Surprise, surprise! *ssholes! If you ever bump into Dick Alston when visiting London, would you mind killing him for me? I'll even send you an umbrella... :ph34r:

Remember that the ABC watermark will not go away by magic.

If it annoys you complain.

Tell your friends / workmates / relatives. Tell them how easy it is to make a complaint (30 second phone call or quick email).

And do not stop complaining to the ABC.

The BBC was forced to get rid of its watermark. So it can be done.

Just watching A Place in Greece... and just as it finished I realised


IT'S GONE!


...or has it?

I rewound the Toppy to the end of Dr Who... yes, there it is... but it never reappeared once APIG started.

Not there on the news, either.


EDIT: Now it's back for the 7.30 Report

???

I haven't read all of this thread so I apologise if it's already been mentioned... but... has anyone noticed a video quality change since the ABC watermark was introduced? Almost like ABC has to re-encode the video stream to add-in the watermark but they encode it with some sort of crappy encoder or different bitrate? I haven't checked a lot of shows yet, but during The Bill last night, which is usually pretty crisp and clear, I noticed the video quality looked awful, really grainy and chunky looking in the areas of mostly similar colour. Just my imagination?

The New Inventors..

ABC TV NSW = watermarked
ABC HDTV = no watermark

Don't know whether it stayed on for Spicks and Specks... but it's gone again for Little Britain.

Am I the only one thinking Aunty is decidedly indecisive tonight?

Maybe Sydney's having problems with it's watermark equipment. I am sure the watermark was on the ACT transmission of Little Britain.

It sure is on the Glass House.

Indeed... *sigh*

ABC Brisbane has no watermark on the HD channel (from what ive been watching tonight). Only SD.

In forums it often seems as though people are engaging in a sardonic whinging orgy amongst themselves, so I was heartened when I read the letters by rochford and stonewall a few pages back, which help confirm otherwise. Was hoping to read more of them

I haven't heard back from the ABC yet, and don't expect such a quick reply to snail mail, but has anyone who e-mailed received a reply? If you phoned, what was the response?


Do you have any more info about this? I recall sending a message a few years ago to the guy who runs logofreetv.org to thank him for his work, since the BBC's actions would eventually have an impact here, given the copycat tendencies of TV networks. I don't follow it that closely, but my impression was that despite the impressive campaign, it wasn't changing the BBC's mind.

My own view has been that if the ABC simply brushes off the inital reponse and demonstrates they don't give a rat's arse what their viewers think, it will basically be a lost cause.

I do not know anything about the BBC myself.

Someone else said this on this forum, and I picked it up from him.

Michael

Lots of info about the UK experience can be found on this site.

I received an email reply from the Board Secretariat who said that submissions to the next meeting of the Advisory Council can be made until Tuesday 22 February.

I am particularly interested in putting together a submission, as the Advisory Council has signficantly more clout than the average viewer, but probably not the degree of understanding of watermarking and digital television as the forum regulars here.

If anyone is interested in contributing, please PM me and I'll start up a thread somewhere to canvas some ideas.

- Miles.

If it's anything like the Web site, it's going to be bloody awful:
http://www.abc.net.au/abc2/

- Miles.

I have also noticed that the watermark is appearing on some programs and disappearing off others. I noticed no watermark on Parliament yesterday, but it was there today. Then last night it was on some programs, but not on others.

What is going on? All very odd.

At least it proves it's easy to remove. Throw a switch. Gone!

And here's a suggestion.
Everyday when you logon, email the ABC and complain about the watermark.
Until they take it away for good.
It's very easy to do and only takes a minutes or two.

Email, snailmail, complain.
Don't just sit there and take.
Cut and paste some of the excellent letters on this thread.
I'm sure the original writers wouldn't object.

It's your ABC.
It's everyone's ABC.
If you don't want a watermark, why should you have to put up with one?

IF. IF. If, if, if ....

If the reason for the DOG (Wateremark) on ABC is because the station now appears on digital FOXTEL, well why doesn't the ABC just give Foxtel a seperate cable feed with a watermark, and not inflict it on FTA viewers.

If the ABC is doing it for FOXTEL viewers, well, don't people get Foxtel because they DON"T want to watch FTA, especially the ABC? And why is the ABC "helping out" a commercial business? Are some, (not all), ABC execs hoping for jobs at Foxtel? Comspiracy Theories abound .....

I know they are not on air yet, but I sent email to Feedback as well:

http://www.abc.net.au/feedback/contact.htm

Basically I said:
As a part owner of the ABC, I vote to get rid of the watermark and to leave watermarking to commercial channels...

