Jump to content

Talk:Digital rights management/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Move article name as DRM is the new WP:COMMONNAME

[Moved from original place, as confusing (see first response), from "Should references to digital rights management be replaced with the more accurate term digital restriction management?"-heading]

I would say the WP:COMMONNAME is DRM (at least by now, on the internet) and not spelled out variant(s) (the official one is hardly used much, mostly in the few academic journals or for proponents of, vast majority of (at online content, possibly including news article) use say only DRM and may not spell out?). Rename article? "Digital rights management" can still belong in the article. "Digital restrictions management" should also be in the lead. See WP:ACRONYM. comp.arch (talk) 10:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Can't believe this is being discussed yet again. DRM stands for Digital Rights Management whether you like it or not. Yes, there is an anti-DRM group that made up a sarcastic alternative. Just as people that don't like FOX News call it Faux News. But, you don't see Faux News anywhere in the Fox News article, even though there are hundreds of thousands of examples in major news sources, because it's a sarcastic putdown. The major sources that have used Digital Restrictions Management have stated that it is incorrect using (sic) or other indications that the putdown is from a biased source. An encyclopedia should not give its imprimatur to sarcastic putdowns.Objective3000 (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
You are overlooking or misunderstanding my main/first point. DRM is the common name, googling (using the quotes in google) "DRM": 47,200,000 articles. "Digital rights management" only the vastly fewer 962,000 articles. "anti-DRM" 593,000. "against DRM": 56,200 Yes, "Digital restrictions management" even fewer (than the alternative spelling): 33,400. I asked for the page name changed to DRM. We/I do not know have many of the DRM articles or pro or against (many?), and may be using DRM to mean "Digital restrictions management", or at least opposing it. I'm not even sure that most people now what DRM stand for, only that it is restrictive/anti-copyright violation mechanism.
As DRM might have entirely different meanings (not most of what is online?) I tried to approximate only intended DRM. "DRM +(software OR music OR movies)": 23,700,000. Still wastly more that "Digital rights management" that just doesn't seem to be the common name, at least 40:1 ratio is telling me that.
If you search for or go to FBI, there is no surprise, you do not get FBI (disambiguation) automatically, I would say, DRM is getting to be as known an acronym as FBI (googling for it 127,000,000 articles, more, but within an order of magnitude), but with fewer probably knowing what it stands for than FBI (I know both, I'm just not sure, how many really know what FBI stands for (outside of the states) while people hear it on every other cop show). DRM is getting to be like Piracy, people not knowing the meaning (the real/original one..).
If you go to DRM I see alternatives that probably a very few people know about about as many as these: comp.arch (talk) 11:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
There are 234 meanings of DRM on acronym finder. Of course it has a lot of hits in Google. This is completely meaningless, as are most Google search counts. Further, how can you claim DRM is the common name for Wikipedia article when Wikipedia has articles on 18 different uses of DRM. All of this is irrelevant. Wikipedia uses reliable sources, not Google counts. BTW, piracy has meant appropriating another person's work since 1771. This has all been discussed. Why must we relitigate everything on Wikipedia, over and over and over. Objective3000 (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Because language is not static; usage patterns change over time, particularly with relatively recent coinages such as the one under discussion. There's nothing wrong with occasionally re-evaluating consensus in light of new information. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
If you enter "homosexual" into Google, you will get fewer hits than the three-letter offensive equivalent. Should we replace all instances of homosexual with the f-word in Wikipedia? The same is true for the n-word. Offensive and sarcastic words and phrases are often more popular than the correct terms. You are trying to put a sarcastic putdown into an encyclopedia to push a POV. This has been discussed at length. Objective3000 (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I'll consider your input if you do mine. At DRM I found 19 possible versions (yes, more than for FBI, at that page), while there are many possibilities there will be a long tail, and I highly suspect the DRM tech at the top. All three-letter-acronyms will have many uses (where is this "acronym finder"?). You however discounted my other google search, where I tried to narrow down, and the 40:1 number (it would be even higher with all of DRM). DRM (the tech being discussed) mostly will be discussed online, as it doesn't apply too books and other non-digital forms, and wasn't invented pre-web.. If FBI, can be a redirect straight to what you would expect, why does DRM, need to be a disamb. page?
