MP3 Inventor Develops Tool to Fight Piracy

[ASsman]

MP3 Inventor Develops Tool to Fight Piracy

Digital watermarking technology would be used to track pirated audio files online.

John Blau, IDG News Service
Thursday, February 09, 2006

Fraunhofer Institute has developed prototype technology to help curb the sharp rise in online music piracy, which, ironically, has been enabled through another invention of the renowned German research group: MP3 audio compression.




Researchers at the Fraunhofer Integrated Publication and Information Systems Institute have successfully tested a software system, based on the group's own digital watermarking technology, for tracking pirated audio files in peer-to-peer file-sharing networks, says Michael Kip, a spokesperson for the institute.

Kip referred to the Fraunhofer approach as an alternative to DRM (digital rights management) systems, which he says require special players and are prone to hacking.

While watermarking technology isn't new per se, this is the first time it has been used in a system to automatically track pirating in P-to-P networks, according to Kip.

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 both sound and image files. For instance, the change could be a higher volume intensity in a tiny part of a song or a brighter color in a minuscule part of a picture. Even the best trained human eyes and ears, according to Kip, can't detect the change.

The digital media watermark used in the Fraunhofer system also contains a "hash value," which creates a link between the content provider and registered purchaser. "The hash value is like a fingerprint; it contains unique information about the user," Kip says. "The software that we've developed can automatically search for fingerprints."

Uploads Versus Downloads

The Fraunhofer approach differs from others in that it doesn't monitor the individuals who illegally download music but rather scans for content that has been illegally uploaded.

"If, for instance, you purchase and download a CD, burn a copy and give it to a friend and that person puts it on a file sharing network, our system will trace that music back to you and, depending on the legal system of the country you're in, you could be [hit] with an expensive fine," Kip says. "This could certainly help deter online music piracy."

Fraunhofer envisions the prototype software as an application that content providers can install on their own servers for automatically monitoring P-to-P networks around the clock.

The institute will demonstrate the technology next month at the Cebit trade show in Hanover, Germany, according to Kip.

Asked if widely used MP3 technology isn't partly to blame for online music piracy, he says: "Yes and no. You can use a knife to cut bread or kill someone. It's a tool that can be misused."

Research on compression of music files was conducted in the 1980s by a team of scientists at the Fraunhofer Institute for Integrated Circuits. Their development, the MPEG-1 Layer 3 algorithm, was first shortened to MPEG Layer 3 and later to MP3.

-------

I'll be sure to discontinue buying online music then, fuck y'all bitches. Watermark my music will you. Pff, stick it up your asses.

[Guy Incognito]

I'll be sure to discontinue buying online music then, fuck y'all bitches. Watermark my music will you. Pff, stick it up your asses.

(y) (y) (y)

I always thought it was just uploading that was the issue anyway - shows what i know. What annoys me is that some kid could be DL loads of stuff - samplin - makin his/her own stuff and then some major label picks it ups and makes cash off it. Its bollocks.

[tpk]

Heh, those idiots. How do they figure this will fix the piracy issue? All that people have to do is NOT buy MP3 songs online.i'm guessing most songs downloaded are sourced from some kind of official release, which would have the embed watermark on, whether it was origianlly downloaded legally or ripped from a purchased cd.

the funny thing about this though, would be that as soon as a record gets leaked by someone, people will download heaps of it, cause they wouldn't get in trouble for it, only the guy leakin it in the first place that has the so called "fingerprint" on it. which means, one guy might end up getting a fine for leaking a record to 2.8 million people.

maybe i'm looking at it the wrong way though?

[ASsman]

Yeah, you are. Since the file itself would contain the fingerprint, all copies made from that one will have fingerprints. I do believe they only mean to do it to digital files, downloaded from the web. Not analog ones, like CDs. Atleast that is what it sounds like, I hope that is what it is.

[EN[i]GMA]

Guess I just have to get any music I want before this happens.

I can do it too.

[FunkyHiFi]

From what I can tell: if you legally buy a track from an online provider that uses this system, that track will include that company's watermark. When the track is finally dowloaded to your computer, the provider's software (that you have to use to hear their tracks, like iTunes) will add that "hash" thingy that contains information on WHO downloaded the track. In effect, the track is now "personalized" so if goes somewhere it shouldn't, a properly-configured server somewhere can sense this and then you could eventually be making friends with some big hairy guy in a 10ft square cell somewhere. ;)

I do think that music labels who do this are being stupidly greedy & selfish, but I have to admit that I am meeting more and more people who for some reason think they "deserve" free music and download with absolutely no feeling of guilt. So the labels - AND MUSICIANS- do have some reason to be upset.

I'm no capitalism fan-boy, but even I know that in the REAL world you can't sustain an industry by putting out a product without $$$ coming back INTO that industry. This has nothing to do with greed or selfishness, this is pure logic. And while me and many others on other forums have agreed that pricing all CDs at $10 or less would help decrease the amount of illegal downloading, the "genie is out of the bottle" and I fear with that entitlement attitude still being around, many people will continue to take music they didn't pay for.

