Slashdot Mirror
Using Watermarks to Combat Piracy
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."
...and in order to defeat such a wonderful scheme, all you have to do is re-watermark the image/music/video.
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).
OK, so you tag downloads. Now what?
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,
if the watermarks are imperceptible to humans, than what's to say that the matrices used by audio and video codecs won't remove them from the source because they're undetectible?
Or raise the volume by 1 percent all over the board then normalize...that would probably pull it off.
sigfault. core dumped.
Seems like an easily defeatable mechanism. To track you must be able to extract the creator's watermark from the customer files. If the customer has done further modification to the file, it could obliterate the ability to detect the original watermark. Watermark Bob needs to simply add his own slight data modifications to accomplish that goal. In fact, wouldn't that make his version of the song unique and not a copy? Would the creator's version, plus watermark, not be considered a copy? It's modified, however slightly, so which version is then copyrighted? The one with or without a watermark? Or both?
I doubt it. I believe the technology is such that the watermarks are designed to persist through lossy compression. Otherwise, what is the point?
Hey, btw, check out my new flash puzzle game: Traffic Jam
I hate to be the guy to come out and say it, but I don't really mind DRM as long as it doesn't interfere with my user experience. I paid for my songs on iTunes, and I've rarely encountered any DRM restrictions that affected me. I wish I could just give them all to friends who wanted them, but let's face it, that's pushing the limits of fair use. And if I do want to share it, there are easy workarounds.
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.
Slashdot: 24 hours behind every other site or your money back!
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.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Some fair amount of googling showed up no such documented (or even better - free as in speech) algorithms, can you please post some relevant examples?
Sorry if this appears offtopic, I for one would be very interested in such reading..
This is exactly what "zero knowledge" proofs 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.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
FYI, the SDMI system served a different purpose. It was used to embed copy control information, not forensic information.
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.
Windows is like decaf - it tastes like the real thing, but it won't get you through the day.
to whoever put them on the internet, and then get medeival on them for breach of contract.
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.
Watermarks do not have to be 100% security though obscurity... It seems to me that a proper system would use a private key of sorts to unencode the information, then the algorithm could be free (as in speech or BSD) and like SSL only they key would need be obscure. If you're using just a simple 256 bit key to decode the watermark, chances are it would be nigh detectable (assuming of course that the actual technology can survive recompression / reencoding).
The Geek in Black
I know my BCD's (when I'm Sober)
Right... something tells me this'll work roughly until the first major botnet decides to collect these watermarks. Pardon me for saying so, but I think most people sued by the RIAA were sharing copyrighted files without authorization. Mp3 trading isn't so hot you need to bounce off a compromised machine or wireless network. Watermarked files OTOH... that's just asking for someone to share your files just to be mean.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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!").
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Except that both of those are linear processes and thus won't affect the watermark.
Or just insert your own imperceptible variations. Put enough sub-human-threshold noise in and you're bound to interfere with the watermark.
Did you see the pool? They flipped the bitch!
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.
Does this mean owning music files = owning guns ?
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.