENIX Association, 2003.
  11. Andrew Orlowski. "RIP Andre Hedrick: The engineer who kept the PC open". The Register, 26 July 2012.
  12. Vaneta Rogers. "The Future of Comics? 'BUNDLES' Offer Publishers New Customers". Newsarama, 9 March 2015.
  13. Steve Pak. "Inventor of Keurig K-Cups: They Are Addictive, Pricey, and Wasteful; 'I don’t have one'". Yibada, 6 March 2015.
  14. Jaya Bhattacharji Rose. "A fistful of journalism". The Hindu, 11 April 2015.
  15. Darren Johnson. "Why assign this $135 book?" Community College Campus News 3(5):1,5--6.
  16. Jon Street. "If Your Keurig 2.0 Coffeemaker Won’t Brew Your Favorite Java, Here Are Three Clever Fixes". The Blaze, 12 December 2014.
  17. Dava Stewart. "Author Earnings Reports Offer Validation to Self-Published Writers". EContent, 6 August 2014.
  18. Josh Ong. "Philips and Sony joint venture targets Apple with patent infringement suit over security inventions". The Next Web, 20 March 2013.
  19. Open Rights Group. ORG's submission to the BBC Trust. In On-demand Consultation: Full text of responses from organisations. BBC, April 2007.
  20. Scott Merrill. "I Want My Ubuntu TV!" TechCrunch, 9 January 2012.
  21. Ralf Bendrath. "Global technology trends and national regulation: Explaining Variation in the Governance of Deep Packet Inspection". In Proceedings of the International Studies Annual Convention, 2009.
  22. Anna Notaro. "The many futures of the book". Primerjalna Knjizevnost 35(1):213–229.
  23. Anjanette H. Raymond. "Heavyweight Bots in the Clouds: The Wrong Incentives and Poorly Crafted Balances that Lead to the Blocking of Information Online". Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, 11(6):473–500, August 2013.
  24. Frank Stajano. "Security in Pervasive Computing". In Dieter Hutter, Günter Müller, Werner Stephan, and Markus Ullmann, eds. Security in Pervasive Computing, vol. 2802 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin: Springer, 2004. ISBN 978-3-540-20887-7.
  25. Pedro Rezende. "The Digital Stockholm Syndrome". In Proceedings of the Society and e-Government International Congress (CONSEGI 2008), 2008.
  26. Hamid R. Jamali, David Nicholas, and Ian Rowlands. "Scholarly e‐books: the views of 16,000 academics: Results from the JISC National E‐Book Observatory". Aslib Proceedings, 2009. Emerald Insight. pp. 33–47.
  27. Yee Wei Law, Cheun Ngen Chong, Sandro Etalle, Pieter Hartel, and Ricardo Corin. "Licensing Structured Data with Ease". In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop for Technology, Economy, Social and Legal Aspects of Virtual Goods. Ilmenau: Technische Universität Ilmenau, 2004, pp. 113–124.
  28. The Pirate Party UK. 2010 Election Manifesto of the Pirate Party UK, 2 March 2010.
  29. "Digital restrictions management" seems to be the house style for The Inquirer. See for example:
    1. Carly Page. "Netflix arrives on Ubuntu Linux thanks to Google Chrome 37". The Inquirer, 10 October 2014.
    2. Egan Orion. "Ubuntu Linux users might be able to stream Netflix soon". The Inquirer, 22 September 2014.
    3. Spencer Dalziel. "Lid lifted on secret ACTA cauldron". The Inquirer, 21 April 2010.
    4. Edward Berridge. "Adobe messes with Flash DRM". The Inquirer, 12 May 2010.
    5. Lawrence Latif. "Amazon's Cloud Drive might be 'illegal' claims music industry insider". The Inquirer, 30 March 2011.
    6. Nick Farrell. "Anti-DRM protestors crash Microsoft love-in". The Inquirer, 24 May 2006.
    7. Egan Orion. "Apple TV gets a thumb drive hack". The Inquirer, 1 October 2008.
