UMG Watermarks Audiophile Files, Pisses Off Paying Customers
from the hisssssssssssssssss dept
Let's say, just for analogy's sake, you had a defense contractor that supplied weapons and ammunition to Earth's army. Let's say that army was going to war with the evil pod people from the planet Dah-Rull. And let's say that this defense contractor, named Universal Munitions Group, supplied the good guys with new bullet rounds that they promised would completely obliterate the Dah-Rull pod people and make everyone on Earth happy again.Now let's say that when Earth's army confronted their enemy and fired their weapons...the bullets, instead of firing, simply blew up, taking the limbs of Earth's infantry with them. As a result, the pod people were free to take over the world. You'd be pretty pissed, wouldn't you? Unless you're a pod-person, I mean?
Yet that's about how effective Universal Music Group's latest attempt at watermarking is. You can read the fascinating exchange on the message board of Hydrogenaudio.com, but here's the skinny. A customer of Passionato, a site dedicated to bringing audiophiles high quality recordings of classical music, notices that he was getting an odd thrumming noise on his FLAC file of Tchaikovsky's 5th Symphony that he got from Passionato (the file was advertised as lossless), a noise that wasn't present on the file he got directly from UMG. There's some back and forth between helpful board members about some technical issues that could have been the problem, but eventually, after multiple users go and test files similarly, they arrive at the conclusion that it must be watermarking. It culminates with someone from Passionato showing up and indicating that the file received was faithfully translated from whatever UMG supplied the site, meaning that any sound artifacts would have been the result of UMG's file, not a technical issue resulting from compression or file extension switches. Basically, UMG watermarked files being distributed through their partners. Files which are being advertised as lossless recordings for audiophiles.
A couple of things were clear in that board exchange:
First, nice try, UMG, but this isn't going to accomplish what you want it to. You're talking about a dedicated group of audiophiles here. There were all manner of suggestions for nixing the watermarking, from pirating an un-watermarked file (keeping in mind that it was already purchased in what was supposed to be lossless format), to doing a cut and paste remixing of the file from a clean one to cut out the artifact. Either way, it can be done away with.
Second, these are your damned customers! Seriously, as ridiculous as my opening analogy was, this is equally stupid. Your watermarking is only pissing off paying customers. Now they have to, in addition to... you know... giving you money, go around and figure out a way to fix what you screwed up for them. And that's going to make them buy from you in the future? And that did what exactly to keep the files from being pirated elsewhere?
I can't believe I have to say this to an established company, but: UMG, customers are people, too. Stop screwing with people and sell the product as advertised, or you'll find you'll have no more customers left to piss off.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: audio, audiophiles, customers, watermark
Companies: universal music
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Piracy will destroy us, we have to actively drive our customers to piracy so that we can claim everyone is a dirty pirate!
We have no idea how to do anything for our customers, we just want them to all pirate everything so we can send out letters demanding to be paid for the infringement, its working for the other guys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's definitely a long-game plan, but it's not bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Very funny!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1) Most of the albums are digital. It's so much easier to carry around a 30G mp3 player with 8,000 songs on it then several large cases with 800 CDs.
2) Of the roughly 500 albums I've purchased over the past 5 years, almost none of them are major label/RIAA affiliated labels (and the few that are, are purchased on CD - one of the very few reasons I buy CDs anymore - from second hand stores/garage sales - at least until the major labels come up with some way to get a kickback from those outlets as well).
The simple fact is I don't need the major labels, nor do I have a strong desire to actively support bands who still insist on signing with major labels. Before I had to let my eMusic subscription lapse a few years ago, I had over 100 non-major label albums saved for future downloads (although now that the majors have their stuff plastered all over eMusic, it is doubtful I'll go back). There is a LOT of good music out there without need for the major labels if one can find it (which is why the labels fight so hard against new technology).
SO the labels can try all the fancy trickery they want, they still aren't getting any money out of me (and with somewhere near 1,000+ albums and like 20,000 songs I'm not in any pressing need to buy more music should the majors talk some/most/all of the smaller labels to jump on their bandwagon).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hate to tell you this, boy genius, but CD's are digital.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Huh? You think physical and digital are mutually exclusive or something? Or maybe you think MP3 players aren't also physical? Or maybe you're using words that you don't know the meaning of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about point #3?
Then again, given this industry hasn't received any purchases from me, what the hell do I care what they do with their products.
As for everyone else... well, let's just say some are a tad slower at learning their lessons.
Now, I'm changing the topic and will continue to do so until Techdirt "listens".
