User talk:Joygf53/ArtistScope

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Joygf53/ArtistScope → ArtistScope – To publish this new reference. Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Joygf53 (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm dubious about the notability. The current page reads like a press release for a possibly non-notable company. I strongly suggest work on the lead to establish notability, or at least importance. As it stands it's likely to be an A7 speedy delete if moved to the artcicle namespace.

If the company is notable, there's not a lot of work required, so I'm relisting to allow this work. Andrewa (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

There is little that I can rewrite as ArtistScope is as notable as any other company listed in the Wikipedia site, if not more because it was the pioneer of its industry... copy protection for web content. Prior to ArtistScope R&D there was absolutely nothing to prvent the copy of images displayed on web pages. Since then all notable innovations in this field have come from ArtistScope. There is quite a lengthy page for "Digital Rights Management" which covers protection for software, video and documents distributed offline, but there is no mention of the history of copy protection for web content, so something is needed there and there also needs to be other references. This is one of those references. Up until recently the #1 reference cited for Digital Rights Management pointed to a page on the ArtistScope web site that was first published in 1998. That reference has since been pushed down to #2 by a recent addition for "Digital Millennium Copyright Act". Any suggestions from here will be most appreciated. Joygf53 (talk) 01:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Use wikilinks such as Digital Rights Management whenever helpful is my first suggestion. I assume you're refering to the article?


 * Second, is this history documented anywhere else? If not, then the article might perhaps be original research and doesn't belong here.


 * With recent history such as this it can be hard to draw the line, but if we can find reliable secondary sources to cite (and note the secondary) then it's safe from the Original Research problem. Andrewa (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm, and having taken a look at their website

http://www.artistscope.com/protection.asp


 * I'm afraid this is beginning to smell a bit... the site is poorly written, it looks good but the navigation is seriously flawed with links leading back to the same page, and some of the claims made are technically a worry... preventing all screen capture and printing, for example, would probably not be possible, and if it were achieved could only be done by seriously compromising the security of the client platform. Andrewa (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Firstly "not possible" is incorrect and should one bother to investigate properly it will be found to be exactly as described. Please try the ASPS tour using their custom web reader and you will find it most secure. "Navigation seriously flawed" was not my experience at all, quite the opposite in fact. As for the "technical worry" the client platform is not compromised in any way whatsoever. If it wasn't technically sound it would not have been employed by the US courts, US military and telecoms from many countries for more than a decade. These organisations have IT people who are much more knowledgeable about such things, and trust these solutions in internet and intranet environments where data security is paramount. Currently it's more commonly used by online market researchers and online tutors where they don't not want anything recorded or plagiarised. Without such protection there is little hope for them.

"is this history documented anywhere else" is the only problem as I see it. In contrast copy protection for other mediums has always been more attractive to both developers and the press and many companies have "borrowed" each other's developments along the way. Thus there has been a lot documented and some of those companies are still in business to preserve those records. However ArtistScope has had little competition in the web protection industry because the technology is much more complex and susceptible to change in Windows environment. Following ArtistScope's release of a solution for preventing screen capture in 1999 2 publicly funded companies emerged but they disappeared with all trace of their existence. All reviews and articles prior to 2000 have since disappeared, including the printer's magazine that published a 2 page article about ArtistScope's image encryption for internet images (which by the way has not been matched or broken since it was released in 1998)Joygf53 (talk) 07:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This may be interesting... if it wasn't for the developments of ArtistScope then companies like SnagIt/TechSmith would not have been. The following 2 pages give examples of similar articles to the one about ArtistScope, namely the solution provider and the product, which I will introduce later (Copysafe)... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SnagIt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TechSmith If anyone objects to the content of the ArtistScope article, perhaps they can edit it in the spirit of the Wikipedia project. Joygf53 (talk) 09:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC) 
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was

Image
Problems all over, see

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Artistscope_logo_200_38.png

for why Wikimedia Commons has deleted the company logo. Andrewa (talk) 03:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)