The essence of the responses from the ABC are full of what I call "bluster and baloney." First of all, they try to create the impression of there being far too many good reasons for using a watermark to possibly ignore its use now. They hope that ordinary individuals will not have access to enough information to counter at least one of these arguments. In other words, if you do manage to beat down one argument, they'll hit you with another.

But just because you have more than one baloney, does not make them Tim Tams. Baloney they still are, as not one of the arguments employed by the ABC is valid. Here's why:

1. Identification

As we move into a digital age, we accept some of the benefits of this technology. One of these is the fact that digital transmissions always have an embedded identification of the channel associated with them. This means that one of the problems some people have with their TVs or VCRs such as 1=ABC, 2=7 Network, 3=9 Network, etc. no longer exists. Your digital tuner will always give you the correct information when you change channels, then after a short delay, this information disappears. This information, which includes the current time, the name of the show you are watching, its classification, when it finishes, even a short description, can be called up anytime at the press of a button. Some Set-Top Boxes even have LED displays. Using a watermark for identification is totally redundant and unnecessary.

2. Standard Practice

Channel 9 Adelaide and Perth don't watermark, but it is what has happened overseas, particularly in the UK, that is most illuminating. There, they don't call them watermarks, they call them DOGs (digital orientated graphics), and viewer complaints have forced the stations to limit, and in some cases, remove DOGs altogether. Stations that have borne the brunt of viewer complaints include the BBC, Channel 4 and Channel 5.

Two examples: In November 2001, BBC 2 Wales started putting a watermark on localized programming. The response they got was so overwhelmingly negative that they removed it after just a week. Then there's Channel 5. One of the original DOG users - they introduced it in 1997. Then in 2002, they removed it completely, as part of an image relaunch, citing 85% digital adoption as a major reason.

The reality is that the watermark is not so much "standard", as it is "common." The distinction is important, because the ABC Charter makes statements about holding to high standards (which includes technical standards - see here) and maintaining independence. To use a watermark because in essence, "everybody's doing it" is not good enough for a public national broadcaster. The ABC must demonstrate that its use has intrinsic value for itself and the Australian population. So what if even every station in the world is doing it? Spend taxpayers money on programming please, not something useless like this.

3. Copyright Protection

The ABC has not demonstrated that a threat exists in this area that will affect either ratings or income from its marketing and sales (ie. ABC shop). Furthermore, the shows most at risk from piracy come from overseas and have usually already been shown in those markets. Not only that, it is possible, with the right technology, to obscure or remove watermarks to the point where people who would sell or buy pirated video or DVDs won't care. Actually, they probably won't care anyway. As a tool to stop copyright infringement, it is as good as useless.

What we are being sold here is that the watermark reduces the risk of something like this - that some organized operation waits for the ABC to show a BBC Drama - so as to start running off truckloads of copies. It is as ridiculous as that. It's funny how the Hollywood studios - who really do have a fight on their hands with piracy - do not use visible watermarking at all. The methods they employ are invisible and very robust to any forms of duplication.

Furthermore, the ABC makes it sound like program-makers want a logo plastered on their content. Where are the overwhelming number of letters from production companies clamouring for an ABC watermark? We can assure you, that industry crew generally hate it because it's more trouble than it's worth. Ask practically any producer, director, technical director, actor, cameraman, tape librarian, presentation co-ordinator, etc this: Given the choice - would you rather have a watermark or not? You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know the answer...

Finally, the argument of copyright protection only works if you admit that the watermark degrades or affects the images. This is not very clever, given that the ABC has a responsibility (as stated before) to maintain high standards.

We want a High Quality LogoFreeABC!