Talk:High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection/Archive 2008
 | This is an archive of past discussions about High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)