Talk:Digital rights management/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Piracy scare quotes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let us look at some very “dry” documents:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do copy protection and copyright enforcement mechanisms relate to DRM

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

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

History of DRM

At no point on this page is the history of DRM mentioned. Ought it? It stretches back into the 70s and seems relevant. 199.254.116.102 (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Forcehimes

Some guy wrote a paper that no one has heard of and is only mentioned in this article and another Wikipedia article. How can an encyclopedia be a source for itself? This is clearly not noteworthy and pushes a concept that violating basic laws that exist in nearly every country in the world is moral -- an obvious controversial POV. This article is embarrassing enough without an obvious extreme POV from an unknown. Objective3000 (talk) 01:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I reverted saying it wasn't an academic paper. It looks like it actually is, I mistook it by the url. Anyway, I don't see any benefits in including these sort of one-off arguments. Seems like WP:WEIGHT might apply? TippyGoomba (talk) 06:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This paper is published in Think (journal), so it is reliable. As far as WP:WEIGHT is concerned, this article (Digital rights management) as a whole is a contrary view to Forcehimes' paper. --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 09:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it was original published at cambridge press, which mean its peer-reviewed academic journal. For the WP:WEIGHT argument, I would add that arguments for WEIGHT need to be verified, and that sources are used to show that the academic journal viewpoint is only shared by a tiny minority. Articles like fewer than 1 in 10 teenagers believe that music piracy is morally wrong, or the discussion around aaron-swartz piracy of jstore seems to poke quite big wholes in the fringe claim. Law professor Eben Moglen discussed the moral question with the quote "a moral question of significance arises: When you can provide to everybody everything that you value, at the cost of providing it to any one body, what is the morality of excluding people who cannot afford to pay?". While I could easy locate a bunch more, I will just end the list by mentioning the The Libertarian Case: Against Intellectual Property Rights by Roderick T. Long, who sums up a large moral argument against copyright and patents based on individuals liberty rights. In the end, I agree that its an controversial POV, but its not an tiny minority as required by WP:WEIGHT. Belorn (talk) 09:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

A couple comments:

The majority of teens believe that no means yes. That does not mean that the WP article on rape should suggest that rape is morally acceptable and that this is not a fringe belief. And further, remove any statement that this is controversial.

Publication by a university press does NOT indicate peer review or any review at all. They will publish just about anything. Peer review means publication by a respected journal known for actual peer-review. Regards, Objective3000 (talk) 00:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

As with anything, please back your statement with sources. Statement that claim Forcehimes statement as controversial is fine if there is a source to back it up. You might personally also not believe what the majority of teens believe to be important, but thats your personal belief. Again, back it up by sources and you will have an argument to discard it. If not, then what we have is a source, your beliefs and my beliefs and in that case, the source always wins. Third, if you have a source to support that cambridge press publish non-peer-reviewed journals, again, mention them here. However, if you don't have any sources to support anything, then the only option here is to discard your comment completely. Thus, I implore everyone to base their comments on what is verifiable rather than personal opinion. Consensus around sources creates an encyclopedia, while personal opinion only creates politics and dogma. Belorn (talk) 09:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't find any sources that the Forcehimes paper is controversial because I can't find any discussion of the paper whatever. No one outside of the person that added it to two WP articles has ever heard of it. Which suggests SPAM. That is the point. It is not noteworthy. As for peer-review, it is not up to me to support the claim that publication by a university means peer-review. It is up to the person making that claim. BTW, the WP article on Think Journal is almost a direct copy of the ad for Think Journal on their site and is clearly unacceptable.Objective3000 (talk) 11:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you missed it, but the blue text over the "its peer-reviewed academic journal" is a link to the About Us of cambridge press. The page says: In line with the commitment of Cambridge University Press to advance learning, knowledge and research worldwide, the Press currently publishes over 300 peer-reviewed academic journals for the global market.. So yes, it is up to the person making that claim to show a source, and that person did it. Its there. Right there. In the first post. In blue, or otherwise red if you have already visited it. As for the Forcehimes statement, you can always bring up others researches opinion about the subject matter to balance the section. I simply object on removing the text itself on bases like WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT, as those can be shown by sources as faulty arguments. Show that the about page interpretation is wrong, or that an overwhelming majority disagree with the statements made by Forcehimes with the help of sources and RS/WEIGHT could be used. Otherwise, the only useful way to go forward would be to add additional sourced viewpoints for balance purpose. Belorn (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The ref does not claim that ALL of the journals are peer-reviewed. The Forcehimes paper appears to be unknown and unread except for the person that added it to two Wikipedia articles. There is no discussion of it. It has no weight. Wikipedia has more references to it than the entire rest of the World. You do not become notable because you are in encyclopedia. You get in an encyclopedia because you are notable. This is Wikipedia SPAM and an encyclopedia should not be used in this manner. Surely someone can come up with a better article claiming that breaking the laws of nearly every country is moral, if that's what you want. Objective3000 (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I don't even think the article is relevant to DRM.Objective3000 (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Arguing around the relevancy to DRM is a better argument. Looking at the source, it does seems more suited in the anti-copyright article than here. I would not object to that reasoning, but I'm interesting to see if someone else will object. Belorn (talk) 11:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, we could move it to the WP article people that SPAM WP to make a name for themselves with outrageous, repugnant suggestions that teens should violate laws. Seriously, I’ve had trouble finding anything about him because Google simply doesn’t have references, except for Wikipedia. I finally found him in the Think site -- he’s a student at Vanderbilt. Why are we reffing this unknown kid in WP?Objective3000 (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

