First off, Watermarking does not equal copyright protection. You can use the former to try to achieve the latter (which is what SDMI is trying), but they are orthogonal things.
All digital watermarking does is represent digital data (actually, any type of data, but in this case it they say digital) in an analog form, which is then grafted onto a larger source (the most common example being a music file).
So, just like a modem signal, a water mark is digital data that has been turned into sound. It has to be fairly robust to withstand degradation of the original signal yet still be readable. To be effective as a watermark (in music) it also has to be unobtrusive, i.e. you don't notice it. But it is an audio signal that (if you want it to be effective for things like SDMI) resides within the range of human hearing, or more accurately within the range of common recording devices.
(Very) Simple example: I spell my name in Morse code with a dog whistle that has a frequency just above what the human can hear but within the range of common recording equipment (be they digital or analog) while recording "Push Push in the Bush." I have now crudely watermarked that track.
Now, I can't hear the watermark on the recording that I made, and I make copies of this track I still won't be able to hear the watermark (because it is still just slightly above the audible range of humans, although my dog may howl), but its still being passed on from copy to copy.
If I serially copy it from tape to tape to MP3 and back to tape, assuming that there wasn't too much signal degradation (and if there was the music would sound like shit too) if I played that 4th generation copy and fed the signal through an oscilloscope, you'd still be able to see the Morse code, and my dog will still howl.
Now, how does this thwart copying and protect copyrights? It doesn't. That's not the point. All a watermark does is merely encode data into an analog system that will stay intact from analog copy to analog copy assuming the signal hasn't degraded to much (and like I said a good, robust watermark should be able to withstand a fair bit of degradation). Where the copy protection comes in is that the SMDI folks want to make devices that will recognize a watermark in an audio file and allow or not allow it to be played.
Check out: .F. Tilik, A.A. Beex. "Encoding a hidden digital signature onto an audio signal using psychoacustic masking", in Proc. 1996 7th International Conf. on Signal Processing Apps and Tech.. pp 476-480
for a much better explanation.
The watermarking system is inaudible to the human ear and virtually undetectable and resistant to removal attempts.
So this is NOT "protection can be made to cause the CD-ROMs laser eye to skip all over the CD and do other little things." That is the protection that Macrovision has (supposedly) used on some CDs, and this is *NOT* watermarking.
When making a digital copy, that is without playing the sound through a set of speakers, this watermarking technology is effective.
This is completely WRONG. A watermark is an analog signal. All they are doing is taking some digital information and encoding it into an analog form in such a way that its imperceptible to the human ear.
If this watermarking signal from simply playing the original was to be reproduced at an inaudible to human ears, how would a microphone pick it up?
So you're saying that if a human ear cannot hear something than nothing else can? Grab a microphone, an oscilloscope and a dog whistle. Gee, all those squiggly lines show up when I blow, but I can't hear it... hmm.. maybe I'm deaf... or maybe you just have no clue what your talking about. I vote for the latter.
So, monkey-boy, what you are saying is that the digital watermark will stay along with the Analog sound signal in the air? After it leaves a speaker?
That is exactly what he's saying, and he's correct. A watermark (for music) is simply data encoded as an audio stream that (if you want to use it for any practical purpose) is inaudiable to the human ear. It is designed specifically to do as you say.
Try actually understanding the topic you're posting to before calling someone a 'monkey boy.'
You'll notice that even "impairing" a technical measure is illegal - if you do anything to "avoid" the measure, that is still illegal. It would seem to me that this device would fall under this terms, as it "impares" or "avoids" the measure designed to protect copyright...
That's what I figured. But that still leaves the inconsistency about being able to do a perfect digital copy using a CD player with a digital out and a soundcard that accepts digital in. Since the CD player is doing all of the error correction you are in no way circumventing anything at all.
That's the problem I have with 1201(a)(3). If I write a program that does error correction on data pulled off a protected disc I (most likely) run afoul of the law. If I use the above mentioned CD player / soundcard setup to do a bit for bit copy I have circumvented nothing and therefor have broken no law. The outcome has been the same (I have a digital copy of copyrighted material) yet one way of achieving it is legal, the other illegal.
Neither, apparently, did you. I never claimed that they were going to get arrested. I simply said I wouldn't be surprised if they got some nastygrams from the RIAA, Macrovision, et al.
He was arrested IN the US. Therefore, as long as the company stays in Europe there is no problem.
It wasn't Dmitry's arrest I was refering to. Adobe harrased Elcomsoft's service providers way, including those that did not have any presence in the United States before Dimtry stepped foot into the US.
