Comments: Waiting for the blogger's rant

Technically I'd be interested in this "watermark". I assume it must be contained in the meta-data and therefore could be purged easily.
And you're right, bullying the "promoting" industry = publishing will not win favour for the studios. In any case, most stuff is leaked from within the studios, but it's always convenient to assign blame outside.

Posted by steff at July 29, 2005 11:42 PM

Not knowing anything about the technology, I was going to guess that this (so-called, putative, ahem ahem) """watermarking""" close-quote, cough, consisted of some kind of systematic mucking about with the low-order bits of the samples. That is, you toss out some tiny amount of sound quality, and use the low-order bits to spell out (sort of like an acrostic) THIS CAME FROM LUNCHBOY'S REVIEW COPY over and over again.

I suspect that even lossy compression algorithms would preserve the low-order bits often enough that adding them up statistically would reconstruct the watermark.

If nobody has ever thought of this technique before, I hereby claim it and license it to the world under the standard terms of the Gnu Public License.

BUT, if this really is the technique being used, it could easily be defeated by scrambling the low-order bits at copy time.

I kinna love this particular arms race.

Posted by ACW at August 1, 2005 03:56 PM

Hee! Please Hammer, don't ... throw your CMS 15 at them!

Posted by Martin at August 2, 2005 12:51 AM

"peer-to-peer" (apostrophes SIC)

I think they're trying to say that some peers, like the ones providing new stuff, are better than other peers, like the sponges. If you were a real man, you'd upload that CD to every network in uploading range.

Posted by Todd Derscheid at August 3, 2005 11:50 PM

Considering it's not my name on the CD and thus wouldn't be me getting busted by the watermark security dealie, it wouldn't really be a mark of bravery and manliness for me to upload it.

Posted by Francis at August 4, 2005 01:10 AM

Upon re-reading the post, I get it. I was confused by the last two paragraphs, which seem to indicate that you're the intended recipient of the threat (you're not, you merely read the threat to the actual assignee: the entertainment editor).

Agreed, throwing the entertainment editor under the bus wouldn't be cool at all.

Posted by Todd Derscheid at August 4, 2005 01:18 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

You must preview your comment before posting.