Vote

Anyway it will be a people who will crack that bull%#it and distribute pirate's production in some other countries... (like Russia)!

In addition to standardizing a single upgrade path from CD (i.e., SACD or DVD-A, but NOT both), the recording giants need to forget about watermarks to control what consumers do with their discs. There have to be better ways to control piracy than to interfere with my legal use of an SACD or DVD-A.

Sucks. If someone wants to find a way to copy they will find a way even with a watermark. Peopla that buy pirates don't care about quality left alone watermarks.

When the pro-watermark movement insists that the watermark must survive AM transmission, it clear that they have no concern for preserving the sound quality. How can anything that is detectable after being through an AM transmission system not be audible on a high-resolution medium?

Why would I pay for an "improved" audio source only to have the sound quality less than it could be. Isn't it bad enould that LP's still sound better than CD's but new music isn't available on that source.

Dear Lord, I hope they don't FORCE me (US ???) to boycott it. WHY do we need to degrade the sound quality of a format like this? (If people are stupid enough to convert 'em to MP3, then LET them be stupid ... and SELL them MP3 files more conveniently than I-net trading might allow ?) ANOTHER reason for taking SACD much MORE seriously as a music carrier ... it seems to have MORE going for it than DVD or DVD-A ... R. LeBeck, Jr wallbeck@olympus.net

Here We Go Again I Think I'll Stick To LP's Or make cassette dubs from the analog out.

Why bother to create such outstanding reproduction, and then degrade it with a watermark? If the sound quality is so much improved, the watermark may be all the more audible. Piracy from CD or cassette will not be affected by a DVD-A watermark. If there is any degradation in DVD-A sound, I say boycott.

two things on this: 1. watermarks add noise to the recording 2. watermarks will be broke just like dvd's and any other form of anti privacy. Why waste the time?

I lay the blame evenly: at the feet of the music companies, who wring too much profit from the music they produce; and at the feet of music pirates, who (in their complete disregard for those honest enough to pay) give the music companies a reason to introduce watermarking in the first place.

If there was a way to use this 'mark' without interfering with the audiophile quality of the music I would be all for it. As it is this is just another ploy to satisify the 'radio' mentality listeners.

What's the point of making a better CD if you're just going to ruin it with some horrible digital artifacts??

The music industry needs to get a life. Enough said.

Whatever happened to fair use?

If the price of the software is cheap enough, the loss to piracy will be insignificant. The only time copyright fraud has a chance is when there is a large disparity between the cost of the legal and illegal products. If the cost saving between the two were not significant who would buy the copy? There will be some piracy in the Far East, but that didn

Watermarking is optional, and I've heard only commerial recordings will be watermarked as "audiophile recordings" don't have the problems with illegal copies as the crummy sounding commercial labels do.

Sux

We allways have to suffer limitations due to business reasons?

The watermark is likely to be more or less audible, depending on the type of music. However, in most cases we won't be able to determine its effect because there will be only one version of the recording available. Thus, the watermark will be a psychological distraction to critical listeners because they will never know for sure that the music is unaffected.

I will not buy ANY discs that are watermarked. There is no use for a high rez format if it will just be degraded by a watermark. It seems as though most studio engineers of the major labels know only how to degrade sound quality and support anything that helps them along in #@%*ing the fidelity of a recording. Sigh :-(

Mark my ass.

GREED! That's the driver of this crime. If someone illegally reproduces someone else's work, hang 'em!

I pay for quality I want to get it.

If it affects the quality of the audio I'm against it. I have a feeling that with time there will be a way to bypass all of this encription anyhow, so lets leave it off and get good sound in the mean time.

I would consider "upgrading" my 3000 LPs and 2000 CDs only if the quality was higher. Watermarking is audibly intrusive, let alone "audible at times." Apart from the stupidity, it will take only a few days before "cracked" versions appear on the Net. I (and most others) would actively support copying any watermarked discs using whatever tools are needed. This is a waste of engineers' time—I am still waiting for CD/DVD to be superior to my analog open-reel and turntable. This "brainstorm" will increase the wait.

Shows just exactly what they do care about.

I have nothing against controlling piracy. However, a possible watermark should under no circumstances be audible. If it is, I think the record business should rethink the project.

If true, it does exist another way (even more expensive)avoiding that. They have to try something else.

I hate piracy, but on the other hand, I feel that the music industry is treating us with disrespect.

Why would anyone buy a new DVD-A/SACD player to play watermarked (read pissed on) discs. BOYCOTT !!!!!