I emailed the ABC as well to complain about the egregious obscenity on monday 7-02-05 but as yet no reply. has anyone heard back from them in any form?

Yes I did receive a reply from the ABC, quite promptly I might add. This is what they had to say:

"We're sorry that you haven't appreciated the introduction of watermarking on ABC Television programs. While noting your comments, we believe that this change is both important and necessary. Watermarking is a practice that has been well established in Australia by other networks for many years and is in fact fairly standard practice internationally. In a multichannel environment there is a need to subtly identify the channel for viewers and this identification will become even more necessary as the number of digital stations increase in the coming years.

"Secondly, and importantly, the ABC believes it has a duty to copyright owners. Watermarking works against piracy (illegal off air recording) and for this reason it was adopted in most countries a number of years ago.

"Nonetheless, we do appreciate your views and I have passed them on to ABC TV Management for their information. "


My comments are:

The fact watermarking is a standard practice overseas and well established in Australia (apart from SBS and the ABC - until now that is!) is of no relevance. Why does the ABC has to suddenly follow suit? This argument is without substance.

They say that in a multichannel environment (digital) there is a need to identify the channels for viewers. This is of course nonsense. Most, if not all STBs identify the station when you change channels or press the Information button.

Also, I like how they say 'subtly identify the channel' - if only!

The question of copyright is doubtful. Another network is not going to attempt to record a program and replay it on their station. If they were caught, which is highly likely, they would be up for a substantial fine and perhaps a suspension of their licence. Breach of copyright is now a criminal offence and I could hardly believe any station would even contemplate taking such a risk.

Someone who illegially records a program and then trys to commercially sell it (something like the pirated music CDs you've probably heard about) would be taking a foolish risk because if caught, the penalties can also be quite tough.

As for recording for home use, how is watermarking going to stop that? In any case when was the last time a personal user been prosecuted? And why do the TV guides assist viewers record shows by providing the G-Codes in the first place?

Well at least I know the Management have been informed of my complaint!

Just to give you all a bit of background, even before the watermark went full-time, I had the issue put up for discussions at the December meeting last year. This is the reply I got afterwards:

"Thanks for your email.

At its December meeting the Council discussed the use of the watermark and while some Council members had received feedback that it was distracting and that at times was too big taking up too much of the screen particularly if sub-titles were being used, others did not have a problem with the watermark.

Kind regards

Jim Palmer
Board Secretariat
ABC"

Just so you know what to expect


On the subject of it coming and going, so far, everytime I check, here in Adelaide its been there the whole time.

I emailed 720 ABC Perth's talkback radio show about the watermarking issue which did get mentioned with the host Liam Bartlett not really in favour of it.
So at least in Perth the watermark problem did reach more people than would otherwise log on here.
Perhaps everyone should do the same call or email your nearest talk radio station about it..
Also maybe a letter to your daily newspaper...

I have to say that I am one very happy camper at the moment!

As far as I'm concerned, the ABC Watermark is gone. I've used X-Logo to remove it from a Dr Who capture and I am truly amazed at the quality of the result.

You can see a sample here -

Before processing

After processing

As far as I can tell, the watermark is completely undetectable. The trick here is that the ABC are using a transparent COLOUR watermark and not a transparent WHITE one that the commercials are using. Therefore when capturing the Black background image, do NOT convert it to greyscale. Just leave it in RGB.

Anyway, got some files to process.....

I'll upload my bitmaps later when I get a chance.

well, if the abc insists on using a watermark, then can they please use this

http://img202.exs.cx/img202/6038/abcwm7va.jpg

Yep, sent another complaint!

No replies so far. Anyway, I'd be surprised if I got anything but a generic reply!!!

I can tell you, poor old Liam and his producers have received more than one email/post/call on the subject!

I think we'd all rather inist on none at all rather that saying "it's ok as long as it's smaller, and less conspicuous (not to mention in the *corner*) - that just sends the (wrong) message that some watermarks are ok... and really, let's face it, that's simply not true.

I'm glad someone atleast is watermark free watching the ABC.

Anyone know how to mod really cheap panasonic STBs so they can run linux and some equivalent of x-logo? I think I'm just going to hope that the ABC gets so many complaints that they turn the watermark off...

Appreciated? That's pretty scary, though not surprising. Reveals their mindset--these people have actually convinced themselves that viewers want the watermark. I think there are two main positions: you either dislike the watermark, or you don't care. But those who actually advocate it must be insignificant in number. I've never seen anyone support watermarks as vigorously as those who oppose them, except Management and their PR hacks. Well, at least they're getting paid for it. By you.


