DRM is Dead, Watermarking to Replace It?

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/news/2008/01/sony_music' target='_blank'>http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/news/2008/01/sony_music</a><br /><br /></div><em>&quot;With all of the Big Four record labels now jettisoning digital rights management, music fans have every reason to rejoice. But consumer advocates are singing a note of caution, as the music industry experiments with digital-watermarking technology as a DRM substitute. Watermarking offers copyright protection by letting a company track music that finds its way to illegal peer-to-peer networks. At its most precise, a watermark could encode a unique serial number that a music company could match to the original purchaser. So far, though, labels say they won't do that: Warner and EMI have not embraced watermarking at all, while Sony's and Universal's DRM-free lineups contain &quot;anonymous&quot; watermarks that won't trace to an individual.&quot;</em><br /><br />This might be an unpopular opinion, but I say bring on the watermarking technology. If it means getting DRM-free audio files that I can use on any device I want without the hassle of authentication, I'm more than willing to put up with watermarking that says I bought a song. In fact, to protect the work of artists from theft, I think personally identifiable watermarks and ISP filtering of P2P traffic based on detection of watermarks isn't such a bad idea. I strongly suspect the people that purchase content are generally not the types to turn around and put their paid content up onto a P2P network, so the people complaining about this probably aren't the ones who buy content to begin with.<br /><br />Where do you land on this issue? Would you shy away from a watermark that identifies you as having purchased a song or movie?

[Adam Krebs]

Personally, I'm afraid of the privacy implications. If your files end up on a P2P network (and you had nothing to do with it), the blame comes back to you. I also really just don't trust the recording industry to decide what's best for me.

The problem with audio watermarking is that it's a catch-22. If the watermark is on a frequency too high or low to hear, it can be easily removed by getting rid of the frequency. If not, then it ruins the quality of the file I've purchased. I don't want to pay for a sub-par product that runs on their terms...

[onlydarksets]

I have a couple of thoughts:


I have no problem with anyone being able to track down where any of the music I’ve ripped is. In fact, I’ll tell everyone – it’s on my 3 PCs at home and on the Carbonite servers (for backup). I don’t share music outside of my own equipment, so I don’t have anything to hide.
DRM will always have a place for subscription services. That’s 90% of my new music, and I will continue to do it that way as long as it’s possible. Frankly, lack of iTunes subscription service is one of the reasons I sold my iPod.
However, how do you enforce watermarking without DRM (or some analogous control mechanism)? Without something to prevent the watermark from being stripped out, you could just convert to MP3, or burn to a disc. If iTunes music is still tied to the iPod and Zune music still tied to, well, every other player in the world, it’s still not embracing fair use. >>

[onlydarksets]

Personally, I'm afraid of the privacy implications. If your files end up on a P2P network (and you had nothing to do with it), the blame comes back to you. I also really just don't trust the recording industry to decide what's best for me.
But they aren't doing this for you - they are doing it for themselves. How it affects you is the issue.

The problem with audio watermarking is that it's a catch-22. If the watermark is on a frequency too high or low to hear, it can be easily removed by getting rid of the frequency. If not, then it ruins the quality of the file I've purchased. I don't want to pay for a sub-par product that runs on their terms...

Thanks for the info on audio watermarking. I didn't realize that it was an audio-only solution. That mitigates one of my concerns (listed above). Really, it's the 80/20 rule. If they can discourage 80% of the people who would otherwise share music illegally with minimal effort, then should they really worry about the other 20%?

Of course, another issue is that this is focused on punishment, not prevention. What happens to the parents of that 13 year old who is sharing his entire music collection on P2P? Are they liable? Is the 13 year old?

[Jason Dunn]

Personally, I'm afraid of the privacy implications. If your files end up on a P2P network (and you had nothing to do with it), the blame comes back to you. I also really just don't trust the recording industry to decide what's best for me.

True. I sure as heck don't trust the recording industry to do what's best for me either, but if it means getting DRM-free music from them, I'm willing to open myself up to a bit of risk.

If the watermark is on a frequency too high or low to hear, it can be easily removed by getting rid of the frequency. If not, then it ruins the quality of the file I've purchased.

But, honestly, how many people would know how to remove the a frequency from a song to get rid of a watermark? I doubt that most people would know how to do that...

