- From: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 10:06:50 -0800
- To: Olivier Thereaux <olivier.thereaux@bbc.co.uk>
- Cc: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, "public-restrictedmedia@w3.org" <public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAEnTvdDPaJSycgNK6E4Xt0OOWwO20rYs7B5FLhGj39z+Vxkf2g@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Olivier Thereaux < olivier.thereaux@bbc.co.uk> wrote: > David, thanks for starting this discussion. > > On 10 Jan 2014, at 16:56, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote: > > > > I am only aware of two uses of watermarking in copy protection: > > > > 1) Define the system such that all players must detect watermarks and > refuse to play unlicensed content. [snip] So, this approach neither meets > your goals nor works well. > […] > > 2) Use watermarks for forensics. Every copy delivered is watermarked in > some way. > > Generally used for online music sales these days if I’m not mistaken. I > also recall seeing it recommended by professional photographers > associations (such as the ASMP). > > I seem to remember earlier discussion in here about this type of > watermarking, and there was significant push back on the idea (from MarkW?) > based on the assumption that such mechanism would defeat any attempt at > caching, and thus render an already hairy bandwidth issue even hairier. > What I said back then was two things: - in practice, because of the economics of content distribution, per-user or per-device forensic watermarking would probably be done at the client device and this approach does not avoid the need for non-user-modifiable client components - using forensic watermarking to identify individuals brings with it a risk of mis-identification as a result of stolen credentials, identifiers that persist when a device is sold etc. The consequences of such mis-identification ought to be carefully considered. ...Mark > > > > Are there other uses of watermarking that anyone thinks work better? > > Not as far as I know. > > -- > Olivier > > > > > > ----------------------------- > http://www.bbc.co.uk > This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and > may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless > specifically stated. > If you have received it in > error, please delete it from your system. > Do not use, copy or disclose the > information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender > immediately. > Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails > sent or received. > Further communication will signify your consent to > this. > ----------------------------- > >
Received on Friday, 10 January 2014 18:07:22 UTC