Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #445992 > unrolled thread

OT: Art of Electronics, 3rd ed, for $59.96

Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design

Contents

  OT: Art of Electronics, 3rd ed, for $59.96 Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-02-03 11:35 -0800
    Re: OT: Art of Electronics, 3rd ed, for $59.96 boB <boB@theresnoplacelikehome.com> - 2017-02-03 14:17 -0800
    Re: OT: Art of Electronics, 3rd ed, for $59.96 bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-03 18:35 -0500
      Re: OT: Art of Electronics, 3rd ed, for $59.96 Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-02-03 17:20 -0800
    Re: OT: Art of Electronics, 3rd ed, for $59.96 Pimpom <Pimpom@invalid.com> - 2017-02-04 15:38 +0530
      Re: OT: Art of Electronics, 3rd ed, for $59.96 Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-02-04 04:39 -0800
    Re: Art of Electronics, 3rd ed, for $59.96 "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2017-02-04 10:02 -0500
      Re: Art of Electronics, 3rd ed, for $59.96 Frnak McKenney <frnak@far.from.the.madding.crowd.com> - 2017-02-18 22:22 -0600
        Re: Art of Electronics, 3rd ed, for $59.96 John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-18 20:25 -0800
      Re: Art of Electronics, 3rd ed, for $59.96 Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-28 16:19 -0800
        Re: Art of Electronics, 3rd ed, for $59.96 "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2017-03-01 05:53 -0500
          Re: Art of Electronics, 3rd ed, for $59.96 Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-03-01 07:16 -0800
    Re: OT: Art of Electronics, 3rd ed, for $59.96 amdx <nojunk@knology.net> - 2017-02-25 18:59 -0600
    AoE X-Chapters? Michael Elwood <mkelwoodut@gmail.com> - 2017-02-27 15:39 -0800
      Re: AoE X-Chapters? Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-02-27 17:11 -0800
        Re: AoE X-Chapters? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-28 01:20 +0000
          Re: AoE X-Chapters? Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-02-28 10:10 -0500
        Re: AoE X-Chapters? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-02-28 12:57 +1100
          Re: AoE X-Chapters? Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-02-28 03:10 -0800
          Re: AoE X-Chapters? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-28 11:39 +0000
          Re: AoE X-Chapters? Chris Jones <lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> - 2017-02-28 23:08 +1100
            Re: AoE X-Chapters? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-03-01 09:11 +1100
              Re: AoE X-Chapters? Chris Jones <lugnut808@spam.yahoo.com> - 2017-03-02 01:24 +1100
                Re: AoE X-Chapters? Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-03-01 10:50 -0500
                  Re: AoE X-Chapters? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-03-01 16:34 +0000
                  Re: AoE X-Chapters? John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-01 08:58 -0800
                    Re: AoE X-Chapters? Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-03-01 12:43 -0500
          Re: AoE X-Chapters? Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-02-28 10:11 -0500
          Re: AoE X-Chapters? Neon John <no@never.com> - 2017-02-28 12:11 -0500
          Re: AoE X-Chapters? Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2017-02-28 18:36 -0500
            Re: AoE X-Chapters? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-03-01 12:40 +1100
            Re: AoE X-Chapters? George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-28 17:44 -0800
              Re: AoE X-Chapters? Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-02-28 18:22 -0800
                Re: AoE X-Chapters? pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-02-28 18:28 -0800
                  Re: AoE X-Chapters? Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-02-28 19:10 -0800
                    Re: AoE X-Chapters? pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-03-01 06:08 -0800
                Re: AoE X-Chapters? pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-02-28 18:28 -0800
        Re: AoE X-Chapters? George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-27 18:25 -0800
          Re: AoE X-Chapters? George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-27 18:28 -0800
        Re: AoE X-Chapters? Neon John <no@never.com> - 2017-02-28 12:06 -0500
    Re: OT: Art of Electronics, 3rd ed, for $59.96 gyansorova@gmail.com - 2017-03-05 12:37 -0800
      Re: OT: Art of Electronics, 3rd ed, for $59.96 Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-03-05 12:51 -0800
      Re: OT: Art of Electronics, 3rd ed, for $59.96 John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-05 13:47 -0800
        Re: OT: Art of Electronics, 3rd ed, for $59.96 George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-03-05 18:23 -0800
          Re: OT: Art of Electronics, 3rd ed, for $59.96 John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-03-05 18:37 -0800
            Re: OT: Art of Electronics, 3rd ed, for $59.96 pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-03-06 05:17 -0800

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#449570 — Re: AoE X-Chapters?

On 28/02/2017 12:57, Clifford Heath wrote:
> On 28/02/17 12:11, Winfield Hill wrote:
>> Michael Elwood wrote...
>>>
>>> Since Win brought this up.... Is there any projections
>>> on publication date for the X Chapters?
>>
>>  We've still got 20-25% to finish.  Masses of really
>>  good stuff already done, needs to get out there.
>>
>>  We're talking about a live online version that
>>  could be continuously updated as we finish the
>>  last portions, and add new stuff to the rest.
>>  This scheme would allow earlier publication, but
>>  brings into question issues about a printed book.
>
> I hear you. Online e-books should be digitally watermarked with
> the name of the purchaser visible in each copy, to discourage
> "sharing" and to assist in copyright prosecutions.
>
> The books available from https://pragprog.com are digitally
> generated with watermarking at the point of purchase. This seems
> like a no-brainer, yet very few e-book publishers have done it.