    8. . [ ""]. The Inquirer, 22 August 2015.
    9. Egan Orion. "Bogging ex-Vole in a hole over Microsoft's DRM". The Inquirer, 29 September 2007.
    10. Spencer Dalziel. "Canadian copyright bill is out". The Inquirer, 3 June 2010.
    11. Dave Neal. "DEA plan to ban web sites is unworkable". The Inquirer, 5 August 2011.
    12. Ian Williams. "Displayport v1.2 lands". The Inquirer, 18 January 2010.
    13. Egan Orion. "DRM-free Itunes files have your number". The Inquirer, 13 January 2009.
    14. Dave Neal. "DRM-free Torment is the most richly backed game on Kickstarter". The Inquirer, 8 April 2013.
    15. Iain Thomson. "FSF urges non-profits to reject Windows 7". The Inquirer, 8 October 2009.
    16. Carly Page. "Germany warns against using Windows 8 due to security risks". The Inquirer, 23 August 2013.
    17. Nick Farrell. "Google open sources VP8 ". The Inquirer, 20 May 2010.
    18. Lawrence Latif. "IDF: McAfee showcases 'condom for your digital life'". The Inquirer, 12 September 2012.
    19. Lawrence Latif. "Intel confirms that HDCP has been cracked". The Inquirer, 17 September 2010.
    20. Edward Berridge. "Intel launched Sandy Bridge today". The Inquirer, 3 January 2011.
    21. Nick Farrell. "Intel's Sandy Bridge sucks up to Hollywood with DRM". The Inquirer, 3 January 2011.
    22. Nick Farrell. "Kazaa is back from the dead". The Inquirer, 20 July 2009.
    23. Egan Orion. "Electronic Arts slapped with more DRM lawsuits". The Inquirer, 10 November 2008.
    24. Dave Neal. "Microsoft acknowledges Xbox One DRM concerns". The Inquirer, 30 May 2013.
    25. Dave Neal. "Microsoft drops widely hated Xbox One features". The Inquirer, 20 June 2013.
    26. Dave Neal. "Microsoft opens up on Xbox One second hand games and licences". The Inquirer, 24 May 2013.
    27. Dave Neal. "Microsoft plans Silverlight, living room edition". The Inquirer, 9 April 2010.
    28. Nick Farrell. "Microsoft's Windows Phone 7 apps get hacked ". The Inquirer, 31 December 2010.
    29. Chris Merriman. "Mozilla begrudgingly brings Netflix support to Linux with DRM in Firefox". The Inquirer, 15 May 2014.
    30. Egan Orion. "Napster opens the world's largest MP3 store". The Inquirer, 20 May 2008.
    31. Dave Neal. "Netflix drops Silverlight, moves to HTML5". The Inquirer, 16 April 2013.
    32. Spencer Dalziel. "Nokia drops free music downloads in UK". The Inquirer, 17 January 2011.
    33. Egan Orion. "Most new PCs shipped without Windows Vista in 2007". The Inquirer, 8 January 2008.
    34. Dave Neal. "The Pirate Party fires back at Ofcom on the Digital Economy Act". The Inquirer, 2 August 2010.
    35. Lawrence Latif. "Potential HDCP key is out in the open". The Inquirer, 14 September 2010.
    36. Dave Neal. "Remembering when Ubisoft DRM was cracked in a day". The Inquirer, 21 December 2010.
    37. Egan Orion. "RIAA cast itself against world and tide". The Inquirer, 10 October 2007.
    38. Dean Wilson. "J K Rowling unveils Pottermore and DRM-free Harry Potter ebooks". The Inquirer, 23 June 2011.
    39. Nick Farrell. "Ubisoft's DRM is causing headaches for users ". The Inquirer, 19 April 2010.
    40. Spencer Dalziel. "Ubisoft touts games DRM". The Inquirer, 28 January 2010.
    41. Lawrence Latif. "W3C publishes draft HTML DRM specification amid growing opposition". The Inquirer, 13 May 2013.
    42. Nick Farrell. "World going barmy over copyright enforcement". The Inquirer, 22 February 2010.
    43. Egan Orion. "Yahoo chases YouTube with Sony BMG". The Inquirer, 20 November 2007.