One absurd possibility to find much of online is Reichsmark (DRM), I do not know how frequently you would find the Gremlin (protein) or Drm. DRM the tech is highly visible to me at least online. comp.arch (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Objective3000, I'm doing nothing of the sort. I haven't even expressed an opinion on this proposal. Kindly withdraw your accusation that I am POV-pushing. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
As I said, and demonstrated, Google search counts are irrelevant. I don't see your problem anyhow. A Google search for FBI goes to the Federal Bureau of Investigation article. A Google search for DRM goes to this article. At least for me. You do realize that different people get different search results from Google? Objective3000 (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm just trying to approximate the DRM term popularity vs. it spelled out. Strangely w/"restricting" I got an even higher number [I had written someting more, but lost that edit.. in a edit confilct..] 58,000,000 results with: DRM +(software OR music OR movies) -"Digital Radio Mondiale"
I know google has limitations (and the Filter bubble, DuckDuckGo search engine doesn't have that problem, and I think it can be turned off in google and/or others can try my search to validate). Of course googling for FBI will with that only page. As far as I know DRM isn't trademarked. And it's not a product, so can you say one spelling is official? It's a made up term, someone "invented" it, but I'm not aware of patents, and there are many implementations of DRM. Even a proponent of DRM I found, checking out a link on the 5th page of results in this google search, said DRM and DRM-free and didn't really spell out in the article itself (it is in a sidebar) http://copyrightandtechnology.com/2015/05/31/the-myth-of-drm-free-music/ comp.arch (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
"FBI" isn't trademarked either. And, it isn't the title of the WP FBI article, even though that's what it's always called. Everything is invented or discovered. There exist a huge number of DRM patents. Look up "Digital Rights Management Patents" in Google, and you will find scores of actual patents. I read a few, and they all said "digital rights management" in their text. Now, do the same with “Digital Restrictions Management”. You will find the term used sarcastically without a single actual patent including that text.
Because there are many implementations (and many patents, ok) means there isn't one, like when a product has an official name (that may be trademarked) and *then* we should use it. [My vague, badly phrased point, with patents is that nobody can patent an idea only implementations. Patents have no weight as the names of those are different.] DRM is an idea, implemented by many, proponents call that idea something, others disagree. This is actually similar to your homosexual vs. some other term and the "correct" term shifted to homosexual. Only here it is or was an acronym. IBM also stands (or only stood?) for International Business Machines, we feel not obligated to use that as the WP:COMMONNAME is "IBM". "Note: We have 218 other definitions for IBM in our Acronym Attic"[1] When I first googled "IBM acronym" *I* got "Inmense Ball of Muck".
I think WP can choose in this case to use DRM, and kind of showed that we should. comp.arch (talk) 23:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
DRM is a class of technologies. There are scores of patents implementing DRM. They use Digital Rights Management in the patents. They sell software and hardware built upon the technologies as Digital Rights Management solutions. Again, there are scores of such solutions. Can you find a single solution that uses the term Digital Restrictions Management? Can you find a single patent with that name? The “correct” term for homosexual has always been “homosexual”. The f-word, and many other offensive terms, are offensive terms used by those that dislike them. Same with the n-word. Digital Rights Management is the correct term, used by those that developed these technologies, and stated in their patents. Digital Restrictions Management is a sarcastic term designed by those that dislike the class of technologies to denigrate the technology. As for using only the acronym, I simply don’t understand why anyone would suggest this, other than to lower the prominence of what it stands for. Particularly considering that Wikipedia has 18 articles based on the acronym DRM. IBM is called IBM in WP because IBM calls itself IBM. It’s their logo, their trademark, their website name, emblazoned on all their products, and used in, most likely, billions of dollars of ads for these products. IBM changed their logo to the acronym 68 years ago. That’s why the WP article uses IBM. This is not relevant to Digital Rights Management. You have suggested that this is like IBM, when it is far from it. Objective3000 (talk) 23:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Incidentally, IBM has had its own set of people trying to reinvent what IBM stands for. See: [1] for a small sample. We don't use them in the IBM article because this is an encyclopedia. Objective3000 (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
My point w/IBM wasn't that some alternative expansion was in order, but that the title of the page doesn't expand. For some other:

DVD (yes, expansions where official, and two listed, but my point again is that DVD is ok, for title and doesn't have to be a disamb. page.)