/'.,';,.?/,L M. ,ML;,;./ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.191.79.202 (talk) 10:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If there are any sources people want to bring up, feel free to mention them here. The only criteria I got is that the sourced material need to be well known in the field, and commonly cited by experts and researchers. If that is a too harsh requirement, then please suggest a better criteria. Belorn (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

You limit something by adding restrictions. You grant permissions by lifting restrictions, removing limits. The concptes of adding limits, granting permissions and restrictions are mutually required. You cannot have either without the others. In order to manage permissions (and hence also restrictions) you must have some authentication system. Hence, this is also a requirement in a functional system. You discussion, sourced or not, is rubish -- get on with your lives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.167.145.44 (talk) 12:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Spite

How many people will deliberately break copy-protection and illegally distribute the material when they otherwise would have respected the copyright for the sole purpose of spiting and/or punishing companies that use DRM? It can't be an insignificant amount and it seems a relevant piece of information to put in the section regarding the disagreement between opponents and proponents. Obviously, such a statistic would benefit the opponents' argument unless the number is zero (which I know it is not).50.130.11.182 (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Kind of liking arguing that shoplifting is the fault of retail stores that use anti-shoplifting devices. Should we add this to the shoplifting article?108.41.173.242 (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

How many people use anti-shoptlifting devices as their reason for shoplifting? That, and it's hardly the same thing. Besides, even if it were even close, you can take the anti-shoplifting devices off after you pay for it. You don't have to crack them. You might have used a better analogy like people stealing gasoline because of higher prices, and the theft deterrents because of the stealing, and the circumvention because of the theft deterrents. At least the mindset on that one is the same, even if the particulars are vastly different.50.130.11.182 (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Concerning the tags added

If there are issues with the article, they need to be explained. Slapping multiple tags on the article without saying what the problem is doesn't help improve the article. Which sections are problematic? Why has no attempt been made to fix these problems first? Specific concerns can't be addressed if those concerns aren't expressed. - Aoidh (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Streaming Services

Shouldn't the list of major users of DRM be extended to include streaming services like Spotify? I don't know the technical details, but I'm sure they use some kind of DRM to stop people capturing streams and converting them to MP3s, etc.109.158.244.93 (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

"Digital restrictions management" links here

"Digital restrictions management" links here, but can't be found in the article. I vaguely remember it being in the lead (in bold). Did anyone delete it (by consensus)? I think the phrase should be here (since it links here) somewhere at least. And I guess in the lead in bold. And if not an anchor to its place and there in bold. comp.arch (talk) 14:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It was removed from the lede because it's WP:UNDUE, it's a POV term used by a political advocacy group, and the only sources that supported that wording was that group. - Aoidh (talk) 02:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