I'm perfectly fine with a site trying its best to reach out to its customers by offering them value-add, but there's a fine line between a reasonable offering and "Shoved in your face without any regard to how people will feel".
I speak of this "If you liked this..." option, now taking up space in comment replies with no option to disable it.
The little icons were easy to remove: adblock. But this isn't something one can block.
Is there a particular reason why this option is being forced? It's another example of content owners believing everyone wants this, whether they like it or not.
What's next, Techdirt. A rootkit install?
Please consider these options before just shoving them down the virtual throats of customers.
It's a guaranteed way of losing them, or does TD writers not read what they post?
Thanks for reading.
-Robert
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about point #3?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What about point #3?
Umm. There are links to the previous and next articles on the bottom of my page. But, I agree that the "If you like this.." box is a bit annoying. It was better over in the right hand column.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What about point #3?
Every system has a CTRL-Home to get to the top of the page.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about point #3?
I think you mean the song isn't copyrightable because the music has fallen into the public domain. But the recording could still be under copyright since the performance was most likely more recent, you know, when we have the technology to record sounds. With the current system, the copyright on the recording could last forever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about point #3?
I agree that it is somewhat annoying...especially in the replies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What about point #3?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about point #3?
If a small box like that before the comments annoys you so much that you would consider not reading the blog, you might want to consider the problem being more localized. :)
Seriously, is it so horribly difficult to flick the scroll wheel a fraction more to get to the comments? lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about point #3?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about point #3?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You Know....
But when a company does something like this...to a song that SHOULD be in the public domain...The only thing I can say is fly that Jolly Roger high and proud my friend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You Know....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You Know....
The 'quality' makes most music pale in comparison so there's definite value being added here.
That said, this is less a copyright issue than outright fraud. They sold something but then didn't provide that something without modifying it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An execs view?
The file was supposed to be lossless, right? So not only did he get the whole of the original music, he got some extra noises thrown in, too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An execs view?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An execs view?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: An execs view?
There is a fixed amount of information in the file (it is a FLAC, so it decompresses to a fixed amount of bits per sample and a fixed amount of samples per second). This information is signal plus noise.
By increasing the amount of noise, they are unavoidably decreasing the amount of signal, for the same fixed amount of information. And it is the signal that the audiophiles want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: An execs view?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is confusing...
If UMG later find the track on a torrent, and read the watermark which tells them the file was from passionato, what does that give them? They still don't know who shared it, only via what channel it was shared.
Very odd.
ps. lol @ your analogy =]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is confusing...
I can think of two reasons. One, it's the constant push to blame the middle man with more money (Why sue the end user with little money when you can sue the middle man with lots). Two, they want to give lower quality items to the middle man to push people to buy directly from UMG (no sharing profit). Both of these ideas are supported by the fact that the "flutter" isn't present in the UMG version.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is confusing...
My guess is that they just want to track which channels their files leak from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is confusing...
I'm sure that eventually we will see UMG suing their 'partners' when customers 'leak' or 'share' downloads from their stores.
You know when Joe Blow Audiophile BUYS and downloads music from one of UMG partners, then passes the file around to 5-10 of his Audiophile buddies asking, "Hey do you guys hear some strange 'humming' noises in this supposedly 'lossless' recording I purchased from Store x"? Now UMG can sue Joe Blow and his buddies as the 'OMG PIRATES' that they are......
Sure I'm cynical, I work in government, what do you expect? If you are a sane rational person, you either go all cynical or you go nuts trying to rationalize the cognitive dissonance you hear on a daily basis (if you're a politician, then you fit right in... yes I just implied that politicians are not sane rational people, show me some proof and I may change my mind)....
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is confusing...
I work in digital music - but I'm doing my best to stay positive in these crazy times =]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FTFY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So what exactly was the point of the watermarking again?
Oh, yeah. To drive people to piracy and away from paying.
It is difficult to believe it, but they really are that stupid.
They sold an uncorrupted file, people were buying it. Sure some would pirate, but others would purchase -- and were. Now nobody will buy.
If you sell at a reasonable price, most people would prefer to pay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If they are willing to rip off the watermarks, they aren't really customers, just conduits between the paid world and the free world. One sale made, and how many free copies given away?
If those are the prized customers, they aren't much of a prize.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If it wasn't meant to be then you have my deepest sympathies...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you seriously saying that people who paid premium money for lossless (notice that important detail) quality are the bad guys, just because they removed the watermark? They PAID (extra money, I assume) for the lossless quality.
