[Vorbis] off: Audio CD's and Microsoft

[Oscar Sundbom]

Rick skrev:
> On Sunday 16 September 2007 12:33:22 pm Oscar Sundbom wrote:
>> 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[]
> > <snip>
> End of Quote

Please don't assume I haven't read nor understood the article. You've
provided no references to it degrading sound quality in a way that's
perceptible to the human ear. Of course the data added to it will
_change_ the raw audio data, but that's really not the issue.
It's akin to claiming digital watermarking of images will make them
unwatchable. A link to an ABX test or two, where watermarked audio
is tested against non-watermarked audio would satisfy my curiosity.

> 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...

Washington DC, or Redmond, Washington? Since this discussion is sparked
by a Microsoft patent, I'm hoping you mean the latter. Otherwise,
internal US politics do not affect me that much, since I'm not a
resident of the US.

> 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

Who is viewing your actions while you're playing your watermarked music?
It's not like your (own) data gets watermarked so that what you're creating
yourself on your computer, can get tracked back to you.

>> 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.

I've tried, but am not able to decipher what you're trying to say here.
I'm not sure I understand the problem at hand, though (that is, tracking
royalties) so we can just skip it.

>>> 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.

As I said earlier: Please don't assume I haven't read the article. Why
would I comment on it if I hadn't?

> ----
> Regards -
> Richard

Regards
Oscar