- From: cobaco <cobaco@freemen.be>
- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:37:29 +0200
- To: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
On 2013-10-24 08:30 Mark Watson wrote: > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Andreas Kuckartz <a.kuckartz@ping.de>wrote: > > Mark Watson: > > > In practice, individual watermarking would probably be implemented on > > > the client side, so it would still require proprietary non-modifiable > > > software on users' computers. > > > > Why would watermarking have to be implemented on the client side ?! > > It doesn't *have* to be implemented on the client side, but in practice > that approach is more likely (if watermarking were adopted as a solution at > all). if robustness is what the industry wants, then any clientside implementation is a non-starter any clientside implementation means that you 1) send the client the unwatermarked file 2) ask the client to watermark it 3) and only then use it step 2 will always be subverted/avoided sooner or later by someone (and it only takes one). When you try to avoid that reality client-side watermarking runs into all the same 'who controls the user machine' issues as DRM, and is hence just as unacceptable > I think it's likely that a client-side approach would be much more feasible > as a result. > This is based on assuming that economics would drive the technical > solution, not something else. uhuh, more like economic considerations are pushing a technically unsound bandaid that has obvious and unavoidable practical issues. Any attempts to prevent those practical issues is going to run into all the same issues as DRM -- Cheers
Received on Friday, 25 October 2013 08:37:54 UTC