[Jason Dunn]

Without something to prevent the watermark from being stripped out, you could just convert to MP3, or burn to a disc.

Well, you can do that now with almost any DRM'd song (except the subscription ones): burning a CD, then re-ripping it, is a tried and true method for bypassing DRM. But it's ugly, slow, and often frustrating, so it hasn't and will never catch on.

If iTunes music is still tied to the iPod and Zune music still tied to, well, every other player in the world, it’s still not embracing fair use. >>

Ah, but here's the reality: just because the Zune software or iTunes software won't allow you to manage music on your non-Zune or non-iPod device, the music itself is playable on the other devices, so you can use Windows Media Player or another software tool to manage that device. Perhaps not as ideal as having the Zune software recognize your Sandisk Sansa View, but not altogether painful either.

[paschott]

I really don't have a huge problem with DRM-free music if I get a digital watermark. I don't share my music with anyone and don't mind the ability to then easily port my music across all of my devices. My biggest concern would be if someone copied a file off one of my devices and then shared it themselves, but I don't see this as likely. This is one of the things that always bothers me about digital media (video, books, music, whatever) - the DRM is designed in such a way as to be a horrible impediment to the users or in such a way that it requires special software in order to use. I think that one e-book vendor had it right for books - use a CC #, but if you move to an unsupported device you are out of luck. It's also not realistic for music or video.

I kind of like the watermarking idea - the people it hurts the most are those who do P2P sharing. Those who don't share their music should be fine unless someone steals it. I do agree that putting in the watermark shouldn't affect the sound of the music or it just defeats the purpose. As for how easy that would be to remove or keep - I just don't know. I would tend to agree that most people wouldn't really understand the steps required to remove it, but it wouldn't be long before some utility started floating around that allowed people to strip watermarking from their music. I'd say that the time required to do it would be a little bit of a turn-off for people, though. Re-encoding isn't generally a fast operation and even batched up, would take a noticeable amount of time.

Besides, if it means that we can get to the point where we aren't required to use Zune software, iTunes, or some other locked-down player, I'm all for it. Too much overhead just to play/download/buy music for the most part. :)

-Pete

[cjhp]

I don't have a problem with the watermarking but having it be able to trace back to myself and me personally I have some issue with. I don't like putting all my personal information out there for just anybody to find. Therefore, I don't trust the RIAA to protect my information either. Don't get me wrong I don't steal songs by using P2P or anything like that and since getting a zune the Marketplace with a subscription in place is the way to go for me and now my wife. I have only purchase 3 cds since I started my zune subscription in Dec 2006 because that was the only way to get the music.

[Chris Gohlke]

Kind of off the beaten track; but to play devils advocate, if they sold non-DRMd, non watermarked MP3's wouldn't all of the RIAA garbage have to immediately go out the window since they could no longer prove if you purchased the music or not? Right now, technically, for any MP3 I legally have, it should either have DRM or a watermark, or I should own the physical CD.

[onlydarksets]

I don't have a problem with the watermarking but having it be able to trace back to myself and me personally I have some issue with. I don't like putting all my personal information out there for just anybody to find.

That's kind of the point, though - you shouldn't be "putting it out there" at all ;)

As for the centralized information, you already do that with any subscription service. What's the difference?

***long quote trimmed by mod JD***

[onlydarksets]

Ah, but here's the reality: just because the Zune software or iTunes software won't allow you to manage music on your non-Zune or non-iPod device, the music itself is playable on the other devices, so you can use Windows Media Player or another software tool to manage that device. Perhaps not as ideal as having the Zune software recognize your Sandisk Sansa View, but not altogether painful either.

That may have been my misunderstanding about how audio watermarks work. If you are truly free to transcode the song to any format (i.e., free of any digital restrictions), then it does embrace fair use.

[follick]

Watermarking is much better than DRM. It would allow me to use the files I purchase on any of my equipment. I wouldn't need to worry about a DRM scheme becoming obsolete and losing all my purchased files.

The only downside would be that it increases the risk of identity theft. Imagine this scenario:

I drop my MP3 player while walking. Someone picks it up and copies the watermarked MP3's and sends them out on P2P. The RIAA sues me and takes my life savings.

I would need to worry about securing my MP3's much more.

Still, I would purchase watermarked files. I don't purchase DRM.

