I have not contributed to this forum for a number of years but the ABC visual haemorrhoid has galvanized me to pass on the following.
The standard ABC response to objections to the WM are as we know three-fold
1. It’s a worldwide trend (every one is doing it)
2. It protects copyright and piracy
3. It allows identification of the channel
Below are my responses to the ABC sent recently:
1.(Kappa) I have recently returned (June 2005) from a months stay in the UK.
Please note that BBC1, BBC2, ITV1, channels 4 and FIVE, SKY Movie channels 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, SKY Cinema 1 and 2 have either all removed (or have no) watermarks during their major program transmissions.
I asked a senior person at channel FIVE in the UK why and he stated that the watermark was removed some years ago because it basically “pissed people off” and FIVE was now about quality programs and they (FIVE) did not want to be identified as another “cheaper” looking digital channel.
2.
QUOTE
(ABC) The ABC believes it has a duty to copyright owners and that watermarking works against piracy (illegal off air recording).
(Kappa) ….this can no longer be regarded as valid. It is now relatively easy for even a novice to remove logos if they are intent on doing so. See the following internet sites for FREE codecs to achieve this.
http://www.videohelp.com/tools?tool=Virtua...Logoaway_filterhttp://www.videohelp.com/tools?tool=Virtua...n_Remove_Filter However, I doubt that those individuals intent on copying and distribution would worry to much about a logo in any case.
But more to the point can the ABC point to any specific cases where ABC material has gone astray?. I doubt it!.
If the BBC1 and BBC 2 and others are not doing it for their material why should the ABC do it for the same programs.?
3. This hardly needs any comment as it is just silly and nonsensical