I read it as "Firstly, and most importantly,". In this intellectual property-obsessed era, I've had this suspicion they've been under some sort of pressure to follow the commercial networks in watermarking, and they probably see the branding aspect as a bonus. I think I asked them in a letter last year whether there were any such pressures, but naturally they didn't answer the question directly.


Except for news of course; the routine "borrowing" of each others footage (sometimes brazen enough to crop the watermark). Although I think this is fair use, networks are really precious about their scoops. I think some watermarking here is legitimate, though the prodigiously intrusive one on the Peter Hollingworth episode of Australian Story was ridiculous, and set an awful precedent.

As for copying by viewers, I think it will put a dent in one particular type of copying: those who are recording shows and creating their own little DVD libraries of them. What was previously a nearly-direct MPEG-2 > DVD transfer would now need hours of re-encoding to remove the watermark, so it becomes limited to the most dedicated of the dedicated. On the other hand, it won't put a dent at all in the sharing of shows via P2P or Bittorrent, where "watchable" is good enough.

I'm not that fond of the idea of watermark removal, as I'm not of most circumvention. Subversion belongs to those who live under a bludgeon (e.g. in Soviet Union, Vichy France, etc.), while those who have a voice should use it. I despair when I look at rpc1.org and see the amount of effort people pour in to achieve freedom for maybe 5% of people. Imagine if half that effort had been spent on a campaign against region encoding, freeing 100% of people from the constraint. People who engage in circumvention are training themselves to live under unfair restrictions, which is dangerous for a free society. While I think the likes of Jon Johansen should be given medals, the "someone will crack it" attitude is wrong and should only be a last resort, IMHO.

Anyway, last night the highly acclaimed movie "Underground" was on ABC and I'd set a timer recording hoping to watch it tonight, thinking the ABC might have the decency to show it without the watermark. No such luck I wonder what David and Margaret think of how their new network treats movies. Anyway, instead of watching the movie, I'm going to start reading a book (Norman Mailer's "The Naked and the Dead"). That's my circumvention, and to the extent that I'm going to get more out of it than watching shows on the ABC, I'm thankful for the watermark. That's what I'll be telling them in my followup letter.

Please don't. I can't speak for the others, but I would object to somone just copying the letter and signing their name to it. I posted mine to encourage others to write their own, not plagiarise (I was going to ask people not to when I posted my letter, but didn't think I needed to).

Besides, form letters cheapen protest. And I wouldn't repeatedly badger them--I'm sure PR departments are wise to it and won't mistake persistent protest from a minority group for a broad-based backlash. If a letter or two isn't enough, do as Michael said and encourage friends and relatives to complain.

I can say now that once the setup work has been done, the addition of a watermark will make not one jot of difference. It probably adds about 1 minute of extra work to work out where the fade-in and fade-out points are, but it adds virtually no extra time when re-encoding a program. I must say that I have never used a direct MPEG-2 -> DVD transfer, and always prefer to re-encode, so it doesn't make any difference to me.

However, the process is fast enough that I'm now considering capturing any program I want to watch then replay it through the logo removal filter and watch that. The process is fast enough to do in real time. After watching a few watermarked shows now, I'm not sure I really want to watch anything (especially drama) with "The Mark of Satan" in the corner (or is that "The Mark of the Moron" nowdays???) It's distressing that life is now so closely reflected by the Dilbert strip and that the pointy-haired managers are running almost everything.

My apologies for making the suggestion.
I honestly didn't think anyone would object.

Ok everybody, please write your own letters.
Is "be inspired by those on this thread" OK?

I rang the ABC switchboard last night to complain about the watermarks.

The lady said something like "There are lots of calls about this at the moment. I shall add you to the list."

So the writers to this forum are not the only ones complaining.

Give your friends the number for the ABC is your city. Tell them how easy it is to lodge a quick complaint. Lets keep up the pressure!

Hi all,

I have just tried to place another complaint at
http://abc.net.au/contact/

I keep getting an error message when I push "Send My Message".

Has anyone else had trouble using the ABC complaint system today?

Regards,
Michael

Nope. I just sent a complaint to the producers of At The Movies.

My approach is to complain to the ABC AND to the producer of every program that I feel has been adversely affected. Man, just wait for the spray that Rage are going to get on Monday morning (after nearly twenty years avoiding commercial crap, this is what it comes to...).

- Miles.

I just tried again, and once again an error message.

What I am trying to send is:

Subject: Product placement on the News

I think that it is very inappropriate, and probably against your charter, to be advertising products on the ABC TV News.

Yet, since January 26, you have clearly shown that the plasma panel in the news set is provided by Sony.

