3 ms·

Graphical watermarks also destroy the original image, and I think are much more intrusive than what an audible one would be. I'm unable to load the article and

by imiric 5y ago

Graphical watermarks also destroy the original image, and I think are much more intrusive than what an audible one would be. I'm unable to load the article and haven't heard one in real life, but in theory it could be done in a way that is imperceptible to human ears but detectable by a program. E.g. imagine masking specific frequencies within a noisy section of the video. There should be less destructive ways for studios to do this, but unless it's in the video or audio signal it doesn't stand a chance of working reliably.

dTal 5y ago
If a signal is imperceptible to human ears but detectable by a program, it's a prime candidate for being thrown away by lossy compression to save space. All the low hanging fruit there has long since been grabbed. The whole point of an audio watermark is that it must survive re-encoding, but it's a race that cannot be won.
azalemeth 5y ago
The difference is that the graphical watermark on e.g. a photograph usually isn't there when you've paid for it. These audio watermarks are very obvious to me and frankly make instruments sounds out of tune -- it's like the beating you can hear when tuning strings. I basically only listen to classical music and will not tolerate this.
- imiric 5y ago
  Right, but it's a problem with this specific implementation, not something that couldn't be addressed by user friendlier versions. To be clear, I'm also against any kind of watermark, but I'd rather it be done with an imperceptible (to me) audio signal than with a constant graphical watermark as is usually the case. Actually, graphical watermarks could be smarter and less obtrusive as well. > The difference is that the graphical watermark on e.g. a photograph usually isn't there when you've paid for it. The same could be the case for these audio ones. It's user hostile if this is done on already paid content (but again, I can't read the original article to confirm).
- pavon 5y ago
  You are thinking about blatant watermarks on stock imagery and the like. Movies at the theater[1] and streaming videos[2] absolutely contain subtle visible watermarks even though you are paying to see them, which is directly analogous to having audible watermarks on Spotify. In the case of movie theaters we are somewhat desensitized to them, as old projection technologies used similar flashing dots for other reasons, like a cue to the projectionist to get the next reel ready[3]. [1] https://creativepro.com/major-movie-studios-specify-digital-watermarking-for-digital-cinema/ https://creativepro.com/major-movie-studios-specify-digital-... [2] https://partnerhelp.netflixstudios.com/hc/en-us/articles/4406860887187-Improved-Netflix-Proxies https://partnerhelp.netflixstudios.com/hc/en-us/articles/440... [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cue_mark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cue_mark
  - pavon 5y ago
    Oops, that second link is about another type of watermarking, not the anti-piracy kind. Unfortunately, I won't have time to dig up a more appropriate link today.

by imiric 5y ago

dTal 5y ago

If a signal is imperceptible to human ears but detectable by a program, it's a prime candidate for being thrown away by lossy compression to save space. All the low hanging fruit there has long since been grabbed. The whole point of an audio watermark is that it must survive re-encoding, but it's a race that cannot be won.

azalemeth 5y ago

The difference is that the graphical watermark on e.g. a photograph usually isn't there when you've paid for it. These audio watermarks are very obvious to me and frankly make instruments sounds out of tune -- it's like the beating you can hear when tuning strings. I basically only listen to classical music and will not tolerate this.

imiric 5y ago
Right, but it's a problem with this specific implementation, not something that couldn't be addressed by user friendlier versions. To be clear, I'm also against any kind of watermark, but I'd rather it be done with an imperceptible (to me) audio signal than with a constant graphical watermark as is usually the case. Actually, graphical watermarks could be smarter and less obtrusive as well. > The difference is that the graphical watermark on e.g. a photograph usually isn't there when you've paid for it. The same could be the case for these audio ones. It's user hostile if this is done on already paid content (but again, I can't read the original article to confirm).
pavon 5y ago
You are thinking about blatant watermarks on stock imagery and the like. Movies at the theater[1] and streaming videos[2] absolutely contain subtle visible watermarks even though you are paying to see them, which is directly analogous to having audible watermarks on Spotify. In the case of movie theaters we are somewhat desensitized to them, as old projection technologies used similar flashing dots for other reasons, like a cue to the projectionist to get the next reel ready[3]. [1] https://creativepro.com/major-movie-studios-specify-digital-watermarking-for-digital-cinema/ https://creativepro.com/major-movie-studios-specify-digital-... [2] https://partnerhelp.netflixstudios.com/hc/en-us/articles/4406860887187-Improved-Netflix-Proxies https://partnerhelp.netflixstudios.com/hc/en-us/articles/440... [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cue_mark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cue_mark
- pavon 5y ago
  Oops, that second link is about another type of watermarking, not the anti-piracy kind. Unfortunately, I won't have time to dig up a more appropriate link today.