Yup, I got that they were European. I simply said they'd probably get a nastygram (not necc. a lawsuit). Just because they're in Europe doesn't mean that a US company won't go after them. Remember DeCSS, Adobe? Just because the "offending" parties were not in the US (Norway and Russia respectively) didn't stop squat.
This article has gotten me thinking again about the DMCA's "no circumvention device" clause again. How does one define a copyright protecting system? (I know this is a rhetorical question, something the courts will have to decide). At first glance I thought "Oh no, these guys are going to get a nasty lawyergram from Macrovision, RIAA, etc." But the more I thought about it the more I realized that this could be a quagmire. For instance, if I found a way to rip a Macrovision'ed disc that de-mungs the munged error correcting data I could see how that might run afoul of the DMCA. But what if someone simply pipes the music through the analog inputs of a soundcard, or rips the CD from a cd player with a digital audio out? Since no "circumvention" took place in these cases we now have a situation where, while the destination is the same, one "journey" is legal and the other is illegal.
Yet another reason the law should punish "conduct" and not code.
... maybe, since GA is leaving the show before the show's contract with Fox runs out. So instead of "Moulder and Scully" Catatonia will have to sing about "Terminator and Xena." Yucko.
Shades of "Silk Stalkings" methinks.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
What action could Adobe take now that would make you believe that they really don't want this guy to go to jail?
True, I am just going off of what I've read here, and have not been privy what went on between Adobe and the EFF or FBI. But, since Adobe was in this from the beginning (were the ones who filed the complaint with the Justice Dept in the first place) I find it very hard to believe that they didn't know that this would result in an arrest and prosicution. To turn around now and say "wow, he shouldn't be in jail" smacks of damage control. Maybe they're sincere, but I have my doubts.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
I knew as soon as the EFF announced that Adobe were backing off that it was more Adobe hype and PR than an actual attempt to free Sklyarov. I have a feeling they knew that once the justice system took over they had little say in what continued to happen. Its a win-win for them. They (and the whole pro-DMCA cartel) now have an "example" to spook would-be "encryption crackers" (make that tool, go to jail) and they're now trying to put a nice, shiny spin on it: "Oh, we didn't think THIS would happen. Wow, this is bad. The FBI should release Sklyarov." Call me cynical, but I wouldn't be surprised if Adobe had some assurances from the JD that this case would be prosicuted before they decided that Sklyarov should be freed.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
Re:Fight your techno-geek addiction...
on
The Joys of HDTV
·
· Score: 2
Hey, I like my MiniDisc. Yeah, I know they'll never be as popular as they are in Asia (or Europe for that matter) but it does the job well for me. The perfect replacement for tapes. Until the price of Flash Ram comes WAAAAAAAAY down my MDs will do just fine.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
Exactly. Katz is just another one of those "big thinkers" (you find them all over the political spectrum) who see themselves as one of the few that can see what's really going on, and need to inform the "great unwashed' who are too dumb/poor/weak to see it. To Katz, the world is full of people who can't see as clearly as he can.
It's the same attitude you see from hard core environmentalist, anti-smoking folks, anti-pornography protesters, religious whackos, just about anyone with an agenda to push. They truly believe they they (and the few like minded folks) are the only ones that can see things clearly, and the rest of us need their help.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
Some car CD players are more like CD Rom players than traditional CD players (I assume so they can add all kinds of bells and whistles to it). Previously attempted "Protected CDs" (BMG in Europe trial IIRC) munged the data so that a "normal" CD player could read it but a CD-ROM couldn't. Lots o' returns because those CDs wouldn't play in car CD players (or, for that matter, some high end CD players that were built in the same manner).
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
In many locations in the US, having lockpicks is not a crime (source: MIT lockpick guide). HOWEVER, using lockpicks in association with a crime is an additional offense in itself. The same should be true for software.
EXACTLY. That's what's so nafarious about the DMCA, it goes WAY beyond criminalizing actions and criminalizes things that *could* be used.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
I'm not necc. arguing that it has to be free (or illegal). I'm simply saying that paying *more* for something that doesn't even have the same flexibility as the system you already have in place (CDs aren't lossy compressed, they're not time bombed, you are not limited to specific CD players that you can play it in, etc) is not the greatest of business models. Given those options its a simple choice. I'll stick to CDs. My point about Gnutella is that these services are not going to "quench the thirst" of old Napster or Gnutella users.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
I think that all of these subscription models (Napster, Duet, etc) are going to fail miserably. Why? Well MP3 Newswire did a great study showing the cost of subscribing to thier services. Since most of the music will be time bombed and you're restricted to a finite amount of downloads a month, its actually more expensive to "subscribe" to your favoirite albums than it is to buy 'em. Until they can force folks to use this service its just cheaper to buy the CD or download a ripped song off of Gnutella.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
My vote: The new *NSYNC album. They'd figure it would be a big enough trial to test on, and its the type music [well, crap if you ask me, but I shouldn't editoralize] that gets traded a whole bunch. Whatever it is I bet they're also monitoring Napster (well, if it was alive the would), Gnutella and all of the usual suspects to see its had any effect on trading rates.