ZIP code

TASER, LASER, AND MASER

CAPTCHA

GESTAPO

GIGAFLOP

GULAG

PAKISTAN

SOWETO

SMART CAR (actually a disab. because of some musician I've never head of and

HUMVEE

SCUBA (actually a disamb. because of a musician I've never heard of nor an obscure/red-linked): "Scuba (database), a proprietary in-memory database developed by Facebook") 25-words-are-actually-acronyms [i reordered the list a little bit ]

I can add Cabriolet (carriage) "The cab of taxi-cab or "hansom cab" is a shortening of cabriolet."

And the most famous contraction or acronym (not official?) (not trying to invoke "the Nazi argument"..) Nazi[sm] :"National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus), more commonly known as Nazism (/ˈnaːtsɪzᵊm/), and rarely as Hitlerism" comp.arch (talk) 11:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. Some of these are trademarks, official names, or real words. Is there ANY reason for this change other than that editors have been trying for years to downplay the word "rights" that is in the legitimate title in support of their WP:POV? Objective3000 (talk) 12:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
OTHERSTUFF: "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do". It is not "solely" about what other articles do, it is about that these words are actually known only as words (by most), as shown by the out-side link, when in fact, they are acronyms. DRM is the same, probably for most people. I may just come up with a concrete example in a sandbox or just boldly changing the article, but I am first and foremost asking for a change in the article title. People tend to use the article name when linking to this one and not like this DRM. See WP:ACRONYM. If people spell out in other articles then the arguments for and against the term is not localized only in this article. comp.arch (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Digital Rights Management is a class of technologies. Another example is air conditioning. You can’t trademark air conditioning or AC. There isn’t one AC solution. It is a class, like DRM. Now, environmentalists, looking at the costs of AC, may wish to rename it air contaminating. They can call it that all they wish. But, the AC article in Wikipedia should not provide that as an alternate name. Nor should it use AC as the title. Both the DRM and AC article give the full, real name and then the acronym. Neither should provide ANY reference to sarcastic putdowns by activist organizations, as you have suggested here.
We are here to improve an encyclopedia. You have not given one reason why changing the title to DRM improves the encyclopedia. Indeed, since there are 18 separate WP articles based on different DRM meanings, this change would appear to harm the encyclopedia. Objective3000 (talk) 14:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Having failed to convince on Talk, you are now making major changes to the lede that are patent nonsense. This is not acceptable. Gain consensus first. Objective3000 (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
"Move article name as DRM", is the discussion here. I didn't do that. I didn't say "digital restrictions management" that you seem to propose. Yes, you seem not concinced, by "idea", I backed out, and would like to see what others think on that and if I or others can find a good source for that. "Catch-all-term" seemed to imply "idea".. comp.arch (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
There was absolutely nothing wrong with the technical language and citation from a respected source in the field which, for some reason, you have substituted with a legal term from a Canadian legal source. You are now edit-warring and apparently will force your way having failed at gaining any consensus for anything. Frankly, I have no idea why you are trying to force your own odd ideas into this article. Objective3000 (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
"Edit-warring" is a s strong word. I made a change to the page, you reverted, I took into account what you put in the edit summary and changed again. If I didn't, please change that. I introduced no additional source, I only use those already in the lead (believing they are ok). I'll reread what I did, you can also point me to you exact objection (to the page as it stands now). comp.arch (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
If you don't want to be charged with edit-warring, don't edit-war. You made a bold change. I reverted. You restored nearly all of it instead of discussing. If I were you, I would self-revert as you violated WP:BRD. I will not change it because then I would be edit-warring. And, I already stated my objection. DRM is a technology. You removed words and a ref from a respected source in this specific tech field and substituted something from a Canadian legal source. A clearly inferior source with language that is less-technically correct. For what possible reason? Further, you just removed an edit I made to this page with no explanation. Objective3000 (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Maybe we should cool off, you seem to read more into my edits than I did or intended; I'm not seeing the ref you think I dropped. I reused one and needed to add a "name" to it. If I'm missing something, including where I deleted something of your text here, then I'm sorry and it must have been an accident, but again I cant see where. "(BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus", it's not that I was avoiding consensus, I believe I was actually taking our edit summary in your revert, into account. You have my permission to revert as much or little on the main page as you want, you just have to then be prepared people here (other than my disagreeing), if you delete any improvements. comp.arch (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Your statement that there is no such thing as software manufacturers is not accurate. The definition includes: "to produce as if by manufacturing: create <writers who manufacture stories for television>." Objective3000 (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
You just deleted a second edit of mine with no explanation and added some nonsense about masturbation. What are you doing? Objective3000 (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Reject revert - any middle ground?