Maybe because the people who distribute pirate copies commercially can 
easily enough remove the watermark, and the people who don't sell the 
pirate copies commercially are either undeterred by the watermark 
(because they trust their friends) or they are not pirating enough books 
to be costing significant sales and/or not rich enough to be worth 
taking to court.

Making the watermark really hard to remove probably involves significnt 
investment and/or annoys the readers, perhaps to the extent of 
detracting from the content, rendering the book not worth pirating. 
(This reminds me of my worst car that was so bad that it was immune to 
theft.)

IMO watermarking / DRM stuff is mostly just annoying for the paying 
customers. I for one refuse to buy any DRMed files, but I spend a lot on 
books.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#449634 — Re: AoE X-Chapters?

On 28/02/17 23:08, Chris Jones wrote:
> On 28/02/2017 12:57, Clifford Heath wrote:
>> On 28/02/17 12:11, Winfield Hill wrote:
>>> Michael Elwood wrote...
>>>>
>>>> Since Win brought this up.... Is there any projections
>>>> on publication date for the X Chapters?
>>>
>>>  We've still got 20-25% to finish.  Masses of really
>>>  good stuff already done, needs to get out there.
>>>
>>>  We're talking about a live online version that
>>>  could be continuously updated as we finish the
>>>  last portions, and add new stuff to the rest.
>>>  This scheme would allow earlier publication, but
>>>  brings into question issues about a printed book.
>>
>> I hear you. Online e-books should be digitally watermarked with
>> the name of the purchaser visible in each copy, to discourage
>> "sharing" and to assist in copyright prosecutions.
>>
>> The books available from https://pragprog.com are digitally
>> generated with watermarking at the point of purchase. This seems
>> like a no-brainer, yet very few e-book publishers have done it.
>
> Maybe because the people who distribute pirate copies commercially can
> easily enough remove the watermark, and the people who don't sell the
> pirate copies commercially are either undeterred by the watermark
> (because they trust their friends) or they are not pirating enough books
> to be costing significant sales and/or not rich enough to be worth
> taking to court.
>
> Making the watermark really hard to remove probably involves significnt
> investment and/or annoys the readers, perhaps to the extent of
> detracting from the content, rendering the book not worth pirating.

Thank-you for your uninformed opinion; we're all dumber for it.
You might like to Google "steganography".

Speaking as someone who has written a PDF parser, and spent a decade
building banking-grade cryptographic products... the "easy" methods
for watermarking are easy to remove, but it's actually not hard to
put either visible or invisible watermarks into a PDF so that they're
really hard to remove.

I won't go into all the details, but there are at least a thousand
ways to encode data into PDF without changing the rendered result.
If random variations are included in many places, then simple
differencing cannot find where the watermark is stored. And if the
watermark is extended across all these locations using heavily
redundant FEC, then the watermark is effectively impossible to
remove.

Has this actually been done? I'm not sure... but I'm sure it can be.
Yes, it's harder than appending an object to the PDF dictionary or
inserting text into the MSWord original, but not much harder.

> IMO watermarking / DRM stuff is mostly just annoying for the paying
> customers. I for one refuse to buy any DRMed files, but I spend a lot on
> books.

How is watermarking annoying? Besides, the main benefit of watermarking
isn't that it enables prosecution, but that it discourages sharing
in the first place. The buyer doesn't need to see the watermark on
every other page, they just need to know that their purchase can be
traced.

I'm not talking about enforced DRM. I personally agree with you here.

Clifford Heath.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#449723 — Re: AoE X-Chapters?

On 01/03/2017 09:11, Clifford Heath wrote:
> On 28/02/17 23:08, Chris Jones wrote:
>> On 28/02/2017 12:57, Clifford Heath wrote:
>>> On 28/02/17 12:11, Winfield Hill wrote:
>>>> Michael Elwood wrote...
>>>>>
>>>>> Since Win brought this up.... Is there any projections
>>>>> on publication date for the X Chapters?
>>>>
>>>>  We've still got 20-25% to finish.  Masses of really
>>>>  good stuff already done, needs to get out there.
>>>>
>>>>  We're talking about a live online version that
>>>>  could be continuously updated as we finish the
>>>>  last portions, and add new stuff to the rest.
>>>>  This scheme would allow earlier publication, but
>>>>  brings into question issues about a printed book.
>>>
>>> I hear you. Online e-books should be digitally watermarked with
>>> the name of the purchaser visible in each copy, to discourage
>>> "sharing" and to assist in copyright prosecutions.
>>>
>>> The books available from https://pragprog.com are digitally
>>> generated with watermarking at the point of purchase. This seems
>>> like a no-brainer, yet very few e-book publishers have done it.
>>
>> Maybe because the people who distribute pirate copies commercially can
>> easily enough remove the watermark, and the people who don't sell the
>> pirate copies commercially are either undeterred by the watermark
>> (because they trust their friends) or they are not pirating enough books
>> to be costing significant sales and/or not rich enough to be worth
>> taking to court.
>>
>> Making the watermark really hard to remove probably involves significnt
>> investment and/or annoys the readers, perhaps to the extent of
>> detracting from the content, rendering the book not worth pirating.
>
> Thank-you for your uninformed opinion; we're all dumber for it.
> You might like to Google "steganography".

I am aware of steganography.

>
> Speaking as someone who has written a PDF parser, and spent a decade
> building banking-grade cryptographic products... the "easy" methods
> for watermarking are easy to remove, but it's actually not hard to
> put either visible or invisible watermarks into a PDF so that they're
> really hard to remove.

