Talk:OMA DRM
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] OMA DRM
I also realised that when i read it, agreed... i changed it.
Corical.
[edit] '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
[edit] .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)
- 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)
