Is Universal Music Group using audible watermarks on digital files?

Supposedly the labels use it to trace piracy back to the source.

 

The original usage was to detect leaks. E.g. each critic given the screener print of a film has a DIFFERENT watermark embedded...if the film is leaked it is then easy to track down the source.

 

My score .... I will say some of the files are not the best sounding Examples to begin with .....


You scored 9 out of 16 correct.

1. [Ravel - Daphnis et Chloe] incorrect
2. [Lady Gaga - Just Dance] correct
3. [Shakey Graves - Unlucky Skin] incorrect
4. [Builders - Synthetic Flight] correct
5. [XXYYXX - Fields] correct
6. [Shirley Bassey - Diamonds Are Forever] correct
7. [Santana - Every Day I Have The Blues] incorrect
8. [Nirvana - Smells Like Teen Spirit] incorrect
9. [Debussy - Arabesque] incorrect
10. [Drake - Take Care] correct
11. [Kettel - Jongebeer] correct
12. [Pink Floyd - The Great Gig In The Sky] correct
13. [Bored With Four - Powerless Together] incorrect
14. [Electric Light Orchestra - 10538 Overture] incorrect
15. [Beethoven - Moonlight Sonata] correct
16. [Debussy - The Engulfed Cathedral] correct

 

Both these things imply the use of different watermarks for different buyers, which is not feasible as it would need "on the fly" watermarking during download. The only thing they achieve with this watermark is that they can automate the scanning of music available on YouTube or other online venues to check if they own the copyright.

 

The 2009 blog posts noted above suggest that there was some intention for "on the fly" encoding that was specific to each purchaser (located in presently unused bits of coding). It would appear however that such a system has not yet been implemented.

 

I've seen promo CDs for DJs with this sort of thing, from small record labels not just huge entities like Universal.

The DJs name burned into the CD and a note on the inlay claiming the audio is traceable.

 

Sorry if this is a stupid question but if Universal have been watermarking files, how come that website has access to unwatermarked files for comparison?

 

CD rips vs HDTracks/Qobuz/etc?

 

This has been implemented (using less invasive techniques) on iTunes and other places. Usually the information is stored in headers and therefore it doesn't need to be encoded in the audio.

 

Possibly, but again, why? What's the purpose of watermarking CD files but not those offered for download? I mean, surely they're even easier to distribute illegally...

 

I thought it was the other way around; they are watermarking downloads, I guess in preparation for a future world where stuff doesn't get published on CD anymore and so that source for pirated content doesn't exist anymore.

 

Ah, did I misunderstand you? You're suggesting that the CDs aren't watermarked but the downloads are? I thought it was the CDs that were being watermarked. Maybe I just assumed that (incorrectly).

 

It's downloads, not CDs, so the links comparing the two would have used a ripped CD for the non-watermarked file.

 

It's not clear to me that there are any 16/44.1 or better quality files being sold with the watermarking. The website mentioned in the linked articles (www.passionato.com) no longer seems to exist, and I haven't heard of anyone finding "lossless" watermarked for legitimate sale anywhere else. If I'm wrong, please post links.

 

My mistake. Carry on

 

UMG sells lossless classical through its DG and Decca websites.

http://www.deutschegrammophon.com/en/

http://www.deccaclassics.com/en/

Just click on a particular recording (or go to the search page) and choose "lossless flac" as the option.

 

Files sold through those websites have been specifically mentioned as not watermarked, which is in accord with my experience. They are also sold at Linn Records, HDtracks, Qobuz, etc., and AFAICT no one has complained about any purchases from those vendors being watermarked either.

 

Sorry, brainless here this morning, thinking you were wanting links to lossless files for sale only.

One point to mention in relation to this is that UMG has stated in its material (cited above) that they do not watermark hi-res (24 bit) files.

 

I recently bought Alice Cooper's "Billion Dollar Babies" from HDtracks and I tried to burn to a DVD-A to listen to in my car and the software told me it had a watermark. I burned it anyway and sure enough after playing for a few seconds my car player ejected it. I feel ripped off because I've burned a lot of 24/96 material to DVD-A to play in my car, part of the reason I bought my car was it has a nice stereo that is DVD-A capable. Oh well, I'll probably buy this title again when the AF SACD is released as the redbook layer will probably best the HDtracks which is obviously from the DVD-A release.

 

Luckily, Led Zeppelin are with Atlantic Records which aren't related to UMG (Universal Music Group).

 

I'll open my comment with my watermark test score:


"Results
You scored 16 out of 16 correct.

1. [Electric Light Orchestra - 10538 Overture] correct
2. [Shakey Graves - Unlucky Skin] correct
3. [Debussy - Arabesque] correct
4. [Debussy - The Engulfed Cathedral] correct
5. [Drake - Take Care] correct
6. [Lady Gaga - Just Dance] correct
7. [Kettel - Jongebeer] correct
8. [Builders - Synthetic Flight] correct
9. [Santana - Every Day I Have The Blues] correct
10. [Beethoven - Moonlight Sonata] correct
11. [XXYYXX - Fields] correct
12. [Pink Floyd - The Great Gig In The Sky] correct
13. [Ravel - Daphnis et Chloe] correct
14. [Nirvana - Smells Like Teen Spirit] correct
15. [Bored With Four - Powerless Together] correct
16. [Shirley Bassey - Diamonds Are Forever] correct

Thanks for taking the audio watermark listening test!"

I'll continue by first stating that I noticed this phenomenon on - mostly - classical, older catalogue titles from - again, mostly - Universal on Tidal and - to a lesser degree - Spotify. Up until now, I had mistakenly assumed that this was merely some artifact of faulty ripping, but I'm seriously pissed off at finding out that this has been done deliberately, and yes, I agree that the labels that do this are basically selling defective goods, and should be called out on it. Interestingly enough, though, newer titles - ones you'd expect those labels to want to make more profits from through sales of physical media - are NOT affected by this issue, so it seems like it's the consequence of a policy that has now been abandoned, but which has left streaming listeners with a significant amount of affected recordings those same labels now seem reluctant to replace because so many titles are affected and it would therefore take a painstaking, time-consuming effort to right all the wrongs...

 

I had wondered about this on John Coltrane's Impulse recordings on Spotify. Whenever he played a sustained note it sounded to me like it was breaking up.

 

Which Miles Davis titles are from Impulse? I'd love to check them.

 

No Miles Davis titles, but I noticed it on the theme of "Resolution" from Coltrane's Love Supreme for instance.

 

If I had the time/money/resources (which I unfortunately don't have), I'd look into a class-action lawsuit for Tidal since they specifically advertise/promise "CD quality" music. Subjectively to me, the watermaked files are roughly equivalent to a 64 kb/s "lossy" file. Tidal knowingly accepted and published these sonically degraded files from Universal. No excuse for that. Flat-out deception.

I agree with you. The type of music does make a difference as to the audibility of watermark distortion (I listen mostly to classical music on Tidal). Also, I noticed it's more apparent on headphone (which I use a lot)

And what about all of the Hi-Fi magazines that did very positive reviews on Tidal when it first came out? None of them heard, noticed or mentioned the distortion. It's there. What's with that?