I think that visible watermarks may be difficult to remove if they are 
overlapping the content that the purchaser paid to see (but may be 
either annoying to paying customers, or otherwise non-trivial to 
generate for arbitrary content).

Truly invisible watermarks should be very easily removed by rendering 
the page to a bitmap, quantizing the pixel colours (usually black and 
white would do), and then optionally re-encoding that to a PDF if you 
still want it in pdf file format. I would not call that "really hard". 
If you want the text to be searchable then there is the extra step of 
running it through OCR, which may be difficult to do well, but I doubt 
many pirates would be that bothered by the accuracy of the OCR text. 
Some documents are so poorly structured (e.g. text stored as bitmap 
images in the original document, or parts of words in separare strings 
where someone was trying to do custom character spacing) that the 
rendering+OCR process might sometimes improve the usability!

>
> I won't go into all the details, but there are at least a thousand
> ways to encode data into PDF without changing the rendered result.

True. Of course these are all useless if the pirate uses only the 
rendered (bitmap) result.

> If random variations are included in many places, then simple
> differencing cannot find where the watermark is stored. And if the
> watermark is extended across all these locations using heavily
> redundant FEC, then the watermark is effectively impossible to
> remove.
Yes, this could work, but is not really trivial to implement. If the 
document is valuable enough to warrant this kind of work (e.g. drafts of 
a free trade agreement during the phase after the pharma companies and 
MPAA finished writing it, but before it has been signed and shown to the 
citizens whose rights it is about to delete...), then the person 
pirating/leaking it might also go to some trouble. For example, if the 
pirate has multiple copies of the document with different watermarks and 
randomly uses pixels from different copies for different parts of each 
page, the FEC might need to be quite good to withstand that.

Personally I have never seen any watermarking that affects the pixel 
colours in the rendered result, other than very obvious text on the edge 
of each page.

>
> Has this actually been done? I'm not sure... but I'm sure it can be.
> Yes, it's harder than appending an object to the PDF dictionary or
> inserting text into the MSWord original, but not much harder.
>
>> IMO watermarking / DRM stuff is mostly just annoying for the paying
>> customers. I for one refuse to buy any DRMed files, but I spend a lot on
>> books.
>
> How is watermarking annoying?
Not often, but I have had downloads take a long time to start, and I 
think this was due to the machine that does the watermarking being not 
up to the load.

It could also be annoying if your coworker (with whom you are legally 
permitted to share a document) then gives it to someone else. In other 
words, the person whose name is on the watermark is not necessarily the 
one who did any copyright infringement. To avoid this, you could make 
your coworkers each download their own copy, rather than using shared 
drives or dropbox etc. (or even shared paper copies) for sharing 
documents for which you have a company-wide licence, but that would be 
annoying. Some watermarks are vague enough that the individual user 
within the company cannot be identified, however I suspect that this 
would destroy most of their deterrent effectiveness.

> Besides, the main benefit of watermarking
> isn't that it enables prosecution, but that it discourages sharing
> in the first place. The buyer doesn't need to see the watermark on
> every other page, they just need to know that their purchase can be
> traced.
>
> I'm not talking about enforced DRM. I personally agree with you here.
Ok, I should not have conflated DRM with watermarking.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#449733 — Re: AoE X-Chapters?