1. About this lead, with my clarified version that was reverted saying I was "rambling", with no other justification. Is it better or the next (original) version? Any middle ground? Per WP:LEAD, it should be ok to read only it. Access control only seems WP:WEASEL because prior to DRM I could lock access (user level access) to files on my hard disk and always get access. That is what access control meant, not that some outside party had a lock on files in my computer.

2. "Proponents of DRM argue that it is necessary to prevent intellectual property", it may be, what they say, but does it make it right for WP to say that? Seems to be WP:WEASEL. Isn't only copyright this issue? That is, you the user do (maybe fair use) or do not have it, DRM proponents want it with the copyright owner only. I know of no DRM that stop copying trademarks say, or trade dress or anything other:

Intellectual property: "Some common types of intellectual property rights (IPR) are copyright, patents, and industrial design rights; and the rights that protect trademarks, trade dress, and in some jurisdictions trade secrets: all these cover music, literature, and other artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs." comp.arch (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

1. Well, an 81 word sentence with many clauses and two parentheticals surely seems rambling to me.:) I don’t understand your problem here. The lede is not a substitute for the entire article. I don’t understand how these are weasel words. DRM is clearly an access control technology. There are others that control other types of access. That’s OK. No one claimed DRM is the solution to everything. The original text comes from an expert organization in the field. The terms you added come from a Canadian legal document.
2. WP is NOT saying: “it is necessary to prevent intellectual property”. It is saying: "Proponents of DRM argue that it is necessary to prevent intellectual property from being copied freely". Are you disputing that this is what proponents argue? Are you saying that the opposition to DRM should remain in the lede, but any position of the proponents shouldn’t? Trademarks have nothing to do with DRM. No one said that DRM controls all IP violations. I think the lede states the arena of DRM. But, I would think more than copyrights may be protected. It could be argued that DRM may also be used to stop decompiling (reverse engineering) to reveal trade secrets and design rights. Objective3000 (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
1. Like I said, maybe a middle ground is ok or splitting the sentence up. Exact mechanism isn't also the first priority in the first sentence, that is "hardware" as some DRM, at least originally was just software. As DRM or any copy protection can never be bulletproof, using hardware/locked down devices was the next step, so "hardware" is also important in this context. There is no problem with quoting a legal text, DRM is to ensure copyright, a legal thing.
2. Not at all am I saying only opponents or even starting with those. The lead/article, should however both be grounded in truth, supported by sources, and technical terms, just not too technical, so that people do not understand what it is really about. No, I meant something like "Proponents of DRM argue that it is necessary to prevent misuse of copyright.." or "..prevent unauthorized copying"; only that intellectual property, is more broad than needed, only to be used in main text in quotes if it needs to be added at all. Opponents are mentioned in the lead, and for now (I'm not pushing for it), exact wording on that needs not change much. WP:LEAD: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview." comp.arch (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Seriously, I don't know what you are trying to do. First you wanted to add the sarcastic name to the lede, then change the title of the article, now I don't know where you are going. And please, you have now twice stated that there is no such thing as a software manufacturer. The term is in common usage, in multiple languages, and fits the dictionary definition of manufacturer. Objective3000 (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Must we disagree on anything? :) That was a minor edit, that I thought uncontroversial.. if you must you revert. Googling "software manufacturer" or "software manufacturing" leads mostly to software for the manufacturing industry. I see it now, software manufacturing exists with a verification template, because there is one source that doesn't work to a blog.. Vendor is recognized; List of the largest software companies: "software companies, often called "independent software vendors" ("ISVs")]. I wanted to change the article's name, to DRM.
Apparently not. There are obviously software manufacturers. And Google is NOT a reliable source. It is a resource that points to both reliable and unreliable sources. Objective3000 (talk) 12:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Is this really something to argue over? I said you could revert if you wish, and Digital rights management/sandbox, I'm not editing the article at this point, trying to get consensus. comp.arch (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I originally put this thread in the wrong place. I do not want to get rid of your preferred spelling of the DRM from the lead itself. By now I think both should be there, or at a minimum, the "restricting" parts of DRM, explained there, as WP:LEAD: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview."