The Sony logo is clearly visible with my home system which receives your SD digital signal, and is displayed on a high definition monitor. I acknowledge that those with lower quality home equipment might not be able to see the Sony logo. But of course the issue is that no viewer should be seeing repeated product placement on the ABC news.

From reading on-line forums, I understand that this issue has already been raised in other states (I am in Victoria), and that some other states may have already fixed this (either by framing the shot so that the newsreaders computer blocks the logo, or be sticking a small ABC logo over the Sony logo on the plasma panel).

Obvious questions from this issue are:
1 – Is the ABC being paid for this product placement?
2 – If this issue was identified and fixed in other states, why has it not been fixed in Victoria?

I hope that this clear case of ABC mismanagement is fixed in the very near future.

Regards,
Michael *******

PS The above is clearly a serious issue which the ABC cannot ignore. If action is not taken to fix things, I intend to take this matter further.

But you may be interested in the reason that I have the energy to make and follow-up on this complaint.

A few weeks ago I was a happy ABC viewer that would let this matter pass. But the recent introduction of the unnecessary and intrusive watermarks onto most of your programs has turned me from friend to foe.

And the energy of being a foe is enough for me to bring the above serious complaint to your attention.

The passion against watermarking may be enough to drive others to make complaints to the ABC on other matters as well. Please let those responsible for the watermarking decision know that many other departments will suffer from having angry viewers.

Ive lodged my expression of dissatisfaction, along with seeking contact details for their freedom of information officer such that I may lodge a freedom of information request to find out their expendature on watermarking to date.

Cheers,
Bitey

Information about the ABC's FoI policy is available at http://www.abc.net.au/corp/foi.htm

- Miles.

Thanks Miles - I also wanted the ABC to respond to my post on their website :-)

Cheers,
Bitey

Just checking, but did you fill out all the * :
* indicates mandatory field

I have tried several times. Definately filling in all the fields.

Either they don't like me anymore, or something else is wrong.

Very frustrating!

Also,

On Sunday in Melbourne, the Sunday Show on 774 radio will be talking about the watermark.

Just in case I call in

Can someone with FOXTEL digital confirm that:
1 - when the channel is changed, the STB automatically displays channel information for a few seconds, and
2 - there is a button on the remote control which brings up channel information (ie shows you which channel you are watching).

Can someone using SATELLITE confirm the same for the satellite service.

Thanks in advance,
Michael

'Criswell' from 'Plan 9 From Outer Space' predicts that rage will not have a bug/watermark. But it may still contain promos in the middle near the Top 50 which all viewers will find disturbing.

enjoy!

Let's hope this is the case.

The promos are most definitely disturbing, and we can squarely put the blame for that on Triple J, who insist on bombarding rage viewers with their crap. I seem to recall complaining about THAT when it came in too.

- Miles.

I don't have Foxtel digital but I have used it at a relatives house. It indeed does say what channel your watching (ie. does 1 and 2). This is on satellite

The ABC watermark is currently on the 16:9 edge and a lot more transparent and smaller too:
http://img233.exs.cx/img233/3125/wmabc3jh.jpg

It is half cut off on my analogue service and not even visible on the TV due to overscan.

...and now it's moved out to the bottom right-hand corner in the 16:9 area.

The edge of the watermark is only just visible on the analogue transmission.

Obviously the stream of complaints is having some effect. They won't give up yet, but they're shuffling the deck chairs.

PS. Oh darn! It's smaller and lighter. I know that's a good thing, but I had the logo removal working for the pervious version. Now I've got to find that elusive pure white background.

have noticed on this evenings murder investigation team that the log has shifted well into the corner - now lets hope they at least do this for all future programs think it looks a little shrunken too ? but can't be sure

someones listening ! hope so hopefully we can get them to shrink it a bit more till we can't see it or get them to further move it to the right till it falls off the screen !

oh and ofcourse its not on the hd broadcast a all - so I know which one I'm going to be watching.

The first 16:9 logo in canberra! *amazed*

I like it, its shrunk alot to! Hopefully ABC kids logo will be moved and not vertically distorted....

Thanks ABC.

BTW I hate watermarks but if i have to have a ABC watermark you gotta atleast have 16:9 safe and they do

So once again, what is the point of having a watermark?

Snaps for moving it to the 16:9 area, but why even bother with one on analog if you're going to split it in half?

Then again, if they keep it there 4:3 material will look great.

- Miles.

A bit further to the right and it should be perfect, keep complaining. Don't let up

rgds Damon

On 4:3, you can see 2/3rds of the watermark and because it is cut off, it draws your eye to it. Just because the execs move the watermark a bit, does not mean that once the complaints die down, they will not move it back to where it was before, or worse.