On 03/01/2017 09:24 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
> On 01/03/2017 09:11, Clifford Heath wrote:
>> On 28/02/17 23:08, Chris Jones wrote:
>>> On 28/02/2017 12:57, Clifford Heath wrote:
>>>> On 28/02/17 12:11, Winfield Hill wrote:
>>>>> Michael Elwood wrote...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Since Win brought this up.... Is there any projections on
>>>>>> publication date for the X Chapters?
>>>>> 
>>>>> We've still got 20-25% to finish.  Masses of really good
>>>>> stuff already done, needs to get out there.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We're talking about a live online version that could be
>>>>> continuously updated as we finish the last portions, and add
>>>>> new stuff to the rest. This scheme would allow earlier
>>>>> publication, but brings into question issues about a printed
>>>>> book.
>>>> 
>>>> I hear you. Online e-books should be digitally watermarked
>>>> with the name of the purchaser visible in each copy, to
>>>> discourage "sharing" and to assist in copyright prosecutions.
>>>> 
>>>> The books available from https://pragprog.com are digitally 
>>>> generated with watermarking at the point of purchase. This
>>>> seems like a no-brainer, yet very few e-book publishers have
>>>> done it.
>>> 
>>> Maybe because the people who distribute pirate copies
>>> commercially can easily enough remove the watermark, and the
>>> people who don't sell the pirate copies commercially are either
>>> undeterred by the watermark (because they trust their friends) or
>>> they are not pirating enough books to be costing significant
>>> sales and/or not rich enough to be worth taking to court.
>>> 
>>> Making the watermark really hard to remove probably involves
>>> significnt investment and/or annoys the readers, perhaps to the
>>> extent of detracting from the content, rendering the book not
>>> worth pirating.
>> 
>> Thank-you for your uninformed opinion; we're all dumber for it. You
>> might like to Google "steganography".
> 
> I am aware of steganography.
> 
>> 
>> Speaking as someone who has written a PDF parser, and spent a
>> decade building banking-grade cryptographic products... the "easy"
>> methods for watermarking are easy to remove, but it's actually not
>> hard to put either visible or invisible watermarks into a PDF so
>> that they're really hard to remove.
> 
> I think that visible watermarks may be difficult to remove if they
> are overlapping the content that the purchaser paid to see (but may
> be either annoying to paying customers, or otherwise non-trivial to 
> generate for arbitrary content).
> 
> Truly invisible watermarks should be very easily removed by
> rendering the page to a bitmap, quantizing the pixel colours (usually
> black and white would do), and then optionally re-encoding that to a
> PDF if you still want it in pdf file format. I would not call that
> "really hard". If you want the text to be searchable then there is
> the extra step of running it through OCR, which may be difficult to
> do well, but I doubt many pirates would be that bothered by the
> accuracy of the OCR text. Some documents are so poorly structured
> (e.g. text stored as bitmap images in the original document, or parts
> of words in separare strings where someone was trying to do custom
> character spacing) that the rendering+OCR process might sometimes
> improve the usability!
> 
>> 
>> I won't go into all the details, but there are at least a thousand 
>> ways to encode data into PDF without changing the rendered result.
> 
> True. Of course these are all useless if the pirate uses only the 
> rendered (bitmap) result.
> 
>> If random variations are included in many places, then simple 
>> differencing cannot find where the watermark is stored. And if the 
>> watermark is extended across all these locations using heavily 
>> redundant FEC, then the watermark is effectively impossible to 
>> remove.
> Yes, this could work, but is not really trivial to implement. If the 
> document is valuable enough to warrant this kind of work (e.g. drafts
> of a free trade agreement during the phase after the pharma companies
> and MPAA finished writing it, but before it has been signed and shown
> to the citizens whose rights it is about to delete...), then the
> person pirating/leaking it might also go to some trouble. For
> example, if the pirate has multiple copies of the document with
> different watermarks and randomly uses pixels from different copies
> for different parts of each page, the FEC might need to be quite good
> to withstand that.
> 
> Personally I have never seen any watermarking that affects the pixel 
> colours in the rendered result, other than very obvious text on the
> edge of each page.
> 
>> 
>> Has this actually been done? I'm not sure... but I'm sure it can
>> be. Yes, it's harder than appending an object to the PDF dictionary
>> or inserting text into the MSWord original, but not much harder.
>> 
>>> IMO watermarking / DRM stuff is mostly just annoying for the
>>> paying customers. I for one refuse to buy any DRMed files, but I
>>> spend a lot on books.
>> 
>> How is watermarking annoying?
> Not often, but I have had downloads take a long time to start, and I 
> think this was due to the machine that does the watermarking being
> not up to the load.
> 
> It could also be annoying if your coworker (with whom you are
> legally permitted to share a document) then gives it to someone else.
> In other words, the person whose name is on the watermark is not
> necessarily the one who did any copyright infringement. To avoid
> this, you could make your coworkers each download their own copy,
> rather than using shared drives or dropbox etc. (or even shared paper
> copies) for sharing documents for which you have a company-wide
> licence, but that would be annoying. Some watermarks are vague enough
> that the individual user within the company cannot be identified,
> however I suspect that this would destroy most of their deterrent
> effectiveness.
> 
>> Besides, the main benefit of watermarking isn't that it enables
>> prosecution, but that it discourages sharing in the first place.
>> The buyer doesn't need to see the watermark on every other page,
>> they just need to know that their purchase can be traced.
>> 
>> I'm not talking about enforced DRM. I personally agree with you
>> here.
> Ok, I should not have conflated DRM with watermarking.

There are steganographic methods that survive converting to 1-bit
monochrome, cropping, and stretching.  The ones I know about encode the
message in the low spatial frequencies of an image.  The work was done
by some IBM colleagues of mine around 2000.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

-- 
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#449736 — Re: AoE X-Chapters?

On 01/03/17 15:50, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> There are steganographic methods that survive converting to 1-bit
> monochrome, cropping, and stretching.  The ones I know about encode the
> message in the low spatial frequencies of an image.  The work was done
> by some IBM colleagues of mine around 2000.

In 1999 I saw a watermark added to a professional quality
jpeg photo. Then the image was shrunk and the quality reduced,
then printed on an inkjet printer and scanned.

The watermark survived.

But watermarking etc is pretty much irrelevant unless there
are effective sanctions against copying and/or distributing.
In most cases, there aren't.

It is another variant of the old axiom "if you think
cryptography will solve your problem, then you don't
understand cryptography and you don't understand your
problem".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#449742 — Re: AoE X-Chapters?

On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 10:50:23 -0500, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

