FreakinIdiots

gadgeteeronline

Face it: if it can be used to track the owner it must be detectable/decodeable. Thge 'stealth' only applies to the fact that a person can't detect it.
It's only a matter of time before someone puts a 'hack' online to remove this type of watermarking.

End result: every customer pays extra for the R&D for this, and it won't stop the problem of content getting online. At all.

wig

Y'know, I think this has been done before. It bothers me when certain corporations (e.g., army-of-lawyers companies) file patents on "doing so-and-so" instead of "method for doing so-and-so." MS specifically has patents on the isNot() operator, which checks if two variables in a program point to the same point in memory. For non-programmers, this is incredibly basic: "return !(&a == &b);" and you're done. Sneaky watermarking is not a new idea, having been touted in the news this year in regards to HD video. It's downright obvious when you take into account the history of steganography, wherein one hides data inside a picture, video, document, or recording.

Mindbleach

Right now it's a total PITA to track where our music is played... it would make royalty reporting much, much easier (and way more equitable among big stars vs. upstarts and indies).

burstlabs

kahri

kahri

In an unrelated note, your message box here hates my spacebar and enter keys, as it takes about 5 seconds for my spaces to show, and 10 seconds for the enter, but the rest of the text is fine.

the_sidewinder

someToast

Luke

jetexas