Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 82274	2007-08-21 19:33:00	DRMs = Old Hat - Now It's Watermarking!	SurferJoe46 (51)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
583538	2007-08-21 19:33:00	Tracking DRM-free music online via watermarking Universal is preparing to test the sale of DRM-free music . For six months beginning next Tuesday, Universal will permit DRM-free music sales at several online music stores in an effort to determine if the company should fully embrace DRM-free music . At the time, Universal indicated that Apple's leading iTunes Store would be excluded from the test, supposedly because Universal wanted to use it as a "control . " As it turns out, there's another control at play here: the DRM-free music will be watermarked . Universal has confirmed that it will be using watermarks in its DRM-free music, but serious questions remain: What kind of watermark is Universal using? What is the company tracking? Will Universal use watermarking to track users who are sharing music? Attempts to contact Universal for answers to these questions have not yet been returned, but Contentinople's sources say that Universal will not be tracking users, only songs . Wired's Listening Post was first to confirm that Universal would indeed be using watermarks . Universal will apparently use watermarking in its DRM-free music to uniquely identify each song that is made available for sale . The inaudible watermarks will be specific to each song, meaning that 50 Cent's "In Da Club" will have a unique watermark, as will Sting's "Fields of Gold . " One source close to a digital music storesaid that this is the best Universal can do, because making the watermark more specific—to include, say, information about the purchaser—is too cumbersome for the trial, as it would require significant retooling of participating online music stores . This is however, the intent in the future . Stores would balk at the implementation if it were only for a six-month trial, he suggested, and added that venturing into user identification via watermarking could be politically unsavory right now . Sidebar here: Apple's own iTunes tracks contain identifying material, but only in the metadata added by Apple, not in watermarks laced throughout the audio part of the files . Thus, Universal's plan appears to be rather simple: sell watermarked tunes to users, then sit back and scan the P2P networks for music files with Universal watermarks . While the data won't lead them back to pirates, they will be able to detect the presence of watermarked music online . Doing so would confirm for them which tracks have been purchased and then shared online . The problem is that the results aren't indicative of the risks of selling DRM-free music . Digital music is, well, digital, so it is possible to make endless numbers of copies from one original . Complicating matters, CDs are still the source of most music shared online . Since CDs can easily be purchased, encoded, and shared, the question becomes: so what if a DRM-free download has been leaked? One single "leak" of a track, from one single person, can result in a proliferation of shared copies on multiple networks among non-customers . Sales data is irrelevant, too . If 10 people or 10,000 people buy "In Da Club," it only takes one to leak the file, which then could get copied thousands of times . This is also why DRM schemes like AACS are doomed to fail at their task (which is supposedly to prevent piracy) . As history has shown, it only takes one leak to make the entire system superfluous . If it only takes one user to share a watermarked file to kick off a proliferation of copies, then counting the number of copies of watermarked files online won't reveal much certain information . What it WILL offer up is data that could then be translated into fines, duties and penalties that can then be levied against the networks and legal-for-now P2P networks . In the least it would offer substantiated PROOF that indeed there need to be more stringent laws and penalties for dis-obeyence of those laws for/to pirates and hackers . To be sure, one leak that spawns into thousands of copies doesn't mean that everyone who is buying DRM-free music is sharing it, but this test won't be able to determine that, either . INTERESTING SIDEBAR FROM/ABOUT WAL-MART HERE . ( . com/news . ars/post/20070821-worlds-largest-music-retailer-ditches-drm-not-censorship . html" target="_blank">arstechnica . com)	SurferJoe46 (51)
583539	2007-08-22 05:05:00	Hey! This is INTERESTING!!!!! ker----BUMP!	SurferJoe46 (51)
583540	2007-08-23 06:47:00	DRM is DRM, no matter what they call it!! How do we know the 'watermark' (dumb term for music - it's supposed to be related to paper!) won't contain personally identifiable data???	johcar (6283)
583541	2007-08-23 07:00:00	Does it really matter if it contains personal data? I actually support this idea - no DRM means it's compatible with everything, and who cares if they give you your own personal data in a file you have bought - the only person who should be seeing it is you :D. It only becomes an issue if you upload it to a filesharing network, something which you're not supposed to be doing anyway.	Erayd (23)
