Talk:High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection/Archive 2010
 | 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. |
The Master Key
I have removed the full "text" of the alleged master key, as I strongly feel that it does not belong in this article. I think it is sufficient to either link to an external copy of the master key hexadecimal values or to link to a news story which references it. Including the full text of the key does not conform to Wikipedia style standards and is a distraction to the rest of the article. Amit ► 13:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- User:TerrorBite added italicized text to the article urging editors not to post the full text of the key. Although I agree with the idea of including that warning, it is certainly against Wikipedia style to have a message directed to the reader within the context of the article. We don't, for example, urge users not to vandalize pages with high rates of vandalism (e.g. "Please don't add jokes about George W. Bush to this biographical article"). Wikipedians should be free to edit this article as they see fit, and others of us should police and revert changes that are either obvious vandalism or go against consensus reached on this talk page. Thoughts? Amit ► 13:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree it is bad style, but it is for the best until such time as an admin can semi-protect the article. The warning can probably be removed in a day or two after all the hype has died away. Feel free to remove the warning if you feel it is bad style. Note that I included a more visible warning at the top of the page as well. --TerrorBite (talk) 13:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- User:77.103.114.41 has just moved my warning messages into the page source as comments, which is a much more elegant solution that obviously only page editors will see. I don't know why I didn't think of this myself. I've also put in a request for semi-protection of the article. --TerrorBite (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yea, this will suffice for now. If it means anything, I vote YES for semi-protection. Amit ► 14:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I've protected the page for three days. It's a bit early perhaps, but it's been added once. I've got concerns about whether publishing the key is breaking someone's copyright or other legally things. If the consensus builds to publish here, then please take it to the copyright noticeboard or possibly ANI to get wider eyes on this, as I don't want to unnecessarily put us at risk. GedUK 14:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
By way of precedent, consider AACS encryption key controversy, wherein much the same scenario happened: alleged secret DRM crypto key posted in various places, removed, much activism, posted at various Wikipedia articles, removed, protection, debate, readdition, more debate. It seems to have settled on being in the article, the horse having bolted and been flogged to death. To my mind, WP:RS always applies, and whatever the rights and wrongs it can't be in a Wikipedia article until the key itself (not just mention of it) is in a reliable source. Wikipedia:Keyspam is also relevant. Incidentally, asking Mike and the Foundation for an opinion might not get as committal a response as one might hope. The safe harbor elements of OSCILLA/DMCA protect the Foundation only so long as it acts as a "mere conduit"; if it starts practicing editorial control (yay or nay), it risks weakening that protection. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 17:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
IMHO, the actual key is very likely copyvio while the fact the it may have been purloined, as referenced by the Engadget article, does belong in the article. In fact, a brief mention in the lead is probably warranted. Ronnotel (talk) 12:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, that was my thinking too; it's their key and we can't really rewrite it, so it would seem an obvious copyvio, for now at least. GedUK 14:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Glad someone agrees with me. I deleted the offending revisions and indefed the ip. Ronnotel (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- WP:IPBLENGTH. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 14:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Indef is not necessary... the IP in question only has those two edits to this article. I think a stern warning would certainly be warranted before applying this kind of ban, especially since the Anonymous IP did not attempt to re-add the offending text while all the discussion was going on. Finlay McWalter's link should set the precedent, and the indef block should be removed as soon as is convenient. In addition, Wikipedia's official policy on dealing with copyvio states rather plainly, "Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material despite appropriate warning may be blocked from editing by any administrator to prevent further problems." The IP did not make "repeated" attempts to post copyrighted material, and there was no warning given to the anonymous user before the block action was taken. Amit ► 16:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- IP is a vandalism-only account and engaged in gross copyright violation. Any reconsideration should go through the normal channels via an unblock request from the IP accompanied by a clear explanation of what the user was trying to accomplish and whether he/she was likely to re-offend. For now, I've dialed it back to 1 week. Ronnotel (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- While I still disagree with your particular reading of Wikipedia policy on this matter, I'm glad you amended the block length to 1 week rather than indefinite.
Thank you Amit ► 17:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- While I still disagree with your particular reading of Wikipedia policy on this matter, I'm glad you amended the block length to 1 week rather than indefinite.
- IP is a vandalism-only account and engaged in gross copyright violation. Any reconsideration should go through the normal channels via an unblock request from the IP accompanied by a clear explanation of what the user was trying to accomplish and whether he/she was likely to re-offend. For now, I've dialed it back to 1 week. Ronnotel (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Indef is not necessary... the IP in question only has those two edits to this article. I think a stern warning would certainly be warranted before applying this kind of ban, especially since the Anonymous IP did not attempt to re-add the offending text while all the discussion was going on. Finlay McWalter's link should set the precedent, and the indef block should be removed as soon as is convenient. In addition, Wikipedia's official policy on dealing with copyvio states rather plainly, "Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material despite appropriate warning may be blocked from editing by any administrator to prevent further problems." The IP did not make "repeated" attempts to post copyrighted material, and there was no warning given to the anonymous user before the block action was taken. Amit ► 16:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- WP:IPBLENGTH. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 14:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- Glad someone agrees with me. I deleted the offending revisions and indefed the ip. Ronnotel (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Apparently CNET has fewer copyright trolls than Wikipedia, and links straight to the key in their article [1], and so does PC Magazine [2]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.204.164.26 (talk) 03:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- And so does Tom's Hardware [3] Haseo9999 (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)