"removed from the lede", yes, I can live with that maybe (if deemed minor term) but the opposition is mentioned and should where phrase be in there somewhere, since the redirect links here? Note this phrase is used a lot with or without the other, by non-GNU/FSF sites such as news sites: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Articles: [10] [11] Misc: [12] [13] [14] [15] comp.arch (talk) 11:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The redirect should be removed. Sarcastic put-downs should not be given the undue importance of a redirect in an encyclopedia.Objective3000 (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Ref #4 only mentions it thusly: “As some wags have said, the initials D.R.M. should really stand for “Digital Restrictions Management.” Some wags is not a source that should be used for a redirect in an encyclopedia. Ref #6 follows the term with (sic) indicating that the term is erroneous. It is not in ref #7. It is not in ref #9. Refs #10, #11 and #12 all have the same title.Objective3000 (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The redirect is appropriate. People will be searching for 'digital restrictions management' and some way or another we need to show them what it refers to. A mere redirect doesn't legitimise the term. – Steel 10:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The FSF title is well sourced, and is relevant to the subject, and it would be against WP:DUE to not include it in the article (lead or not is a other discussion). Trying to remove criticisms just because one do not like what the message says would be NPOV. Belorn (talk) 11:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Do a Google search on "Faux News". You will find thousands of images, YouTube videos, books, numerous sites with variations of fauxnews, as well as massive hits from around the world. This put-down is vastly more commonly used than "digital restrictions management", a term I've never heard before coming here. Faux News is far more "well-sourced". Yet, Faux News is not in the Fox News WP article, much less in a redirect, because sarcastic twists of terms do not belong in an encyclopedia. This appears to be an effort to use WP to promulgate this sarcastic misstatement of the name of a technology to push a POV. Objective3000 (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Im not going into that argument, because Wikipedia already has your answer in WP:OTHERSTUFF. This is not the Fox News article. If you want to argue things regarding fox news, go to that article and argue in its talk page. In this article, Please answer why a well sourced criticism, found in books and news papers, should be excluded in here (beyond your dislike of how the criticism is phrased). Also, given that several editors has tried to add this and two editors blocking it, I have added the appropriate template to the article until the issue of balance has reached consensus. Belorn (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm NOT arguing the Fox News article. I agree with the way it was handled, because it was handled correctly -- unlike this article. WP:OTHERSTUFF does not apply. I already responded above to the "well sourced criticism". The most respected sources mention the put-down, but then put it down itself as erroneous and words from "wags"; some of the refs don't actually contain the term, and most of the remainder are blog articles all using the identical title.Objective3000 (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Note the following from a National Science Foundation symposium: [16]. Digital Rights Management is called a euphemism and in the footnotes Digital Restrictions Management is called sarcasm. Wikipedia defines a euphemism thusly: ‘A euphemism is a generally innocuous word or expression used in place of one that may be found offensive or suggest something unpleasant.’ Sarcasm is defined by Wikipedia as ‘a sharp, bitter, or cutting expression or remark; a bitter gibe or taunt.’ The claim that an offensive, biting, bitter, gibe or taunt is a more accurate term is a very strong POV. There is no need to use such remarks to make a point. It suggests that the technology is 100% wrong and there is no need for balancing viewpoints. Providing such as a redirect gives undue weight to a sarcastic, erroneous definition of an acronym.Objective3000 (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Saying you are not arguing WP:OTHERSTUFF does not make it so when your argument are "this other article do this". For reliable sources, here is a small sample of books that mention Digital restrictions management: The Impact of Electronic Publishing: The Future for Publishers and Librarians ,Collection Management Basics ,Industrial Organization and the Digital Economy ,Software Security -- Theories and Systems ,Innovations and Advanced Techniques in Computer and Information Sciences, Developments in the Economics of Copyright: Research and Analysis. That just the first links. We have a article by Cory Doctorow, published by The Guardian, that includes this title. Not including (ie censoring) this criticism in the article would be a direct attempt to push an agenda, and create an unbalance in the article. Belorn (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Belorn, that's not WP:OTHERSTUFF, and you should read WP:OSE in the future, as it spells out exactly what is wrong with what you've said regarding that. It's a perfectly reasonable argument and the "Faux News" comparison is used to demonstrate the argument as it's already found in practice on Wikipedia. You can find many more references to "Faux News" than you can "Digital Restrictions Management", yet you'll find no mention of it on the Fox News article. The sources you found are all very brief mentions with little to no context, that similarly fails to show that this is something relevant to the article's subject. The term "Digital Restrictions Management" is a POV term used by a single group to push a political agenda that has very little coverage in reliable sources other than the kinds of sources you've shown; brief mentions with little to no context or elaboration. That's not sufficient to put it in the lede of the article as if it's a central theme to the subject; it's not and it is completely inappropriate there. I think a single sentence might be appropriate in the Opposition to DRM section, but even then such a sentence would need to make it clear that it's a political term used to push an agenda. - Aoidh (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Clearly Belorn is correct that censoring the term "digital restrictions management" removes a valid criticism. The whole point of DRM, as the article states, is "the intent to control the use of digital content..." Control is restriction. In fact, we should edit that very sentence to replace "control," with "restrict." Perspective (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your POV. But, there are robust opposition, shortcomings, and alternative sections in the article, and the word 'restriction' can be found in the article 22 times. There is no censorship -- merely editing to encyclopedic standards. DRM is an acronym that stands for 'digital rights management'. The developers of technologies get to name them. Critics can raise issues, but they cannot redefine acronyms.Objective3000 (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Aoidh, you should read WP:OSE, as if you did you found the following sentence: The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article (except for a salting, which is only performed in dire cases). Arguments based solely on what other artciles do is pointless, for the same reason you can't use other articles as sources. They are not reliable, as anyone can edit it at any moment, making any argument invalid in the seconds it take for someone to edit the article. I could do that in this case, but that would in itself go against WP:POINT. As for the subject at hand, censorship is the removal of reliable sourced information based on solely what a few editors think about the message. What is being conducted here is exactly that. Belorn (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I have read it, and if you believe that the sentence you quoted applies, please read the discussion again; there's a difference between making a comparison just because it exists, and using it because it reinforces the application of policies and guidelines and shows that it is applied elsewhere on Wikipedia. Quoting WP:OSE when the latter is the case is missing the point. More importantly it does not belong in the lede. Period. It might belong in the section I mentioned above, but citing WP:OSE as a way to avoid addressing a valid argument doesn't speak well to what you're trying to convey, and WP:LEDE explains why the content, if it belongs, certainly does not belong in the lede. The lede summarizes the article, it is not a place for content not explained elsewhere, especially content that would barely deserve a mention in the article itself, if at all. - Aoidh (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

