On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:48:21 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> The thing is, the watermark, in order to be meaningful, would have to
>> re- encode exactly the same way.
> 
> No it wouldn't. People work on watermarks all the time that don't need
> precise reencoding.
> 
> Xerox worked on systems for watermarking documents that would survive
> being photocopied at the wrong size and then faxed, for example.

I'm trying to see how that would work in a sound file, though.  Visual 
watermarks are generally a different matter.

Jim

Post a reply to this message