Sources which acknowledge both terms but which express a preference for "digital restriction(s) management":

  1. Glyn Moody. Adobe Digital Editions 4 Spies on Users – Because of DRM. Computerworld UK, 8 October 2014. (Meets WP:RS per the WP:UGC exception.)
  2. Cory Doctorow. Audible, Comixology, Amazon, and Doctorow’s First Law. Locus Online, 3 September 2014.
  3. Lawrence Latif. "DivX firm claims future DRM will be tied to codecs and not files". The Inquirer, 1 September 2011.

Sources which acknowledge both terms but which do not express a preference for either one:

  1. European Greens–European Free Alliance. Creation and Copyright in the Digital Era, September 2011.
  2. Sam Varghese. Windows 10: Welcome to hardware-based DRM. iTWire, 9 June 2015.

Sources which preferentially use the term "digital rights management", but which note that "digital restriction(s) management" is an alternative term:

  1. Michael Brenner, Musa Unmehopa. The Open Mobile Alliance: Delivering Service Enablers for Next-Generation Applications. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2008. ISBN 978-0-470-51918-9. pp. 289–290.
  2. Dave Murray-Rust, Max Van Kleek, Laura Dragan, and Nigel Shadbolt. "Social Palimpsests – Clouding the Lens of the Personal Panopticon." In K. O’Hara, M-H.C. Nguyen, P. Haynes, eds. Digital Enlightenment Yearbook 2014: Social Networks and Social Machines, pp. 75–98. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2014. ISBN 978-1-61499-449-7.
  3. Pamela Samuelson. "DRM {and, or, vs.} the Law". Communications of the ACM 46(4):41–45, April 2003.
  4. Gregory L. Heileman, Pramod A. Jamkhedkar, and Joud Khoury. "Indirect DRM Evaluation Architecture". In Rüdiger Grimm, Berthold Hass, and Jürgen Nützel, eds. Virtual Goods: Technology, Economy, and Legal Aspects, pp. 31–49. Nova Science Publishers, 2008. ISBN 978-1604564860.
  5. Pramod A. Jamkhedkar. A Framework for Usage Management. Ph.D. thesis, University of New Mexico, July 2011.
  6. Gregory L. Heileman, Pramod A. Jamkhedkar, Joud Khoury, and Curtis J. Hrncir. "The DRM Game". In Proceedings of the 2007 ACM workshop on Digital Rights Management, pp. 54–62. New York, NY: ACM, 2007. ISBN 978-1-59593-884-8.
  7. Martin Schmucker. "Possibilities, Limitations, and the Future of Audiovisual Content Protection". In Kia Ng and Paolo Nesi, eds. Interactive Multimedia Music Technologies, pp. 283–324. New York, NY: Information Science Reference, 2007. ISBN 978-1-59904-150-6.
  8. Cory Doctorow. "What happens with digital rights management in the real world?" The Guardian, 5 February 2014.
  9. Spencer Kelly. "Digital lock's rights and wrongs". BBC News, 16 March 2007.
  10. Stephen Robb. "Will EMI unlock music revolution?" BBC News, 4 April 2007.
  11. Rafal Kasprowski. "Perspectives on DRM: Between digital rights management and digital restrictions management". Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 36(3):45–54, February/March 2010.
  12. Miguel Soriano, Stephan Flake, Juergen Tacken, Frank Bormann, and Joan Tomàs. "Mobile Digital Rights Management: Security Requirements and Copy Detection Mechanisms". In Proceedings of the 16th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA '05), pp. 251–256. IEEE, 2005. ISBN 0-7695-2323-9 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: Invalid ISBN..
  13. Randall Stross. "Want an iPhone? Beware the iHandcuffs". The New York Times, 14 January 2007.
  14. Maria Savova and Matthew Garsia. "McGill Library Makes E-books Portable: E-reader Loan Service in a Canadian Academic Library". Libraries and the Academy 12(2):205–222. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2012.
  15. Elizabeth Bowles and Eran Kahana. "The 'agreement' that sparked a storm". Business Law Today 16(3). American Bar Association, January/February 2007.
As you can see, I've tried to provide URLs of those sources available online; where I did not do this it was usually because I accessed the source through my institution's library and am not sure whether the link is accessible from outside it. (I've got local copies of many of the papers, so I can provide quotations if necessary.) I make no claim that any of these lists are exhaustive; on the contrary, I think they barely scratch the surface, but are probably good enough to establish the importance of our mentioning "digital restriction(s) management" early on in the article. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
