Re: off: Audio CD's and Microsoft

Rick skrev:
> On Saturday 15 September 2007 10:41:06 am [email protected] wrote:
>   
>> On 9/15/07, Rick <[email protected]> wrote:
>>     
>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20070912/tc_pcworld/137106
>>>
>>> Read this, you thought DRM endcoding music was bad... this is sick.
>>> there "tracking" you...
>>>       
>> This has a number of possibly beneficial applications as well... small
>> artists have been screaming for decades for a way of more equitably
>> tracking royalties (hell, making any effort to properly track
>> royalties at all).  Naturally, in Microsoft's hands, one would worry
>> about the potentially evil applications as well.  Which will we get?
>> Probably the one that makes businesses the most money.
>>
>> In general, American legal theory tends to guarantee a right to
>> privacy, but *not* anonymity, and individual watermarking does not
>> really violate that precept.  You do not necessarily have a right to
>> be invisible in public.
>>
>> Also, steganographic watermarking exists in many other copied media
>> already.  Eg, there's a decipherable signature buried in many (most?)
>> photocopies, etc...  How is watermarked music inherently more evil?
>>
>> Consider these points for discussion.
>>
>> Monty
>>     
>
> Monty,
> Its not that, in the sense of fair play, Microsoft will use it for
> whatever pays the most $$$...It will ruin the audio quality of music,
> and create a new bureaucratic watch dog group, in which WE THE PEOPLE will 
> lose some more privacy.
>   

What basis do you have for it ruining the quality of the music?

As far as I know, audio watermarking is not that new a phenomenon. From 
what I've gathered, this
is already used by major label companies providing promo singles online, 
instead of by CD. When
you choose to download a song, it's watermarked for your accound and 
then provided for download.
Now it seems they seem to have developed a more robust version of it. 
Sounds good, imo.

> I don't care, what the propose suggestion to the Music Industry was...
> but, if you keep chipping away at Freedoms and Privacy, SOON, there will be 
> none, for YOU! and for ME!
>   

What freedoms are being chipped away by the advent of this technology? 
Sure, it may be used for watermarking
stuff you buy/download and trace the files you share back to you. It's 
not like you have the rights to distribute
that file anyways, so it (might) just help plugging a hole for piracy.

> to fix some of the problems, with new artist getting paid...that easy enough,
> just have Music Industry show the new artist the BOOKS..,and sign off on it,
> just like they have to do, for the federal gov., when filling quarterly 
> taxes., this way...the new artist will have a legal document, in which, 
> if anything should happen, could SUE that record company,
> and throw someone in jail...neat huh!
>   

I think you're simplifying the process somewhat. Wouldn't suing imply 
you having enough money to risk
for court costs, etc., in case you actually lost? I'm betting most small 
artists don't.

> See, No new watch dog group.
>   

I don't really understand the watch dog group thing. We've already got 
groups hunting down piracy,
for example.

> THEY WANT TO CONTROL US (WE THE PEOPLE)...Question: Whom controls THEM ?
>
> Regards -
> Richard

Oscar