Microsoft has won a patent for a digital-watermarking technology that could be used to protect the rights of content owners even when digital music is distributed without DRM protection. The technology, called "stealthy audio watermarking," inserts and detects watermarks in audio signals that can identify the content producer, "providing a signature that is embedded in the audio signal and cannot be removed," according to a filing with the U.S. Patent and Trade Organization (USPTO).

The application for U.S. patent 7,266,697 was filed May 3, 2004, by Darko Kirovski and Henrique Malvar, both of whom work at Microsoft Research. Malvar is a Microsoft distinguished engineer and managing director of Microsoft Research in Redmond, Washington, and Kirovski is a researcher there.

View: The full story
News source: InfoWorld


There are 16 additional comments
Advertisement
(2 replies) Quote this comment Reply to this comment #1 Posted by +Digix on 12 Sep 2007 - 09:33
lol, DRM attempt again, geez even with this you just re-record with graphical recording then you'll be able to see the key filter point "watermarks" just modify then and poof useless, once again :s
Quote this comment #1.1 Posted by HawkMan on 12 Sep 2007 - 13:45
except it's nto that simple.

and besides, if you alllready have the recording why would you buy another one ?

but to properly compare you would probably need the exact track the watermark was added to. And this isnj't about DRM, this is about NOT having DRM. songs on itunes without DRM allready have watermarks This is just so thmusic industry can selll DRM free music and know that idiots who decide to share their songs with the world are identified.
Quote this comment #1.2 Posted by ANova on 12 Sep 2007 - 17:08
So, those who do that which has been done for decades are now suddenly idiots.
(2 replies) Quote this comment Reply to this comment #2 Posted by n_K on 12 Sep 2007 - 11:02
yeh surely if you were to MP3 encode the file at say 220Kbps VBR then it would distort and make the `audio protection` lossy so it would only get a few pieces of the text, if any are correct, and they youve basically got rid of it
Quote this comment #2.1 Posted by HawkMan on 12 Sep 2007 - 13:47
Watermarks can loose a lot of their resolution but retain the data if they're done right. so you could encode to wahetever you want, as still as the music is usable the watermark is there to be read by those who have the tools.

And why would you want to removeit anyway, the watermark is there to sell DRM free music, or are you going to buy music and then give it away on all the cool file sharing sites ? :p
Quote this comment #2.2 Posted by n_K on 13 Sep 2007 - 21:39
No, I'm just saying that if you can disable it easily, why bother continuing with the development ? and sure if you were to encode a file at 12Kbps and at 320KBps, find out what parts of the signal remain intact and remove it, youve just beaten the protection that has cost them millions... have to say I would laugh my ass off if it was the simple... wheres theres a will, theres a way

everyone was like `oh wow, image watermarking is here` and how do you get around it ? view the image, take a print screen, paste it in paint and save it, less than a minute to remove it lol
Quote this comment Reply to this comment #3 Posted by eAi on 12 Sep 2007 - 11:07
Or just write a program that runs through the mp3 and makes tiny random adjustments throughout...
(4 replies) Quote this comment Reply to this comment #4 Posted by +GreyWolfSC on 12 Sep 2007 - 13:24
Ah... Fresh news... FROM 2004.

Quote this comment #4.1 Posted by Croquant on 12 Sep 2007 - 14:40
The application for the patent was made in 2004, but they just won the patent now.
So yes, it IS fresh news.
Quote this comment #4.2 Posted by Joshie on 12 Sep 2007 - 14:42
Wow, somebody's really freakin' slow this morning. How'd you get far enough into the article to see that it was filed in 2004, but remain completely blind to the word 'won' in the very first sentence?
Quote this comment #4.3 Posted by Mike Frett on 12 Sep 2007 - 20:47
Ok, I'm sure you all have embarrassed him enough. I'm quite sure he's sorry about his misread. Give him a break huh?.
Quote this comment #4.4 Posted by +GreyWolfSC on 13 Sep 2007 - 01:20
Quote - (Mike Frett said @ #4.3)
Ok, I'm sure you all have embarrassed him enough. I'm quite sure he's sorry about his misread. Give him a break huh?.
That's ok. I'll remember the next time THEY say something dumb or misread an article.
(1 reply) Quote this comment Reply to this comment #5 Posted by WeezulDK on 12 Sep 2007 - 15:18
if it can be put in, it can be identified and removed.
Quote this comment #5.1 Posted by excalpius on 12 Sep 2007 - 19:46
Exactly.

"cannot be removed" is just an absurd statement for ANYONE to make in the digital age.
(1 reply) Quote this comment Reply to this comment #6 Posted by whocares78 on 13 Sep 2007 - 03:01
"cannot be removed"

YET
Quote this comment #6.1 Posted by HawkMan on 13 Sep 2007 - 03:49
Can't be removed without ruining the music track itself or allready havign an identical version of the original non watermarked track. it's the way of the beast when it comes to watermarking.
[1]

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.


Scroll to the Top
....
My Preferences
....
Communicating with server
Loading
Please Wait...
....
Loading
 X 
....