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 agains

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).