eHomeUpgrade on FacebookeHomeUpgrade on FriendFeedeHomeUpgrade on TwittereHomeUpgrade on YouTubeSubscribe via E-mailSubscribe via RSS

MP3 Inventor Develops Tool to Add Watermarking DRM to Your Digital Music

By Alexander Grundner | February 9th, 2006 Interest Level: SMOKING HOT


ltb headphonesIt was just the other day I was telling you guys that watermarking was going to be the next tool in the RIAA’s arsenal to fight piracy. Now, Fraunhofer, the creators of the of MP3 format, are proud to announce that they have designed an alternative DRM scheme that will add a “hash value” mark to MP3 tracks purchased from online music services. The hash value is designed to create a direct link between the content provider and registered purchaser.

What’s interesting is that the system doesn’t help authorities go after the people who are sharing or have downloaded illegal copies of the watermarked MP3 tracks, it’s really designed to nail the person who purchased the music legally but unwisely decided to put it on a peer-to-peer network. Michael Kip, spokesman for Fraunhofer, gives the following example: “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….”

I know everyone is probably throwing a fit right about now, but the news may not be entirely bad. In fact, I can think of two benefits for using this DRM system over other popular formats: 1) You’ll have no device interoperability problems. Meaning you’ll be able to transfer, stream, and playback these protected MP3 files on any device without limitation. 2) The lawsuits against pirates will actually be more targeted to the person responsible for illegally uploading the music, than going after all file-sharers.

Comments | Post via Twitter / Facebook ID or Register

Short URL: http://bit.ly/bLYOQy [+]  Filed in: Industry Buzz  
____________
Alexander Grundner is the Editor & Publisher of eHomeUpgrade. He has been following "Digital Home" developments since 2003. He's also a fan of cross-platform, open development software and industry standards related to media, networking, and the web. You can catch his daily tech musings on Twitter: @agrundner.
[Subscribe via RSS 2.0 | Follow us on Twitter]
  • ronenmiz
    I'm still positive on MP3 watermarking, but I can think of another nightmare scenario: You either lose or have you MP3 player stolen. Ouch. That would be a pain in the ass. I wonder what Fraunhofer has come up with to address that problem.


    The way I see it, it is just like someone stealing your car and committing a crime, if you reported the car stolen, you are fine. Maybe we will need to start reporting stolen mp3 players...





    Anyway, I like a solution that does not spy on me like DRM, does not prevent me from playing my music when I want it, where I want it and on which device I happen to own/like, and only when something is actually stolen then they go and trace it. With a proper fine system no more lawsuits will be required and people will be deterred and will start making a conscious effort to prevent their music from being uploaded to file sharing networks.





    For me this system unlike DRM does not assume we are all pirates and hence blocks us from using our music, but rather assumes we are law obeying citizens and only if there is a proof to the contrary then the system kicks in.
  • melvin
    Alexander Grundner said: I'm still positive on MP3 watermarking, but I can think of another nightmare scenario: You either lose or have you MP3 player stolen. Ouch. That would be a pain in the ass. I wonder what Fraunhofer has come up with to address that problem. :(





    You could report it stolen, then a virus would go out and delete all the files with your name on it. ;)
  • I'm still positive on MP3 watermarking, but I can think of another nightmare scenario: You either lose or have you MP3 player stolen. Ouch. That would be a pain in the ass. I wonder what Fraunhofer has come up with to address that problem. :(
  • David Walker
    At least with watermarking, there is not a hardened restriction on how you use the content personally. It only becomes an issue when that content ends up on sharing networks, at which point, a "crime" has already occurred. DRM is far more restrictive, telling you what devices you can and cannot use and how many times. Unless we get to a solution like the one Alex has suggested, I think watermarking is a better solution that puts the responsibility on the consumer - which is where it should be.
  • melvin
    ronenmiz said: I think watermarking is a great solution and can be a great alternative to existing DRM schemes. When done right, it will be impossible to remove this hash value since it will be blended into the music itself and yet produce no artifacts. Something like that indeed solves interoperability problems since any player can play it just like any unprotected file! But when a file is spread ilegaly then it is possible to trace it to the source and hey the source has broken the law and unless they can prove they were not the wrong doers they should pay a fine. Just like when a camera photos my car in a traffic violation, unless the real driver comes forward or the car was stolen (etc.) the person on which name the car is registerd is responsible, nothing wrong with that. I just hope this system really works (although if this one does not there are others under development in academia that should work) and that the RIAA and all the other "bad" guys will agree to use it INSTEAD of and not in addition to existing schemes.





