<br><br>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 09/01/2008, <b class="gmail_sendername">Tom Dexter</b> <<a href="mailto:digitalaudiorock@gmail.com">digitalaudiorock@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">On Jan 9, 2008 4:37 AM, Steve Smith <<a href="mailto:st3v3.sm1th@gmail.com">st3v3.sm1th@gmail.com</a>> wrote:
<br><br>> ><br>> > "In place of DRM software, the music will be "anonymously watermarked"<br>> > in an attempt to help the label learn whether songs are being shared on<br>> > peer-to-peer networks."
<br>> ><br>> <a href="http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/business/soa/Sony-softens-stance-on-DRM/0,139023166,339284900,00.htm">http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/business/soa/Sony-softens-stance-on-DRM/0,139023166,339284900,00.htm
</a><br>> ><br>> > So while they may have removed the DRM from a couple of CDs, they still<br>> > assume their customers are all criminals.<br>> ><br>> > I guess we couldn't expect much else from Sony.
<br>> ><br>> > Dean.<br>> ><br>> ><br>> 7<br>><br>> Regarding the watermark, I can sympathise with Sony on this one.<br>> After all what I suppose most people want is the freedom to move the tracks
<br>> between their own devices, a "fair use". If you then put the track onto a<br>> peer to peer network that's a bit unfair to Sony really so for them to be<br>> able to track this, is fair I suppose. Fair has to run both ways... at the
<br>> moment of course Sony gets all the fair.<br>><br><br>I have to disagree whole-heartedly with you there. Think about it:<br><br>It's never legal to put a copyrighted song on peer to peer, watermark<br>or not. If they want to go after someone for it, use the DMCA and get
<br>the persons id from the ISP. Are we supposed to trust their watermark<br>as enough evidence to sue someone for hundreds of thousands of<br>dollars? That would sure put a lot of power in the hands of Sony's IT<br>
people if you ask me.<br><br>I'd also like to know the exact nature of the watermark. I'm sure<br>they didn't put it somewhere easy to change like the ID3 tags, so<br>where/what exactly is it, and is there a potential for it to affect
<br>quality or playback in any deviced? My guess is that they just don't<br>give a shit, just like they don't care that some DVD players<br>(including some of their own) choke on their DVD copy protection.<br><br>
I suppose it's all a moot point though...that whole scheme of making<br>people buy something at a brick and mortar store in order to download<br>something online may be one of the most comical things I've even<br>
heard. That one's sure to crash and burn.<br><br>Tom<br>_______________________________________________<br>mythtv-users mailing list<br><a href="mailto:mythtv-users@mythtv.org">mythtv-users@mythtv.org</a><br><a href="http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users">
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users</a><br></blockquote></div>
<div> </div>
<div>>It's never legal to put a copyrighted song on peer to peer, watermark<br>>or not. If they want to go after someone for it, use the DMCA and get<br>>the persons id from the ISP. Are we supposed to trust their watermark
<br>>as enough evidence to sue someone for hundreds of thousands of<br>>dollars? That would sure put a lot of power in the hands of Sony's IT<br>>people if you ask me.<br> </div>
<div>Well getting the evidence from the ISP can be quite a time consuming process, if they have the watermark then they'll have a quick start. However, as it's computer generated most courts would treat it as "hearsay" (if I remember my CISSP Law & Ethics correctly), so they'd then have to
</div>
<div>go at it with ISP etc evidence, at some point I'd expect they'd have to get hold of images of your computer. The watermark would be a leg up.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I'd expect the watermark itself will be somehow interleaved in the stream itself by changing a bit here and there, I wouldn't expect it'd be noticeable if done correctly. On the other hand Sony did do that root kit business...... ;-) Personally I'm not in favour of it but I can see why...
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As for the scheme.... it reminds me of an ex-boss of my girlfriend's who insisted that all his emails were printed out and put on his desk, from where he'd do written replies! It's just plain stupid.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Cheers</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Steve<br> </div>