And all these opinion pieces trace back to one source. Type "Hillary is a lesbian" into Google and you will find massive articles on the subject. Doesn't mean it should be in an encyclopedia. Reliable sources, in the rare case they use the term, state that it is a term used by "some wags" or is incorrect. This article is about a technology. There are scores of related patents that use the words digital rights management. Are there any that use the term digital restrictions management? Objective3000 (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I would be careful with trusting what proponents say in patents, and accepted by the patent office, as some dictionary of good terms: US745264: "self-abuse or masturbation"[4] comp.arch (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Most of those sources are not opinion pieces (but even if they were, that doesn't refute the claim that the term is widespread). Whether or not all the articles using the term "digital restrictions management" trace back to one source is also irrelevant, because the same thing is true of the term "digital rights management": in both cases, someone was the first to coin the term, and everyone else followed. And in response to your query, yes, many patents do use the term "digital restrictions management". See for example US patents 9,031,982, 8,949,156, 8,826,459, 8,725,648, 8,553,882, 8,447,889, 7,725,614, 7,558,463, and 20070078773 A1 (pending). —Psychonaut (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
No, "Digital Rights Management" is used by many companies, in numerous patents, in the mainstream press. "Digital Restrictions Management" is used in opinion pieces, mostly blogs and journals copying blogs, going back to one anti-DRM source. In the patents you provided, you will see sentences like "It is also, sometimes, disparagingly described as Digital Restrictions Management", or "Some opponents, such as the Free Software Foundation...." You will also see the term in italics. Basically, they are covering all bases (important in a patent should a suit occur) but indicating it is not the proper term, and you will notice they use digital rights management in headers before mentioning that some use the disparaging term. It is a sarcastic putdown, like Baba Wawa, or Faux News. Can you find a single company that uses or supplies DRM solutions that uses Restrictions in the name as opposed to Rights? I have found zero Objective3000 (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Nobody disputes that the term "digital rights management" is used in reliable sources; the point of this discussion is only to determine whether the alternative term "digital restrictions management" is used often enough to merit a mention in the lede. Regarding the patents, yes, some of them use the alternative term only in reference to opposing views, though this still demonstrates that the authors considered this term important enough to mention. But in fact, most of the patents I listed above don't say that "digital restrictions management" is used only by the techonology's opponents. Rather, either they use the term "digital restrictions management" exclusively, or they simply state that "digital restrictions management" and "digital rights management" are synonyms. And yes, it's trivial to find developers of DRM technology which refer to it as "digital restrictions management"; just look at the assignees of the above-noted patents. Among those patents which don't list "digital restrictions management" as a term used only by critics, I see Accenture, Time Warner, Microsoft. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Why all this obsession with patents? The article name isn't Digital rights management patents? DRM (and software, or hardware in general) is conceivable without patents. They are not the only possible WP:RS. To be fair, you could also lock up media if there where no copyright laws. Still saying "legal term from a Canadian legal source", like it is bad, implies DRM has noting to do with the law – copyright (part of ("Intellectual property"-umbrella for laws). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comp.arch (talkcontribs)
The people who promote DRM refer to it as Digital Rights Management. However, its purpose is Digital Restriction. I think that to not move this to Digital Restrictions Management is a violation of NPOV. I strongly agree that the article should be retitled. Harlequence (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Images[edit]

This is an article on DRM. A third image has been added. This makes three images, all of which are anti-DRM. This is an encyclopedia and must not push a WP:POV.

DRM Lite..[edit]

Didn't look into much, seems to be just DRM (but from British Library..).. Not sure if article needs to say anything on this: http://www.bl.uk/britishlibrary/~/media/bl/global/services/on%20demand/documents/ondemand-faqs-drmlite.pdf

Poor sourcing[edit]

Editor Pmpdurrant has made several additions all based on forum posts which is not a reliable source WP:RS. Further, they appear to greatly exaggerate effects to support a WP:POV. These should all be removed. Objective3000 (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Editor Objective3000 seems to have some agenda to hide failures of suppliers of DRMed content. Since the relevant web sites are shut down, primary sources are impossible. The best that can be given are contemporary news and user sources from the time of the event. Nor do any of the reports greatly exaggerate effects, but just state the effect of the closure on those unable or unwilling to remove DRM from the purchased content.

Wholesale deleting of these events from Wikipedia gives a completely misleading impression of the reliability of DRMed content. The deletions should be reverted.

Wikipedia is based upon WP:RS. We do not accept anonymous forum posts as sources. Also, please WP:AGF. Objective3000 (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
primary source https://web.archive.org/web/20160423162122/http://www.mobipocket.com/en/HomePage/default.asp?Language=EN
Even "blog-like" structured news sites can be occasional acceptable sources. http://the-digital-reader.com/2016/10/23/mobipocket-turn-off-website-servers-31-october could be acceptable (e.g. non-anonymous author) if presented properly and NPOV. Also, I'm quite sure there are better and more sources findable for the mobireader shutdown and DRM impact. Shaddim (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Add information about Genetic use restriction technologies (GURTs)[edit]

Shouldn't GURTs be discussed in the wider context of Digital Restrictions? I'm sure you can find literature talking about the two as part of the same phenomenon.





External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Digital rights management. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Insult in the lede again[edit]

Copied from User Talk:ToBeFree 16:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@ToBeFree:, in the IBM article, would you say IBM, International Business Systems, also called Intentionally Braindamaged Machinery? We don't add insults in ledes made up by snarky critics. DRM stands for what it stands for. Please revert your fake definition of the acronym. O3000 (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Note by ToBeFree: This seems to be about this edit. See page history and talk page at that time.

Sorry, clicked the wrong button and meant this to be on the article took. I'll copy there. O3000 (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
@Objective3000: Hi Face-smile.svg I am unsure about this. Your IBM example does not seem to correctly portray the situation, as "Intentionally Braindamaged Machinery" would be libellously implying that IBM intentionally produces bad hardware. "Digital Rights Management" vs. "Digital Restrictions Management", however, are two viewpoints that both can not be factually disproven to be correctly describing DRM. Rights are being managed, or restrictions are being managed - that's subjective. One might even go as far as saying that "rights" is an equally biased term here, just as "restrictions" is. Both are not really neutral. Also, compared to the IBM example, the number of people and articles actually using the other term appears to be notable to me. Even if it is a factually wrong term (which I have not seen any proof about yet!), if it is very widespread, it might well be suitable for inclusion in the lead section of the article. Instead of completely deleting it and having a long-time edit war with other editors, it might be more productive to attempt to find a consensual solution, which could - my suggestion - be including the term in the lead section and appropriately explaining the context and reasoning behind it.
About me personally, I would prefer not to get deeply involved in this issue, I just stumbled upon the revert and decided to add a third, hopefully neutral opinion, as a thought-provoking impulse to an otherwise probably never ending conflict. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but your neutral opinion is not at all neutral and if you don't want to be involved, you probably should have used this talk page instead of entering an edit war. The snarky definition of DRM was created by the founder of an organization that is against copyright and every use of the term that I have found traces back to him. It’s simply an insult. OTOH, the correct definition is found in numerous patents. Insult terms are often mentioned in RS. But, we do not put AKA Crooked Hillary or AKA Angry Creamsicle in the Clinton or Trump articles because they are simply insults, not real names. Opponents often use nasty nicknames. I've deleted over 30 from the President's nicknames article. They certainly don't belong in the first sentence of an article. If we neeed to discuss this once again, I suggest reversion during discussion as per WP:BRD. O3000 (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
"The founder of an organization that is against copyright" -- You might be referring, wrongly, to Richard Stallman? Face-smile.svg If so, I'd like to correct that the whole "free software" principle, and copyleft licenses like the one Wikipedia uses as a foundation for its existence as a free encyclopedia, are based and relying on copyright. Stating that someone is "against copyright" does not appear to be a factual analysis, and in this specific case, it is really objectively and verifiably wrong.
I also do not believe that using "restrictions" in place of "rights" is "simply an insult"; there are actually being restrictions applied by DRM. It can also be argued that DRM is a "rights management" -- why would any of both terms be "wrong" or "right", based on any other criterion than usage frequency in media? Frequently used terms can be biased just as well as non-frequently-used terms can be.
About BRD, please have a look at What BRD is not -- specifically, it is "never a reason for reverting".
When I wrote that I would prefer not to get deeply involved into this, I really meant it, and I won't protest if you revert my edit. If my attempt to find a peaceful compromise does not appear to solve the problem, please remove it. I'm just afraid that keeping on reverting might not lead to anything but a page protection, which would not necessarily preserve your own preferred version of the page. Without considering that there might be a "middle course" that everyone can be happy about, you two might still be edit-warring next year. Face-wink.svg ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, I would say I was quite correct about Stallman looking at the bankruptcies he has caused. Yes, he is in favor of free software, as am I when the author wishes it to be free. I’ve been giving away software for over a half century. But, he goes much farther. And yes, BRD is never a “reason” for deletion. But, it is a process that calls for discussion after reversion, not reinstating reverted text without discussion or edit-warring. While I thank you for trying to find a compromise, I do not see your suggestion as a middle course. We don’t even include derogatory terms in the first sentence in that article about a German with the toothbrush mustache. (Trying to avoid Godwin’s law.) We don’t put derogatory snarks or criticisms at the start of an article. On your suggestion that I revert, that would be edit-warring, which I never do. It would also violate 3RR. Thus, I again suggest that you self-revert. O3000 (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I respect your arguments and decision. I'm reverting my edit myself. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

DVB's claim regarding DVB-CPCM[edit]

The DVB claims that the system will harmonize copyright holders' control across different technologies, thereby making things easier for end users

According to https://www.dvb.org/resources/public/factsheets/DVB-CPCM_Factsheet.pdf, DVB actually claims that current mechanisms are "too simplistic for today’s multi-device". Moreover, I can only find http://paper.ijcsns.org/07_book/201011/20101106.pdf when searching for the word "harmonize". Since it has already been labelled as citation needed, I am going to remove it altogether. Talltaller8 (talk) 04:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Reinstating "digital restrictions management"[edit]

I'm reinstating "digital restrictions management" as a synonym for DRM in the lead, alongside the more positively connotative synonyms like "copy protection" that are already in its last paragraph. Qzekrom (talk) 19:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The name is the name. It doesn't matter if it is positive or negative -- it is official in a large number of patents. O3000 (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
@Objective3000: I'm frustrated that you reverted my edit without asking me why I made it in the first place. I chose to re-add the term in the most neutral way I could to balance out the presence of terms like "copy protection" that have the connotation that DRM prevents unauthorized copying. I agree that "digital rights management" is by far the most widely used term, but I also think that "digital restrictions management" has about as much weight as "copy protection". Based on your pattern of activity on this article and talk page, I feel that you are more interested in preventing any inclusion of "digital restrictions management" in the lead than in improving the article - see Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic. Qzekrom (talk) 22:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Please WP:AGF. I removed "copy protection" also. Digital Rights Management is the term. Those that invent, patent, and sell get to name. They named it Digital Rights Management. The fact that someone that dislikes it (as most of us do), provides a clever insult with the same initials does not make that a valid name to be included in the lede. O3000 (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that. And no - as several other editors have pointed out, there are three problems with your argument:
  1. Language is created collectively, and no person has ultimate authority over it. So DRM patents do not determine the "official" name for DRM technology any more than the Bible determines morality or dictionaries determine the definition of racism.
  2. DRM patents, like all other writings, express a point of view. No person who is against DRM would bother to patent a DRM technology, so it stands to reason that anyone who patents DRM has a vested interest in its adoption. This does not mean that the term for DRM was created by a DRM vendor.
  3. Just because one organization - admittedly, one whose views are well outside the American mainstream - coined the term "digital restrictions management" does not mean that the term is not notable. Plenty of neologisms originate with a single person or organization.
You've repeated this argument to other editors in the above conversation threads and told me that "We have been over this many times." in the edit summary of your revert. Yet, those threads don't indicate anything resembling a consensus. I stand by my edit. Qzekrom (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
By the way, patents are not considered super reliable. From WP:PATENTS: "The content of a patent should be considered somewhat less reliable. Patent examiners do not replicate any experiments, build any devices, or decide whether any tests run by the inventor were done correctly. They have no way of knowing whether information provided by the inventor is accurate or whether the invention will work as described." Qzekrom (talk) 01:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Are you telling me that patents aren’t valid? Do you believe the same about copyrights and trademarks -– and is that behind your thinking here? This has nothing to do with “language”. DRM is a term that was defined by its originators. You get to define the term for your own invention. We don’t call IBM “Idiotic Bullshit Meatheads” in the lede of the IBM article because someone that doesn’t like them used the term, as that’s not the name. Further, please read WP:CIV. Calling another editor a “fanatic” for simply following WP guidelines is not a good way to gain consensus. You will note that I didn’t call you any names for reverting consensus and spewing insults – because that’s not helpful to the project. O3000 (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Of course not. WP:PATENTS considers them reliable as sources to an extent. To quote:
  • They are reliable as a citation to the existence of an invention and its date
  • They are reliable for attributed statements about their contents
  • A patent will also contain a section referencing previous literature, which may be a good source to search for other citations.
But in general, they are not objective sources of information about the inventions they describe.
And yes, this is about language because your argument is about language. "DRM is a term that was defined by its originators. You get to define the term for your own invention." is fundamentally an argument about who gets to control the vocabulary around DRM.
Finally, I did not call you a fanatic. I preemptively warned you against acting like one. Since then, I have backed off from wikilawyering and shifted my focus to be exclusively on your argument for the page being a certain way. Qzekrom (talk) 05:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
“Digital Rights Management” is the name given by the owners of the technologies. “Digital Restrictions Management” is a punny put-down coined by Stallman, an anti-copyright activist. It can be and is included in the body properly attributed. It can in no manner be considered a valid name. Faux News is considered by many to be a more accurate description than Fox News. But, we don’t use it at all in the Fox News article. Detractors can invent as many insult names as they wish – but the owners get to control the actual name. But then, we have been through all this. O3000 (talk) 10:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The article gives wrong information[edit]

Why do I make the statement in the subject? Well, if you look at the article by clicking the corresponding tab above you'll see it states Mass Effect (the first game in the trilogy) was released in "mid-2008" which is completely wrong since, according to the article on said game, it was released in November 20, 2007. Don't you see a discrepancy there? --Fandelasketchup (talk) 13:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Changed to specify it was the Windows version. O3000 (talk) 13:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)