Talk:OMA DRM

NPOV

This article seems very anti-DRM, in particular the use of the word "infests". Could someone please clean it up and neutralize it? —Wereon July 1, 2005 20:33 (UTC)

Any normal person is against drm. that’s like reading an article on burglary and saying “this article seems anti burglary” RJS001 (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OMA DRM

I also realised that when i read it, agreed... i changed it.

Corical.

'Symptoms'

Under the (badly titled) 'symptoms' section, it states that: "On Nokia Series 40 phones an installed file with DRM will not have its "Send" option greyed out in its options menu." Is this correct? It would suggest that the DRM method is ineffectual if that were the case (and therefore hardly a 'symptom' of DRM).

No the DRM would not become ineffectual if a OMA DRM V2 protected file is sent by a user to another, it's actually called super-distribution in the norm. The other user would then not be able to read the file if he does not have a license. It is though hardly understandable why Nokia did this... - ClementChesnin Thursday, October 5, 2006 15:14 (UTC)

I don't believe it true that ringtones have the .asp file extension with OMA DRM 1. I suggest this might be to do with the download being served from an active server page script (e.g. which does the OMA DRM 1.0 wrapping) and I suppose it possible some mobile phones look at the download URL to derive the filename. You'd probably get the same result if you downloaded a non-DRM files from an active server page. OMA DRM itself defines file extensions .dcf and .odf

.asp file extension

Really? Has that extension not been somewhat spoken for? Is it possible that the author of this particular section may only have experience in a MS/.Net environment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.133.87 (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On further thought, I note that even the article admits that that's a red herring. This needs to change. I suggest that this section needs to deal more in mime types and HTTP content-type headers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.133.87 (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that on Windows Mobile, where OMA DRM is "supported" (the OEM includes a third party engine but the OS has functions for apps to hook in), the file extension is also irrelevant, DRM is detected by calling one of the functions to figure out if the file is ordinary or DRM-protected (and in that case whether or not the user has the rights to send, view, print, etc.). I've done some work with DRM on Windows Mobile and never saw a file with any extension but .mp3, .gif, .jpg - detection was done entirely on the file's contents 62.189.191.42 (talk) 10:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming hack for JARs

The applictaion renaming hack don't work on Nokia Series 40 with Java 2.0 because the files just do not exist in the manager. What is more, one cannot copy JAR file by BT FTP because it denies access. In short DRM is work of satan because it bans redistributing free software on mobile-to-mobile level. They should have make option for the author of program to disable DRM in app. The most appropriate place is "manifest.mf" packed in JAR file. 81.190.107.29 (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Сriticism of criticism

In my opinion the "criticism" section lacks of objectiveness and even contains serious misunderstandings. For example Java mobile applications are called "midlets" not "applets"; it is not possible to forward native applications on Symbian smartphones because the original installation package is digitally signed and not preserved after installation; it is not true that you can not send non forward locked applications on all phones, etc. This paragraph anyway completely lacks any references. It should not encourage illegal activities (any kind of workaround for DRM protection) as well. 89.96.108.176 (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

“It should not encourage illegal activities (any kind of workaround for DRM protection) as well“ That’s your own (poorly formed imo) feelings on the matter. RJS001 (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit

I performed the long-requested copy edit on this page. I reformatted it to be more readable. I removed some of the acronym overgrowth. I changed some phrasing that was loaded (WP:NPOV). I deleted the section about hacking certain phones, because it was a how-to guide; Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, such information belongs on another site, not in an encyclopedia. (See WP:NOTMANUAL for some ideas.) I see that the article has out-of-date information, no references, and delves into supposition at times. It'd be great if a subject matter expert could revise the article. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]