Is Universal Music Group using audible watermarks on digital files?

It's an old blog post, but I just discovered this yesterday. It seems UMG may be selling deliberately defective products.

http://www.mattmontag.com/music/universals-audible-watermark

Excerpt:

 

This could be a huge problem for people selling legit files like HDTracks. Who wants to pay a premium for a high res file that's essentially been vandalized?

 

I'm still learning to rip to digital my vinyl.... 24/96... let the label do what ever they want, I just will buy used.

 

And as the article notes it's been observed on Spotify streams... and given UMG's vast ownership of labels, this may well be an extremely widespread problem.

 

I'm not sure how this is relevant. This just doesn't affect 24/96 files. It affects all digital files from Universal, who owns a ridiculous amount of the music that we all love. The label is basically selling defective goods. That should concern everyone.

 

I'll veto with my wallet.

 

That doesn't help those who don't have vinyl or buys new music.

 

The prevalence of this effects potentially everyone buying UMG product either lps, Itunes downloads, cds and HDTracks hi rez downloads across the board as one the watermark is on the supplied master how can anyone be sure that master won't be reused further down the line.
Why anyone in the music industry should feel deliberately ruining the sound in such a way that even those on more modest equipment can detect is really beyond comprehension. Would you expect an audience to watch a movie where there is deliberate flickering of the brightness just on the pretext of making it easier to identify copies?

 

Do we have any real confirmation this is happening?

Considering all the non-audible ways to watermark a file not sure why they would do this.

 

Has anyone actually heard this allegedly vandalism? I mean, it seems odd that its only being mentioned because it was claimed in a blog rather than because people have actually heard it. As noted above, Universal owns a vast swathe of music - I can't believe that no one on this forum of all places hasn't actually commented before on how they can hear it.

My other question would be: why would they bother doing it?

I mean, it doesn't prove that a file has been illegally ripped or shared, all it proves is that it's Universal's music, and everyone knows that anyway.

 

See for yourself.
Take the watermarking test: http://mattmontag.com/audio-listening-test/

 

I learned about the blog via a poster in another forum who was trying to figure out why his digital downloads had odd bits of digital distortion. At first it was attributed to poor conversion practices on the part of the record company (in fact this possibility remains). However, it may also be possible that the answer is a bit more sinister than simple incompetence.

 

Not surprising, I know that several film studios use Cinavia technology and embed it in their Blu-ray soundtracks. It's an analog watermarking technology that is audible if you know exactly what to look for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinavia

Companies have never cared about audiophiles and as long as the average consumer doesn't complain, they don't mind offending a small portion of consumers.

 

I'm not saying it isn't happening. I'm just surprised that among a forum full of people with good ears and systems, nobody seems to have spotted it.

 

I was frankly surprised as well, given the date of the blog post (April 2013). I came across it in a headphones forum, which may have something to do with it.

 

I'm sure we all remember Sony's rootkit as well.

 

Sounds like a fantastic opportunity for a class action lawsuit.

 

If there's a scandal here, it seems to me, it's the incompetent use of digital watermarking that becomes audible or that degrades fidelity.

Not surprisingly, there's an industry trade group called the Digital Watermarking Alliance. Their site defines watermarking as "embedding imperceptible information via subtle changes to the data of the original digital content" [emphasis added].

 

I agree with you ...... What's the point ? I don't see how this helps Univrsal at all. Another example of a record company shooting themselves in the ass and po'ing their customers.

 

Thanks, I hadn't heard of this before, good to know about and there is interesting reading in the links that have been provided so far.

 

Confirmation here, on a page from 2009. Note that the discussion clearly outlines anti-piracy as a motive for the use of this technology.

http://copyrightandtechnology.com/2009/07/09/riaa-releases-watermarking-payload-specification/

 

Also, this is the service that UMG now uses to engineer these watermarks:

http://www.mediascienceinternational.com/products/watermarking.aspx

This is their file transfer system:

http://studiocdn.umusic.com/

This page states that UMG is using the MSI service named in the top link in this post.

http://studiocdn.umusic.com/faq.htm

It is clear from the above that UMG is using this watermarking system on digital files. The question is whether the process is causing audible distortion (which some clearly assert is the case).

 

Is it only digital files or CDs also?

I tried 3 times recently to burn a 2012 Universal Japan CD to CD-R for the car via my CD recorder and it kept cutting off the end of the last track. So I ripped CD to computer (WAV) and it took a few tries for the last track to rip. The CD-R that I finally burnt seems to sound worse than the real CD. Slightly muffled or something. I even noticed a slight waver in one vocal spot like the blog post mentions.

 

I haven't found any claims that the watermarks are on CDs, so I think we should assume that they appear on digital files only.

 

Cinavia works because they can enforce it on the players, i.e. a BluRay player will not play a copied disc if it detects the presence of the watermark. What's the purpose of watermarking files if they can still be played everywhere? I must be missing something here...