What happened here is pure FRAUD from whoever sold them the files (or from someone upstream?). And you have the nerve to call the costumers (you know, the people that actually paid, and were probably willing to continue to pay for the files) pirates?
You => Sad example of a human being...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now if you'll excuse me, there's a Chicago Comic Con I'm getting ready for. Can you believe it? Freaking kids from the original Charlie and the Chocolate Family are gonna be there!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do I have to draw?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Me: nope, they aren't bad guys for removing the watermark. In fact, they can remove anything they want, they paid for it. More power to them.
They are, however, bad guys if they remove the watermark because they want to pirate it, and seed it for hundreds of other people who aren't going to pay.
I know the difference is subtle (as a hand grenade) but I think you might be able to understand it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't try to back out on it now. You CLEARLY said that simply removing a watermark makes you a pirate. Nice waffling - you've shown your true colours.
The people in this article specifically said they were removing the watermark in order to get the product they paid for, not for the sake of piracy. You said they "weren't really customers"
You are such a joke. You can't even keep your own bullshit straight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only bullshit is what you type Marcus, remember that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
are you fucking serious...
The only bullshit is what you type
No U
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you not understand what kind of watermark we are talking about, perhaps? This isn't file metadata - it is an actual sonic watermark that lowers the quality of the recording.
So do you still content that the only reason to take it off is to "hide"?
Or are you ready to admit you were wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Now, can you explain how ripping off watermarks makes them a "conduit" to the "free world"? I'm not sure if you're just confused about the technology, but watermarks are not an actual protective DRM mechanism, they just allow UMG to slightly narrow down the source of a pirated file (though I'm not sure what they accomplish by doing so). Meanwhile, they reduce the value of the product - they may not be that noticeable in a heavily-produced pop song, but they sure as hell ruin an orchestra.
In fact, that's a great idea. Live symphonies should have a guy stand in the back playing a steady didgeridoo note, in case anyone makes a bootleg recording. The audience surely wouldn't mind!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't know about you, but I'd rather have one hundred high paying sweaty customers then just a single freshly showered but cheap customer. The store might not smell as pure but I could afford lots of air freshener with the extra profits.
The above is especially true if I'm selling soap!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> they aren't really customers,
They ARE really customers, who already paid, and just wanted good quality sound.
> just conduits between the paid world and the free world.
Someone out there might be. But it only takes one. The rest of your customers are not that conduit. But you seem to see everyone as the pirate.
Find the guy who put it out there and prosecute him. Oh, but it's easier to go after Google or a page that links to a site that links to a site that has downloads. Because it's easier to get someone not actually infringing (because they're not trying to hide) we'll hear of great victories of extraditing someone for doing something perfectly legal in his own country.
If you believe watermarks are necessary, then find a way to watermark that doesn't damage sound quality. If, as you say, someone will remove the watermarks, then you are admitting that they are ineffective while simultaneously damaging sound quality -- which is bad for paying customers and good for pirates.
Hint: focus your efforts on something that is GOOD for customers (you know, those people who PAY), and BAD for pirates, not vice versa.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what compels the consumer to actually buy the digital music?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People are getting paid less and less because of piracy and you didn't even put that into the article? I call shenanigans! I just created some new songs and they haven't gotten popular yet and it's due to piracy!
So you can say all you want that UMG has problems, they aren't the ones that do. It's you all!
[/troll]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's a mute point isn't it? They don't get paid anyway because UMG siphons off the artists share long before it has a chance to reach them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Marked as funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The best way to fix this is Piracy
Don't buy a defective file from UMG.
Download a pristine hisssssssss free file from the internet.
If you buy from UMG, what are you paying for? Oh, right. You're paying for their "service" of corrupting the file.
That is the message UMG is sending loud and clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I also have very good non-damaged ears and they are important to me.i hear sounds many don't hear.I use CEDAR AUDIO Hardware/Software to do serious Audio Restoration Jobs.
Watermarking lossless files makes them not a true reprsentation of the Audio you purchase.If possible a lawsuit should be done against this and could be won.These people will have the Stereo setups comparible to mine and the ears that are great and they expect the best.
Instead they get audible audio artifacts courtesy of the company who claimed to sell them unadultered lossless music.
Yes I would talk to some lawyer friends and try to bring a lawsuit against these assholes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't hear it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Piracy + Paid = SUPER PRODUCT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
kookaburra kookaburra kookaburra kookaburra
kookaburra kookaburra kookaburra kookaburra
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: kookaburra kookaburra kookaburra kookaburra
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I isolated the sound
It's a chorus of redneck belching recorded while they were all drinking Schlitz beer.
