Is Universal Music Group using audible watermarks on digital files?

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Edgard Varese, Nov 19, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ambassador

    Ambassador Forum Resident

    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    I'm guessing the reason for these "inaudible watermarks" is not for stopping "piracy" (non-commercial copyright infringement through legal file sharing protocols :p).

    Rather, it's probably for two main things:
    • Detection on YouTube/other video sites to make take-downs easier (using a UMG song under fair use? Tough for you);
    • Greater control over how people can play these song copies on their own devices.
    I read in a comment (I believe on the blog post about these watermarks) by a person who tried burning his watermarked music copies onto to a DVD-A, only to be warned about the watermark by the burning program - the DVD-A as expected didn't work with his car's disc player.

    Once again, we have a DRM scheme that only makes life harder for the customer by providing an inferior product that sounds bad and isn't compatible with other household devices.
     
    longaway likes this.
  2. Ambassador

    Ambassador Forum Resident

    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Does it sound like fluttering repeating sound?
     
  3. motionoftheocean

    motionoftheocean Senior Member

    Location:
    Circus Maximus
    I'm really a stickler for this sort of thing but in playing back "Mystic Rhythms" I hear nothing jarring at all.
     
  4. Ambassador

    Ambassador Forum Resident

    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    What are you listening on?
     
  5. motionoftheocean

    motionoftheocean Senior Member

    Location:
    Circus Maximus
    at the moment, playing through foobar and listening on a pair of Sennheiser HD280 pros.
     
  6. Ambassador

    Ambassador Forum Resident

    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Do you have an older mastering to compare to? I had to compare before I could confirm what I was hearing.
     
  7. motionoftheocean

    motionoftheocean Senior Member

    Location:
    Circus Maximus
    yeah I have the original CD somewhere. I hear what you're most likely referring to in the song, but I don't find it off-putting enough to demand my money back. if there's a more intrusive instance elsewhere, that could be a different story.
     
  8. Ambassador

    Ambassador Forum Resident

    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Story about UMG watermarking from 2011:

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...phile-files-pisses-off-paying-customers.shtml

     
  9. Hymie the Robot

    Hymie the Robot Forum Resident

    Location:
    USA
    So are you hearing watermarks on any other 2015 digital Rush releases or just Power Windows? That seemed to be what the person you quoted was asking yet you didn't respond to that part.
     
  10. Ambassador

    Ambassador Forum Resident

    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    He didn't ask any specific question, I was just providing some advice on how to listen for the distortion.

    I haven't bought any other digital Rush releases yet so I cannot say. Given the evidence available I don't see why Power Windows would be the only new Rush digital release affected, and as a result I'm certainly not going to be getting any more of these UMG digital releases.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2016
  11. Ambassador

    Ambassador Forum Resident

    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Interesting part from that article I linked - it suggests that in 2011 at least, digital music files sold directly from UMG didn't have this watermark.
     
  12. I didn't say the watermark had anything to do with IP addresses. Read my post again.
     
    Ambassador likes this.
  13. Ambassador:

    THAT is how Universal would obtain a file sharer's IP address. If you are sharing a torrent, you are also broadcasting your IP address to the people who are downloading the torrent. A company hired by Universal to download torrents gets your IP address, then Universal subpoenas your email address from your ISP, and writes you a nasty letter stating that you have shared their song and they can prove it because they have a copy of a watermarked file downloaded from your IP address. This happens all the time, every day. The watermark does not contain your IP address and I never said that, and I cannot fathom how you misinterpreted my post to say that..
     
    JediJoker and Ambassador like this.
  14. Ambassador

    Ambassador Forum Resident

    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Hi Billy. I apologize for misreading your original post.

    The reason why I assumed you were referring to some sort of per-user watermark is because that would make it easier for Universal (and other labels) to trace these audio files for the purpose of suing the people who shared them. That sort of capability would be an improvement over their current abilities (and a reason for it being a tool against file sharing).

