Using Watermarks to Combat Piracy 406
TheEvilOverlord writes to tell us PC Advisor is reporting that researchers at the Fraunhofer Integrated Publication and Information Systems Institute have developed a new watermarking system to help track and combat piracy. From the article: "The system lets content providers, such as music studios, embed a watermark in their downloadable MP3 files. Watermark technology makes slight changes to data in sound and image files. For instance, the change could be a higher volume intensity in a tiny part of a song or a brighter colour in a minuscule part of a picture. Even the best-trained human eyes and ears, according to Kip, can't detect the change."
Defeating? (Score:5, Interesting)
I've yet to see a scheme that reliably survived that test unless it was specifically designed just for that test (like embedding high power signal in several random places), and upon detection, looking for that signal in those random places (hope is that 2nd watermarking didn't wipe out -some- signal data).
In any case, Watermarking doesn't work! Even Microsoft's researchers said so (damn, can't find link).
And this fights piracy how? (Score:3, Interesting)
Assuming a "de-tag" program doesn't pop up an hour later, what do you do with this wonderful invention? Instead of passing around a "normal" mp3 of Metallica, they're now sharing a "watermarked" version that allegedly can't be discerned by mere humans. How does this help?
Cheers,
psychoacoustic codecs? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Human? (Score:2, Interesting)
Watermark Bob has options (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Human? (Score:1, Interesting)
Hey, btw, check out my new flash puzzle game: Traffic Jam [trafficjamgame.com]
Re:And this fights piracy how? (Score:5, Interesting)
In theory it lets the distributor figure out who the source of the piracy was. Joe User logs into their site and downloads the latest hit DRM_SUX.mpeg. Unknown to him it has a unique watermark in it that identifies him as the one who downloaded this particular file. Six months later the Copyright Kops find a copy of DRM_SUX.mpeg floating around on P2P networks. They analyze the file and discover the watermark points to Joe User, so they then sick their landsharks^M^M^M^M lawyers on him.
i hate to say it (Score:3, Interesting)
This goes for downloaded files, not physical media. If I buy a CD, I want to be able to do whatever I want to it, which includes sharing with friends. I've never made a habit out of sharing files, even back in the Napster days (Sorry, but I was a leech). Most of my file sharing is between me and my friends, and while I admit that it certainly pushes the limits of legality, it's the only "responsible" way to do things.
This watermarking idea just reeks of being absolutely unnecessary. People just need to learn to be more "responsible" about how they rip off music. I hate the record labels as much as the next guy, but I'm willing to work within the confines of a happy medium, and do most of my sharing via less (or is it more?) traditional means.
I don't see anything wrong with sharing TV shows that are freely broadcast over the airwaves, however. For most things, however, if you don't own the copyright, it's usually not yours to distribute.
What's my point? I really don't know. Try this: Steal all you want, just don't get caught, and don't let them force more of these silly things on all of us.
How the fuck is this a watermark? (Score:3, Interesting)
Real watermarks are for duplicating, not taking out. Absolutly nobody would want to take the watermark out of their 100 euro banknote. In an mp3 you would instead want to remove the mark.
Am I being anal? Well yeah but when it comes to security it is the only way to be. A banknote with the watermark removed just lost its value. A mp3 with its watermark has possibly just increased in value. It certainly has lost none.
So the type of attack they have to stand up against is totally different. A banknote watermark just has to be expensive to duplicate. Add enough expensive to duplicate elements to a banknote and you will make it unattractive to counterfitters. It is the reason you see so few attemps at counterfit cents. (Please do not post links to your favorite wooden nickel story okay?)
But all the 'counterfitter' has to do with the mp3 is to remove the watermark. Wich as others have already pointed out should not be too hard. This is totally different type of attack. Remember, the banknote is proud of its watermark and makes it very easy to 'see' it. It even forms a pretty picture to make it stand out more. The last thing you want in the mp3 version is for it to stand out. Adding a split second of mp3 codec that stands out shouting 'look at me I am a pretty watermark' is just asking for it to be edited out.
Oh well, will this work? Well only if they somehow manage to keep you from just removing the watermark. mis-Trusted computing anyone?
Funny thing, I own more LP's then any other medium. In fact as more and more anti copy protection is introduced, the less I own of it. LP (too many) -> CD (repectable) -> VHS (0 now but used have a okay collection) -> Mini disc (a couple)-> DVD (a few) -> iTunes (0)
Odd that.