Of course, since I just pulled that out of my butt I could be totally wrong...
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
I think the idea is if you break the copy protection then you could re-burn onto a standard CD and have it play trouble free in the high end CD players -- the ones that are more akin to CD-ROM drives then they are regular CD Players (AFAIK Car CD players are more apt to be that way).
Great Black quote by the way...
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
Wow... I didn't know someone was holding a gun to your head, forcing you to bloat up your system and install the Active X "shit."
Oh, wait? They're not? You mean you're just bitching about an "option" that Konk users now have the "choice" of using? You're mad because the entire development base are not doing what *you* think they should? Here on Slashdot??? Say it ain't so.
Somebody needs to just focus on making a good browser.
Don't like what's out there? Then roll up your cuffs and do it better yourself.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
Re:Great, now maybe I'll be able to read some manu
on
Books on Demand
·
· Score: 2
And read in the shitter...
No e-book or.pdf file will ever be perferable until I can take it into the bog with me.
N.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
Change it to something highly offensive but in no way infriging. Like SCIaC Messanger (Steve Case Is a C*nt). Petty and vindictive? Sure, but fuck 'em I say.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
This reminds me of the Iridium debacle. Someone's going to make out like a bandit. Wait long enough and a lot of these companies are going to be bankrupt or dirt cheap. Swoop in and pick up fiber for pennies on the dollar. All of the sudden you have a new company with an ass load of fiber without all of the troublesome debt of the old companies. Sure, the investers in the bankrupt companies take it in the backside, but that's the risk they took.
N.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
From what the CNet article said it looks like Chipzilla is interested more in the Alpha engineering department than they are the actual Alpha technology. Rumor is, in the Inquirer story, that a lot of the Alpha folks really don't want to work for Intel (with AMD being the benifactor of a lot of ex Alpha engineers). Unless there's something going on that I'm too dumb to see this simply looks like Intel buying IA-64 market share from Compaq.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
... that Microsoft owns part of AT&T ($5 billion's worth at the time of the investment). *Not* a small chunk of change. Since M$'s investment was to grease the rails for its interactive TV inititive I wonder if this is a case of one hand (of AT&T) doesn't know what the other hand is doing. In any case, it paints a pretty interesting picture. You would think that M$ would have come to an agreement over licensing fees for the patents a long time ago to keep from pissing one of the largest cable operators in the country (thus, one of the largest potential customers for M$TV). Of course, without knowing all of the details I'm just speculating here, but it does seem like MS just may be being penny wise and pound stupid.
N.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
Slashdot Mirror
All digital watermarking does is represent digital data (actually, any type of data, but in this case it they say digital) in an analog form, which is then grafted onto a larger source (the most common example being a music file).
So, just like a modem signal, a water mark is digital data that has been turned into sound. It has to be fairly robust to withstand degradation of the original signal yet still be readable. To be effective as a watermark (in music) it also has to be unobtrusive, i.e. you don't notice it. But it is an audio signal that (if you want it to be effective for things like SDMI) resides within the range of human hearing, or more accurately within the range of common recording devices.
(Very) Simple example: I spell my name in Morse code with a dog whistle that has a frequency just above what the human can hear but within the range of common recording equipment (be they digital or analog) while recording "Push Push in the Bush." I have now crudely watermarked that track.
Now, I can't hear the watermark on the recording that I made, and I make copies of this track I still won't be able to hear the watermark (because it is still just slightly above the audible range of humans, although my dog may howl), but its still being passed on from copy to copy.
If I serially copy it from tape to tape to MP3 and back to tape, assuming that there wasn't too much signal degradation (and if there was the music would sound like shit too) if I played that 4th generation copy and fed the signal through an oscilloscope, you'd still be able to see the Morse code, and my dog will still howl.
