Using a digital code, or "watermark," has been proposed for SACD and DVD-Audio recordings to help control what consumers can and cannot do with the new discs. The downside is that some engineers feel that the watermark, though subtle, might be audible at times. Does this bother you?
COMMENTS
The concept of protecting copyrights is a worthy goal. But the history of the RIAA and its anti-consumer bias does not give one a sense that the quality of the music is as important as the protection of copyrights. I have serious doubts that the current collection of royalties from blank media go to the right artists. And I have serious doubts about the safety of the concepts of fair use and the concepts that are the base of the reason for copyright protection in the first place. For those interested, there have been two articles in recent issues of The Atlantic that describe this very issue in depth. As for watermarking itself, I think it's most important that true transparency be proven before the record companies use it. We have been here before; the last time, it was congress that had to block the use of watermarking.
It will damage the sound and cause problems to as 'audiophiles' wereas 'pirates' and hukkers will always be finding ways to copy whatever on any disc format.So audiophiles will be stopped from making one or two copies for their selves (with the loss of sound quality also since watermarking is audioble),but large iligal companies will continue their 'work' around the world
No scheme will be unhackable over the medium/long-term. A scheme that discourages 90% of the hackers and is inaudible will be much better for the market penetration of this technology than a scheme that defeats 95% and is audible to the early adopters (i.e. audiophiles)
There are no perfect recordings. An audible watermark gets in line with any other recording defects. Any purchase decision balances the expected effect of these defects against the expected pleasure of the performance. A truly inaudible watermark would help preserve the monetary value of producing music.
The music industry is running scared from the likes of Napster and its users. The industry wants to retain control of their property, and rightly so. The problem is that all their solutions to date either inconvenience paying customers or promise to deliver less of a product than the current one. Neither compromise is likely to be readily accepted by the consumer. What's even worse is how ignorant the music industry is of technology. Somehow, they believe that copy-protection schemes are infallible. Based on 20 years of experience in the technology markets, mostly software, my guess is that within 30 days of the release of the first watermarked products, some wunderkind will have figured out how to break it. Once that info is spread around, and it will spread, the only losers will be the lawful users. Ironic, isn't it? Being personally disgusted with being treated disrespectfully for doing the right thing, I plan to boycott watermarked products.
The whole notion of watermarking music is troubling. The apparent motivation behind the implementing of watermarked CDs is due mostly, if not entirely, to the MP3 compression format and the Napster software. MP3 compression and Napster-like programs not only create serious implications for the music industry, but for any person or company selling "intellectual property." But watermarking isn't the answer, it's only a Band-Aid solution. If history is an indicator, watermarking will be circumvented shortly after its implementation. The CD piracy problem is a symptom of the REAL problem: exorbitant CD cost. While a CD is not expensive in terms of audiophile quality components, it has come to light that CD prices have most probably been artificially inflated for some time, and significantly. It is my understanding that CD price-fixing allegations have been made and are being investigated. Historical price-fixing of CDs appears not only possible, but also probable. This notion is especially disturbing when one considers that only a small portion of profit from each CD sale reaches the artist(s) and engineers who create the music we listen to. The lion's share goes to record companies and middlemen. In light of this information, I find it very difficult to be sympathetic to the recording industry wanting to encode the music I buy. Watermarking appears to be a vain attempt at control by an overly FAT record industry. The recording industry will have to face up to the many realities of the digital age and lean-up, like any other industry. Finally, just as with any other software, there will eventually be a computer hack for watermarking. So why botherespecially when it might lessen the sound quality of our music?
Anybody who has seen the CD bazaars in Russia or Asia would conclude that something needs to be done, onerous as it might sound. The stakes are too big for all concerned. Sound quality is a red herring. If an artist wishes otherwise, then they do have alternatives for distributionthe Net comes to mind.
The current paradigm in the recording industry cheats the artists, cheats the customers, and unjustly rewards those who control the distribution of music. Watermarking only strengthens that control by infringing on the customer's fair use. Watermarking increases the ability of the labels to extort money from customers and bully artists. The possible reduction in quality of music reproduction is an added slap in the face, but is not the critical issue at hand. Inevitably, those who do the most financial damage to the labels and artists, the professional pirates, will quickly circumvent the watermarking and continue as before. The labels are the using the "piracy" red herring to disguise what watermarking really is: a power grab. Watermarking is nothing more than an opportunity for them to sell multiple copies of a single work to a single consumer and thus defeat fair-use rights. A boycott of any company that participates in this chicanery is definitely an appropriate response.
I will not buy "Perfect Sound Forever" again, only to have to buy Dark Side of the Moon yet another time. This is it; don't rip me off again, or I will get a CD burner and pirate music and no longer line the record industriy's pockets.
I will not buy an SACD player until the new lower-priced units are widely available and until I'm convinced that the music I desire will be available without a watermark. Until then, I'll continue listening to my Theta DSPro Generation III (w/HDCD). Of course, I'm not holding my breath, because LPs on my TNT III sound great!
Record labels that treat their listeners as criminals and value copyright protection over the sound quality of their releases deserve to be boycotted. This industry will never play fair until music lovers are willing to play hardball.
Just consider Naxos CD prices and you can see there's too much money made by the companies... so piracy prospers. Watermarking if node must not affect sound quality because that's our main goal. People that download or copy music are not that interested in it's quality, could be that what they are looking for is to integrate their own programmed "radio station" to their computers? for listening while working in them. Seen Microsoft acquire Pacific Microsonics might give you a hint on what might come 3 years down the road and maybe we all might be looking to future severe contraction of audio equipment as the one we use today and convergence type multifunctional equipment.
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources |  |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 Stereophile
