In Reply to: I am not sure this would accomplish anything posted by tunenut on March 2, 2016 at 18:22:34:
The audible watermark exists to alert proprietary equipment that the file or stream contains DRM controlled information. There is low level coding as well that is probably inaudible that goes on to describe the digital rights, e.g. who/what/when a DAC can render the content. A DRM approved device would prevent playing content that has the watermark but which fails to include cryptographically authenticated data authorized by the creator of the watermark.
For this to be an effective system, there are two requirements:
1. It must not be possible to strip out the watermark without doing damage to the sonic content. (This is the reason why the watermark is only at the threshold of audibility, not well below it.)
2. There must be draconic laws in place to make it illegal to reverse engineer or otherwise modify the DRM enforcing code. (This is the role of the DMCA in the US.)
These schemes are a compromise from what the RIAA wanted, which at its full extent would have made high resolution DACs and computer audio equipment subject to licensing and control. For some reason, DRM caught on in the motion picture (video) marketplace and industry, but failed to catch on in the music (audio) marketplace and industry, but this issue is far from being settled, what with streaming services, MQA, etc...
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: I am not sure this would accomplish anything - Tony Lauck 03/2/1619:54:32 03/2/16 (3)
- Thanks for your response, but then... - tunenut 09:57:04 03/3/16 (2)
- RE: Thanks for your response, but then... - Dave_K 15:36:44 03/3/16 (0)
- RE: Thanks for your response, but then... - Tony Lauck 13:41:50 03/3/16 (0)