If it reinforces the application of policies and guidelines, bring up those policies and guidelines. If you read Objective3000 comment above where he first mentioned Faux News, you will see there is zero policies, and zero guidelines linked or even mentioned. You claiming here that there is makes me question whatever you have actually read his comment. Belorn (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:NDESC for one. The comparison is a valid one, because Faux News isn't there for a reason. That reason is relevant to this article as well, it's not just an oversight, "Faux News" was mentioned on the Fox News article at one time, but was removed after discussion because, even though there are sources that verify the term (many more than what you showed above), it isn't actually used by sources in any meaningful way. Outside of the political advocacy group that came up with the term "Digital Restriction Management", there's very little in the way of sources showing actual use, outside of a very, very few mentioning that "some people" use it, but not going to far as to use it themselves. That is why WP:OSE does not apply; though it would have been helpful no doubt, that guidelines were not spelled out within wikilinks doesn't change that. - Aoidh (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:NDESC has not been mentioned before in this discussion, and it helps if they write it. I, and no one else in here are mind readers, so until they are mentioned, one can't really claim that its been brought up. Second, WP:NDESC is not relevant here, since its about the tile of the article. No one has suggested we should change the title, only adding the reliable sources information to the article. Belorn (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The name of this talk page section makes it relevant, and no one claimed it was "brought up". You asked what would apply, I answered with an example and an elaboration. It would help if you wrote out what exactly you're proposing to be added to the article so that it can be discussed, because the edits that were made to the lede are problematic for the reasons already explained, most importantly because the lede is a summary, not a place for new information. - Aoidh (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem. A draft is now added. It include the primary source (since its directly attributed to stallman), but also several other references (please fix the bad urls and citation format) in order to support it. One could mention that FSF has taken the position that stallman has, but for now, this is more clear and simple. Belorn (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I would advice everyone that wikipedia is built on WP:consensus. Remove the template once consensus has been reached, not before. Belorn (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia consensus is that the lede summarizes the article content. Add that template if you manage to change that consensus, not before. When the template was removed you were asked to discuss the content's relevance to the lede on the talk page, something you have not done; there is a critical difference between being in the article and being in the lede, which you have not discussed. - Aoidh (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The template is there to help create consensus, and to encourage more editors to comment in such a way consensus can be reached. When there is a dispute, templates are a help tool, not something to edit war about. Please stop creates animosity between editors (which is what this behavior causes) and help find consensus.

