Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Digital watermark in music (Read 5254 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Digital watermark in music

I read in the newspaper today (http://www.standaard.be/nieuws/media/index.asp?ArticleID=DST25112003_053 - in Dutch and will only work today afaik) that the first complete album secured with a digital watermark is available for sale on the Internet (http://www.freerecordshop.be/, also in Dutch). More info about the technology they used on http://www.fruitytech.com (also mostly in Dutch).

It seems they hide a signature in the music. Supposedly it can't be heard, and you can't even remove it by recording the music again with a microphone.

At first glance this seems like a reasonable compromise to me: you can do whatever you want with the music (copy it, encode/transcode, whatever), you *could* even give a copy to a friend, but they'll be able to track any copy back to the original customer. So as long as you don't do anything illegal, they won't bother.

At second glance however, I have some questions: obviously this can't be done without changing the audiosignal. They may claim you can't hear it, but they said the same about MP3-encoding. So what about quality?
Second question: if you aren't supposed to hear it, surely someday (maybe even now) a lossy encoder will remove this data (considering that's what these encoders try to do: remove things you can't hear anyway).

Does anyone have any ideas, or more information about this technology?

Digital watermark in music

Reply #1 –

Digital watermark in music

Reply #2 –
This would mean if you buy a CD you have to give them your private data - only possible if this kind of CD isn't sold in record stores the way we know it. What happens if someone steals such a CD you bought and shares it on P2P?

About watermarking: One simple method would be to split the track in e.g. 1 second blocks and apply fadein and fadeout (something like +/- 0.1dB). This way you get a unique pattern of volume changes. If you know how it works, you can remove it easily; if you don't ... Of course if you compare two CDs with different watermarks, you have chances to find something that obvious, but maybe there's something else additionally

edit: rjamorim -  , have you mirrored l337images?
Let's suppose that rain washes out a picnic. Who is feeling negative? The rain? Or YOU? What's causing the negative feeling? The rain or your reaction? - Anthony De Mello

Digital watermark in music

Reply #4 –
The technique is called Steganography. You can always make it unnoticeable if you know how it works. A lossy compression algorithm will clear out any such watermarking attempt.

Quote
At first glance this seems like a reasonable compromise to me


No compromise is reasonable or tolerable on our way towards a world of free communication. The following is taken from the FreeNet Project's Philosophy page which I wholeheartedly agree:

Quote
But how will artists be rewarded for their work without copyright?

Firstly, even if copyright were the only way that artists could be rewarded for their work, then I would contend that freedom is more important than having professional artists (those who claim that we would have no art do not understand creativity: people will always create, it is a compulsion, the only question is whether they can do it for a living).

Secondly, it could be questioned whether copyright is effective even now. The music industry is one of the most vocally opposed to enhancements in communication technology, yet according to many of the artists who should be rewarded by copyright, it is failing to do so. Rather it has allowed middle-men to gain control over the mechanisms of distribution, to the detriment of both artists and the public.


Even if we assumed such a method worked, how are the record companies planning to track down the customer or the violator? What if one decides to sell his CD. Are you supposed to keep a receipt of who you sold your CD to as well?
The object of mankind lies in its highest individuals.
One must have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star.

Digital watermark in music

Reply #5 –
I thought you knew better than that rjamorim.

Whilst it can be hacked, audio watermarking is quite well advanced, works very well, and can be more transparent than, say, --alt-preset standard. EDIT: Good audio watermarks survive lossy coding very easily. 64kbps mp3 is usually the benchmark, and none that "came my way" while I was at university failed this test.

If tracks are sold to individuals on-line, and each delivered track has an individual watermark, then it's a great perceived incentive against piracy - even if the technology sometimes fails, or their isn't a genuine legal framework to prosecute. People are less likely to distribute something if they think that they might get into trouble. We've discussed this before wrt a pop idol release somewhere, haven't we?

There are other flaws in the system (tracks will be bought with stolen credit cards and shared, so you still have free music floating around; people will still buy CDs without individual watermarks and rip+share these etc etc), but it does do what it say it does, at least technologically.


Oh, and as for...

Quote
Firstly, even if copyright were the only way that artists could be rewarded for their work, then I would contend that freedom is more important than having professional artists (those who claim that we would have no art do not understand creativity: people will always create, it is a compulsion, the only question is whether they can do it for a living).


So if I have a skill as, say, a plasterer, I'm allowed to make a "living" out of it, but if I have a skill as a composer or a musician, I'm not allowed to make a "living" out of it? Wonderful thinking!


As I always say, if you don't want it, don't buy it.

Cheers,
David.

Digital watermark in music

Reply #6 –
Depending on the audio codec it's indeed possible for to watermark to resist, but in the future that will become more and more difficult to do.

The reason ? Simple:

- a better watermark is less audible, and contains more information.
- a better psymodel destroys as much inaudible information as possible.

