Robin Whittle writes:
> Digital watermarks again!
>
> Joe Sixpack won't believe his file contains a digital watermark with
> his name in it unless there is a freely distributed Windows/Mac
> program which reads the watermark and so spits out his name and other
> personal details.
Joe Sixpack also doesn't believe that color laser copiers leave an
unique signature on each copy, allowing you to trace the copy to an
individual device. Nevertheless these are there, and can be evaluated
if need arises. (Just try distributing a few xeroxed $100 bills, and
time how long it takes until the feds knock on your door).
> That being the case, it is only a matter of time before the code and
> the watermark algorithm is reverse-engineered. Then a program can be
> written to remove the watermark.
The algorithm will be kept secret, of course. Watermarking is not
content, and hence need not to be presented to the end consumer. Thus
Achilles' heel of content encryption which must be decoded into the
(almost always interceptible) plain by some enduser-gadget-resident
algorithm is avoided.
> What use is the watermark anyway? It is only applicable to files
> generated for a specific, legally identifiable customer. Therefore it
> does not apply to pre-pressed CD/DVD etc. discs or to broadcasts via
> the Net, TV, radio etc.
There is clearly a trend for point-to-point, individual content
distribution. With the proper infrastructure it should be possible to
insert watermarks even in realtime "broadcast" content (which is
mostly news and hence grows stale real quick).
> Who is going to prosecute Joe Sixpack or Jo Lipstick? Not a big
> company which is interested in its public image. Not a small company,
Well, it's a tree, starting with Joe Sixpack as a root. While "six
degrees of separation" is a cliche, the amplification at each step can
be considerable. Construed (=purely arithmetical) damage can be
considerable.
> because of the the costs. Maybe a big company which doesn't care
> about its reputation - to set and example. But that would only
> encourage all the other Joes and Jos to copy some more!
The problem _does_ exist. See http://napster.com/ and
http://www.mp3.com/news/471.html
It may not be properly addressed today, but it's there.
> What's the use when Joe or Joe's watermarked, or proprietary-encoded
> audio file must be reproduced via a PC soundcard, and there are
> programs to write the raw 16 bit data to disk as .WAV or perhaps as
> .MP3? I guess the same principle applies to video.
Broadband encoded watermarks should survive multiple
digital-analog-digital conversions. Remember, all we have is to hide a
few 10 bits in a multi-MBytes/GByte stream. You don't know what are
bits and what is noise.
> (Linear media such as text, audio and video cannot be copy-protected.
ASCII? You can encode information in formatting, interpunction,
alternative spelling. A diff between two text versions will readily
reveal sneakiness, but automatically stripping such information
without losing content is nontrivial. Audio and video can most
assuredly be watermarked, the questions is how resistant to
stripping/mangling these watermarks will turn out to be.
> Material constituting computer software - something interactive which
> must run on a CPU and do things with a user - can be protected
> reasonably well via hardware keys or better still, live links to a
Cracking dumb dongles is semitrivial. Crypto dongles are harder, of
course. But the code must still be executed in plain (until crypto is
handled within the CPU), and is thus vulnerable.
> server via the Net. The security of such transactions would be a
> worry for network administrators . . . and anyway, watermarking is
> only for linear media.)
Define linear media. Everything is reducible to a bitstream.
> If the watermark is inaudible, then why should we believe it will
> survive compression schemes which cut to the bone of human perception?
Because storage is cheap and compression algorithms are imperfect.
> If it is audible, then why would anyone want to buy the watermarked
> material? Considering the bizarre beliefs in so-called "high-end"
I wouldn't buy it whether audible or not. Provided I know that medium
is watermarked, which might not be exactly widely advertised. See
color xerox machines.
> hi-fi (which resemble religiously inspired fear and fervor - such as
> so-called clock jitter in SP/DIF electrical/optical cables,
> oxygen-free copper power cords . . . ) then why would this segment of
> the market accept deliberately altered goods, especially when they
> can't hear it but *know* it's there?
Digital media people high-end audiophiliacs are not. I'm not playing
my mp3's via an external digital input amplifier either (but I wish I
could).
> Both the Internet and CD-Rs put mass digital copying in the hands of
> consumers. Content creators need to make the most of this, not fool
Burning CDRs takes time and ties up equipment. Hard drives and xDSL
allow sufficiently easy and fast (or in the background) copying.
> themselves they can prevent it. They need to build positive, trusting
> relationships with people who might be prepared to purchase their
> material. There is no alternative. Building these kinds of
I agree. However, they might still put up a considerable fight.
> relationships would be very difficult with the old pre-pressed disc
> (or cylinder in the century before last) paradigm which constitutes
> the established record industry. Those are mass-market, time-delayed
> capital- transport- and labour-intensive approaches - but worst of all
> they are one-way.
I hear you, but the world has inertia. I would also love to pay
artists directly with digicash in realtime. We're not exactly there
yet.
> Fortunately, the Net is the ideal basis for building these lasting,
> happy relationships.
>
> To continue this line of discussion, with diagrams, see something I
> wrote in 1995, which is still largely relevant: Music Marketing in
> the Age of Electronic Delivery:
>
> http://www.firstpr.com.au/musicmar/
Thanks for the pointer.