If you add the information to the article under the appropriate section, then rather then edit warring, you might find that the article creates balance between different viewpoints. Until then, we will never know. So long you just remove content, revert, all you will get is non-consensus and thus, the template for more participation.

Last: Your comparison with Faux News is original research, ie your personal view. If you find a source arguing the same thing, you would have something to back up your personal view. Same goes with your claim that The term "Digital Restrictions Management" is a POV term . Bring sources, or argue based on policy, or find consensus. Either way, your behavior is aggressive (reverts rather than discussion, and aggressive behavior as per Wikipedia:Edit warring#Handling of edit-warring behaviors) and it is not helping in creating a good article. Belorn (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

See your talk page concerning your comments. - Aoidh (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

This is the kind of constant POV nonsense that has soured me on Wikipedia.Objective3000 (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Rather than this POV nonsense, people could have moved the content to the article body rather then just reverting reliable sourced information. One Reaps What One Sow. Belorn (talk) 01:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Given Belorn's extensive editing, I suggest we rename this article Anti-DRM. Objective3000 (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want to propose renaming the article, the guidelines is at WP:RM and WP:Moving a page. I will oppose such move, but feel free to follow the described procedures if you want to. If you rather want to improve the article, I recommend improving the wp:verification by adding citations to reliable sources, and removing unsourced material. Objective3000, It is easy to just revert edits or sit here and complain, but if you want to actually improve the article, one have to do the hard work of finding sources and adding them to the article. I hope you choose to pick the later. Belorn (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I guess discussion/consensus is pointless since Mjdtjm is just forcing the edit without bothering to discuss. I suggest we get rid of Talk Pages.Objective3000 (talk) 10:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The mention added to the Opposition to DRM subsection is the right spot for, though the formatting of the sources need to be cleaned up. Per WP:LEDE, however, I have to stress again that it doesn't belong in the lede of the article. - Aoidh (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Congratulation

User:Aoidh, User:Objective3000 and User:Steel got their Agenda and censored other names of the topic out of the first sentence. 78.35.218.47 (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

From WP:LEDE: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects...the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." The term "Digital Restrictions Management" is, in the scope of this article, insignificant, and this is reflected by its usage (or lack thereof) in reliable sources. The term is used by a political group and outside of that group you have to try hard to even scrape together any sources that even mention this term in passing, let alone any that actually use the term, therefore keeping WP:LEDE in mind it is inappropriate to mention this in the lede sentence, to say nothing of the WP:NPOV policy which says that undue weight should not be given to minority viewpoints and this includes "prominence of placement". The lede sentence is about as prominent as it can get in an article, and so the lack of sources that show usage means that this prominence in the lede is inappropriate. That is why it was removed from the lede, and the article was locked because you chose to edit-war instead of discussion (even now, finally' coming to talk page because the article is locked, you still aren't attempting to discuss the edit or why it belongs). - Aoidh (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Stop suppressing different names for a topic, thank you. There is no need to "discuss" rule-based and fact-based contributions to Wikipedia. Wake up and admit that you are the one who is pushing POV here and undermining the principles/values of Wikipedia. Digital Restrictions Management was already in the lead 11 years ago. Digital Restrictions Management is not only used/reported by the bearded guy from the Free Software Foundation, but also at policy input at the European Commission and the Federal Trade Commission. Software vendors(VideoLAN, OSGeo) use it and broadcasting organizations like the European Broadcasting Union. And this are only a fraction of parties that acknowledge that the term actually exits and is used.