Now, how does this thwart copying and protect copyrights? It doesn't. That's not the point. All a watermark does is merely encode data into an analog system that will stay intact from analog copy to analog copy assuming the signal hasn't degraded to much (and like I said a good, robust watermark should be able to withstand a fair bit of degradation). Where the copy protection comes in is that the SMDI folks want to make devices that will recognize a watermark in an audio file and allow or not allow it to be played.
Check out:
.F. Tilik, A.A. Beex. "Encoding a hidden digital signature onto an audio signal using psychoacustic masking", in Proc. 1996 7th International Conf. on Signal Processing Apps and Tech.. pp 476-480
for a much better explanation.
The watermarking system is inaudible to the human ear and virtually undetectable and resistant to removal attempts.
So this is NOT "protection can be made to cause the CD-ROMs laser eye to skip all over the CD and do other little things." That is the protection that Macrovision has (supposedly) used on some CDs, and this is *NOT* watermarking.
When making a digital copy, that is without playing the sound through a set of speakers, this watermarking technology is effective.
This is completely WRONG. A watermark is an analog signal. All they are doing is taking some digital information and encoding it into an analog form in such a way that its imperceptible to the human ear.
If this watermarking signal from simply playing the original was to be reproduced at an inaudible to human ears, how would a microphone pick it up?
So you're saying that if a human ear cannot hear something than nothing else can? Grab a microphone, an oscilloscope and a dog whistle. Gee, all those squiggly lines show up when I blow, but I can't hear it... hmm.. maybe I'm deaf... or maybe you just have no clue what your talking about. I vote for the latter.
That is exactly what he's saying, and he's correct. A watermark (for music) is simply data encoded as an audio stream that (if you want to use it for any practical purpose) is inaudiable to the human ear. It is designed specifically to do as you say.
Try actually understanding the topic you're posting to before calling someone a 'monkey boy.'
That's what I figured. But that still leaves the inconsistency about being able to do a perfect digital copy using a CD player with a digital out and a soundcard that accepts digital in. Since the CD player is doing all of the error correction you are in no way circumventing anything at all.
That's the problem I have with 1201(a)(3). If I write a program that does error correction on data pulled off a protected disc I (most likely) run afoul of the law. If I use the above mentioned CD player / soundcard setup to do a bit for bit copy I have circumvented nothing and therefor have broken no law. The outcome has been the same (I have a digital copy of copyrighted material) yet one way of achieving it is legal, the other illegal.
Neither, apparently, did you. I never claimed that they were going to get arrested. I simply said I wouldn't be surprised if they got some nastygrams from the RIAA, Macrovision, et al.
He was arrested IN the US. Therefore, as long as the company stays in Europe there is no problem.
It wasn't Dmitry's arrest I was refering to. Adobe harrased Elcomsoft's service providers way, including those that did not have any presence in the United States before Dimtry stepped foot into the US.
Yup, I got that they were European. I simply said they'd probably get a nastygram (not necc. a lawsuit). Just because they're in Europe doesn't mean that a US company won't go after them. Remember DeCSS, Adobe? Just because the "offending" parties were not in the US (Norway and Russia respectively) didn't stop squat.
Yet another reason the law should punish "conduct" and not code.
Shades of "Silk Stalkings" methinks.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
True, I am just going off of what I've read here, and have not been privy what went on between Adobe and the EFF or FBI. But, since Adobe was in this from the beginning (were the ones who filed the complaint with the Justice Dept in the first place) I find it very hard to believe that they didn't know that this would result in an arrest and prosicution. To turn around now and say "wow, he shouldn't be in jail" smacks of damage control. Maybe they're sincere, but I have my doubts.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
It's the same attitude you see from hard core environmentalist, anti-smoking folks, anti-pornography protesters, religious whackos, just about anyone with an agenda to push. They truly believe they they (and the few like minded folks) are the only ones that can see things clearly, and the rest of us need their help.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
EXACTLY. That's what's so nafarious about the DMCA, it goes WAY beyond criminalizing actions and criminalizes things that *could* be used.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
Of course, since I just pulled that out of my butt I could be totally wrong...
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
Great Black quote by the way...
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
Oh, wait? They're not? You mean you're just bitching about an "option" that Konk users now have the "choice" of using? You're mad because the entire development base are not doing what *you* think they should? Here on Slashdot??? Say it ain't so.
Somebody needs to just focus on making a good browser.
Don't like what's out there? Then roll up your cuffs and do it better yourself.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
No e-book or .pdf file will ever be perferable until I can take it into the bog with me.
N.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
N.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
I found my copies of the two books when my parents moved. I promptly plopped my butt down and re-read 'em. They held up remarkably well.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
N.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.