4 ms·

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 a

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.

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.