>On 03/01/2017 09:24 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
>> On 01/03/2017 09:11, Clifford Heath wrote:
>>> On 28/02/17 23:08, Chris Jones wrote:
>>>> On 28/02/2017 12:57, Clifford Heath wrote:
>>>>> On 28/02/17 12:11, Winfield Hill wrote:
>>>>>> Michael Elwood wrote...
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Since Win brought this up.... Is there any projections on
>>>>>>> publication date for the X Chapters?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We've still got 20-25% to finish.  Masses of really good
>>>>>> stuff already done, needs to get out there.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We're talking about a live online version that could be
>>>>>> continuously updated as we finish the last portions, and add
>>>>>> new stuff to the rest. This scheme would allow earlier
>>>>>> publication, but brings into question issues about a printed
>>>>>> book.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I hear you. Online e-books should be digitally watermarked
>>>>> with the name of the purchaser visible in each copy, to
>>>>> discourage "sharing" and to assist in copyright prosecutions.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The books available from https://pragprog.com are digitally 
>>>>> generated with watermarking at the point of purchase. This
>>>>> seems like a no-brainer, yet very few e-book publishers have
>>>>> done it.
>>>> 
>>>> Maybe because the people who distribute pirate copies
>>>> commercially can easily enough remove the watermark, and the
>>>> people who don't sell the pirate copies commercially are either
>>>> undeterred by the watermark (because they trust their friends) or
>>>> they are not pirating enough books to be costing significant
>>>> sales and/or not rich enough to be worth taking to court.
>>>> 
>>>> Making the watermark really hard to remove probably involves
>>>> significnt investment and/or annoys the readers, perhaps to the
>>>> extent of detracting from the content, rendering the book not
>>>> worth pirating.
>>> 
>>> Thank-you for your uninformed opinion; we're all dumber for it. You
>>> might like to Google "steganography".
>> 
>> I am aware of steganography.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Speaking as someone who has written a PDF parser, and spent a
>>> decade building banking-grade cryptographic products... the "easy"
>>> methods for watermarking are easy to remove, but it's actually not
>>> hard to put either visible or invisible watermarks into a PDF so
>>> that they're really hard to remove.
>> 
>> I think that visible watermarks may be difficult to remove if they
>> are overlapping the content that the purchaser paid to see (but may
>> be either annoying to paying customers, or otherwise non-trivial to 
>> generate for arbitrary content).
>> 
>> Truly invisible watermarks should be very easily removed by
>> rendering the page to a bitmap, quantizing the pixel colours (usually
>> black and white would do), and then optionally re-encoding that to a
>> PDF if you still want it in pdf file format. I would not call that
>> "really hard". If you want the text to be searchable then there is
>> the extra step of running it through OCR, which may be difficult to
>> do well, but I doubt many pirates would be that bothered by the
>> accuracy of the OCR text. Some documents are so poorly structured
>> (e.g. text stored as bitmap images in the original document, or parts
>> of words in separare strings where someone was trying to do custom
>> character spacing) that the rendering+OCR process might sometimes
>> improve the usability!
>> 
>>> 
>>> I won't go into all the details, but there are at least a thousand 
>>> ways to encode data into PDF without changing the rendered result.
>> 
>> True. Of course these are all useless if the pirate uses only the 
>> rendered (bitmap) result.
>> 
>>> If random variations are included in many places, then simple 
>>> differencing cannot find where the watermark is stored. And if the 
>>> watermark is extended across all these locations using heavily 
>>> redundant FEC, then the watermark is effectively impossible to 
>>> remove.
>> Yes, this could work, but is not really trivial to implement. If the 
>> document is valuable enough to warrant this kind of work (e.g. drafts
>> of a free trade agreement during the phase after the pharma companies
>> and MPAA finished writing it, but before it has been signed and shown
>> to the citizens whose rights it is about to delete...), then the
>> person pirating/leaking it might also go to some trouble. For
>> example, if the pirate has multiple copies of the document with
>> different watermarks and randomly uses pixels from different copies
>> for different parts of each page, the FEC might need to be quite good
>> to withstand that.
>> 
>> Personally I have never seen any watermarking that affects the pixel 
>> colours in the rendered result, other than very obvious text on the
>> edge of each page.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Has this actually been done? I'm not sure... but I'm sure it can
>>> be. Yes, it's harder than appending an object to the PDF dictionary
>>> or inserting text into the MSWord original, but not much harder.
>>> 
>>>> IMO watermarking / DRM stuff is mostly just annoying for the
>>>> paying customers. I for one refuse to buy any DRMed files, but I
>>>> spend a lot on books.
>>> 
>>> How is watermarking annoying?
>> Not often, but I have had downloads take a long time to start, and I 
>> think this was due to the machine that does the watermarking being
>> not up to the load.
>> 
>> It could also be annoying if your coworker (with whom you are
>> legally permitted to share a document) then gives it to someone else.
>> In other words, the person whose name is on the watermark is not
>> necessarily the one who did any copyright infringement. To avoid
>> this, you could make your coworkers each download their own copy,
>> rather than using shared drives or dropbox etc. (or even shared paper
>> copies) for sharing documents for which you have a company-wide
>> licence, but that would be annoying. Some watermarks are vague enough
>> that the individual user within the company cannot be identified,
>> however I suspect that this would destroy most of their deterrent
>> effectiveness.
>> 
>>> Besides, the main benefit of watermarking isn't that it enables
>>> prosecution, but that it discourages sharing in the first place.
>>> The buyer doesn't need to see the watermark on every other page,
>>> they just need to know that their purchase can be traced.
>>> 
>>> I'm not talking about enforced DRM. I personally agree with you
>>> here.
>> Ok, I should not have conflated DRM with watermarking.
>
>There are steganographic methods that survive converting to 1-bit
>monochrome, cropping, and stretching.  The ones I know about encode the
>message in the low spatial frequencies of an image.  The work was done
>by some IBM colleagues of mine around 2000.
>
>Cheers
>
>Phil Hobbs

I have heard that color copy machines add encoded IDs, so the feds can
tell which copier made those counterfeit $100 bills.


-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#449749 — Re: AoE X-Chapters?

