[Vorbis] off: Audio CD's and Microsoft

[Rick]

On Sunday 16 September 2007 12:33:22 pm Oscar Sundbom wrote:
> Rick skrev:
> > On Saturday 15 September 2007 10:41:06 am xiphmont at xiph.org wrote:
> >> On 9/15/07, Rick <cms0009 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20070912/tc_pcworld/137106
> >>>
> >>> Read this, you thought DRM endcoding music was bad... this is sick.
> >>> there "tracking" you...
> >>
> >> This has a number of possibly beneficial applications as well... small
> >> artists have been screaming for decades for a way of more equitably
> >> tracking royalties (hell, making any effort to properly track
> >> royalties at all).  Naturally, in Microsoft's hands, one would worry
> >> about the potentially evil applications as well.  Which will we get?
> >> Probably the one that makes businesses the most money.
> >>
> >> In general, American legal theory tends to guarantee a right to
> >> privacy, but *not* anonymity, and individual watermarking does not
> >> really violate that precept.  You do not necessarily have a right to
> >> be invisible in public.
> >>
> >> Also, steganographic watermarking exists in many other copied media
> >> already.  Eg, there's a decipherable signature buried in many (most?)
> >> photocopies, etc...  How is watermarked music inherently more evil?
> >>
> >> Consider these points for discussion.
> >>
> >> Monty
> >
> > Monty,
> > Its not that, in the sense of fair play, Microsoft will use it for
> > whatever pays the most $$$...It will ruin the audio quality of music,
> > and create a new bureaucratic watch dog group, in which WE THE PEOPLE
> > will lose some more privacy.
>
> What basis do you have for it ruining the quality of the music?
>
> As far as I know, audio watermarking is not that new a phenomenon. From
> what I've gathered, this
> is already used by major label companies providing promo singles online,
> instead of by CD. When
> you choose to download a song, it's watermarked for your accound and
> then provided for download.
> Now it seems they seem to have developed a more robust version of it.
> Sounds good, imo.



Good for you, but not for allot of us, anything add to the encoded audio 
recording...in is IN its "signal path", will degrade the audio quality. 
(DRM) for example.


HERE IS THE QUOTE FROM Microsoft Article: verbatim[]

[The trick for these watermarks to be effective for digital music files, 
however, is that they must be inaudible and thus undetectable by those 
listening to the files, which has been difficult for those who have tried to 
create this technology in the past, Halderman said. 
Indeed, in their filing, Kirovski and Malvar acknowledged that to work 
properly, the watermarks must not only be inaudible, but also "must be 
scattered throughout the file in such a way that they cannot be identified 
and manipulated" and "be robust enough so that it can withstand normal 
changes to the file, such as reductions from... compression algorithms."]
--
End of Quote

SO, they get a bunch of hard of hearing people to sign off on it.
please.....................stop the madness.



> > I don't care, what the propose suggestion to the Music Industry was...
> > but, if you keep chipping away at Freedoms and Privacy, SOON, there will
> > be none, for YOU! and for ME!
>
> What freedoms are being chipped away by the advent of this technology?
> Sure, it may be used for watermarking
> stuff you buy/download and trace the files you share back to you. It's
> not like you have the rights to distribute
> that file anyways, so it (might) just help plugging a hole for piracy.



Hmm, you need to read more, on what going on in Washington every day...

Privacy:the quality of being secluded from the presence or view of others
so, I guess your boss can look over your shoulder all day..right?..etc..etc



> > to fix some of the problems, with new artist getting paid...that easy
> > enough, just have Music Industry show the new artist the BOOKS..,and sign
> > off on it, just like they have to do, for the federal gov., when filling
> > quarterly taxes., this way...the new artist will have a legal document,
> > in which, if anything should happen, could SUE that record company,
> > and throw someone in jail...neat huh!
>
> I think you're simplifying the process somewhat. Wouldn't suing imply
> you having enough money to risk
> for court costs, etc., in case you actually lost? I'm betting most small
> artists don't.


Dude, no... if record company files a quarterly tax statement to the gov, and 
and the CFO did signed it... and the government, find fraud, The CFO goes to 
jail, and the record company pays, all cost. So... have the same deal for a 
new artist... heh you made 2,000,000.00 dollars, or you made 450,000.00 
big differences...its our faults for letting them take charge of US.
why do you think there are more independent record labels now, compare to the 
70's or 80's... for the matter of getting paid.



> > See, No new watch dog group.
>
> I don't really understand the watch dog group thing. We've already got
> groups hunting down piracy,
> for example.



Read the article, the link is above.
hope this help more.


----
Regards -
Richard