When these opposing requirements come into collision, the watermark will be heavily damaged or removed by the codec.

It is, however, a very interesting research subject.

Digital watermark in music

Reply #7 –
Quote
Depending on the audio codec it's indeed possible for to watermark to resist, but in the future that will become more and more difficult to do.

The reason ? Simple:

- a better watermark is less audible, and contains more information.
- a better psymodel destroys as much inaudible information as possible.

When these opposing requirements come into collision, the watermark will be heavily damaged or removed by the codec.

It doesn't work like that at all.

There are a million and one things about a recording that you'll never notice, but which aren't touched by any psychoacoustic codec, and never will be.


A trivial example is the length of a recording. If you were to resample a CD so that it was one second shorter, no one would ever notice the subtle change in pitch and speed (unless they checked). But that kind of redundancy isn't (and will never be) exploited by psychoacoustic based codecs. It's not much use for watermarking either, but it's just an example.


If you read the Verance audio watermark patents on the US patent office website, they stress that they are not based on psychoacoustic models. Otherwise, psychoacoustic codecs could damage them, and in any case it would make the watermark too easy to remove. The patent number is in the Hack SDMI article. Verance provide the (optional) watermark on DVD-A discs, but I don't know if it's the same process.

Cheers,
David.

Digital watermark in music

Reply #8 –
Quote
Even if we assumed such a method worked, how are the record companies planning to track down the customer or the violator?

Personalized watermarking of audio is not meant for commercial CD releases.
It has other uses though (from that website):
- pre-releases / Promo CD's
- Master CD's
- Files exchanged between studio's / producers / mastering houses
- also for downloadable files/streams  (e.g. paid for by credit card)
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.

Digital watermark in music

Reply #9 –
i ask myself how they like to control the whole thing.


there are THOUSANDS...and i mean that the way i write it...THOUSANDS of promo cd's every day. watermarks seem to be very expensive... and only to be bought by artists that have already enough money. the question is...  how do the rights of artists fit to that. the forbidden possibility of copying music, sound or notes is there to save the artist from getting poor. if he can pay a technique like watermark, is he still to be protected ?

the industry likes to tell what comes to the radio and tells this kind of sorting is art ?!

well however, i am sure that there cant be unlimited forms of watermarks, ... with an eye to the quality of the sound they have to limit these forms and so the overall number of forms that dont touch the audbile sound will be somewhat low and for that expensive. 

they have to work within the audible frequencies for sure, when the watermark still should be there after sending and recording without any digital ways... at the moment i am not sure, if that isnt really audible.

we'll see how that works...and what goes with the sound when im compressing it with an encoder or what if i do a non-hearable delay or echo to it.

Digital watermark in music

Reply #10 –
Watermarking should be a (necessary) thing to consider for commercial music downloading portals ... a unique and unnoticeable watermark (according to your specific user profile) will be generated for each file you download so it can be tracked once these files start to appear in filesharing networks ... the watermark should not influence transcoding/decoding (and will not be influenced by transcoding itself) so you will be able to e.g. burn an audio CD from the files you downloaded that still contain the watermark so re-ripping and re-coding will not remove it.

If I could download transparent files at a fair price, I wouldn't bother with watermarked music because I do not intend to share this over p2p networks or give my files away to friends.

Let's face it ... the record industry may be greedy like hell ... but that does not automatically mean they do not suffer from piracy (especially from the exchange of high-quality encoded music over p2p - i've seen MPC/FLAC/MAC around there).

I admit that the record industry's approach of bashing away at downloaders might not be that realistic - they simply assume that any downloaded album would have automatically been bought if the download would have not been available which is plain BS IMHO due to many people that just don't give a damn whether their music can be recorded from radio (which is legal in most cases) or is downloaded as a compressed file.

But no one will ever convince record industry officials of these facts ...

1st punchline for me is ... there won't be music portals without watermarking at all ...

2nd punchline is: there won't be any successful music portal offering low quality tracks (like some 128 kbps WMA) at high pricing with watermarking ...

As I said before, If I could download HQ (= transparent) music at fair pricing, I would not give a damn about watermarks ... my main interest would still be the transparent music ... let them have some personal data about me, I simply don't care.
The name was Plex The Ripper, not Jack The Ripper

Digital watermark in music

Reply #11 –
pirate copy /= lost sale

The reasons for the entire industry avoiding and ignoring this simple fact are unclear to me.


If watermarks worked perfectly, it could actually be a very good thing. And for forensic tracking (rather than the SDMI style thing) they can work very very well.

Why would it be a good thing if watermarks were perfect? Because, if all sold music could be individualised (you have to forget CDs in this hypothetical situation!), then every other annoying/restricting consumer control can be dispensed with.

The situation would be: "Here's your file. Do what you like with it, as long as you don't share it. You can copy it as many times as you want onto whatever format you need for you and your family's use. No restrictions, no spyware, no forcing you to use this hardware or that operating system."

