[VeritatisSplendor]

This paper is an example of the level of sophistication digital watermarking has reached. In theory, you can prove what the watermark is without revealing any information about how it is encoded.

[Bush2000]

This paper is an example of the level of sophistication digital watermarking has reached. In theory, you can prove what the watermark is without revealing any information about how it is encoded.

In my view, what will eventually happen is either (a) stronger encryption, (b) watermarking which allows investigators to track files back to an original, verifiable source, or (c) a combination of the two. A system may involve in which, when you either go to the music store or download music over the Internet, your music is created for you on demand. Your name gets put in a database and the songs are watermarked with special software. You're free to use the songs on any device you want. But if the files are distributed on the Internet, investigators can track them back to you, and leave you vulnerable to a damage reward.

[general_re]

In theory, you can prove what the watermark is without revealing any information about how it is encoded.

In practice, that doesn't help you much, because proving the existence of a watermark without revealing the methodology behind the insertion (say, for example, when you go into court to sue someone for piracy) is different problem than preventing an attacker from detecting the watermark on his own and manipulating it. This paper (and this paper and this paper, and this paper, and lots more, too) is an example of the level of sophistication detecting digital watermarks has reached. The only real long-term solution is tighter control of the formats that media are distributed in - watermarking is just a new battlefield for another endless arms race between publishers and pirates...