Like it or not, their has to be some kind of business organization to deal with the art that musicians make - i.e. record it, mix it, stamp out the discs, prmote it if needed and physically ship it - and all that has to be paid for (& this includes the indy labels). And of course, the musician needs to be paid so he can eat, have a roof over his/her head, pay for medical bills, etc, etc. i.e. living expenses. And despite the impression that MTV gives, only a TINY percentage of artists make it big like Coldplay or Kanye West - the huge majority of them actually live middle-to-lower class financial lives just like "regular" people.

So when someone illegally downloads, they are not just giving the finger to the music label (which I agree some really deserve) they are also giving it to the artist.

[ASsman]

Heh, problem is bigger than some little kid downloading some crap ass radio pop.
Music industry will implode, I'll be watching.

Also, what you have said doesn't really change anything. There are still fingerprints, I don't enjoy that. Whether or not I'm downloading illegally. What's going to end up happening is that I'm going to stop buying singles and just downloading, because I don't want the whole crap album. I think you are missing the point to a certain extent, I don't want people knowing when or what I make copies of, what I do with it, illegal or not. Because I just don't want someone knowing I'm doing either. Music first, then movies, then what? Fuck that, get out of my computer and out of my files. If I have to illegaly download music I can only otherwise buy online , I'll do so, to simply not have traceable files on my computer.

Believe me if downloading was really killing the music industry, the porn industry would have failed ages ago.

---
Also I find it funny that this industry you are defending (to some extent) creates a lot more of those starving artists, by exploiting the few artists and musical outlets. Not the consumers , but itself.

[ASsman]

Hah, do you know how difficult it is to download songs that aren't mainstream and popular. Which most the time ain't worth buying the entire album either, all you need is 1 maybe 2 good singles and you move CDs mang. I don't think downloading is plaging the starving artist underground.

[FunkyHiFi]

Oh I'm not saying downloading will KILL the industry, but it certainly will slow it down....which is already happening now (partly visible in the form of crappy/shallow music and CDs with only two good songs because of their "get some product - ANY product - out FAST" mentality) and in large part this is happening because it's mostly lawyers and accountants that run the big labels and such people usually want HUGE profits really quickly.....and few if any have any sense of art or long-term vision. This isn't some daydream either because if you do research on some of the people that created the big labels in the 60s and 70s, the large majority of the time back then they really did put the music first. THAT is why there is so much good stuff with copyright dats from those two decades.

So IMO to make the music industry more healthy, what needs to happen is to stop allowing clueless business-types to make ALL the decisions at the labels and to significantly cut back on the amount of illegal downloading. But to be perfectly frank, I don't see this happening anytime soon and I envision less & less people taking up music for a living. :(

[ASsman]

Online music stores was the answer for this. Now with this shit I don't know.

Music just neeeds to embrace the internet before it implodes, for whatever reason.

[yeahwho]

This Michael Kip is an assclown fucknozzle, he says "If, for instance, you purchase and download a CD, how the fuck do you purchase and download a CD? People like this pop up from time to time trying to fuck with decent folks who just want to hear a song here and there (which is the overwhelming majority of downloading MP3 folks do) then they usually purchase the record.

I remember when the record executives laughed at Tom Petty when he asked if he could put his album "The Last DJ" up online for free downloads, they said "go ahead nobody goes online for music." When all of a sudden a couple hundred thousand were downloaded they freaked.

Tom Petty has said he's more worried about counterfeit t-shirts instead of counterfeit CDs and mp3s because he doesn't make any money from the CDs anyway.

When the RIAA becomes cutting edge again they will make profits again, punishing music lovers is akin to killing the goose that lays the golden egg, ain't it?

Fuck go release some U2 records you greedy fucks.

[FunkyHiFi]

This is a bit off-topic but just to help get out all the anger at once: each set of companies that are going to start selling the two different high definition dvd formats ("HD-DVD" (http://www.tacp.toshiba.com/hddvd/) and "Blu-Ray" (http://www.blu-raydisc.com/) ) have decided - because of intense pressure from Hollywood - that the only way to view the HD content is via an HDMI or DVI connection. What the hell is that you say? HDMI/DVI* is a digital-based connection method designed originally for a better picture but it also can be, and is now, encrypted. This is so that (hopefully :rolleyes: ) pirates can't just plug a HD player into their duplication machines and crank out illegal copies.

What does this mean to the owners of HDTVs? Well, if your monitor doesn't have an HDMI or DVI connection and you want to watch one of those new hi-def dvds, you're screwed. This includes hundreds of thousands of people who bought HDTVs from around 1999 to about 2003. Of course, there will be no adaptor available either.

The movie folks weren't totally heartless though: you'll be able to see a picture via the regular connection methods but only at 50% resolution. So instead of 1080 lines, you'll only get 540, barely better than today's standard definition dvd. :mad:

FYI for gamers: Sony's new PS3 will be the first machine available that plays Blu-Ray discs. It will also play sacd discs, one of the two monumentally unsuccessful :( surround music formats I talk about here (though dvd-audio discs can also be played on regular dvd players). Btw: keep in mind that most studios have only picked one format to issue their movies on, so you'd better hope the ones you like are on Blu-Ray (yep, another case of non-teamwork at the corporate level so the consumer gets the shaft).

