In Reply to: It was a "yes" or "no" question posted by Joe Murphy Jr on January 28, 2003 at 16:01:19:
The idea that electronic watermarking is simply morally wrong is puerile. Whether this watermarking is truly in the interest of the artist is arguable, but it would be patronizing to assume that we know better than they do. Whether the watermark is impinging on the buyer's rights is a complex issue. The current implementation may be imperfect, but the actual sonic degradation is hard to detect. You can't contribute to this debate by posing a "fool's dilemma". Why should we answer yes or no?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Artists sign their paintings. - Jim Pearce 21:42:29 01/28/03 (10)
- A watermark is NOT an artist's signature. - Joe Murphy Jr 11:36:07 01/29/03 (2)
- As a photographer, its easy. - Jim Pearce 12:16:30 01/29/03 (1)
- Then I speak to you as BOTH -- - Joe Murphy Jr 17:31:53 01/29/03 (0)
- a spurious comparison - tunenut 10:11:03 01/29/03 (6)
- I agree with your post above: it will disappear. - Jim Pearce 10:44:02 01/29/03 (5)
- no I can't... - tunenut 11:13:20 01/29/03 (4)
- Chicken egg or egg chicken problem - Frank 12:19:27 01/29/03 (3)
- the egg of course!!! (NT) - tunenut 12:59:17 01/29/03 (2)
- Marilyn vos Savant had a well-reasoned answer to that question in her column.. - Methos 14:34:08 01/29/03 (1)
- there should be a separate board for the chicken/egg discussion... - tunenut 14:37:59 01/29/03 (0)