Talk:Defective by Design/Archives/2014

DRM preventing legal use

"For others DRM might not only prevent them from using their media in illegal ways, but legal ways as well." This statement falsely implies that rightsholders cannot legally craft licences that limit use more than simple Title 17 copyright law limits use. This is just simply incorrect, and no attorneys, judges or legal scholars on either side of the DRM controversy have claimed this. I'll delete this unless someone chimes in with support for it beyond the simple statement of opinion in the footnoted source.

Glad someone else put it back. DRM can prevent people from exercising Fair use.88.159.69.195 (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Older discussion

This page looks biased to me. Also, I came here for specific information on the campaign, such as on what date it started, who was responsible for it, etc. and that information is not here. Can someone help? -- Skyfaller

I agree with the above assessment, it also does not cite sources for the claims made. I am sure there are some wikipedians out there that can help you with your questions, but it would be easier for them if you signed your comments using four tildes. Like this. Sosobra 02:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I edited the "impact of DRM" section and attempted to make it more neutral than the original authors had left it. I don't know what it takes to remove a "disputed neutrality" tag, so I didn't remove it myself. If you think it's better, than you might pull the tag. Daniel J. Mount 16:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Do we even need to keep the "imapct of DRM" section. I'm not sure it belongs on this page at all? People can go to the DRM article for that.ConditionalZenith 23:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

While this article certainly does need some work, I believe that the "questionable notability" tag is incorrect. It gets quite a bit of notice in sites that discuss DRM issues, and as a campaign operated by the Free Software Foundation, an organization that is certainly notable, it is notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry. I'd like to get a consensus to remove that tag. RandyKaelber 22:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the best way to show that a group is notable is to show that the group has been mentioned in reliable, third-party sources such as news sources. In this case, that shouldn't be too hard. I had a look a while back and wasn't able to come up with much, though. But if you know of some mainstream newspapers that have given this group nontrivial mentions, I think the case for removing the tag would be iron-clad. Even newsgroup type mentions would help some. Another thing that I think will help is converting the in-line url links to the footnote style references, so the reader can see what's being cited without having to leave the article. I can work on this. delldot | talk 01:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I recall reading an interview with Jonas Öberg of FSFE, about a DbD action. It was in a major Swedish newspaper (IIRC either Metro International or the weekly technical newspaper Ny Teknik)--Erik 15:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)