* and the DVI system also has to also include something called HCDP (encryption software)

[Vladimir]

They will either realize that the business format for music distribution has evolved with the turn of the millennium, or they will perish. It's as simple as that. The ubiquitousness of relatively advanced computer technology in America at this point in time genuinely changes the meaning of the concept of copyright. I would say they need to sell CD's for less of a ridiculous profit margin, particularly given how little of the money they actually give to the artist. I try to buy new releases from my favorite bands, and I generally find that I purchase far more music than any of my friends or peers. That said, I don't feel the least bit guilty stealing a CD of a band that is new to me off of the internet, and then, if I enjoy them, buying a ticket to that band's show and buying a t-shirt when I'm there. That's 60 bucks in the band's pocket instead of 20 bucks in their record label's. I realize that this argument is flawed because if I bought all 3 of those things then both groups would be paid; the purchases are not mutually exclusive. However, I often buy an album that I have previously downloaded, probably for no reason other than to feel like I'm not stealing from them...and to get a look at the artwork I suppose. If I download a CD that I don't particularly like, I chalk it up to musical experience and probably don't listen to it much. If I share my music with my friends, I'm giving them music that in all likelihood they would not purchase for themselves. Therefore, no one is being stolen from because the choice is between them having the music for free and them not having the music at all.

[ASsman]

This is a bit off-topic but just to help get out all the anger at once: each set of companies that are going to start selling the two different high definition dvd formats ("HD-DVD" (http://www.tacp.toshiba.com/hddvd/) and "Blu-Ray" (http://www.blu-raydisc.com/) ) have decided - because of intense pressure from Hollywood - that the only way to view the HD content is via an HDMI or DVI connection. What the hell is that you say? HDMI/DVI* is a digital-based connection method designed originally for a better picture but it also can be, and is now, encrypted. This is so that (hopefully :rolleyes: ) pirates can't just plug a HD player into their duplication machines and crank out illegal copies.

What does this mean to the owners of HDTVs? Well, if your monitor doesn't have an HDMI or DVI connection and you want to watch one of those new hi-def dvds, you're screwed. This includes hundreds of thousands of people who bought HDTVs from around 1999 to about 2003. Of course, there will be no adaptor available either.

The movie folks weren't totally heartless though: you'll be able to see a picture via the regular connection methods but only at 50% resolution. So instead of 1080 lines, you'll only get 540, barely better than today's standard definition dvd. :mad:

FYI for gamers: Sony's new PS3 will be the first machine available that plays Blu-Ray discs. It will also play sacd discs, one of the two monumentally unsuccessful :( surround music formats I talk about here (though dvd-audio discs can also be played on regular dvd players). Btw: keep in mind that most studios have only picked one format to issue their movies on, so you'd better hope the ones you like are on Blu-Ray (yep, another case of non-teamwork at the corporate level so the consumer gets the shaft).

* and the DVI system also has to also include something called HCDP (encryption software)

Yeah, I'm really fucking pissed about that. Bad movies will still be bad movies though, high def or not.

[Jmoney77]

NOOOOOOOOOOO!

[FunkyHiFi]

More news about this issue:

"Fair Use At Risk?" (http://stereophile.com/news/022006fair/) (the Fair Use law is what allows us to make copies of recordings we bought, due to various logical & philosophical issues. This law was a result of the expanding use of video recording formats, mostly VHS & Beta, back in the early 80s)

from the above:
.........it has a few immensely disturbing claims within it. The most troubling is its bold attempt to argue that fair use, as it is currently understood, has no legal reality; it has only existed thus far because the content providers have "routinely granted" it.

In other words: "bow down before us & do our bidding, for we have changed our minds cuz were friggin' desparate for cash." :rolleyes:

The statements of groups in favor of any form of copying "provide no arguments or legal authority that making back-up copies of CDs is a non-infringing use," the "Exemption" contends..........."Even if CDs do become damaged, replacements are readily available at affordable prices."
Affordable? Sure it is. But when the damn CD+packaging reportedly only costs about $2.00 for the label, but we end up paying $15 for it, THAT'S what pisses off a lot of people. And that's still true even if all the tracks are good, very rare nowdays. And what's worse is when a subscription service charges 99 cents per song - WTF?! We don't even get an actual phyiscal carrier for the music or any artwork. And no one paid any shipping costs (a major "hidden" part of any physical product's final price). And to top it all off a 120kbps MP3 sounds like poo compared to the CD version. So @$1 persong is a fucking rip off IMO.

"Yahoo Exec: "DRM Doesn't Add Value"" (http://stereophile.com/news/022606yahoo/)
From the above (DRM = digital rights management):
"DRM is not a consumer value proposition, it’s a consumer cost," said Goldberg. "It creates a nice barrier of entry for the tech companies, rather than something that’s beneficial to labels, artists, or consumers."

Most of his talk was hardly revolutionary (listen to it here), but the part that caught our attention was his analysis of how DRM discourages consumers from purchasing legitimate music files, since it imposes restrictions on the use of that music that illegal alternatives do not.
Amazing - SOMEONE at the corporate level gets it.