[Small Town Man]

We'll see what happens when the first 80GB Player got lost or stolen and the songs make their way to P2P ...
I'm pretty sure that it will be even harder to proof that you are not the one who put them on P2P than it has been ever before.

[Chris Gohlke]

Good point, I lost my Zune a few months back. Luckily it was before I started buying MP3's from Amazon.

[Rocco Augusto]

I really don't see how watermarking can be that bad. Just like any other important piece of electronics or personal information, such as a cell phone or credit card, if you happen to misplace it or have it stolen than file a police report. If your files do happen to end up online and if you do happen to become a target of the RIAA than at least you will have proof that you were not at fault as the files in question would have been purchased before you filed the report. This is just like what you would do if it was your credit card that was stolen and you were trying to reverse fraudulent charges.

And if push comes to shove and you really aren't happy with the watermarking, you can always remove it with freeware applications such as "the godfather (http://users.forthnet.gr/the/jtclipper/)", at least until they start using other forms of watermarking besides leaving something in the ID3 tags. Thats just my 2 cents though :D

[Chris Gohlke]

Sure, but if I lose a cheapo flash player, I don't really want to waste my time or law enforcements time filling a police report. In fact I don't know if they even file a report if you just lose something. I lost a Zune (left it on an airplane) and only filed a report because I was stuck on a layover. Not because it wasn't worth some money, but because I have so little faith in most people that I knew I would never get it back.

[Adam Krebs]

if they sold non-DRMd, non watermarked MP3's wouldn't all of the RIAA garbage have to immediately go out the window since they could no longer prove if you purchased the music or not? Right now, technically, for any MP3 I legally have, it should either have DRM or a watermark, or I should own the physical CD.

Amazon and Zune sell DRM- and watermark-free mp3. There is absolutely no reason why they should impose any sort of restriction on music I buy. DRM'ing subscription content is reasonable and acceptable, but if I plop down a Washington (or Loonie, or 79 'Allards'), I damn sure better be able to do whatever I want with it.

[ptyork]

I don't think that this will change much by way of the true thieves / hackers. They'll always be able to circumvent the technologies and the authorities. I really think that it is the more casual sharers / downloaders that will be stopped by this. Keep in mind that the real value here is not so much in the tracking but in the identification of copyrighted material that could be filtered and/or logged by ISP's. So, if you're with a legit ISP then you might not be able to share the files to start with. On the other side, if you with a legit ISP and you go to download a file, they have a really darned good method of tracking you down and prosecuting. I really think this is as much of a demand side deterrent as it is a supply side one, which is what most of you have focused on. I seriously doubt that if your watermark shows up on a downloaded file that they will track you down unless the trail is direct (i.e., you're actively participating in the P2P network that's distributing the file). However, it is very likely that the presence of a watermark will simply prove that an unauthorized user has obtained the file illegally.

Now, my opinion, it's great. I'm 100% for it. Give me high-bitrate or lossless DRM free files and I can finally drop any and all need for buying CD's (as it is now, why buy electronic when it is easier, safer, and better to get the CD and rip for yourself). Plus, its time to stop the senseless theft of music and pay the artists again.

[Jason Dunn]

If you are truly free to transcode the song to any format (i.e., free of any digital restrictions), then it does embrace fair use.

Actually, you shouldn't need to transcode to any other format - so far most of the DRM free stuff has been in MP3 or AAC, which should play on pretty much any player. Although if you really WANT to transcode to a 64 kbps WMA to save space or something, you'll be able to as well (as I understand it).

[Jason Dunn]

We'll see what happens when the first 80GB Player got lost or stolen and the songs make their way to P2P ...

I suppose anything is possible, but I have to think that the RIAA would be aware that people do lose MP3 players (and hey, people lose phones all the time, and DRM free MP3s would certainly end up on phones) and would be reasonable about it. I hope. :rolleyes:

[Jason Dunn]

...and I can finally drop any and all need for buying CD's (as it is now, why buy electronic when it is easier, safer, and better to get the CD and rip for yourself).

It's funny, I keep going back to CDs because I can never find an online music store that has ALL the music I want. Maybe things will change in 2008...but I still like buying CDs.

[onlydarksets]

Actually, you shouldn't need to transcode to any other format - so far most of the DRM free stuff has been in MP3 or AAC, which should play on pretty much any player. Although if you really WANT to transcode to a 64 kbps WMA to save space or something, you'll be able to as well (as I understand it).