DRM stands for Digital Rights Management. Digital Restrictions Management no more belongs in the lede than Baba Wawa belongs in the lede for Barbara Walters. You are pushing a POV. Objective3000 (talk) 12:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
See Digital rights management/sandbox, where sentence is broken up. comp.arch (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
This is an article on technology. Why do you want to put in the term "catch-all" from a legal document? Why would you put a citation to an article heavily criticizing the subject in the very first sentence? Criticism is allowed in the lede. But, you don't start off with it. Can you tell us why you think the original text is wanting and what it is you think you're fixing? Again, you appear to be pushing a POV. Objective3000 (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Because DRM is NOT A technology, rather many: (prior to my involvement the article said) "is a set of access control technologies". If DRM was just one digital lock, it would be work better, but because there are many locks (many technologies), DRM isn't interoperable. This is not similar to me choosing my locking mechanism for my own files (or my lock for the house-door). You can call locks, or locking, an idea, but the actual physical locks in the real word could never be abstract, they would be devices, more than an idea. In the digital world, locks are also ideas (implemented by e.g. cryptography that is math/abstract), but also in a sense, the actual "digital locks"/the implementations of DRM, as implemented by software, that is abstract. As explained in the source for catch all: "Digital rights management (DRM) is a catch-all term referring to any of several technologies used to enforce pre-defined limitations on the use and transfer of copyrighted digital content. The content most commonly restricted by DRM includes music, visual artwork, computer and video games and movies, but DRM can be applied to any digital content."; and the one for "digital locks": "Digital locks — also known as digital rights management (DRM) technologies or technological protection measures (TPM) — are employed by copyright owners to control how data, software or hardware can be used by others." comp.arch (talk) 14:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
We live in a competitive world. Of course their exist many solutions and products (NONE of them called digital restrictions management by their developers). Your opinion that one method would be better is interesting, but just an opinion and contrary to how technology and entrepreneurship have developed. Your argument that this is somehow abstract makes no sense. DRM is as real as anything else. If it weren’t, there would be no fuss to talk about. Whomever wrote the current text said that DRM is a set of technologies. That is exactly correct. Each technology has a patent, referring to digital rights management. Catchall is a very broad term that I have never seen applied to DRM in the tech field. I asked you what is wrong with the current text, and you said there exist many technologies. Well, that is what the current text says. Technologies is plural.
You keep saying that ("many solutions and products (NONE of them called digital restrictions management by their developers)"), however still, these solutions all have different names (would be very confusing if all called them only DRM..), such as PlayForSure, FairPlay etc. as I already said; meaning DRM is an umbrella-term like operating system is a term – an idea until you are talking about an actual implementation (and patenting happens, before marketing gives a name or hides spelled out DRM).
Some such as the most popular implementation by "WIDEVINE a Google company" do not even bother spell out DRM anymore (as it is a WP:COMMONNAME?) in texts about it ("What is Widevine DRM?"[2]): "Widevine is available on over 1 billion devices including desktop and mobile platforms, televisions, blu-ray players, set top boxes and game consoles."[3] Neither does Google's official page on "Android DRM framework"[4] bother to spell out.
Would you PLEASE learn to stop making an edit and then editing your own edit multiple times. Look at history and you will see you do this consistently. I run into constant edit-conflicts trying to respond, and you have accidentally deleted my edits three times now. This is incredibly annoying. Objective3000 (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm really sorry about that, as explained on your talk page. I was really quick fixing that last time, didn't know this was happening at first. It is allowed to fix your typos and linking etc. in stuff you've already written. I see it now, you shouldn't really be getting an edit-conflict(?) unless you're editing others texts, and just have to be very careful with editing pages that others are editing.. all very rapidly. comp.arch (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Reject revert - any middle ground?

1. About this lead, with my clarified version that was reverted saying I was "rambling", with no other justification. Is it better or the next (original) version? Any middle ground? Per WP:LEAD, it should be ok to read only it. Access control only seems WP:WEASEL because prior to DRM I could lock access (user level access) to files on my hard disk and always get access. That is what access control meant, not that some outside party had a lock on files in my computer.

2. "Proponents of DRM argue that it is necessary to prevent intellectual property", it may be, what they say, but does it make it right for WP to say that? Seems to be WP:WEASEL. Isn't only copyright this issue? That is, you the user do (maybe fair use) or do not have it, DRM proponents want it with the copyright owner only. I know of no DRM that stop copying trademarks say, or trade dress or anything other:

Intellectual property: "Some common types of intellectual property rights (IPR) are copyright, patents, and industrial design rights; and the rights that protect trademarks, trade dress, and in some jurisdictions trade secrets: all these cover music, literature, and other artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs." comp.arch (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

1. Well, an 81 word sentence with many clauses and two parentheticals surely seems rambling to me.:) I don’t understand your problem here. The lede is not a substitute for the entire article. I don’t understand how these are weasel words. DRM is clearly an access control technology. There are others that control other types of access. That’s OK. No one claimed DRM is the solution to everything. The original text comes from an expert organization in the field. The terms you added come from a Canadian legal document.
2. WP is NOT saying: “it is necessary to prevent intellectual property”. It is saying: "Proponents of DRM argue that it is necessary to prevent intellectual property from being copied freely". Are you disputing that this is what proponents argue? Are you saying that the opposition to DRM should remain in the lede, but any position of the proponents shouldn’t? Trademarks have nothing to do with DRM. No one said that DRM controls all IP violations. I think the lede states the arena of DRM. But, I would think more than copyrights may be protected. It could be argued that DRM may also be used to stop decompiling (reverse engineering) to reveal trade secrets and design rights. Objective3000 (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
1. Like I said, maybe a middle ground is ok or splitting the sentence up. Exact mechanism isn't also the first priority in the first sentence, that is "hardware" as some DRM, at least originally was just software. As DRM or any copy protection can never be bulletproof, using hardware/locked down devices was the next step, so "hardware" is also important in this context. There is no problem with quoting a legal text, DRM is to ensure copyright, a legal thing.
2. Not at all am I saying only opponents or even starting with those. The lead/article, should however both be grounded in truth, supported by sources, and technical terms, just not too technical, so that people do not understand what it is really about. No, I meant something like "Proponents of DRM argue that it is necessary to prevent misuse of copyright.." or "..prevent unauthorized copying"; only that intellectual property, is more broad than needed, only to be used in main text in quotes if it needs to be added at all. Opponents are mentioned in the lead, and for now (I'm not pushing for it), exact wording on that needs not change much. WP:LEAD: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview." comp.arch (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Seriously, I don't know what you are trying to do. First you wanted to add the sarcastic name to the lede, then change the title of the article, now I don't know where you are going. And please, you have now twice stated that there is no such thing as a software manufacturer. The term is in common usage, in multiple languages, and fits the dictionary definition of manufacturer. Objective3000 (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Must we disagree on anything? :) That was a minor edit, that I thought uncontroversial.. if you must you revert. Googling "software manufacturer" or "software manufacturing" leads mostly to software for the manufacturing industry. I see it now, software manufacturing exists with a verification template, because there is one source that doesn't work to a blog.. Vendor is recognized; List of the largest software companies: "software companies, often called "independent software vendors" ("ISVs")]. I wanted to change the article's name, to DRM.
Apparently not. There are obviously software manufacturers. And Google is NOT a reliable source. It is a resource that points to both reliable and unreliable sources. Objective3000 (talk) 12:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Is this really something to argue over? I said you could revert if you wish, and Digital rights management/sandbox, I'm not editing the article at this point, trying to get consensus. comp.arch (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I originally put this thread in the wrong place. I do not want to get rid of your preferred spelling of the DRM from the lead itself. By now I think both should be there, or at a minimum, the "restricting" parts of DRM, explained there, as WP:LEAD: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview."