Comment removed (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Short memories -- this was called SDMI (Score:5, Interesting)
This is exactly what "zero knowledge" proofs [wikipedia.org] are supposed to be able to do. Using such a protocol allows me to prove to anyone interested that I know something without revealing what that something is. the proof does not impart any new knowledge to the person/entity that is receiving it about the information. In this context it would mean that the RIAA would be able to prove that the files had been watermarked using their private mark and were thus their copyrighted material without revealing any information about how that watermarking was done. The proof would not rely on revealing the method. Graph isomorphism is a commonly used example.
I don't know if anyone has incorporated a practical application of this into any sort of watermarking scheme, but it could be used for this purpose.
Re:Short memories -- this was called SDMI (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:My thoughts exactly (Score:3, Interesting)
Also think about the situation where files all have their watermarks at the same position. If the watermark is an error correcting code, and the Hamming distance between the valid strings varies enough, you might even be able to find out which two copies were used to provide the "cleansed" copy.
Why should Clear Channel care about file sharers? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well I'm sure that they would like to do this, in their fantasies. But in the real world it's a music producer vs. Clear Channel, not some individual D.J. And if Clear Channel decides that it is in their best interest that the music go out to the P2P file sharers before the record is released, then there isn't a whole lot that the record producer can do about it.
Clear Channel gets money from every music source except sales of disks and downloads. In other words, it is in their interest to have the 'product' on the file share networks; copyright laws be damned. They own the radio stations, the concert venues, the ticket companies, the artist management companies (in some cases), and the billboards.
Maybe someday the entertainment companies will complain about Clear Channel's cavalier approach to their 'intellectual property'. But don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen. Huge companies tend to avoid harrassing each other over relatively trival things like this unless one is trying to do a hostile takeover of another.
Just a thought... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Nothing to see/hear (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:And this fights piracy how? (Score:3, Interesting)
If instead the only way to detect a watermark is to put it in a carefully protected machine in the RIAA's basement with a secret program on it, then there is no way any pirate will remove it successfully.
Unfortunately some pin head in management will not realize this and will insist that the watermark have some effect on players, thus defeating the only scheme that will really work for them. Of course they have proven to be idiots over and over again, and they will continue, so I'm sure this will happen.
Re:Human? (Score:3, Interesting)
Doesn't matter how smart they are. The 1ee7 trading group gets 10 copies of the CD, averages the values at each sampling interval, and the watermark is gone (or obscured beyond use).
Drives up the entry cost a tiny bit but not enough to make a difference. I live pretty close to piracy ground zero - probably 1000 people employed in the piracy business within 2km radius of my home (and the retailers are a whole lot friendlier and more knowledgeable than anyone at Best Buy, by the way) - they are too serious about it to care about some piddling obstacle like this. Either they ignore the watermarks entirely and let the identifiied party be the fall guy, or they take the trivial steps necessary to remove them. But once their distribution network kicks into gear, entry costs quickly fade off into the distance to the right of the decimal point.
Either way, I don't see them putting unique ID codes on mass-market CDs anytime soon. Imagine the size of the tracking database - and the distribution chain cooperation required. Instead they'll make one version for each distribution channel or region, and use that as part of the evidence in building a case ("we know the CD was sold in Nebraska - which is exactly where our suspect lives!").
Re:Human? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Human? (Score:2, Interesting)
"Big brother" is right--it's all about trust (Score:3, Interesting)
The notable thing here is that all the companies are doing is transferring that trust-anxiety from them->you to you->your friends. Now you have to look every friend in the eye and say "Will this person not put me in jail?"
I think "big brother" was pretty appropriate, considering how much like Stalinist Russia and other oligarchies and tyrannies this sounds like. The particulars are different, but we arrive at a very similar reality--the 'governing body' (RIAA) is has vague but powerful means to dispose of troublemakers and the 'oppressed' have really no way of knowing when they are going to get 'the bullet in their head,' except to constantly profess their loyalty (by distrusting everyone and never even taking advantage of their legitimate uses).
In the end, it's hard to forget that it's not our friends that are the spies, it's the MP3 file itself. I don't know, but to me that makes that sort of 'gray oppression' quite a bit more dehumanizing.
just like guns? (Score:2, Interesting)
If someone steal the music files and upload, then the owner is responsible for the act? Maybe there also needs to be a DRM police site where we reported the mp3 stolen?
Doesn't this approach have similar consequences to 70 yr old grandma or 12 yr old kids whose files stolen but charged for distributing mp3? How about lost or stolen ipod?
Does it also mean we need to physically smack the old hard disk to bits and pieces so no one can 'steal' mp3?
If owning the mp3 is going to be so much hassle, I'd rather not buy them.