On 03/01/2017 11:58 AM, John Larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 10:50:23 -0500, Phil Hobbs
> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 03/01/2017 09:24 AM, Chris Jones wrote:
>>> On 01/03/2017 09:11, Clifford Heath wrote:
>>>> On 28/02/17 23:08, Chris Jones wrote:
>>>>> On 28/02/2017 12:57, Clifford Heath wrote:
>>>>>> On 28/02/17 12:11, Winfield Hill wrote:
>>>>>>> Michael Elwood wrote...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since Win brought this up.... Is there any projections on
>>>>>>>> publication date for the X Chapters?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We've still got 20-25% to finish.  Masses of really good
>>>>>>> stuff already done, needs to get out there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We're talking about a live online version that could be
>>>>>>> continuously updated as we finish the last portions, and add
>>>>>>> new stuff to the rest. This scheme would allow earlier
>>>>>>> publication, but brings into question issues about a printed
>>>>>>> book.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I hear you. Online e-books should be digitally watermarked
>>>>>> with the name of the purchaser visible in each copy, to
>>>>>> discourage "sharing" and to assist in copyright prosecutions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The books available from https://pragprog.com are digitally 
>>>>>> generated with watermarking at the point of purchase. This
>>>>>> seems like a no-brainer, yet very few e-book publishers have
>>>>>> done it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe because the people who distribute pirate copies
>>>>> commercially can easily enough remove the watermark, and the
>>>>> people who don't sell the pirate copies commercially are either
>>>>> undeterred by the watermark (because they trust their friends) or
>>>>> they are not pirating enough books to be costing significant
>>>>> sales and/or not rich enough to be worth taking to court.
>>>>>
>>>>> Making the watermark really hard to remove probably involves
>>>>> significnt investment and/or annoys the readers, perhaps to the
>>>>> extent of detracting from the content, rendering the book not
>>>>> worth pirating.
>>>>
>>>> Thank-you for your uninformed opinion; we're all dumber for it. You
>>>> might like to Google "steganography".
>>>
>>> I am aware of steganography.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Speaking as someone who has written a PDF parser, and spent a
>>>> decade building banking-grade cryptographic products... the "easy"
>>>> methods for watermarking are easy to remove, but it's actually not
>>>> hard to put either visible or invisible watermarks into a PDF so
>>>> that they're really hard to remove.
>>>
>>> I think that visible watermarks may be difficult to remove if they
>>> are overlapping the content that the purchaser paid to see (but may
>>> be either annoying to paying customers, or otherwise non-trivial to 
>>> generate for arbitrary content).
>>>
>>> Truly invisible watermarks should be very easily removed by
>>> rendering the page to a bitmap, quantizing the pixel colours (usually
>>> black and white would do), and then optionally re-encoding that to a
>>> PDF if you still want it in pdf file format. I would not call that
>>> "really hard". If you want the text to be searchable then there is
>>> the extra step of running it through OCR, which may be difficult to
>>> do well, but I doubt many pirates would be that bothered by the
>>> accuracy of the OCR text. Some documents are so poorly structured
>>> (e.g. text stored as bitmap images in the original document, or parts
>>> of words in separare strings where someone was trying to do custom
>>> character spacing) that the rendering+OCR process might sometimes
>>> improve the usability!
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I won't go into all the details, but there are at least a thousand 
>>>> ways to encode data into PDF without changing the rendered result.
>>>
>>> True. Of course these are all useless if the pirate uses only the 
>>> rendered (bitmap) result.
>>>
>>>> If random variations are included in many places, then simple 
>>>> differencing cannot find where the watermark is stored. And if the 
>>>> watermark is extended across all these locations using heavily 
>>>> redundant FEC, then the watermark is effectively impossible to 
>>>> remove.
>>> Yes, this could work, but is not really trivial to implement. If the 
>>> document is valuable enough to warrant this kind of work (e.g. drafts
>>> of a free trade agreement during the phase after the pharma companies
>>> and MPAA finished writing it, but before it has been signed and shown
>>> to the citizens whose rights it is about to delete...), then the
>>> person pirating/leaking it might also go to some trouble. For
>>> example, if the pirate has multiple copies of the document with
>>> different watermarks and randomly uses pixels from different copies
>>> for different parts of each page, the FEC might need to be quite good
>>> to withstand that.
>>>
>>> Personally I have never seen any watermarking that affects the pixel 
>>> colours in the rendered result, other than very obvious text on the
>>> edge of each page.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Has this actually been done? I'm not sure... but I'm sure it can
>>>> be. Yes, it's harder than appending an object to the PDF dictionary
>>>> or inserting text into the MSWord original, but not much harder.
>>>>
>>>>> IMO watermarking / DRM stuff is mostly just annoying for the
>>>>> paying customers. I for one refuse to buy any DRMed files, but I
>>>>> spend a lot on books.
>>>>
>>>> How is watermarking annoying?
>>> Not often, but I have had downloads take a long time to start, and I 
>>> think this was due to the machine that does the watermarking being
>>> not up to the load.
>>>
>>> It could also be annoying if your coworker (with whom you are
>>> legally permitted to share a document) then gives it to someone else.
>>> In other words, the person whose name is on the watermark is not
>>> necessarily the one who did any copyright infringement. To avoid
>>> this, you could make your coworkers each download their own copy,
>>> rather than using shared drives or dropbox etc. (or even shared paper
>>> copies) for sharing documents for which you have a company-wide
>>> licence, but that would be annoying. Some watermarks are vague enough
>>> that the individual user within the company cannot be identified,
>>> however I suspect that this would destroy most of their deterrent
>>> effectiveness.
>>>
>>>> Besides, the main benefit of watermarking isn't that it enables
>>>> prosecution, but that it discourages sharing in the first place.
>>>> The buyer doesn't need to see the watermark on every other page,
>>>> they just need to know that their purchase can be traced.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not talking about enforced DRM. I personally agree with you
>>>> here.
>>> Ok, I should not have conflated DRM with watermarking.
>>
>> There are steganographic methods that survive converting to 1-bit
>> monochrome, cropping, and stretching.  The ones I know about encode the
>> message in the low spatial frequencies of an image.  The work was done
>> by some IBM colleagues of mine around 2000.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Phil Hobbs
> 
> I have heard that color copy machines add encoded IDs, so the feds can
> tell which copier made those counterfeit $100 bills.
> 
> 
Your inkjet printer probably puts faint yellow dots in white areas that
encode the same info.  Not all do, but afaik most.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

-- 
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#449586 — Re: AoE X-Chapters?