VMC extenders don't support AAC, and iPods don't support WMA. I see no reason that iTunes would move from AAC to WMA or that ZMP/PFS would move to AAC, so I assume that will continue for the foreseeable future. I've had to reencode my entire library a few times (luckily, I ripped to lossless, so it's not a huge deal). However, I need the flexibility to convert.

[follick]

Actually, you shouldn't need to transcode to any other format - so far most of the DRM free stuff has been in MP3 or AAC, which should play on pretty much any player.

20 years from now, when the portable music players only play XYZ format, I still want to be able to listen to what I've purchased.

[follick]

I suppose anything is possible, but I have to think that the RIAA would be aware that people do lose MP3 players (and hey, people lose phones all the time, and DRM free MP3s would certainly end up on phones) and would be reasonable about it. I hope. :rolleyes:

Yes. Reasonable and RIAA don't really go together.

[Jason Dunn]

VMC extenders don't support AAC, and iPods don't support WMA.

Ah, I didn't realize that extenders don't play AAC - they should, it's a popular format. I don't expect iPods to ever support WMA of course - well, not while Steve Jobs is alive.

Myself, I hope to only ever purchase DRM free content on MP3 format. I'm not aware of any DRM-free stuff in WMA format...is there?

[Jason Dunn]

20 years from now, when the portable music players only play XYZ format, I still want to be able to listen to what I've purchased.

20 years is a long time, but hopefully MP3 will still be supported - though I understand your point about needing to transcode to whatever format is popular. I can only tell you that with the DRM-free MP3s I purchased from Amazon.com, I can do anything I want with them, just like any regular MP3: transcode, edit, etc.

[Jason Dunn]

Yes. Reasonable and RIAA don't really go together.

Touche sir, touche. :D

[onlydarksets]

Ah, I didn't realize that extenders don't play AAC - they should, it's a popular format. I don't expect iPods to ever support WMA of course - well, not while Steve Jobs is alive.
There is a lot they don't do :(

Myself, I hope to only ever purchase DRM free content on MP3 format. I'm not aware of any DRM-free stuff in WMA format...is there?

I believe you are correct. I'm assuming that's intentional, although it is a bit surprising. If Apple/MS truly believe in the superiority of their formats, you would think they would only use that. Then again, they might either (1) want the slight degradation in quality from MP3 or (2) assume that non-DRM will be pirated and not want their format associated with it.

[AdamaDBrown]

But, honestly, how many people would know how to remove the a frequency from a song to get rid of a watermark? I doubt that most people would know how to do that...

The people who don't know aren't the problem. It's the people who DO know. It's like copy protection, either on music or on anything else. All it takes is one person to produce a clean copy, then it replicates to infinity online. The toothpaste is out of the tube.

I think this is going to be as much a failure in trying to control or prevent filesharing as anything else they've done. The recording industry needs to stop trying to make their way back to 1996, and spend their money on providing valued services, something that people will pay for.

[Jason Dunn]

If Apple/MS truly believe in the superiority of their formats, you would think they would only use that.

Well, Apple has always used AAC, just with Fairplay DRM injected into it, but AAC isn't their format. So for them to keep using AAC makes sense. In terms of WMA, with MSN Music no longer around, there's only the Zune Marketplace - and I haven't tried any of their DRM-free stuff yet, so I don't know what format it's in.

Then again, they might either (1) want the slight degradation in quality from MP3 or (2) assume that non-DRM will be pirated and not want their format associated with it.

Well, regarding #1, there is no degradation in quality between formats if the bit rate is high enough - no format sounds better than the other if bit rate is not factored in, it all comes down to the bit rate. A 128 kbps WMA will sound better than a 128 kbps MP3, but no one is releasing 128 kbps MP3s. I don't know about other DRM-free offerings, but I checked an Amazon.com DRM-free track I bought and it's a 320 kbps MP3. So there's definitely no degradation there. ;)

[Rocco Augusto]

Sure, but if I lose a cheapo flash player, I don't really want to waste my time or law enforcements time filling a police report. In fact I don't know if they even file a report if you just lose something. I lost a Zune (left it on an airplane) and only filed a report because I was stuck on a layover. Not because it wasn't worth some money, but because I have so little faith in most people that I knew I would never get it back.

