Comment: Re:Won't help (Score 1) 365
Please prove you have removed all theft-countering devices on all things you have ever bought.
Is that a transmitter in your shirt? Is someone listening? Do you have your tinfoil hat on?
Okay, let us step by step this... watermarks to track the origin of a file. Ergo, if he has failed to remove the watermark, it will be his problem in the end, not yours. And it will also be his incentive to be sure - since watermarks much like steganography is not undetectable he will not have much difficulty being sure. But why he should prove it to you I can not begin to imagine.
Watermarks identifying the source of a file can never work because you can do comparative analysis between versions fro different sources, which will allow you to get the original file. If any watermarks remain that is the same in every copy of a file... then that watermark can do you no harm. It can't be used to track you or the distributor or the origin of a file. So again, why should he prove that he has removed 'every' watermark? Would it not be quite enough if he just, you know, removed the one that could implicate him?
Is that a transmitter in your shirt? Is someone listening? Do you have your tinfoil hat on?
Okay, let us step by step this... watermarks to track the origin of a file. Ergo, if he has failed to remove the watermark, it will be his problem in the end, not yours. And it will also be his incentive to be sure - since watermarks much like steganography is not undetectable he will not have much difficulty being sure. But why he should prove it to you I can not begin to imagine.
Watermarks identifying the source of a file can never work because you can do comparative analysis between versions fro different sources, which will allow you to get the original file. If any watermarks remain that is the same in every copy of a file... then that watermark can do you no harm. It can't be used to track you or the distributor or the origin of a file. So again, why should he prove that he has removed 'every' watermark? Would it not be quite enough if he just, you know, removed the one that could implicate him?