Karaoke Forums

I understand how frustrating it is for you but it's really ridiculous with this sort of thing, to demand "proof?" That IS asking for the algorithm or the code to discover it. As Timberlea would say; "Nice try."

Besides, you're the one beating your head against the wall and whining that it hurts, not me. And let us know what your computer buddy says about the "Advance" tracks.... if they ever get off the ground.

now hang on....
you say i for example was playing SC tracks from a computer on Wednesday at Red Onion...i have never worked Red Onion and am At Robert Emmet's on Wednesday night. a Judge won't let it go?
i disagree, but who am i?


yup, true. they sued for a client that did not exist.... sorry....did exists but did NOT hire them as their attorneys at that time.


not unreasonable, Chip would ask nothing less from either you OR Jim.


you ask for nothing less than iron clad proof. asking you for the same is not unreasonable.

_________________
Paradigm Karaoke, The New Standard.......Shift Happens

No, I don't think I would. In just about every other situation I would however. The difference is that he already HAS proof that I created these tracks (via the logo) so he doesn't need proof of "some sort of agreement, contract, email chain, recorded conversation, text message" or anything else. What he's asking for is in effect, the directions to a starting point in his attempt to defeat something he can't even find to begin with. It's like asking for "proof your vault uses a 3-digit combination and not a 4-digit combination." It only serves to help him in his quest.

This is not my quest, it's his.


It's not unreasonable.... except in this case because of the nature of what he's attempting to do. Just because I can pass through a locked door and he can't doesn't mean that I have to "prove" I have a key by showing it to him.

Bullshit.

You have to have some sort of contract or agreement with whomever is doing the watermarking for you. That will not show any code or algorithm. Every single person here knows the distinction.

You won't show proof of serialized watermarking.
I have already proven the tracks aren't serialized.

You have been caught in a lie.

Keep dancing.....

_________________
-Chris

That is NOT what I am asking for at all. I am not asking for any company secrets or for any information that would allow me to circumvent your claimed watermarking. I asking for proof of your claim that serialized watermarking is being performed in the form of a license or agreement with whomever is doing the watermarking. I seriously doubt that this paperwork would include the technological details that would allow anyone to break the watermarking. Even if it did, you could easily exclude that portion of the agreement.




What I am "attempting to do" is discover the truth.

You are trying to turn this into "He wants to circumvent the watermarking" when all I have asked for is proof that you are doing it at all. Show me where I said something different to back up your paranoia and misdirection.

_________________
-Chris

Let me stop you right there and remind you that I am the programmer that created these files to start with. And I also write programs. I don't "have to have" diddly. Especially not just because you say I do. What makes you so sure that there is a "whomever" that does anything?

I'm ignoring your tantrums.... and your whiney "demands" for proof aren't going to get you any hints either.

Go read your "Schlap Yeti" story a few more times, maybe that will make you feel better.

Are you trying to convince me that YOU created a serialized watermarking process that cannot be detected using professional file comparison tools?

And since you don't have to have an agreement with yourself, you don't have a means to produce one?

I call bullshit yet again.

Keep digging that hole.....

_________________
-Chris

Okay....I think I have a way to settle this once and for all. And it won't involve you revealing your super secret l33t programming skills and code or even a license agreement.

I will send you one of the of the files I downloaded from the site.
You tell me which account it is tied to.

Deal?

_________________
-Chris

You really think I'm stupid enough to fall for that?

" uh... gee Wilbur... I know you have a combination lock.... I bought two of them with two different credit cards. I'll give you one back and you tell me which credit card I used when I bought it.... deal?"

You're still just poking around for hints. Give it up already because I'm not about to help you in your quest.

Period.

Capish?

Here is my last offer -

I will pay you $1000 if you can take one of the tracks and correctly identify the purchaser.
You get $1000, I have to eat crow, your credibility is untarnished.

The money can be placed in escrow along with the information regarding the purchaser of the track. That way I can't pull a switcharoo on you.

Deal?

_________________
-Chris

No. It's your quest, not mine. I understand your desperation for the smallest hint... but no.

And don't insult me with a bribe. Obviously you are confusing me with Harrington or Slep because I don't need your money. It would be better off to give it to them and help them with their "advance" program. Or buy some more discs on ebay.

My quest was completed when I proved the serialized watermarking does not exist. That is a fact.

I am now simply driving home the fact that you lied about it and continue to lie about it.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

It's not my quest to prove anything.. it's all on you. And all you've proven so far is that you haven't found anything. That doesn't automatically mean that I've "lied" at all. Just because you can't figure out the puzzle doesn't mean that anyone has lied about the existence of a solution. You can "drive home" whatever you like, but it's certainly not any "fact" even if you call it one.

You are free to believe whatever makes you feel good.

There's an easy way to resolve this. Individually watermarked files will have pieces that are different for each copy issued. There are numerous utilities that will run a bitwise comparison of the two files in question, or you can run an MD5 or SHA-1 checksum of the files and see if they match. If they match, no watermarking. If they don't match, they are probably watermarked.

Google that did you?

You should probably stick to law.

I have already done the bit level check with the Beyond Compare application.

That proved Chip is not doing the serialized watermarking he claims to be doing.

_________________
-Chris

I've been a programmer and sys admin a lot longer than I've been a lawyer, so no, no need to Google it.

The fact that you don't seem to accept a test that's both basic and standard indicates to me that you're ignorant of key concepts regarding file security and management, or that you're lashing out at me because you were caught in a lie.

Not sure which one, or which is worse.

I'm also wondering what else you might have lied about over the years.



Sorry, must have skipped over that by accident. Good work.

Like I said....I am not done. Even though I have already provided proof, I want an unbiased 3rd party to chime in.

I can understand why some may not want to believe me (even with $1000 on the table). Harder to ignore a true expert in this field who has absolutely nothing to gain or lose.

_________________
-Chris

Hmm... Programmer..... system administrator..... "prestigious law school", lawyer & litigator for 15 years... Investigator trainer....

Anything else you wanna toss on your resume? Anything that included the phrase "Want fries with that?" otherwise, it's starting to look like you've really had a problem holding on to a job....

I take two weeks off to dive the barrier reef, and you muffers start this crapola again"?

If Phill want's this to continue, he can unlock it.