On 02/27/2017 08:57 PM, Clifford Heath wrote:
> On 28/02/17 12:11, Winfield Hill wrote:
>> Michael Elwood wrote...
>>>
>>> Since Win brought this up.... Is there any projections
>>> on publication date for the X Chapters?
>>
>>  We've still got 20-25% to finish.  Masses of really
>>  good stuff already done, needs to get out there.
>>
>>  We're talking about a live online version that
>>  could be continuously updated as we finish the
>>  last portions, and add new stuff to the rest.
>>  This scheme would allow earlier publication, but
>>  brings into question issues about a printed book.
> 
> I hear you. Online e-books should be digitally watermarked with
> the name of the purchaser visible in each copy, to discourage
> "sharing" and to assist in copyright prosecutions.
> 
> The books available from https://pragprog.com are digitally
> generated with watermarking at the point of purchase. This seems
> like a no-brainer, yet very few e-book publishers have done it.
> 
> Clifford Heath.

All you have to do is crack a library copy.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

-- 
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#449597 — Re: AoE X-Chapters?

On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 12:57:07 +1100, Clifford Heath
<no.spam@please.net> wrote:

>On 28/02/17 12:11, Winfield Hill wrote:

>I hear you. Online e-books should be digitally watermarked with
>the name of the purchaser visible in each copy, to discourage
>"sharing" and to assist in copyright prosecutions.

Why?  They're trivially easy to remove, especially in the Linux world.
A much smarter policy is to publish a good book (done), then promote
and sell it like crazy and don't worry about the copiers, most of whom
would not have purchased a copy anyway.

John
John DeArmond
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.tnduction.com 
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
See website for email address

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#449640 — Re: AoE X-Chapters?

On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 12:57:07 +1100, the renowned Clifford Heath
<no.spam@please.net> wrote:

>On 28/02/17 12:11, Winfield Hill wrote:
>> Michael Elwood wrote...
>>>
>>> Since Win brought this up.... Is there any projections
>>> on publication date for the X Chapters?
>>
>>  We've still got 20-25% to finish.  Masses of really
>>  good stuff already done, needs to get out there.
>>
>>  We're talking about a live online version that
>>  could be continuously updated as we finish the
>>  last portions, and add new stuff to the rest.
>>  This scheme would allow earlier publication, but
>>  brings into question issues about a printed book.
>
>I hear you. Online e-books should be digitally watermarked with
>the name of the purchaser visible in each copy, to discourage
>"sharing" and to assist in copyright prosecutions.
>
>The books available from https://pragprog.com are digitally
>generated with watermarking at the point of purchase. This seems
>like a no-brainer, yet very few e-book publishers have done it.
>
>Clifford Heath.

IME it's pretty straightforward to remove the watermark from, for
example, papers that have the download IP embedded. 

Certainly the people who throw this stuff onto the net in bulk would
hardly be slowed down. 

--sp 


-- 
Best regards, 
Spehro Pefhany

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#449666 — Re: AoE X-Chapters?

On 01/03/17 10:36, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 12:57:07 +1100, the renowned Clifford Heath
> <no.spam@please.net> wrote:
>
>> On 28/02/17 12:11, Winfield Hill wrote:
>>> Michael Elwood wrote...
>>>>
>>>> Since Win brought this up.... Is there any projections
>>>> on publication date for the X Chapters?
>>>
>>>  We've still got 20-25% to finish.  Masses of really
>>>  good stuff already done, needs to get out there.
>>>
>>>  We're talking about a live online version that
>>>  could be continuously updated as we finish the
>>>  last portions, and add new stuff to the rest.
>>>  This scheme would allow earlier publication, but
>>>  brings into question issues about a printed book.
>>
>> I hear you. Online e-books should be digitally watermarked with
>> the name of the purchaser visible in each copy, to discourage
>> "sharing" and to assist in copyright prosecutions.
>>
>> The books available from https://pragprog.com are digitally
>> generated with watermarking at the point of purchase. This seems
>> like a no-brainer, yet very few e-book publishers have done it.
>>
>> Clifford Heath.
>
> IME it's pretty straightforward to remove the watermark from, for
> example, papers that have the download IP embedded.

Trivial watermarking is trivially removed, duh.
But I wasn't suggesting that, read my other reply.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#449668 — Re: AoE X-Chapters?

