End p2p music sharing?

ben_j_davis

ben_j_davis

ben_j_davis

Associate
Joined
26 Sep 2005
Posts
1,853
Location
Tonbridge, Kent
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/custompc/news/83448/mp3-pioneer-trials-watermarking.html

Or should i say illegal sharing.

And for those not registered:

"MP3 pioneer trials watermarking 11:16AM
The organisation that developed the MP3 format has now created software designed to prevent MP3 files being shared on p2p networks.

Next month, Germany's Fraunhofer Integrated Publication and Information Systems Institute (IPSI) will demonstrate two applications that use digital watermarking to detect files that are being shared without authorisation from the copyright holder.

The technology is based on making the software appear as if it were a user in a file-sharing network. The software then downloads files and scans them for watermarks that can be used to identify image and video data as well as audio without altering the file format. The institute says that the watermarks cannot be traced without knowledge of the watermarking software used as well as of a previously agreed secret key. It says tests have proved that digital watermarks can even withstand analogue re-recording with a microphone, scanning of a watermarked photograph or filming of a watermarked video with a camcorder.

IPSI notes that until now the greatest challenge in the use of digital watermarks has been to subsequently trace the content and identify when it has been used without authorisation. This system automatically examines files on the network according to predefined criteria such as file type or name and unlike many other anti-file sharing measures individual users do not need to be identified.

The institute believes that digital watermarking could prove an alternative to what it describes as 'restrictive' digital rights management (DRM) systems, with all their associated and well-documented drawbacks.

'Our customers are all too aware that private users only have a limited budget for consumer electronics and would rather sell their watermark protected files than promote the purchase of new hardware,' said Fraunhofer researcher Sascha Zmudzinski. 'End users are happy if they can play their MP3 files on any cheap MP3 player or can burn a CD as a private copy for their car radio.'

IPSI is also developing software designed to act as a deterrent to sharing. It warns p2p users in advance if they are about to download a copyright file by analysing users search requests.

Prototypes of the technologies are scheduled to be demonstrated at CeBit 2006 and IPSI is seeking partners to develop them for practical use."
 
Last edited:
By the sounds of it, it doesn't really even do anything to stop p2p sharing. It's just a way to tell whether a file is legitimately owned by a person or not. The software itself doesn't actively search for and report people with unauthorised files.
 
ben_j_davis said:
If only music companies would lower their CD prices.
Click to expand...

What good would that do? If people won't pay £10-£15 for a CD, what makes you think they'll pay £5-£10 for one? Beyond that, plenty of people have some absurd notion that you shouldn't even pay for music at all. Lots of people just horde music they never listen to. Others do it to stick it to the man. Very little of this has anything to do with money.
 
ben_j_davis said:
If only music companies would lower their CD prices.
Click to expand...
If only Ferrari would lower their car prices. And Armani. And Apple. And ..... etc.

Why should music companies lower their prices? You have the right to buy or not buy. They have the right to set their prices. If you don't like the price, don't buy. If they thought their profits would go up by lowering prices, don't you think they'd do it in a heartbeat?
 
Sequoia said:
If only Ferrari would lower their car prices. And Armani. And Apple. And ..... etc.
Click to expand...

Armani and Apple dont make cars :p

[/cheap shot]

tbh, anything they do can be got around. i'd buy cds if they were a fiver cheaper. definitely.
 
Telescopi said:
Because it's 5 quid cheaper?
Click to expand...

I very much doubt that the masses would suddenly stop pirating and start buying CDs if they all cost £10 instead of £15. Besides, most CDs can be had for that much if you shop around.

The cat is out of the bag, and a lot of people don't expect to pay anything for music and software, simply because you can get them for free from your mate with the broadband connection and the know-how.
 
I fail to see how this will stop p2p, there have been programs to crack copy protection on dvds and cds, so why is this any different?

. It says tests have proved that digital watermarks can even withstand analogue re-recording with a microphone, scanning of a watermarked photograph or filming of a watermarked video with a camcorder.
Click to expand...

What? No way.

Sequoia said:
If only Ferrari would lower their car prices. And Armani. And Apple. And ..... etc.

Why should music companies lower their prices? You have the right to buy or not buy. They have the right to set their prices. If you don't like the price, don't buy. If they thought their profits would go up by lowering prices, don't you think they'd do it in a heartbeat?
Click to expand...

Why should I pay what I make in 3 hours for a cd so I can see the dude showing off his 2nd ferrari on mtv?
 
pyro said:
What? No way.
Click to expand...
The way I understand it, it's something built into the sound itself. It's just at a frequency that is inaudible to humans. So it would theoretically still be present in a good quality analogue recording.
 
Sic said:
Armani and Apple dont make cars

[/cheap shot]
Click to expand...
My Armani 4 litre turbo sports car is a fake? :eek: :mad:

I've been done. :D

Sic said:
[/cheap shot]
Click to expand...
I don't think I'll argue that point. ;) :D


Sic said:
tbh, anything they do can be got around. i'd buy cds if they were a fiver cheaper. definitely.
Click to expand...
Just about any feasible technological method of preventing copying can be bypassed if someone is determined enough to do it. Some methods are easy, some harder (and more expensive) to do. But I agree, if man can do it, man can usually come up with a way to get round it.

But that wasn't my point. Nor was my point that dropping prices wouldn't increase sales. My point was that increasing sales by dropping prices doesn't mean profits would go up. They may, but it all depends on the cost structure. And companies aren't in business to provide a social service of offering music at the lowest possible price. They are, subject to the instructions of shareholders, there to maximise profits.