I agree with you 100% and I think it's ridiculous but I am willing to meet the record companies and the RIAA halfway as they are now finally willing to meet me there as well. I refuse to ever "purchase" DRM'd digital media. It is just something that I cannot justify, especially when I can go out and purchase a CD or DVD and make my own higher quality copy in no time with no DRM or play restrictions on it.

For years, I have wanted nothing more than to be able to hop onto a music download service and download a new album with no DRM at a reasonable sound quality and price. If the only way I can get that to happen is to deal with a little watermarking and file a police report if I misplace my media player, I can deal with that.

I think that is personally reasonable, especially considering that the last few years have been so chaotic with protecting media that companies such as sony would rather destroy your computer with a rootkit than even risk you pirating their software/music.

Times are changing and it will be a while before we have a solution that almost everyone is happy with, but in the meantime, this will do (for me at least :))

[Jason Dunn]

If the only way I can get that to happen is to deal with a little watermarking and file a police report if I misplace my media player, I can deal with that.

Well said Rocco! I'm in the same boat. Would I prefer to have no watermarking at all? Sure. But in a disagreement, both sides have to compromise to reach an accord, and being able to buy a 320 kbps MP3 from Amazon for 99 cents with no DRM was a *thrill* so if a little watermarking happens, so be it!

[Rocco Augusto]

Well said Rocco! I'm in the same boat. Would I prefer to have no watermarking at all? Sure. But in a disagreement, both sides have to compromise to reach an accord, and being able to buy a 320 kbps MP3 from Amazon for 99 cents with no DRM was a *thrill* so if a little watermarking happens, so be it!

Thank you :)

And look at the bright side, if for some reason it really bothers you to have your mp3's watermarked by ID3 tags, you can always just remove them! :D

I personally will keep them on as they do not bother me and all they appear to be is a series of Amazon transaction ID numbers which unless you worked for Amazon, I doubt someone could use to invade your privacy. But if you did want to remove them, they made it as easy as right clicking on the MP3 and editing the properties. Easy as pie! :)

[onlydarksets]

Well, regarding #1, there is no degradation in quality between formats if the bit rate is high enough - no format sounds better than the other if bit rate is not factored in, it all comes down to the bit rate.

Yes, the bit rate is a factor. I was implying an apples-to-apples comparison. At the margins, though, format doesn't matter. A 32Kbps file is almost always going to sounds like crap, and a 320Kbps file is almost always going to sound like near-CD quality. It's in the middle (96Kbps-192Kbps) that you really can hear a difference. Is it a difference that matters? Eh, who knows...

***long quote trimmed by mod JD***

[Jason Dunn]

It's in the middle (96Kbps-192Kbps) that you really can hear a difference. Is it a difference that matters? Eh, who knows...

Indeed, but the good news is that I haven't heard of anyone doing DRM-free music at the 128 kbps level, where I think the difference is noticeable (a 128 kbps WMA sounds better than a 128 kbps MP3). At 192 kbps they're pretty much the same to my ears...so basically, like the transcoding issue, I don't think you have much or anything to be concerned about. :D

[onlydarksets]

True, and it makes the decision NOT to use WMA or AAC all the more befuddling. Wouldn't they want to push their format? Maybe that's a topic for a different thread...

[Jason Dunn]

True, and it makes the decision NOT to use WMA or AAC all the more befuddling. Wouldn't they want to push their format?

I've confirmed that the Zune Marketplace tracks that are DRM-free are MP3 in format, and I think 320 kbps or so. As to why they didn't use WMA, the Zune guys are focused on making the best media player on the planet, and having the best all-around solution, and they don't have nearly as much Microsoft format bias as the rest of the company has...MP3 is the best format for DRM-free music because it will play anywhere, and that's what the Zune team is delivering.

[onlydarksets]

I had just assumed that the Zune brand was a tightly controlled MS project. That's good to know that they have some autonomy.

[Jason Dunn]

I had just assumed that the Zune brand was a tightly controlled MS project. That's good to know that they have some autonomy.

Well, I think Microsoft's belief in the superiority of their own formats has waned in the past two years - we see h.264 and Divx supported added to the Xbox, h.264 supported added to the Zune...both are things I never thought I'd see happen. Microsoft is finally seeming to understand that people have their content in all sorts of formats, and they want to access it in that native format, not spend hours transcoding.