    Having the watermark in its current form will not make any appreciable difference in the ability to identify their music on file sharing networks (since it's not a data signature readable by file hashing or in metadata for example; you can only detect it with some audio analysis). They still have to download said songs, and that point simply identifying them as their songs by listening to them is proof enough (i.e. watermark is just excess proof).
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2016
    Billy Budapest likes this.
  15. Ambassador

    Ambassador Forum Resident

    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    And I should further add that a label could also just compare the downloaded files against file hashes of the original digital downloads being sold, thus skipping audio analysis.
     
    Billy Budapest likes this.
  16. Dino

    Dino Forum Resident

    Location:
    Kansas City - USA
    That is what I am getting out of all of this. And that is what is so baffling to me. Why do this?o_O
     
  17. Dino

    Dino Forum Resident

    Location:
    Kansas City - USA
    There was a watermark scheme that did not get off of the ground back in the 1980s. It reminds me of this in ways. (It was not tailored to individuals, either.)

    I have been searching for something about it and cannot find anything. I'm foggy on details of it. I remember reading about it in The Absolute Sound back in the early 1980s.

    It was either Columbia or CBS (prior to their merger) I think. It was for analog. Tape was the only way to "share" music back then. They put a very steep notch in a (fairly) narrow frequency in the audible range. They did testing and concluded that the public would not detect a difference. They were ready to roll with this "technology" when word got out and outcry from enough of the audio press/record buying public ended up making them rethink and discontinue their plan.

    It was revealed that the notch ended up eliminating the fundamental of an entire piano note!
     
    ShawnMcCann likes this.
  18. quicksrt

    quicksrt Senior Member

    Location:
    Los Angeles
    I wonder what the legit sellers of digital files think of all this? Has HDtracks made a comment?
     
  19. agentalbert

    agentalbert Senior Member

    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    No. They don't specifically address watermarking on this page:

    http://www.hdtracks.com/quality
     
  20. That's true. None of it makes much sense. Sorry if I was being testy earlier!
     
    Ambassador likes this.
  21. Dino

    Dino Forum Resident

    Location:
    Kansas City - USA
  22. ShawnMcCann

    ShawnMcCann A Still Tongue Makes A Happy Life

    Location:
    The Village
    It was Columbia. IIRC, one of the tracks they played in court was from Barbra Streisand's Broadway album, and a solo clarinet run on the song was very obviously affected by the "inaudible" (Columbia's claim) notch.
     
    TonyCzar and Dino like this.
  23. Ham Sandwich

    Ham Sandwich Senior Member

    Location:
    Sherwood, OR, USA
    If Universal wasn't watermarking files downloaded from their own download sites (like the downloads available from Deutsche Grammophon) then the assumption would be that they trusted Deutsche Grammophon and the admins there, but don't trust the third party download sites and the admins at those download sites. Universal likely wanted to be able to be able to check and trace back the source for any leaks that get out to the pirate sites. So HDTracks, Qobuz, and the other download sites would each get a unique watermark that could be traced back to them. If an album got leaked early, or if a lot of albums from one site suddenly appear on pirate sites, those albums could be traced back to the source of the leak. That would be the most obvious reason for watermarking files in this way.
     
    jfeldt likes this.
  24. jy3iix

    jy3iix Forum Resident

    A theory advanced earlier in the thread was that it's being done to enable automated takedowns from streaming sites like YouTube in cases where an infringing copy has been put up. Along similar lines, another possibility is that it's being used by the label to perform automated metrics of some kind on subscriber streaming sites like Spotify and Tidal. Under this scenario logic would say one watermark for the whole release outside the label rather than different watermarks in the copies sent to each vendor and maybe the CD manufacturer.

    If watermarking is really targeted at streaming sites then it looks like our lossless and hi-res download sites are just considered collateral damage. Sad...
     
  25. Dino

    Dino Forum Resident

    Location:
    Kansas City - USA
    I could see how watermarking would be useful to Universal to look for albums that were leaked early and trace them to a download site. (I don't know if that is a common problem, or not.)

    After an album has been released to the public, it would seem to be up for grabs as far as people putting them on pirate sites. If most of the files were coming from HDTracks (for example) I would think that it would not point to the people who work at HDTracks any more than it would point to their customers.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine