Chaosu wrote:

With increasing popularity of watermarked promos (digitally watermarked) perhaps there should be adequate format option? There's Copy Protected already what makes me think that Watermarked or Digitally Watermarked may be a good idea.
Any thoughts?

punxtr wrote:

Hmm, well, these Promos aren't even supposed to be released to the public and only a few (relative to teh internetz) get them. They would only be circulated rips of them. And because there is no single download location that was legally made available to the public, these promos shouldn't even be included in the database.

JT_X wrote:

If they exist, it doesn't matter if they were released to the public or not. Promos never are.

punxtr wrote:

Yes, but digital promos aren't exactly leaked and available at one single spot. Physical promos, sure, but digital ones have always been leaked via bit torrent, etc.

Chaosu wrote:

Punxtr You're totally wrong. Looks like You're new to discogs (I'm not saying You actually are). Discogs is meant to be a comperhensive database of all existing releases, not list of common releases which are easily obtainable. I can't call myself hardcore collector and yet I just got mine second watermarked promo. First one was numbered over 1000, which makes it more available than some retail available limited 7". Looks like (digital) watermarking isn't too expensive anymore and (I guess) most labels will use that for every single new album coming, not just for most popular artists. I base that on my observations (I see more and more promos like that) and that's why I'm suggesting new format.

punxtr wrote:

If you're not new to Discogs, how come you haven't learned how to properly communicate with someone without insulting them?

I'm talking about digital promos. Not physical promos with a digital watermark when they are ripped. Digital promos are sent to very specific people I would imagine and are only made available if someone leaks them via bit torrent or mediafire, etc.

That being said, it's not even what you meant in your original post and so I realize the futility of splitting hairs here.

buddahs_records wrote:

^^ i'm not really into digital music, but would like to know how you're able to differentiate between the "legal" and "illegal" rips? i see you mentioned a watermark. still, is this somehow visiable?

there're bootlegs existing of "real" promos. do i get you wrong, or were you saying those shouldn't be allowed to enter, aswell?

loukash wrote:

What kind of watermark is it?

I'm not collecting digital tracks much, but as far as I know from those I have, technically all metadata in MP3, AAC, or in common lossless formats can be stripped, with the exceptions of protected AAC files *.m4p from iTunes. (No idea about WMA or other Windows-only formats though.)

If that's the case here, I'd consider any digital metadata an analogy to a good old sticker - which can be pointed out in the release notes.

Another thing is if there's a sonic watermark, of course. That can't be removed without altering the audio itself and therefore it would be probably eligible as a format.

Chaosu wrote:

I haven't insulted you. I just said it looks to me like you're totally wrong and missing discogs cause of existance (except marketplace ofc).





Well that's exactly what I'm thinking of. Perhaps sonic is a better word here. I kept saying digital because it's protection that can be detected digitally, not audible.




Waveform is slighty edited for each promo separately. In case of leaked rip it should be possible to detect which disc was ripped.



That's right.

julesparis wrote:

so we're here talking about physical releases (CD / CDr) that come with a "digital watermark", as in Annie - Don't Stop or Mlle Caro & Franck Garcia - Pain Disappears, right?

Chaosu wrote:

Yep, you all thought about DRM things? Sorry!

LadyBlacktronika wrote:

I'm totally confused as to what these even are. Are u talking about the artwork or what?

Chaosu wrote:

http://www.wired.com/entertain...8/listeningpost_0820

http://www.activatedcontent.co...reOfWatermarking.pdf

http://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/I...eams_tcm97-67531.pdf

http://www.cmlab.csie.ntu.edu....namic/AWM/index.html

JT_X wrote:

Who says that these digital, watermarked promos have to be leaked to be submitted? If the person who is authorized to receive them then submits them to discogs, why not?

punxtr wrote:

... Yes, you did. I know what you said, and it is insulting. I never said Discogs should only have widely circulated releases available, I said if these watermarked rips are leaked via bit torrent on every major tracker then it doesn't seem like a good candidate for inclusion.

You acknowledged that I may not be new to the site, but that I'm new to how things are done... I know how things are done here, carefully--not immediately. So we have discussions. Your discussion yielded confusion at first, but then you explained yourself better.





Um, promotion through raw data? :P Yes, it seems perfectly fine. Collectors would die for a one-of-a-kind copy though.

nik wrote:

It is possible to add that as a tag, but the myriad of types of watermarking, and the confusion of exactly what it is, would seem to make this a bit problematic. Does this need to be a format description?

DakotaThrice wrote:

Burn it to a CD then reimport it, protection be gone

loukash wrote:

On the Mac, if you have iMovie HD installed (iMovie v6.0.x which used to be also available as a standalone download for some time after Apple introduced the crippled v7), you can convert an *.m4p directly to an unprotected format via QuickTime export.
--> http://www.macosxhints.com/art...ry=20060725200656470

[edit]
P.S. Here's a companion app that basically automates that process:
http://seidai.50webs.com/Seidai%20Software.html
[/edit]

But that aside (and back to the topic), whatever you do to strip the protection, you are altering the audio data, not the metadata.

Chaosu wrote:

I based my idea on similarities to Copy Protected tag. Your arguments can be applied to CP too and yet it's a format. I am not going to try to force this format if majority thinks it's unnecessary, then ok.

JT_X wrote:

It's kinda irrelevant how collectible they are. If the release exists, it is eligible for inclusion. If you want to object to these being classified as "releases", then make your argument.