DRM stands for Digital Rights Management. Digital Restrictions Management no more belongs in the lede than Baba Wawa belongs in the lede for Barbara Walters. You are pushing a POV. Objective3000 (talk) 12:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
See Digital rights management/sandbox, where sentence is broken up. comp.arch (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
This is an article on technology. Why do you want to put in the term "catch-all" from a legal document? Why would you put a citation to an article heavily criticizing the subject in the very first sentence? Criticism is allowed in the lede. But, you don't start off with it. Can you tell us why you think the original text is wanting and what it is you think you're fixing? Again, you appear to be pushing a POV. Objective3000 (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Because DRM is NOT A technology, rather many: (prior to my involvement the article said) "is a set of access control technologies". If DRM was just one digital lock, it would be work better, but because there are many locks (many technologies), DRM isn't interoperable. This is not similar to me choosing my locking mechanism for my own files (or my lock for the house-door). You can call locks, or locking, an idea, but the actual physical locks in the real word could never be abstract, they would be devices, more than an idea. In the digital world, locks are also ideas (implemented by e.g. cryptography that is math/abstract), but also in a sense, the actual "digital locks"/the implementations of DRM, as implemented by software, that is abstract. As explained in the source for catch all: "Digital rights management (DRM) is a catch-all term referring to any of several technologies used to enforce pre-defined limitations on the use and transfer of copyrighted digital content. The content most commonly restricted by DRM includes music, visual artwork, computer and video games and movies, but DRM can be applied to any digital content."; and the one for "digital locks": "Digital locks — also known as digital rights management (DRM) technologies or technological protection measures (TPM) — are employed by copyright owners to control how data, software or hardware can be used by others." comp.arch (talk) 14:04, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
We live in a competitive world. Of course their exist many solutions and products (NONE of them called digital restrictions management by their developers). Your opinion that one method would be better is interesting, but just an opinion and contrary to how technology and entrepreneurship have developed. Your argument that this is somehow abstract makes no sense. DRM is as real as anything else. If it weren’t, there would be no fuss to talk about. Whomever wrote the current text said that DRM is a set of technologies. That is exactly correct. Each technology has a patent, referring to digital rights management. Catchall is a very broad term that I have never seen applied to DRM in the tech field. I asked you what is wrong with the current text, and you said there exist many technologies. Well, that is what the current text says. Technologies is plural.
You keep saying that ("many solutions and products (NONE of them called digital restrictions management by their developers)"), however still, these solutions all have different names (would be very confusing if all called them only DRM..), such as PlayForSure, FairPlay etc. as I already said; meaning DRM is an umbrella-term like operating system is a term – an idea until you are talking about an actual implementation (and patenting happens, before marketing gives a name or hides spelled out DRM).
Some such as the most popular implementation by "WIDEVINE a Google company" do not even bother spell out DRM anymore (as it is a WP:COMMONNAME?) in texts about it ("What is Widevine DRM?"[5]): "Widevine is available on over 1 billion devices including desktop and mobile platforms, televisions, blu-ray players, set top boxes and game consoles."[6] Neither does Google's official page on "Android DRM framework"[7] bother to spell out.
Would you PLEASE learn to stop making an edit and then editing your own edit multiple times. Look at history and you will see you do this consistently. I run into constant edit-conflicts trying to respond, and you have accidentally deleted my edits three times now. This is incredibly annoying. Objective3000 (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm really sorry about that, as explained on your talk page. I was really quick fixing that last time, didn't know this was happening at first. It is allowed to fix your typos and linking etc. in stuff you've already written. I see it now, you shouldn't really be getting an edit-conflict(?) unless you're editing others texts, and just have to be very careful with editing pages that others are editing.. all very rapidly. comp.arch (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

When coined?

