Pål Bråtelund: Thanks for this analysis, Matt. All this is in a lossless domain - got any thoughts on how the most popular codecs (AAC, Vorbis and MP3) reacts to spread spectrum watermarks?

The watermark is designed to withstand lossy compression. You'll still be able to hear it in a 64 kbps MP3, for example.

Most of the few who actually pay for music are playing it through the laptop USB speakers, (read Spotify &Co) which often aren't exactly HIFI. And most grown-ups don't hear the difference anyway. (I tested the given samples with Sony headphones. And my hearing is flat to a 12kHz personal cutoff, which is average for my age.)

So, the only ones to really suffer must have good hearing and a proper stereo set. But many of them do actually buy CDs, so that's even better for the industry. :-/

Now, I do agree about watermarking in general. I think it is OK to watermark your intellectual (or alas, your artists' intellectual) property, but it shouldn't degrade paid-for music.

At any rate, this is a step towards sanity compared to copy protection. I think we are on our way to a better future because every year an old boss retires, and instead comes a younger one, who's presumably seen computers as a child.