Taking some entirely hypothetical costings, suppose a CD sells at £15, and dropping it to £10 caused sales to double. At £15, 1 million were sold, therefore sales revenue was £15 million.

Now suppose up-front costs (studio hire, launch promotional budget, etc) was £5 million. Out of that revenue of £15 million, £5 million has to pay for that, before any profit is made.

Now suppose that the record company gets £2 per disk to cover their variable manufacturing costs, the artist gets £1 per disk, the distributor gets £1.50 per disk and the record shop gets £3 per disk. Don't forget, the record shop has to pay for business premises, rent (or tie up capital), rates, utility bills, staff costs, etc.

Oh, and at £15, the government gets £2.23 for VAT, so the actual revenue after tax is £12.77.

Now, £12.77 less :-

£2.00 Manufacturing costs
£1.00 Artists revenue
£1.50 Distributors revenue
£3.00 Record shop revenue

That's £7.50 out of the £12.77 post-tax revenue going in profit to the sales/distribution chain. The record company is left with £5.27. At £1 million sold, that's £5.27 million, of which fixed up-front costs were £5m, leaving them £270,000 profit for a million CDs.

Now suppose the price was £10, and therefore sales doubled to £2 million.

At £10, the government gets £1.49, leaving £8.51. Of that, the distribution chain gets £7.50, leaving £1.01 for the manufacturer after variable costs. At sales of 2 million, that's revenue of £2,020,000 in revenue, and up-front costs of £5 million, leaving them with a £2,980,000 LOSS.

Increasing sales doesn't necessarily mean profits go up, even if sales do. There's a sweet spot at which increasing sales by cutting price actually reduces profit. Do we really think record companies aren't bright enough to know that? Surely, if cutting prices would increase profits, they'd do it? Why on earth would they not?

So it begs the equestion I asked earliewr. Why should companies cut CD prices? If they thought profits would go up, they would do so. The obvious inference is that that don't believe that would be the case. My figures, as I said, are entirely hypothetical but it would not surprise me one little bit if the principle they illustrate were spot on.
 
Sequoia said:
My Armani 4 litre turbo sports car is a fake? :eek: :mad:

I've been done. :D

I don't think I'll argue that point. ;) :D


Just about any feasible technological method of preventing copying can be bypassed if someone is determined enough to do it. Some methods are easy, some harder (and more expensive) to do. But I agree, if man can do it, man can usually come up with a way to get round it.

But that wasn't my point. Nor was my point that dropping prices wouldn't increase sales. My point was that increasing sales by dropping prices doesn't mean profits would go up. They may, but it all depends on the cost structure. And companies aren't in business to provide a social service of offering music at the lowest possible price. They are, subject to the instructions of shareholders, there to maximise profits.

Taking some entirely hypothetical costings, suppose a CD sells at £15, and dropping it to £10 caused sales to double. At £15, 1 million were sold, therefore sales revenue was £15 million.

Now suppose up-front costs (studio hire, launch promotional budget, etc) was £5 million. Out of that revenue of £15 million, £5 million has to pay for that, before any profit is made.

Now suppose that the record company gets £2 per disk to cover their variable manufacturing costs, the artist gets £1 per disk, the distributor gets £1.50 per disk and the record shop gets £3 per disk. Don't forget, the record shop has to pay for business premises, rent (or tie up capital), rates, utility bills, staff costs, etc.

Oh, and at £15, the government gets £2.23 for VAT, so the actual revenue after tax is £12.77.

Now, £12.77 less :-

£2.00 Manufacturing costs
£1.00 Artists revenue
£1.50 Distributors revenue
£3.00 Record shop revenue

That's £7.50 out of the £12.77 post-tax revenue going in profit to the sales/distribution chain. The record company is left with £5.27. At £1 million sold, that's £5.27 million, of which fixed up-front costs were £5m, leaving them £270,000 profit for a million CDs.

Now suppose the price was £10, and therefore sales doubled to £2 million.

At £10, the government gets £1.49, leaving £8.51. Of that, the distribution chain gets £7.50, leaving £1.01 for the manufacturer after variable costs. At sales of 2 million, that's revenue of £2,020,000 in revenue, and up-front costs of £5 million, leaving them with a £2,980,000 LOSS.

Increasing sales doesn't necessarily mean profits go up, even if sales do. There's a sweet spot at which increasing sales by cutting price actually reduces profit. Do we really think record companies aren't bright enough to know that? Surely, if cutting prices would increase profits, they'd do it? Why on earth would they not?

So it begs the equestion I asked earliewr. Why should companies cut CD prices? If they thought profits would go up, they would do so. The obvious inference is that that don't believe that would be the case. My figures, as I said, are entirely hypothetical but it would not surprise me one little bit if the principle they illustrate were spot on.
Click to expand...


then how is it I can go to america and buy a CD for sub £10 after all the taxes?
 
vonhelmet said:
If it's inaudible to humans, it'll be stripped out in the encoding process by just about all audio compressors I can think of, short of FLAC.
Click to expand...
Hmm I guess you're right. I don't really know how it works but it must be something in the sound itself rather than extra data added onto the file. But however it's done, it's done in a way that makes no noticeable difference to the sound.
 
I love these arguments like "well ferrari dont lower their car prices" etc. If someone had a ferrari and you could have a perfect copy of it and no one was any the wiser the only person who would be upset is the person who payed the full price... same with CD's. Those who pay full price for the CD's (like me) shouldn't be bothered if others don't, thats their decision the record labels and artists are plenty rich enough right now they don't need another £15 from some kid who just wants to listen to their track.

/random mumbling post
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom