Talk:High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection/Archive 2008

Archive 2005

Archive 2006

Archive 2007

Archive 2008

Archive 2009

Archive 2010

→

Archive 2015

Started cleaning up

Took a look at the DRM issue, content or stream protection is more accurate. Also did a lot of searching in the license agreement and corrected entry to reflect language present in that document.

Moved cryptanalysis down for readability.

I plan to tackle the spec and use scenarios next, upon first look they also have some factual errors.

Dcpexpert (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Dead link

One of the references (Niels Ferguson bit towards the end) says it's a dead link, but it actually redirects to an unsavory site now. What's the best way of removing the link without removing the information about when and where the site was accessed for use in the article? --W0lfie (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Article Quality

I'm fairly uninformed about this topic, which is why I was browsing this article, but this article is horrible. It does not present a neutral point of view, which is obvious by the bold text in the intro. It also uses frequent weasel words and makes unsubstantiated claims, again in the intro. This article needs serious clean-up and an admin should ban shodaddy from editing; it's clear he does not represent and informed, non-biased opinion of the topic. I would try to clean the article up, but I don't know enough. I only know that by reading the article it's obvious this is not a reputable article. I'm going to add a "clean-up" tag, although, I'm almost certain shodaddy will remove it before clean-up is done. 204.155.56.3 (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I second that motion. "Furthering the gap between the rich and poor?" That belongs in an article about marxism, not one about digital technology. Cheezmeister (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I just stripped out all the political bollocks, Undoubtedly some anti-copyright zealot will be along shortly to add it back in again, but there you go - one can but try. Ianbetteridge (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

More cleaning

I moved some items around for browsability. There were a lot of major chunks of text, trying to add some structure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcpexpert (talk • contribs) 23:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A related AFD discussion

Please comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hdcp stripper for what appears to be the standard edits from User:Shodaddy. -- KelleyCook (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Destructive edits by Shodaddy

I have been working to clean up this entry and get it up to Wiki standards. Moving Shodaddy's criticisms to appropriate sections and cleaning up the language and attempting to cite his claims. Each time I move things around and clean it up he simply pastes the same thing in again once I have already moved it to where it belongs and polished it up some. What is the next course of action? Dcpexpert (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Try reporting abuse with the wikipedia editors? This article is one of the worst I have ever seen on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.160.81 (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Shodaddy to cease the edits via their Talk page. I'm hoping they will discuss the issue, either here or there, but if they refuse to do so I'd suggest we treat the comments as vandalism: they're so clearly outside NPOV, and the campaign of reverts is so clear, that unless there's discussion I can only assume the edits are destructive. Ianbetteridge (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Shodaddy has now attempted to vandalise this talk page by emptying it. I think this issue needs some escalation at this point. Ianbetteridge (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Listing products

Regarding this edit, a user is suggesting that Wikipedia is not a place to list products. Please could someone point me to the Wikipedia policy that states this? I would like to point out that I have visited at least ten wikipedia articles that list products, and compare the different products in details, so if this alleged policy really exists, then there appears to be a lot of deleting to do! --Rebroad (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't believe me? Then simply search for "comparison of" for a rather large list of articles, all pointing towards various product homepages. --Rebroad (talk) 01:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't do that edit, so I can't speak for the original editor, but I think that the issue was twofold (and could potentially have been solved by better editing and the original writer actually engaging in discussion here). First, the offending paragraph was a jumble of about three different issues, and reads more like a piece of surreptitious promotion of the listed products than something informative. The second issue was simply that exactly the same text had been cut and paste into an article on HDCP strippers (currently being considered for deletion), without being linked to from here. I'd be happy for information about the existence of HDCP strippers going back into this article, although I think it needs to go a long way further down. Ianbetteridge (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the Circumvention section, this is how a number of articles solve this issue and why the area was created. 69.30.50.30 (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And that looks pretty good to me! Ianbetteridge (talk) 10:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion (covertly done by describing it as undoing vandalism?)

Please can somebody explain this deletion, which was described as vandalism, but quite clearly is not. Any objections to this content being put back into the article? --Rebroad (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rebroad, and thanks for your comments. To give you a potted history... first of all, I think it's pretty clear that Shodaddy's edits fail the test of NPOV. One large chunk was about the impact of the DMCA, and had nothing to do with HDCP - even ignoring the issues of POV, this could have been covered off by a link to the page on DMCA, rather than 100 words on the Skylarov case. Secondly, Shodaddy's claim that HDCP "caused physical and mental anguish was NPOV at best, and simply gibberish at worst. Claims like "HDCP and copyright material has resulted in furthing the gap between the rich and poor..." are simply soapboxing in the context of this article, and "Wikipedia is a not a soapbox" (WP:SOAP). Shodaddy had also posted the same chunks of text to several pages, with no additional editing or content, which - to my mind at least - was a clear attempt to place his POV on the subject of the DMCA in as many places as possible.

But I think the worst aspect of the edits was the refusal by Shodaddy to engage in discussion or negotiation, in line with Wikipedia's dispute resolution policy (WP:DR). While both myself and Dcpexpert attempted to discuss the issue both here and on Shodaddy's talk page, Shodaddy declined to discuss or negotiate, and simply reverted the edits. I think it's worth you reading the response to your concerns that KelleyCook has posted on their talk page too. Thanks again for your comments though Ianbetteridge (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Go back and take a look at the article history. Those edits were not neutral and any information of value was incorporated into the article. Wiki users would clean up the edits and bring them up to standards only to have this user simple undo those and edits so his/her own could live on. While the content was not up to standards, it was also the manner in which the edits were continually reverted back to that lead to them being classified as vandalism. 69.30.50.30 (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not condoning Shodaddy's behaviour, but neither do I condone the behviour of the users who reverted his edits. I do think that rather than simply delete his additions, that instead they should have been neutralised. e.g. the stuff regarding strippers could have been left in, and the stuff on DCMA could have been shortened and replaced with a link to the DCMA article, where some of the content would have been more appropriate for inclusion. --Rebroad (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

POV discussion

This article has been tagged with a POV banner, following the sparring over the edits by Shodaddy. Given the current state of the article, I can't see any reason for this to remain, as everything there now seems NPOV to me. What does everyone else think? Ianbetteridge (talk) 10:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the course of action. However, let's let a few more individuals comment before removing the tag. Sound good? Dcpexpert (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I've no idea if there's protocol for this - but let's wing it :) Ianbetteridge (talk) 10:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the tag, the issue was open here in talk for about a month and there was no protest. We can reinstate if need be. Dcpexpert (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

2005?

I am not really sure where the 2005 date in Circumvention came from. It happens to be the date of the Engadget article - but other than that I don't see where 2005 is the date that HDCP was integrated into devices.

I suggest the language reflect HDCP enabled vs. displays that are not HDCP enabled; rather than suggest there is a specific date HDCP arrived, for the simple fact that even today there are displays that don't have HDCP. Dcpexpert (talk) 03:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Dcpexpert, if you genuinely believe that there are insufficient credible sources to backup the year 2005, then please, be bold (as per WP:BB) and make the necessary changes. --Rebroad (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the date 2005 because it was sticking with me. It is just unreasonable to believe that in one years time all devices incorporated the technology, it was most certainly a gradual roll-out, meaning devices from a range of years may or may not have been effected. Let me know what you think of the direction I took the Circumvention section. Dcpexpert (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Updates

Made a recent round of updates throughout the article. It appears like a lot of edits, however I chose to do many edits individually in the interest of being transparent. The majority of my edits were made to the spec section so it more accurately mirrors the reality of the spec. Not easy to do given the fact the document is 90 pages and there are merely a few hundred words available to condense it down. Dcpexpert (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

DVI with HDCP..

Where does it state that the DVI standard does include HDCP ? Asfaik, HDMI include HDCP. HDMI is backwards compatible with DVI. BUT there's no HDCP in DVI asfaik. And I haven't heard of such thing either. Infact it's the very reason why DVI is favoured on occasion. Electron9 (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Read the HDCP spec (which I have now referenced). -- KelleyCook (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

After reading the actual specification. It seems DVI is in the crypto impairment swamp. Even from the start. However for DVI it's optional. Electron9 (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Downscale..

I read that if the DHCP authentication fails, the signal is passed in degraded (downscaled) mode. Can anyone comment and add information about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.154.145.128 (talk) 03:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

this isa technology used by sky television on their new brand my ski HDi this is to prevent high quality movies being releised on the market —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.160.116.199 (talk) 10:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal through software

SlySoft AnyDVD HD is a software enabling people to view HDCP protected media on a PC without any support for it. This is ONLY possible in a BluRay reader. I added this to the article in ONE SENTENCE in the circumvention section but it was removed. It is the truth. Look at all the sources. Why was this removed? It's not even viewable who did the undo edit in the history. //Nick 83.233.234.230 (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)