On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 6:36:35 PM UTC-5, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2017 12:57:07 +1100, the renowned Clifford Heath
> <no.spam@please.net> wrote:
> 
> >On 28/02/17 12:11, Winfield Hill wrote:
> >> Michael Elwood wrote...
> >>>
> >>> Since Win brought this up.... Is there any projections
> >>> on publication date for the X Chapters?
> >>
> >>  We've still got 20-25% to finish.  Masses of really
> >>  good stuff already done, needs to get out there.
> >>
> >>  We're talking about a live online version that
> >>  could be continuously updated as we finish the
> >>  last portions, and add new stuff to the rest.
> >>  This scheme would allow earlier publication, but
> >>  brings into question issues about a printed book.
> >
> >I hear you. Online e-books should be digitally watermarked with
> >the name of the purchaser visible in each copy, to discourage
> >"sharing" and to assist in copyright prosecutions.
> >
> >The books available from https://pragprog.com are digitally
> >generated with watermarking at the point of purchase. This seems
> >like a no-brainer, yet very few e-book publishers have done it.
> >
> >Clifford Heath.
> 
> IME it's pretty straightforward to remove the watermark from, for
> example, papers that have the download IP embedded. 
> 
> Certainly the people who throw this stuff onto the net in bulk would
> hardly be slowed down. 
> 
> --sp 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Best regards, 
> Spehro Pefhany

OK here's my picture of AoEX online.  
You ask everyone to buy in, a one time payment.
~$100 seems to me about right.  (You could have 
student members for ~$10) Then you also make it 
totally open with ~30-90?? day guest memberships.
Right scofflaws can abuse you... 
Perhaps you can shame some of them into paying?  
(I give money to Wikipedia.)  
   
George H. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#449680 — Re: AoE X-Chapters?

George Herold wrote...
>
> OK here's my picture of AoEX online.  
> You ask everyone to buy in, a one time payment.
> ~$100 seems to me about right.  ...

 They're thinking that anyone who buys the paper
 book gets a free live html book.  They're also
 thinking of bundling AoE 3 with the x-Chapters.
 You'd have one big live well-linked document. The
 paper versions would gradually become out of date.


-- 
 Thanks,
    - Win

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#449684 — Re: AoE X-Chapters?

>You'd have one big live well-linked document. The 
> paper versions would gradually become out of date. 

Of course AoE2 was right up to the minute in 2014. ;)

Cheers

Phil "hanging on to all 3 editions" Hobbs

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#449690 — Re: AoE X-Chapters?

pcdhobbs@gmail.com wrote...
>
>> You'd have one big live well-linked document. The
>> paper versions would gradually become out of date.
>
> Of course AoE2 was right up to the minute in 2014. ;)

 AoE 3 you mean?  It was up-to-date a year before
 it was published.


-- 
 Thanks,
    - Win

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#449719 — Re: AoE X-Chapters?

>> Of course AoE2 was right up to the minute in 2014. ;) 

>AoE 3 you mean?  It was up-to-date a year before 
> it was published.

No, AoE2. I wasn't being snippy, I was just teasing you about the long wait. ;)   

Cheers

Phil

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#449685 — Re: AoE X-Chapters?

>You'd have one big live well-linked document. The 
> paper versions would gradually become out of date. 

Of course AoE2 was right up to the minute in 2014. ;)

Cheers

Phil "hanging on to all 3 editions" Hobbs

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#449531 — Re: AoE X-Chapters?

On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 8:11:44 PM UTC-5, Winfield Hill wrote:
> Michael Elwood wrote...
> >
> > Since Win brought this up.... Is there any projections
> > on publication date for the X Chapters?
> 
>  We've still got 20-25% to finish.  Masses of really
>  good stuff already done, needs to get out there. 
> 
>  We're talking about a live online version that
>  could be continuously updated as we finish the
>  last portions, and add new stuff to the rest.
>  This scheme would allow earlier publication, but
>  brings into question issues about a printed book.
> 
Yeah do that!!!! 
George H.
(I'll add whatever small bit I know.)
> 
> -- 
>  Thanks,
>     - Win

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#449532 — Re: AoE X-Chapters?

On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 9:25:59 PM UTC-5, George Herold wrote:
> On Monday, February 27, 2017 at 8:11:44 PM UTC-5, Winfield Hill wrote:
> > Michael Elwood wrote...
> > >
> > > Since Win brought this up.... Is there any projections
> > > on publication date for the X Chapters?
> > 
> >  We've still got 20-25% to finish.  Masses of really
> >  good stuff already done, needs to get out there. 
> > 
> >  We're talking about a live online version that
> >  could be continuously updated as we finish the
> >  last portions, and add new stuff to the rest.
> >  This scheme would allow earlier publication, but
> >  brings into question issues about a printed book.
> > 
> Yeah do that!!!! 
> George H.
> (I'll add whatever small bit I know.)
I'd be happy to send you more money too... if that helps.
say ~$100.  

GH. 
> > 
> > -- 
> >  Thanks,
> >     - Win

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#449595 — Re: AoE X-Chapters?

On 27 Feb 2017 17:11:24 -0800, Winfield Hill
<hill@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:


> We're talking about a live online version that
> could be continuously updated as we finish the
> last portions, and add new stuff to the rest.
> This scheme would allow earlier publication, but
> brings into question issues about a printed book.

Please NOOOOoooooooo.  The printed version is vital.  Especially for
folks like me who have slow, data capped (satellite) service.  An
online version in addition to the print version would be great but I
can't dog-ear, write in the margins, stick post-it notes to an on-line
version.  The print version is vital.

The only other thing I'd ask is to increase the typeface size a point
or two.  I'm on the wrong side of 60 and even with brand new glasses
find the main book difficult to read.

Thanks,
John
John DeArmond
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.tnduction.com 
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
See website for email address

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design

csiph-web