[Copperears]

Hi,

Just thought I'd issue a heads-up about this -- others have known about it since 2011, but it was news to me, recently:

http://www.mattmontag.com/music/universals-audible-watermark

I don't know what form you might purchase UMG music in, but apparently this "watermarking" technique is applied to all their releases.

And I can hear it quite distinctly.

Hope it doesn't bother you, but if it does, now you know, and can make choices accordingly.

http://www.mattmontag.com/music/universals-audible-watermark

 

[manbear]

Interesting. I don't quite get the purpose though -- just the fact that an artist is signed on a UMG record shows that they have copyright over the song. Why is putting the watermark in the song necessary to prove that it's theirs? It's already obvious. 

EDIT -- Assuming that the watermark is the same on all copies of the song. Which seems to be the case. I understand the applications of unique watermarks linked to the legal purchaser of the music, but it doesn't seem like they are actually using the watermarks this way. 

 

[Copperears]

I can't know how they are using the watermarking, but I don't believe it's customer-specific. In my case, there's no reason for either UMG or iTunes to single me out with unique versions of their digital downloads when I make a purchase.

I've contacted Apple a number of times about this, and they've offered refreshes of the content in the store for me to re-download, but the actual problem has not changed one bit; I've reassured Apple this is not their issue, but UMG's.

This has been cropping up online as an issue since 2011, so I'm doubtful UMG will do anything about it.

I first noticed it a few months ago, when I took the chance to order a classical music recording on the iTunes Store (I've historically been extremely hesitant to listen to classical music on anything but CD; in retrospect now, looks like that was a good instinct. It sounds like it's going to be a problem even on recently-manufactured CDs, too, so my classical music-buying-days may be over, if that's the case!).

It's not audible on large-ensemble or string quartet performances, but anywhere you have a pure tone - be it soprano, wind instrument, solo piano - it is quite audible.

 

[xnor]

Before you vote no, listen and compare at second 8.

 
If you cannot hear that something is mighty wrong...

 

 

[Copperears]

Interesting. I don't quite get the purpose though -- just the fact that an artist is signed on a UMG record shows that they have copyright over the song. Why is putting the watermark in the song necessary to prove that it's theirs? It's already obvious. 

EDIT -- Assuming that the watermark is the same on all copies of the song. Which seems to be the case. I understand the applications of unique watermarks linked to the legal purchaser of the music, but it doesn't seem like they are actually using the watermarks this way. 

manbear,

To clarify why this is done: it's a way of the publisher being able to put a "trace" signature in the digital content, so that if it shows up illegally in a place it's not supposed to be, i.e. a legal copyright violation has taken place, the publisher has evidence of that violation that can be used to confirm the violation has occurred.

All/most digital content is tracked this way now. It hasn't reached the point of locking the content to a particular user/purchaser - yet - but there's no technical limitation to doing so.

I have no problem with either creators or publishers protecting their rights over the work they have released for sale. Every violation of that right makes it financially more difficult for the creator/publisher to do further work, so copyright violation is ultimately hurting the customer of that work (although an argument can be made that free exposure of that work, or portions of it at least, can increase the market for it far more rapidly than any loss of revenue occurring at the same time - basically, the shareware concept).

What I have a problem with is a company selling what is basically damaged goods, without disclosing to the purchaser that that is the case.

If, upfront, UMG were to make clear that these goods are damaged in this way and therefore sold at discount because of that, that would be okay; we could make a conscious choice.

But since that is not the case, it verges, in my opinion, on the edge of committing fraud.

Which there are laws about.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[abinhk]

It would seem that there is a great case for a class action law suit here against UMG.

 

[Head Injury]

Huh, thanks for reviving this.
 
I've never heard it before now because I didn't know it was a thing, but scored 13/16 on a speed run of the test at the top of OP's link. Most were subtle and I felt like I was guessing, but others (#14 in particular) were painfully obvious.
 
It's disgusting how many ways record companies can screw us over, and we have so little choice in the matter even when we're aware of the issue. Thankfully this seems to be an issue exclusive to digital distribution, at least for now?

 

[RRod]

Anyone know of an algorithm available to search for this watermark? I'd happily scan my collection to see if anything pops up from my CD rips.

 

[Godbluffer]

This issue had bugged for quite some time, but I only recently found out that this is what's causing it. I made playlists of affected albums on both Spotify and Tidal, which I'm including here.

Spotify: 6 items (for each item a non-watermarked alternative exists on Spotify, except for Kleiber's Beethoven Symphony No. 7)
Tidal: a whopping 44 watermarked items that range from annoying-sounding to downright horrendous (all titles have been double-checked with Spotify, so if that same title doesn't show up on my Spotify list, you can be sure it sounds fine there)

I listed just one track per album, but when one track is affected, the rest of the album is, too (meaning the 9-CD set of Sir Charles Mackerras' legendary Janacek opera recordings is all screwed up on Tidal, for example).

Here are the lists, for your (dis-)pleasure 

:

https://open.spotify.com/user/11512739/playlist/2cz12j4NItW48FfqvJ1q6P
tidal.com/playlist/49695b7e-6dbb-41a9-9722-0d28ce1b75e2

The good news is that I noticed that a handful of items that I recall with certainty were watermarked before on Tidal have now been corrected, so there seems to be some progress, but I'm afraid I'm going to cancel my Tidal subscription in spite of that minor positive. It just isn't worth the extra dough!

 

[upstateguy]

subscribed