On 1/19/06, Take a wild, friggin guess <a_change_of_plans_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
> Now, the only way someone would notice the special watermarking is
> if they tried to scan the pictures into their computer. Otherwise,
> the text is extremely faint. You have to be pretty much on top of
> the picture in order to even detect it. So maybe some of those folks
> were trying to make digital copies of the artwork. They sounds very
> legit. I know some people who do that, so I don't doubt the
> possibility. It's always a good idea to have a "back up copy".
> Unfortunately, there's no way to produce a kind of paper that will
> allow "legitimate copying" while stemming the flow of "illegal
> redistribution".
I'm going to speak up in mild dissent, but don't let that stop you.
I scan everything I buy. I generally view it there, saving my prints
and originals from wear and fading. Having a great big watermark over
it is visually distracting.
On the other hand, if I want something enough, only something so
egregious that it can no longer be called a watermark will stop me
from buying it.
--
Zach Collins (Siege)
Received on Thu Jan 19 2006 - 00:46:49 CST