Unlike the article Direct Rendering Manager, neither this article nor the Wiktionary entry gives any idea as to when or by whom the term was coined. --Damian Yerrick (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Digital rights management. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 03:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Poor sourcing

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)

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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

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 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? 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. ~ 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

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"

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

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)

Proposal to rewrite the Technologies section

Currently it's divided by the usage domain, which just splits into too many subsections. The underlying technology could be quite similar (encryption, online verification, watermark, etc). It might takes less subsections if we sum it up that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talltaller8 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it can be somewhat like this
 Technologies
   Restrictions
       Encryption - video/document drm
       Obfuscation - games/software drm
       Verification - regional licensing scheme or presistent online auth
   Tracking
       Metadata
       Watermark

--Talltaller8 (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to rewrite the Shortcomings section

Similar to the proposal to rewrite the Technologies section, this cuts down the number of subsections by half 

   Usability - activating a license key could be quite a puzzle in the old days
   Reliability - drm servers can go down
   Performance - look at games
   Fundamental Bypass - technically impossible to avoid analogy hole
   Consumer rights implication - consumers don't own it after purchasing, bars fair use
   Economic implication - anti-competition practice

--Talltaller8 (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

DRM discs made inaccessible by advancing tech

One aspect of DRM CDs that could be included (but sources would be needed), is the fact that with CD drives and players becoming harder to come by in 2020 - many new vehicles no longer have them and for computers they're becoming a challenging-to-find accessory - for people needing to make digital copies of their purchased CDs (i.e. convert to MP3 for USB sticks so they can be played in car, or to upload to their phones or vehicles), those CDs with the restrictive DRM are difficult if not impossible to back up if one does not want to repurchase the product (assuming it's available digitally). 70.73.90.119 (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

"Technological measures" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Technological measures. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 23:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

My question is--and please correct me if I'm wrong and this is addressed in the article--Does a company have the right to digitally manage a work (with fees) if the work is pre-1924 and therefore in the public domain? If so, can you point me to the legal basis (perhaps it's a question of property rights?...since the Louvre for example owns the Mona Lisa? Even though the creation is in the public domain?). Signed, Nicole Nh2n (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit needed

A reader (ticket:2020061710008975), points out that a sentence in the intro section makes no sense. It isn't even properly a sentence:

Encryption, scrambling of expressive material and embedding of a tag, which is designed to control access and reproduction of information, including backup copies for personal use.

I'm guessing it got mangled when someone was trying to make an edit. Can someone look into it and figure out whether it can be fixed or should just simply be removed?--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

y5hrstuu

State of DRM acceptance

From recent edit summary by user:Floam:

the previous text framed a sentiment about this topic in a way that suggests there is current controversy . I don't like DRM, but the vast majority of folks accept it on every video streaming service that exists. It may be true that it is not universally accepted, but those who oppose DRM in 2021 are the vast minority of consumers and stakeholders.

— user:Floam

You are right, that the film and music industries seem to have converged on using DRM, although that still occasionally becomes an issue notable enough for mention here – lately, the Disney+ forbidding a lot of older devices (I'm not making any point from it, bear in mind).

The role of lead section is to summarize the article, and the article suggests in 3 wide sections (Opposition, Shortcomings and Alternative) that those issues are not yet resolved and there is no universal acceptance. You seem to agree that it is not universally accepted, yet removed the exact sentence from the article. I disagree that the critique of DRM schemes is fringe nowadays, and the article explains it well, even if it is a bit outdated.

I really want to stick to the word of the article exclusively (it should be changed and updated before the lead section) – although beyond that, there are organizations and companies in 2021 that make a point of not using DRM. DRM is still an issue in gaming (GOG.com), book publishing (issues with school textbooks industry is pretty mainstream), and so on. — K4rolB (talk) 12:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Images

There are no images in support of DRM, but 2 images against it. Should there be images supporting DRM too to make the article have a neutral point of view? Jan Gamecuber (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.ahajokes.com/com028.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Digital_rights_management/Archive_6&oldid=1247870453"