That would be the start, and that would be OK. Unfortunately, this might then be extended into having watermark detectors in everything to check that you were playing your own files, and to stop you from playing other peoples files. This opens other opportunities (e.g. time limited watermarks: you can hire access to an entire catalogue of music for a party - and you can do this very cheaply because the record company knows you can't copy it and play it later), but it starts to feel like big brother is watching you.


One this is for certain: while both sides view this as a battle, both sides will lose.

I haven't seen any situations which keep both sides happy - have you?

(imagine for a moment you're an independent artist, and you want to sell your work without people pirating it - forget your like or dislike of record companies for the moment, because that isn't the issue. What would you do?)

Cheers,
David.

Digital watermark in music

Reply #12 –
This is an initiative of the belgian singer Soulbob (http://www.soulbob.be). The watermarks are added on the songs that you buy trough the website. Its a technology of Fruitytech en Fgh studios.

There are bots running on popular P2P networks that are constantly searching for songs with a watermark. The makers of the technology claim that they only need 3 hours to search the whole KaZaa network.
When a file is spotted the watermark will be extracted and by this way they will find the original buyer.
 

Digital watermark in music

Reply #13 –
Quote
This is an initiative of the belgian singer Soulbob (http://www.soulbob.be). The watermarks are added on the songs that you buy trough the website. Its a technology of Fruitytech en Fgh studios.

There are bots running on popular P2P networks that are constantly searching for songs with a watermark. The makers of the technology claim that they only need 3 hours to search the whole KaZaa network.
When a file is spotted the watermark will be extracted and by this way they will find the original buyer.

Not nice...

I'd never buy such files online, maybe I get sued for sharing these files, although I'm not using p2p at all. Shit happens.

I'm sure watermarked music will be a reason for many people to not buy muic online. As simple as that.

Watermarked audio will at least be standard in promo-releases, studio and production areas. Because leaks of for example want-to-be blockbuster movies are what bothers the industry the most.

Digital watermark in music

Reply #14 –
2BDecided:

These kinds of generic changes (like the length of the recording) can be very easily defeated once you own several different watermarked versions.

Quote
It doesn't work like that at all.

There are a million and one things about a recording that you'll never notice, but which aren't touched by any psychoacoustic codec, and never will be.

Agreed, there exist simple schemes that resist re-encoding, but for a watermark, going unnoticed and resist reencodings is not enough. It also has to resist specific attacks.  In this respect, most of the schemes described in the patent application don't fit the bill.

Digital watermark in music

Reply #15 –
Quote
The situation would be: "Here's your file. Do what you like with it, as long as you don't share it. You can copy it as many times as you want onto whatever format you need for you and your family's use. No restrictions, no spyware, no forcing you to use this hardware or that operating system."

nice imagination,


even when i ignore the restrictions of hardware and operating (though i shouldnt because every producer nowadays has a patent and like to have others to pay that, so there will be more patents, more schemes...there WONT be THE ONE) it will lay in the hands of the artist HOW OFTEN you can copy that special thing.

the industry is NOT THE ARTIST that makes the music. the industry itself seems to forget that so many times, that the users believe it too. the industry just burns the CD's markets at their very own imaginations...and it maybe pays some other art (painting for covers) thats it. it DOESNT make the music. and is has not the right to get the music before the artist sold it them.

the artist will decide about how often it will be copied. metallica for example will say DONT BURN IT. DONT PLAY IT MORE THEN 10 TIMES.

Madonna maybe says do everything you like, i will show you how.


think about it
Max Marlow
(free artist on mp3.de)

Digital watermark in music

Reply #16 –
Quote
As I said before, If I could download HQ (= transparent) music at fair pricing, I would not give a damn about watermarks ... my main interest would still be the transparent music ... let them have some personal data about me, I simply don't care.

It struck me while reading this that watermarking (if done right + transparently) is one of the few methods that does not harm the legitimate customer or treat all customers like thieves (like usual CD "copy protection" does).  If it could be done transparently and totally inaudibly, I wouldn't care if it were there either.

Edit -- so long as the record companies would respect "fair use."  For example, will someone be sued for using a 5 or 10-second sample of a song that contains the watermark?

Digital watermark in music

Reply #17 –
Quote
That would be the start, and that would be OK. Unfortunately, this might then be extended into having watermark detectors in everything to check that you were playing your own files, and to stop you from playing other peoples files.

99% of their problem is mass distribution channels like old napster etc.  They won't be worried about a couple of stray copies to your friends... for a couple of months at least until the bean counters start worrying about the last 1%.

They could put out a bounty.. then you just have to limit your copies to friends who won't redistribute or rat on you!

Quote
pirate copy /= lost sale


but easy free copies == lost sales, just not on a 1 for 1 basis.