But luckily you got your agenda into the article first sentence and the support of a censor, congratulation again! 78.35.218.47 (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Our agenda is to build an encyclopedia based on reliable sources and Wikipedia guidelines. Your agenda appears to be based on pushing a POV, and damn the rules. Your refs are from biased sources. Legitimate sources, like the NYTimes and the Guardian, have used the term only to point out that it is a misuse. Look, the inventors of a technology, for better or worse, whether or not it is a good or bad technology, get to name it. That’s the way it works. Any other naming by critics is sarcasm. It is not the real name. I think Faux News is a more accurate representation of the nature of Fox News. But, I wouldn’t add such a sarcastic name in the lede, or anywhere in the article, for Fox News. And, certainly not in a redirect. It would just make the encyclopedia look silly, opinionated, and unreliable. SNL thinks Barbara Walters should be called Baba Wawa. Is that in the lede of the Barbara Walters article? Probably most people by now think “The Patriot Act” should be called any number of other unpleasant things. But, that’s the name of the act. There exist a million such examples. Your opinion is irrelevant. Stallman’s opinion may be relevant in the opposition section, and it is there. Personally, I think the section should be edited to include his opposition without the sarcasm, as it does nothing to help his argument to anyone capable of thinking without the aid of sarcastic imagery. In any case, it is NOT an encyclopedic, alternate name. It is a sarcastic putdown from a person know for hyperbole.Objective3000 (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

"Our Agenda", sorry I do not understand who you mean by "our". Since you are pushing POV (as This Topic is only named after advocates name of it), I assume that you try to use the decent contributors to Wikipedia as support as your "argument". Since I have no agenda and wanted to inform me more about Digital Restrictions Management which I read, I copied that term into Wikipedia and got to this article, only to notice that it was not in the first sentence, where different names of a topic belong.

Look, the inventors of a technology, for better or worse, whether or not it is a good or bad technology, get to name it

— Objective3000

Because that is your claim, I would like to hear who is the inventor of the Digital Restrictions Management technology and therefore "have to right" to name it?

Your refs are from biased sources.

— Objective3000

This wasn't even near to an argument, could you please name the bias? Thank you.

Legitimate sources, like the NYTimes and the Guardian, have used the term only to point out that it is a misuse.

— Objective3000

When is a source a legitimate source, when and who decides it? like the NYTimes and the Guardian, as if the NYTimes is only as legitimate/reliable as any other source. You could read the article of the NYTimes and the The Guardian. Are you a biased reader of NYTimes and The Guardian who assume that it is the holy grail of legitimate source and the tenants of the truth(TM) and therefore other publication/website have the right to name things/topics?

Your mention of Faux News is better discussed on the topics talk page. The mention of Barbara Walters is better discussed on the topics talk page. Should we include the automobile articles first sentence here?

Your opinion is irrelevant.

— Objective3000

Very true. And since my opinion is irrelevant, I posted reliable sources that Digital Restrictions Management is a name of the topic.

Stallman’s opinion may be relevant in the opposition section, and it is there. Personally, I think the section should be edited to include his opposition without the sarcasm, as it does nothing to help his argument to anyone capable of thinking without the aid of sarcastic imagery. In any case, it is NOT an encyclopedic, alternate name. It is a sarcastic putdown from a person know for hyperbole.

— Objective3000

Please do not stick your POV to the term Digital Restrictions Management being used by Stallman. I posted several sources.

Your agenda appears to [...] damn the rules.

— Objective3000

I followed this rule. As I said Congratulation to you, you got your POV into the articles first sentence and the article is now blocked to editing by IP addresses. 78.35.193.39 (talk) 04:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't even know what POV it is you think I have and I added nothing to the lede at all.:) Nobody likes DRM.Objective3000 (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Cloud

I'm a bit concerned about the use of the word 'cloud'. Cloud is an advertising term, not a technical term. It has no specific technology meaning; but is used to describe many and various methodologies, some in use for decades. It probably should not be used at all in an encyclopedia.Objective3000 (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

"Legal Rights"

The present text states that DRM may restrict the exercise of 'legal rights' under copyright legislation, such as making backup copies or 'fair use'. This is misleading. In general (with possible exceptions) these are not absolute legal rights but merely exclusions from the force of copyright law. In the absence of any explicit statutory provision, such exclusions may be overridden by contractual provisions. So, for example, if you buy a piece of computer software, and agree to terms and conditions which prohibit *any* copying, then making an unauthorized backup copy would be a breach of contract. You have (in general) no 'legal right' to do something that you have contractually agreed not to do. For example, even the US Constitutional right to 'free speech' may be overridden by contractual obligations. That is how Google and other tech companies prevent employees or ex-employees from selling all their trade secrets.86.183.122.94 (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds logical. But, the law isn't always logical and some rights cannot be contracted away. You'd need a good legal reference.Objective3000 (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Different legal system has different laws. Sweden for example has a explicit legal right to copy for private use, which is "paid" with a special tax. Any statement would have to either be limited to a specific country and their legal system, or broad enough to cover the many different system that exist. Belorn (talk) 08:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2014

Wish to add effect of DCMA to e-books and accessibility for the blind in last sentence of "non-criminal users" section, with new citation (http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2011/initial/american_foundation_blind.pdf); proposed sentence as follows...

The DMCA has also been cited as chilling to non-criminal inclined users, such as students of cryptanalysis (including, in a well-known instance, Professor Felten and students at Princeton); security consultants, such as Netherlands based Niels Ferguson, who declined to publish vulnerabilities he discovered in Intel's secure-computing scheme due to fear of being arrested under the DMCA when he travels to the US; and, blind or visually impaired users of screen-readers or other assistive technologies. 99.120.7.243 (talk) 09:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the great addition. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Why does downloading ebooks redirect here?

Many authors share their works. Many other projects share punlic domain works. 108.56.154.33 (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I know this comment has been here awhile, but I'm not sure what it redirected here; I've changed the redirect to the actual article on eBooks as it seems like a more appropriate redirect target - Aoidh (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Should the term digital restriction management be mentioned in the Lede?

To not mention the term "Digital Restriction Management" somewhere in the Lede is to deny a fact - groups such as the FSF and the EFF use this term to describe DRM and this is a major feature of their campaign against it. Ignoring facts is not neutral. The second edit that I proposed made reference to the term is an appropriate location, had a neutral tone and merely described facts as they are. Quigley2 (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Already discussed to death. The consensus is no. Objective3000 (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I see lots of discussion as but no consensus. Quigley2 (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Also please read the title of this section. I am not proposing replacing the term "Digital rights management" I agree that not doing this has a consensus. I am proposing adding a valid fact about it to the Lede in an impartial manner. Quigley2 (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

This was discussed at great length and consensus was reached. The consensus is no. We can't keep re-debating everything over and over and over. Objective3000 (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

No it wasn't. Consensus was reached on whether to replace the term with another. There are a couple of posts on whether to refer to it in the lede and there is no coherent response to say why it shouldn't be. Please say why what I am proposing is not appropriate? I the meantime I will add it back the lede. (EDITED because I spotted a grammatical error.) Quigley2 (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

You must be looking at only one discussion. There are many posts as to why it shouldn't be in the lede that go into great detail. Objective3000 (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I can see no coherent response and certainly no consensus. I would say the the mere fact that so many people have read this article and thought "weird that this fact is not mentioned sooner" should indicate that maybe there's something going on here. Quigley2 (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes something is going on here. Anti-DRM folk are trying to add a POV to this article. I don't like DRM. Nobody likes DRM. But, this is an encyclopedia and we report, we do not try to sway. The sarcastic "name" is in the body of the article. It does not belong in the lede, as has been well documented and thoroughly discussed. We cannot spend our lives re-arguing settled issues because someone doesn't like the conclusion. Objective3000 (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

By definition an issue is not settled and cannot have consensus if there is an ongoing argument about it. For the record (when this conversation is used to claim consensus in the future) I do not accept that consensus has been reached. I will not continue with this futile argument and don't see any point wasting further time on thus. Quigley2 (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Not quite, consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity; you don't have to agree with it for there to be a consensus nor does an "ongoing argument" mean a consensus cannot exist. - Aoidh (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Looking through this talk page shows two editors opposing many over time. Consensus in this case seems to be turned on its head... Quigley2 (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Your count isn't close. Objective3000 (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Outside of the FSF and sources associated with that group, there are a scare few sources that mention this term, and almost none that actually use the term themselves. The lede of an article gives a summary of the most important aspects, as shown by their prominence in reliable sources, therefore it is inappropriate to mention it in the lede as if it is a major aspect of the overall subject of DRM; it is not. I completely agree that the FSF use this term as part of their campaign against it, but that only shows that it should be more prominent in the appropriate article, where it encompasses a significant aspect of that subject. The term "digital restriction management" is not a significant aspect of this article's subject, therefore has no place in the lede. - Aoidh (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Section on streaming services to be added

These basically would not exist in their present form without DRM. And one service is responsible for quite a high percentage of internet traffic. Quigley2 (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Harmful DRM

Some people might remember the infamous rootkit of Sony. See: Sony BMG copy protection rootkit scandal. A subsection referring to DRM being potetially harmful to computers. And in context to the severe punishments for piracy it should be mentioned that companies like Sony got off quite cheap for damaging other people's properties, copyright infringement (of open-source code) and constant monopoly abuse. ——104.243.243.51 (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how the potential harm is any higher than exploitable code in browsers, FLASH, JAVA, and numerous other legitimate products. But, since you mentioned piracy, would you also include the actual damage to computers done by viruses in pirated software distributed by piracy sites? In any case, the statement that Sony got off cheap is an opinion (WP:NPOV). Objective3000 (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

This page does not relate to Flash, Java or other products (unless they are being used to implement DRM) therefore your comparison is not relevant. I agree that the harm from viri in pirated software should be included on this page as well. Do remember that installing a rootkit without consent is illegal under the CFAA. Quigley2 (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft something neutral and well sourced and maybe the local consensus will allow it. Quigley2 (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Picking a single instance of a manufacturer error as an example of general harm is WP:UNDUE. It's like adding to the article on turn signals that they can potentially kill you because this in fact occurred with a design error with one manufacturer. Objective3000 (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Where was the error? Do read up on the Sony BMG copy protection rootkit scandal before you comment again. Quigley2 (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I had read it and stand by my comment. This is undue weight. The reasons given for the addition are also WP:OR and an WP:NPOV problem. Objective3000 (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The term "error" in this context was a bit weird. Quigley2 (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

If you are claiming that Sony used DRM to purposely harm computers, you are going to have to find some seriously strong references. Objective3000 (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

You are putting words into my mouth (this is termed a Strawman). I am saying that. (1) Sony installed a rootkit on other peoples' computers. (2) They did this deliberately. (3) Installing a rootkit on someone else's computer is itself unacceptable. I am not claiming any harm was generated beyond the rootkit installation stage. Quigley2 (talk) 10:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

This is in the Sony article -- where it belongs. Objective3000 (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Going back many steps. I think that it would be useful to have a section on the potential for installing unwanted software by installing and using copyright infringing material such as key generators. Quigley2 (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Reminder on conflicts of interest

Just to ask that any editors with a Wikipedia:conflict of interest refrain from editing this page in the future. Quigley2 (talk) 06:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

This includes people that actually use DRM in their own products. Quigley2 (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Setting that kind of definition would also prevent anyone associated in any way with the FSF or EFF from editing this article, including anyone who donates to them. As an EFF member I'm not comfortable with setting the bar that low, but you are welcome to bring that up at WP:COI/N and see if they say otherwise. However, I'm not sure I see a cause for that, given that there's no evidence that anyone is editing with any kind of conflict of interest. - Aoidh (talk) 01:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Surely selling DRM'ed materials as one of one's principle sources of income is a far bigger motivating factor in this case. At the very least this ought to be declared. Quigley2 (talk) 07:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Why do you keep harping on this? At this point, you appear to be making insinuations about other editor(s). The fact that someone disagrees with you does not mean that they are violating WP:COI. Please WP:AGF. Objective3000 (talk) 10:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)