Re: Watermarking Re: Dear EFF: Please don't pick the wrong fight

On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 1:37 AM, cobaco <cobaco@freemen.be> wrote:

> 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
>

"all the same issues" ?
 I thought one of the major issues with DRM is that it might
make it harder for
 users
to
 making non-infringing use of the content ?

I'm just telling you how it is. If watermarking became a popular
alternative with content providers to DRM then it would probably be
implemented client-side, with the attendant robustness requirements. I'm
not advocating that or commenting on the implications, just telling you
that - based on what I know - this is likely the way it would go and people
should bear that in mind when discussing it.

...Mark



> --
> Cheers
>
>