583542	2007-08-23 07:21:00	Does it really matter if it contains personal data? I actually support this idea - no DRM means it's compatible with everything, and who cares if they give you your own personal data in a file you have bought - the only person who should be seeing it is you :D . It only becomes an issue if you upload it to a filesharing network, something which you're not supposed to be doing anyway . I think you missed the point here mate . I don't like illegal actions by anybody, even when I am tempted to do it too . . . but that's not the problem . It's the tattling on those who do the illegal stuff . . . not that I condone it at all! The effect of having something that is personally identifiable being sent to the producer of the product smacks of big brother in so many ways . Hear me out a while . . . . . . . It's the intention of the RIAA and the MPAA to force into capitulation anyone whom they deem as stealing their INCOME . . . and it's not the artist or the music they want to protect . . it's not that noble . If they can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the P2P or Stream networks are dealing in illegal activities, then they will indeed have a very good club to make their point that these services are all illegal . I do not believe for an instant that ALL P2P and Seeded files are thievery . There are a lot that are . . but guilt by inference is not a good or logical way to enforce a law . . it hurts those who uses these networks and blogs and sites for legitimate and legal purposes . It's the broad sweep/paintbrush again . . and it's just wrong . Next they'll be out to spy into servers, private networks and maybe even LANs for good measure . Anything that CAN store and send files on demand will be suspect . . . adding an ID to the process will just make it one more brick lost from the pallet of personal rights and laws against eavesdropping and spying without a legal warrant . That's what they want . . an open and inferred warrant into your personal files and media just to SEE if you might possibly be a black hat . Don't be fooled into thinking this is good for you and bad for the bad guys . . it's bad for everyone .	SurferJoe46 (51)
583543	2007-08-23 09:15:00	I think you missed the point here mate . Possibly . I'm not psychic, this is just my take on it . I don't like illegal actions by anybody, even when I am tempted to do it too . . . but that's not the problem . Me too, most of the time . There are a few exceptions . It's the tattling on those who do the illegal stuff . . . not that I condone it at all!Are you saying you object to the RIAA etc being able to trace those who are illegally uploading stuff that shouldn't be uploaded, but don't condone the crime? Not quite sure I understand what you're getting at here . The effect of having something that is personally identifiable being sent to the producer of the product smacks of big brother in so many ways . This is normally how you pay for everything online anyway - you give them your credit card details and they give you your music . How else do you propose this should work, noting that they have your details anyway? Sounds like a perfect deterrent to me - embed CC details in the songs and . . . you can guess the rest . Hear me out a while . . . . . . . Yup, sure . You often have some pretty valuable things to say, although I don't always agree :rolleyes: . It's the intention of the RIAA and the MPAA to force into capitulation anyone whom they deem as stealing their INCOME . . . and it's not the artist or the music they want to protect . . it's not that noble . I agree, and to be honest if they went out of business tomorrow I couldn't be happier . After this whole mess with internet radio they deserve to take some serious damage; there's no way in hell they should be trying to extract about 1 . 2 billion US dollars per year from an industry that has a total revenue turnover of less than $200 million . And they got the charges applied retrospectively too . What I do have a problem with is the ethics behind stealing music - it's just wrong . I'll admit that I do downoad the occasional thing illegally, but only if I can't get it elsewhere without unreasonable restrictions applied to it . (I do include DRM as 'unreasonable', but it's not that hard to get DRM-free stuff) . If they can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the P2P or Stream networks are dealing in illegal activities, then they will indeed have a very good club to make their point that these services are all illegal . And if they do shut down, it won't take long for another one to start . Torrents are a brilliant model - it's quite possible to shut down the trackers that are dealing in illegal stuff, and leave the legit ones alone . I do not believe for an instant