Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
we can't go against the tech. But we can say what we like and will buy!
With SDMI on the horizon, supposedly inaudible watermarking may end up in quite a bit of the digital audio we listen to. Is this a problem for you?
If this helps to deter the amount of black-market or illegal copies, then great. if not, then what is the point? I am still upset that the music industry has to make a format war over DVD-A and SACD. It makes me upset to the point that I do not want to support either one . . . or even think about watermarking.
The fact that it can be detected by trained listeners means it is audible. How can this be allowed to happen? I do not want my music tampered with. What are "normal listening conditions"? Equipment as good as mine or yours? I think not. Maybe if the music companies would reduce the prices of the software (music) to a reasonable level, there would not be a market for pirated versions. I would certainly purchase more CDs, tapes, etc. of music I already have on LP if the prices were cheaper. I have a significant LP collection. Thank God it was not copy-protected or watermarked.
Who cares? is what I think relative to what the giant mass merchants (e.g., Sony) do. They control the world; we are mere puppets. All products are planned to be obselete anyway. Can you say Betamax or 8-track or reel-to-reel or maybe Elcassette?
Although I understand that somesort of protection against piracy is necessary for the music industry, I find that any method that might compromise the sound quality of the new high-resolution formats in the slightest way is absolutely unacceptable.
Why waste space that could be used to encode music?? Paranoid companies should price their products so there is no need for copy protection. Besides, it ain't going to stop those enterprising pirateers. Only recording companies can stop these entrepreneursby selling the public recordings at a fair price. What don't they understsnd about this? Bring on digital FM. Better yet, let's sue this monopoly.
One would think the entertainment industry would learn from their past attempts to limit proliferation of technology. Apparently, they still don't get it. I do not believe one iota of recording-industry or hardware-manufacturer claims that the watermarking will be "inaudible." With the Internet taking up more of people's time, and the apparent implosion of the popular music industry, it may all be moot.
I'd have to hear it first, although this "inaudible" claim somehow reminds me of the Copy Code Notch idea of years ago.... But it seems to me that copy protection of any sort would not be so necessary if recordings were less expensive to start with....
First, I,m paying for something I don't need. Second, it's only a recording of a piece of music anyway. Give me a break. I am really getting sick of the whole thing. I feel like selling all my equipment and taking up a new hobby. But when I put on a record and relax in the sweet spot I realize that new formats and watermarking and sampling rates and all the other causes of digital angst can't touch me. I do not care one bit.
You know, alot of us thought DIVX was a bad idea and therefore we didn't buy it. Subsequently, it died an expensive death. Same with MD(and with MP3 I hope). Just because manufacturors and retailers push it with big ad campagnes, doesn't mean that we have to support it. We control the market and not them. If you don't like the idea of watermarking, then don't fall into the old "gotta have it RFN, before my neighbor gets it" mind-set and don't support it with your money. They'll do as we want, or we won't buy it.