Re: Digital Watermarks (long, getting off-topic)

["Alex F" <alexf@iss.net>]

>  Easy enough.
> 
> - Unless somebody reversed-engineered it, filtered it, and re-stamped it.

Never said that it would be fool proof :)


> - The entertainment industry has a reputation of being paranoid

Sometimes with good reason, just like software producers are paraniod 
about piracy.  Though, the Ent. Ind. does tend to overreact.  IMO the 
copyright laws that are currently in place are enough to protect 
against the forms of piracy that they are trying to protect 
themselves against.  I really don't  think that there is need for new 
legislation or potentially privacy invading practices at this point.  
The forgers of the copyright laws (at least as they relate to music) 
had incredible foresight.  Basically, from the laws that were 
originally drafted (30's maybe?  Then revised in the early '70's at 
least as far as public domain goes) both videos and CDs are 
protected.  These were written when there were no CDs or videos.

>   Some of you may recall 
>   the flap over DAT, which significantly reduced the consumer market 
>   penetration (the industry itself uses them all over the place).

The Ent. Ind. got what they wanted though.  There are taxes, etc. 
(some sort of import restrictions anyway) that keep DAT player/recorder 
devices at around $700 per unit.  By this time normally the prices 
*should* be down to like $200 (using the CD industry as a guide)

DATs are used all over the industry because they are cheap (see 
below), and because going from analog tape to DAT for CD mastering is 
a million times easier then sending off reels of analog tape, even if 
the tape is a properly mixed down duplicate of the master.  There are 
still track times, numbers, etc., etc.  A HUGE pain in the ass for CD 
manufacturers, but easy to do on a one-off basis in the studio where 
the producer & artist can sit there and help mix, fix tracks, select 
times, indexes, etc., etc.  It can all be done to a single DAT 
)(which would then be copied for safety) and set along with a time 
code sheet.


>   (you still 
>   have the even-less-effective argument of the associated cover art not 
>   being included or being scanned and duplicated with reduced signal 
>   quality, unless the distribution is all on-line).

Cover art is pretty easy to duplicate if you have access to a color 
laser printer.  Just scan the original in at 300dpi, and print it out 
at the same resolution/size and you have it.  Just don't scan it in 
as a .GIF :) (too few colors)

 
>  Probably not done that way.  My guess is that the disk ID is assigned
>  to the disk at the time of manufacturing.  At the point of purchase
>  the customer is forced to give name, address, ID, whatever.  This is
>  then stored in a database 
> 
> - Would YOU want to be responsible for maintaining that database?  It's 
>   like maintaining a hardware store trying to maintain an ID on every 
>   single screw and nail in inventory.

You would run into the same problems if it were done by CC.  
Hopefully the industry will do some sort of a cost-analysis (an 
accurate one) and realize that they would spend more on this than 
they lose (esp. since they still wouldn't eliminate piracy, just make 
it a little more difficult).


> - Nobody's going to try and do a higher-frequency encoding (I HOPE).  While 
>   the human ear cannot hear those frequencies directly, we have found out 
>   that those higher-frequencies interact in such a way to influence the 
>   sound waves that influence what the user can hear. 

Yes, that's true.  Anyone ever hear of HAARP?  :)  Certain 
frequencies can affect the brain in certain ways (a guy by the name 
of Robert A Monroe, while maybe a little eccentric, has been using 
this method since the 50's to do things like keep people awake when 
they are sleepy, vice versa, etc.).  Also the body.  Your body parts 
resonate a certain frequencies.  For example, there is a very low 
note (I believe that it is a B) that vibrates at the same frequency 
as your bowels.  Play that note, and you loose control... :) (If 
anyone knows this frequency, PLEASE let me know.  I'm serious :) ).

 This is the reason 
>   there's still a debate between digital and analog recordings, and is 
>   still a big reason a lot of artists still record on analog equipment 
>   (in musical "fuzzy" terms, it's equated with the warmth of the sound, 
>   sort of like the tube-amp vs. solid-state amp debate among some guitar 
>   players, etc.)  If somebody deliberately played with such frequencies, 
>   the journalistic media would probably have a field day.  Yes, there are 
>   audio cancelling and other tricks that could be deployed, but no matter 
>   what, you're still deliberately introducing signal noise

I touched on that in my other posting.  The real difference between 
analog vs. digital is actually 2 things; static and musical 
"overtones" (used to produce various distortion effects and feedback, 
for example.  ANyone who has listened to Robin Trower, Hendrix, Van 
Halen, etc. knows).

People *are* playing with these frequencies.  It's known as COSM or 
Composite Object Sound Modeling, and apparently is fuzzier (as in 
fuzzy logic, not fuzzy sound) than cold sampling is.  Companies like 
Roland and Line6 are playing with such things.  Roland is really 
doing some amazing things with this technology.


>   If I remember correctly, there is plenty of room in the design of the 
>   audio CD protocal to embed such information, just like you can embed 
>   the timing and track number information. 

Yeah, that's something else too.  I'm not sure exactly how that 
works, but I *think* it's like a 1Khz or 1 hz signal that signals 
this.  At least it is for the start of the first track on a cd.  In 
the manufacturing process, at least

> - Well, the MASS market piraters are exactly the point.  Well, let's face 
>   it, if the industry controllers got their way, there would be no 
>   second-hand market like garage sales - there IS money involved here 
>   (witness the bizarre dealings with CD-rental stores that have shown up 

The thing is, there is no money lost, really.  Think about it.  In 
order for one CD to be bought at a garage sale, someone else had to 
buy it at a retail store.  If the record companies were in the used 
CD business then there may be money lost, but otherwise.  The place 
where real money is lost is sale of promo CDs (many say "Promotional 
copy.  Not for sale" on them).  Here the record company loses 
nothing.  The artist loses big time.  With the exception of Sony 
records, most record companies will only pay artists royalties on 85% 
of records sold.  The other 15% is said to be "promotional material" 
which is a huge scam run by the recording industry to take advantage 
of the artists.  These 15% are still paid for (manufacturing, etc.) 
by the artist, and are given away to radio stations, etc.  There is 
where the real money is lost.  The rest is lieing with numbers.

Getting off topic,

Alex F
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Alex F    alexf@iss.net
Marketing Specialist
Internet Security Systems
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-