Talk:DVB-CPCM

POV

I personally find this article less-than-neutral "Its main application is interoperable protection of European digital television..." This uses the inaccurate metaphor "protection" "CPCM will allow users to move and play digital television..." CPCM forbids certain actions that are presently allowed; it does not allow anything "CPCM will only be used to protect content after it has been acquired by the user. It is not used for protection of broadcasts, though broadcast signals may indicate a need for CPCM to be applied, and the rules"

i know I don't exactly have a neutral POV either, so I won't edit this. Just thinking aloud Mateo LeFou 20:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the tag after making some changes. I feel it's now fair, reporting how it is a form of DRM. I replaced "allows" with "regulates how", but I feel the use of the word "protection" is fair in this context.

However, I agree that the paragraph beginning "CPCM will only be used to protect content after it has been acquired by the user..." needs a lot more clarification. --h2g2bob 04:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Changed quite a lot by looking at the specs, and removed that "CPCM will only be used..." paragraph. --h2g2bob 05:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Would it be an idea for someone knowledgeable to write something comparing CPCM to HDCP? They sound like similar technologies to me and will presumably have to interoperate, using the same hardware (HDMI etc.). I think it would be useful to add something about this.

I tried to do that, hope it helps. --Markjeff 00:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Noting the point above over use of the term "protection", it's a little tricky to replace. The obvious choice of "encryption" doesn't work, because CPCM is perhaps the only DRM out there that embraces the concept of protection without encryption for some content (namely European public service free-to-air content). There is even a flag in the USI defined to prohibit implementations from encrypting the content. Granted unencrypted content isn't very protected, but thats what it says in the spec. --Markjeff 00:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The term should be "restriction" (as in restricting use, restricting distribution, restricting copying), not "protection". --66.102.80.212 (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on DVB-CPCM. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070218104309/http://www.eff.org:80/IP/DVB/dvb_critique.php to http://www.eff.org/IP/DVB/dvb_critique.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)