that ALL P2P and Seeded files are thievery . There are a lot that are . . but guilt by inference is not a good or logical way to enforce a law . . it hurts those who uses these networks and blogs and sites for legitimate and legal purposes . Agreed, with the exception of torrents - this is due to their tracker-dependant method of seeding files . It's the broad sweep/paintbrush again . . and it's just wrong . There's nothing wrong with a broad brush that catches all the bad and none of the good . Like I said earlier, they are only giving you back information that you have already given them when you paid for the product . Next they'll be out to spy into servers, private networks and maybe even LANs for good measure . Anything that CAN store and send files on demand will be suspect . . . Now THAT I object to . If things even approach that point I'll be the first one protesting . That ^ is one of the biggest reasons I hate the DMCA, because it forces ISPs etc to do exactly that sometimes . . . . adding an ID to the process will just make it one more brick lost from the pallet of personal rights and laws against eavesdropping and spying without a legal warrant . How does giving your details back to you fall into this category? They are showing you info you willingly gave them . That's what they want . . an open and inferred warrant into your personal files and media just to SEE if you might possibly be a black hat . Haha they won't be getting into mine! Don't be fooled into thinking this is good for you and bad for the bad guys . . it's bad for everyone . Can you explain how? Possibly I'm missing the point you're trying to make, but it seems to me that as long as you're not actively trying to break the law on this one, it has absolutely no impact on you .	Erayd (23)
583544	2007-08-24 00:34:00	If they can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the P2P or Stream networks are dealing in illegal activities, then they will indeed have a very good club to make their point that these services are all illegal . I do not believe for an instant that ALL P2P and Seeded files are thievery . There are a lot that are . . but guilt by inference is not a good or logical way to enforce a law . . it hurts those who uses these networks and blogs and sites for legitimate and legal purposes . It's the broad sweep/paintbrush again . . and it's just wrong . Yep, they'll have their spin already written no matter what the actual results are and no matter that the results will be virtually meaningless . One point though, why is it that with the Digital Millennium Act and various DRM, anti-hackers laws and their enforcement, the powers that be can be persuaded (or a very real possibility) to make certain services and technologies illegal, when they can't bring themselves to make private firearms in many a shape and form illegal no matter how many lose their lives and how much property is lost? The answer to the latter part can be summed up in one word, a word which has nothing to do with laws or order or quality of life, except in a general sense .	Murray P (44)
583545	2007-08-24 04:52:00	Yep, they'll have their spin already written no matter what the actual results are and no matter that the results will be virtually meaningless . One point though, why is it that with the Digital Millennium Act and various DRM, anti-hackers laws and their enforcement, the powers that be can be Here's the meat of my original post . . but there's more that my sore hand isn' t gonna let me spout tonight . persuaded (or a very real possibility) to make certain services and technologies illegal, when they can't bring themselves to make private firearms in many a shape and form illegal no matter how many lose their lives and how much property is lost? The answer to the latter part can be summed up in one word, a word which has nothing to do with laws or order or quality of life, except in a general sense . That's a Red Herring (the part I made red) and it really doesn't fit right here . . . but if I try to force it . . . what I think you're saying is that if they cannot enforce laws that are already on the books, what chance in blazes do they have with this DMA and DRM stuff? My answer: (typing very slowly with a very injured hand and my mind running full tilt kinda hurts . . but I'll muddle on) . . . . . What you're dealing with are two separate realities . Gun laws . . . and the US has some of the toughest one . . (I hear you groaning . . but read on) especially in New York . . are just scoffed at by people who don't care or are so illegally operating it doesn't matter to them at all . Life is cheap and they don't feel remorse at slaughtering a whole bus stop of people just to get at one in the middle who maybe dissed his girlfriend at lunch last week in the school cafeteria . A criminal mindset will always exist . Illegal people are already doing illegal things . . what's it gonna matter that they get caught with a gun: they still don't get executed even if they kill a whole neighborhood . They have "rights" that are inalienable . . even if they themselves are illegal aliens . They mock the laws because they want to keep the lifestyle they left in wherever the jungle was from which they came, they actually LIKE it that way . I proffer: graffiti and tagging to mark territories as a start . I call this perverted justice . Add in your own term if you like . What makes the press headlines is: SENSATIONALISM . . . . and you are being fed a nasty portion of it concerning firearms in the US . Sure we have gun control . . in varying degrees according to local laws and needs . . . but ALL you see on the BBC and the NZ Herald are the hoods and gangbangers who make the headlines and you think that every corner is an ongoing shoot out and a gang war . People acting illegally will be illegal no matter where they live or what laws they choose to obey . You got 'em too . . don't deny . . . it's just the scale of the bad guys we have here that has you all messed up . If 2% of the nations' population are criminally minded, then the numbers crunch very differently in a country with x-quadrillion inhabitants verses one with x-thousand inhabitants . <I had to throw a little silliness in there . . . sorry!> The 2% is still there but the actual head count is lower in the smaller country . On to the real issue . . and I don't mean to insinuate that you are wrong . . just a little misguided . Ya just gotta crunch the numbers a little to see that you and I are still talking a real problem . . and I don't deny that . . . . and please believe that I enjoy your re-posts to my posts to my reactions and etc, etc . . . thanks! Now . . the RIAA/MPAA are a different- and yet the same- type of thugs . So far they haven't gotten down to shooting people, but that may be in the near future . . . after all they are all (the pizza-type . . . that's a euphemism) mafia anyway . But they use the clout of the laws that are vaguely written in their favor to throttle the internet which they feel is taking their $$s away from their poor shoeless and underfed children . When the lawmakers and law enforcement perform as the kneebreakers and thugs for a non socially redeeming organization . . . . , then THAT'S wrong . Let's face it . . Thomas Jefferson did NOT envision the internet when he helped produce the constitution . Ill-made definitions and legal assumptions are what the MPAA/RIAA are running on and they need a few trial/test cases to set some serious quick-hardening cement . . and fast! The whole thing being bandied about is an uproar over rights . . but that is far from the truth . This is what they want you to think . It's obvious that there's still some sort of rectal oscillation between law and the pizza-eaters going on and it's the lawyers and the legal arm of the media industry, hiding under the skirts of the judges like puppeteers who happen to be on the payrolls of the media industry in the first place . They prefer to let the legal and misguided cops haul the offenders in on vague blue laws and let the courts make an example of grannies with computers so the rest of the black hats will know they're serious even though there are no definable laws written . . . it's just a fishing expedition they are running . All this is smoke and mirrors . . even if some GOOD does or MAY come from it . . . there's a more sinister program afoot . . . can you see it? We can debate guns later . . but I want to stay with this idea for a while .	SurferJoe46 (51)
583546	2007-08-24 05:16:00	Can you clarify your points from your earlier post? I'm not sure I'm quite understanding the finer detail of what you're getting at, but I'm certainly in the mood for a good argument! (Although I'm not sure, but we may actually be arguing the same side...)	Erayd (23)
583547	2007-08-24 05:56:00	Can you clarify your points from your earlier post? I'm not sure I'm quite understanding the finer detail of what you're getting at, but I'm certainly in the mood for a good argument! (Although I'm not sure, but we may actually be arguing the same side . . . ) I actually think we are on the same side . . but I need to beg off tonight . . it's late here and I have thrashed the middle finger on my right hand . . and unfortunately that is the one finger that I need when I use that hand to type the letters on the side of the keyboard from about the Y, the H and the N . . . so I need to get some rest for my ordeal coming up in the AM at the hospital . I cut is so deep I saw the bone from the middle joint all the out to the end of the finger, under the pad area with the fingerprints . So far . . . not an pounce of pain . . but I know that it's coming when I lie down to sleep . It shouldda had about 10 stitches, but I am holding it together right now with masking tape . . the mechanics first-aid kit! Hopefully it won't be too contaminated and cause me blood poisoning before I get the the doc . Sorry for the brush-off . . but I am not running on all 8 cylinders tonight . . OK?	SurferJoe46 (51)
1