    I get your point about the red light cameras and such, but I think they're is a difference between an owner keeping track of his/her car, and keeping track of your digital music collection. One, you can't reproduce your car like you can music, and thus it seems very feasible that a copy of your music could end up in the hands of someone who doesn't think they should pay for music. Two, a red light or parking ticket is a lot less money then getting sued. Three, if you get a parking ticket, it's the governement who gets paid, not the guy who sold you the car. That makes a difference to me.





    The most important reason to me is that you put the blame on your customer and assume he's guilty. That's not the way it's suppossed to work. Perhaps I'm being paranoid about this, but it just seems like the wrong way to go.





    I don't think we'll get this instead of DRM anyway, and it won't exactly be a selling point for any online shop. We'll if it does replace DRM for an online shop it could be a plus, but I really don't see anybody going that way, or content providers supporting watermarking alone as a means of protecting their content, IMO.
  • ronenmiz
    I think watermarking is a great solution and can be a great alternative to existing DRM schemes. When done right, it will be impossible to remove this hash value since it will be blended into the music itself and yet produce no artifacts. Something like that indeed solves interoperability problems since any player can play it just like any unprotected file! But when a file is spread ilegaly then it is possible to trace it to the source and hey the source has broken the law and unless they can prove they were not the wrong doers they should pay a fine. Just like when a camera photos my car in a traffic violation, unless the real driver comes forward or the car was stolen (etc.) the person on which name the car is registerd is responsible, nothing wrong with that. I just hope this system really works (although if this one does not there are others under development in academia that should work) and that the RIAA and all the other "bad" guys will agree to use it INSTEAD of and not in addition to existing schemes.
  • My read is if you don't let anyone outside of you household (or people you trust with your life) make a copy, you have nothing to worry about. It's just when you allow people to access your music library via the Internet or by handing them a burned CD, that you will most likely find yourself in trouble with the authorities.




    The only thing that worries me is if Fraunhofer sneaks this technology into rippers when third parties license their MP3 codec. So instead of creating a link betweent the service and the owner, it will be a direct link to a persons IP address.
  • melvin
    alister said: If you sold the watermarked songs to someone else and they uploaded the songs to p2p then it would come back to you :) This will not work because someone will find a way to remove the "hash value" from the mp3 files.




    Alister





    But if you knew how to remove the hash value, why would you ever purchase an mp3 to begin with? If you download an mp3 with the "hash value", where's your motiviation to remove it since it doesn't hold you liable. It's the relatively honest and ignornat people who would get screwed on this,





    Aside from that that, the content providers would never be able to sue their own customers...even if they were stupid enough to do that. It will be difficult to prove that a customer purposely gave the mp3 file to another for the purpose of theft. The customer could simply claim that it was stolen from them. I'd think you'd have to have some sort trail to follow or something more then the hash value.
  • alister
    If you sold the watermarked songs to someone else and they uploaded the songs to p2p then it would come back to you :) This will not work because someone will find a way to remove the "hash value" from the mp3 files.




    Alister
  • Genius74 said: And if I can't sell it to another user, why not let me sell it back to the supplier for an exchange?


    Whoa. That's a pretty deep idea... I like it! It wasn't that many years ago when I used be able to go into Tower Records and return/exchange my music CDs. It would definitely be cool to be able to check in with the online service, say after 120 days, and tell them you want to exchange/delete X song from your library for Z.
  • Genius74
    I say - Digital Watermark all you want. The only thing I'd like to see from all this DRM crap (which really doesn't bother me since I don't buy music this way) is the option to SELL the music you bought. Unlike a CD, I can't just run down to the local CD Swap Shop an exchange it for something else or better still.. CASH! And if I can't sell it to another user, why not let me sell it back to the supplier for an exchange?




    anyway, that's my $4.30
blog comments powered by Disqus