Heck of a watermark. Guess UMG really wants to screw up the music so nobody can enjoy it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have to ask, for all our sakes
I understand that after the application, its part of the virtual product.. but what is the cost? And if a DRM is added, dont they charge per disk on sales?
NOW I have to say, that I search for free music...Like..
Archive.org
Has some great stuff, but you have to wade thru it all to find what you want. The problem is there is not 1 resource for PUBLIC DOMAIN or TRULY free music.
The music industry ISNT going to set up a site. And they PROBABLY dont want you to know its there..
who knows WHAT THEY DO TO aUDIO/VIDEO WHEN THE time comes TO RELEASE THEM TO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Leave the crappy bullet ananlogy out please
Other than that, stupid company is stupid. They don't understand their customers, and nothing we say will convince then they are wrong. So pirate away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aussies who rented videos in the mid 1990's will get it
Have you ever bought a CD that wasn't quite right? It may have been mastered with excessive loudness, giving frequently inferior sound quality for which you paid good money.
Excessively loud CD's are recognisable by bearing the labels of Sony Music's ear bleeding logo, or Universal's worlwide earthquake, or even EMI making Every Mistake Imaginable.
Excessively loud CD's rob listeners and artists of their rightful sound and add to the pain you're feeling in your ears. Loud and distorted CD's are a major problem worlwide. Please help us stop them. If you buy a CD that has been dynamically compressed to the Nth degree to sound insanely loud, send it back to the label, along with a very detailed letter explaining why.
This message is brought to you by somebody who has had their ears shredded one too many times.
To get the joke, watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FNqBZ9n-A8
If you fast-forward it, though, you'll still get a message =)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Aussies who rented videos in the mid 1990's will get it
A musician has to pass on a bit of musical input to the mastering engineer, the label doesn't really have that much input to the process. Typical questions from a ME like "is the guitar supposed to be so bright?" or "are the vocals supposed to be so buried?" or "there are problems with the zero-point crossings, is that on purpose?" wouldn't be the kinds of questions a label would be able to answer.
A label might ask for a too-quiet recording to be remastered, or they might request something like a "vocal-up mix", but even then it's the artist/producer who sits down with the ME to make the adjustments. Labels will exert some influence over the process, which mostly boils down to admonishing the artist to write a single, but for the most part they're not in the studio making comments about where to pan the bongos or bitching about audible click-tracks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You lost me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Customers are people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
phew...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Technologically Clueless... or Malicious, Take Your Pick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good Customer Relations
Audiophiles, as with any eclectic bunch of hardcore users interested in a particular pastime, will most likely up sticks, & move to another service. If the only viable service around is untouched (or remastered) pirate copies, ergo, well....you know the rest.
Why is it, that time & time again, these major companies keep shooting themselves in the foot. Or, as a nod to the original analogy, keep blowing themselves up, taking the limbs with them.
Unbelievable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because quite honestly even if one could get "clean" files from UMG, after getting a file they purposely screwed up to give to the resellers, why would I have any faith in them not screwing up more just because I bought from them?
Some exec somewhere decided they weren't making enough money on their contracts with the resellers, they have invested in this spiffy watermarking program (that is heavy handed and distorts the music)... you put 2 and 2 together and your getting 5!
While this is just a small niche market, I hope the resellers sue UMG. I hope the fans boycott UMG. I hope they make enough noise that even a record exec figures out that doing this is a bad idea.
Because if this went unchallenged, how long until they manage to create a crappy iTunes knock off for the labels, and just "watermark" the files supplied to Apple or the other retailers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They seem to give Spotify and the other streaming services
and perhaps radio stations the watermarked tracks , so its
probably there on youtube. Never noticed , Never cared.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Watermarked UMG tracks
UMG have updated their library to remove all watermarks which started at the end of 2018 watermarked tracks still exist in digital stores/tidal (a good example is "cry to heaven - Elton John" if you listen on tidal (or spotify) which hasn't been updated yet you can clearly hear the watermark at the beginning it sounds like a warble effect added to the track
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Watermark being removed in Spotify
I've noticed that in the last 2-3 months, from time to time Spotify is downloading offline music from UMG, mostly classical. I've tried to listen to some albums that I blacklisted because of the terrible artifacts and they seem gone now. Has UMG finally removed all watermarks? That would be great news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]