I do use some samples illegally but usually i screw them up completely, pitches, cut, fades, effects... and when it's finally layered with other sound, how in the hell would they recognize their own sample.

Even without effects, suppose i just cut the sample, add fades and layer it, like some water flowing sample layered with my own private samples, how the hell can they recognize any of their samples that aren't very specific to the ear, there must be dozens of water libraries, fire librairies; etc...

 

And how do you add a watermark?
With an audio plugin,or a software?
Which one?

 

Last edited: Aug 1, 2018

Soooooo ... a sample library company has all their sound and scripting engineers (which I assume this would have to number in the hundreds per company, at least, in order for this to work) searching and carefully listening to every song in all genres posted to the Internet -- iTunes, Soundcloud, Juno Download, Tidal, Bandcamp, Reverbnation, YouTube, Facebook, MySpace (yes, unfortunately, still a thing), streaming radio, personal and commercial Web sites, plus broadcast television, all movies and their trailers, commercials, video games on all console and computer formats, instructional videos, etc. -- on a daily, weekly or even monthly basis just to hear whether or not their samples are being used, then has them cross-reference which sample it sounds like to them with everyone who has ever purchased their sound libraries to make sure the composer legally purchased said library? Are you fucking serious?!? Okay, okay, we'll set that aside for a moment ... why would they go after the composer? What if the composer just said "Oh, I don't know, it was whatever hole-in-the-wall studio I recorded at" or "I recorded it on a friend of a friend's computer, don't know the guy's name" or "I dunno, I did this track on a collaboration network like Avid Cloud and a bunch of guys helped out from around the world"? How far is a sample developer actually willing to pursue this thing legally, assuming the first thing I said wasn't true? Especially over a library that might retail for as high as $399 US and be considered obsolete in about a year or so?

 

Last edited: Aug 1, 2018

Me neither. I mean, watermark IDs of thousands of potential customers in all (or many) the samples of the library. Too much trouble although if you have the resources...

 

The only watermark I know of that transfers to any converted file format is ISRC.
In order to do that, it has to generally be in a pre-registered name and is a song or tune or track. It is used to pull song/album/artist data more for identification than for any other reason. Each ISRC# is unique.
While I am know SONY made some anti-pirating software they had to remove it because it broke some privacy laws.
Samples? - I'd ask why?????

Tracks are the only ones I know of and while sure, a smart programmer could possibly write a watermark in, I seriously doubt they would do it in every single sample. They would be more inclined to write it into the software that contains the samples.

 

The ISRC number of each commercial track is actually embedded in the header of a CD (and in the metadata of an AAC, .flac, .wav or .mp3 file, I assume), and the reason it's there has to do with tracking airplay or digital sales, has nothing to do with security. Most people not releasing music on a label skip right over this part, but the last time I had to do it, I had to procure the numbers from CDBaby when I signed my album up (in addition to the UPC number, which also goes in the CD header) and, just to be safe, physically submit the numbers to the ISRC itself via snail mail. Thankfully, CDBaby took care of submitting these numbers to iTunes, Amazon, etc. on the digital side, but usually, it's up to the label to do it (I was technically my own label).

I think the "watermarking" being discussed here is the alleged waveform watermark, which is, in theory, part of the actual sound wave and is supposed to remain intact no matter what you do to the actual sound (EQ, transfer to and from analog, bury it in a mix, convert it to .mp3, etc.). It also claims not to impart anything to the actual sound being watermarked, even though it's information in the form of a sound wave inside of another sound wave form. I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, but this would require a sample developer to generate a unique watermark waveform and embed it in hundreds or even thousands of samples, depending on the library, every time they made a sale or printed physical copies on hard drives or optical media, then have a sophisticated reader algorithm capable of continuously combing every form of audio media on the Internet on a near-constant basis, as well as all movies, TV, video games and commercials for whichever watermarks are blacklisted.

Again, maybe possible. Maybe. Then, they would have to go to whoever made the music containing the blacklisted sample library and demand to know where it came from. To which the artist responsible could simply reply "I don't know, I was using Collabo-Cloud or whatever and it was some dude in Pakistan!" or "a friend of a friend had it and rendered a track for me as a favor!" Would it then go to court, assuming it got past the talking stage? This isn't Metallica taking on Napster, this is some mid-level sample developer with what I am sure is likely meager legal funds. These libraries also have a limited shelf-life and aren't exactly raking in millions in revenue, regardless of the pirating. Maybe NI (who obviously isn't using digital watermarking; they've got their Service Center jazz going on) or ProjectSAM or Heavyocity (now a division of NI) might have the resources to set up and follow through on stuff like that. Most companies with high-end resources are using iLok and proprietary software that's (so far) k-proof, like EastWest and Slate. Or they're Waves and they're still making thousands of dollars a pop off of software that's closing in on twenty years old, so they're not worried about freeloaders yet.

 

Last edited: Aug 2, 2018

That subject is old for now...I started it years ago...and tecnology moved ahead since I posted it:

https://audiosex.pro/threads/watermarks-in-audio-files.13897/

just one firm producing that stuff:

https://audiowatermarking.info/

 

Wow. Haven't seen this since 20 years ago.

 

That's the only place I've ever seen that's touted digital watermarking, too. Again, I think it's for completed audio tracks, not sample libraries (I also keep forgetting that Pro Tools is capable of embedding digital SMPTE timestamps for film and video, another feature this company promotes) ... not saying that it isn't possible, just not very likely. It's a lot more likely that the whole "digital watermarking" thing with libraries or plugs is a shared PR boogeyman between various companies to help dissuade pirating. I've never come across a story of somebody being nailed for using a digitally watermarked plug or sample library they didn't own. Not to say that someone hasn't, or that it couldn't happen, but c'mon.

 

It's Neo from The Matrix, I knew he didn't die!!!

 

https://audiowatermarking.info/customers.php

platinum sampls and embrtone use this publicly- i think this why the et violin who was free go to pay sound rough and shit- for all protection info- free version sound better to my

 

I know Agus personally (because I have music placed with RSM) and yes, it did happen on several occasions. But the circumstances vary for each individual indicted for potential violation. I know one instance whereby the library in question is only available through the developer and upon hearing this (very famous and overplayed) trailer track on several movie trailers, the developer checked with RSM for the composer and then back-checked their records for sales to this particular individual. The argument was made that the composer used a pseudonym (or a dba would also work) for either the purchase or the P.R.O. designation.
Another situation occurred where a library's sample was (stupidly) featured in an intro to the track, thus exposing the sample. Again, after checking their records for the purchase against the composer's name, it was revealed that the composer never "bought the library from us". Again, another developer that uses exclusive purchasing arrangements.
Some developers embed samples with either an indiscernible (to the human ear) sound that's picked up with isolation of frequences and other's claim to embed code that's revealed with audio tracing software.

To me, it seems like an awful expense weighed against the reward and to be honest... I always thought that they were merely trying to scare potential violators by playing on their fears...

The two above examples I cited, are purely mistakes made by arrogant and pretentious composers that got them busted... in my opinion.

 

You live in the dark ages.

There are several types of watermarking nowadays. This one is typically used for tracing:

AWT2:
Watermarking, "digital signing" solution in the AWT family. AWT2 realizes so called "blind watermarking" approach in the sense that the watermark can be extracted directly from the watermarked audio recording, the source audio is not needed for watermark detection and extraction. AWT2 provides industrial grade performance, features, robustness and data rate. Designed for anti-piracy, monitoring, tracing and forensic purposes over digital and analog audio channels.

 

apart from point 1 it's def a good answer

again someone with the ability to write while being unable to read, this never seizes to amaze me

 

I don't understand.
My question is stupid?
I ask that because I didn't find any answer to this.And nobody replied to it yet.

EDIT: And for your information I always read ALL members before asking something.

 

Last edited: Aug 3, 2018

And (despite plethora of digital toys, 20 yrs later) nothing fairly similar creative, in the field.. since. It seems like today's (digital) artist, focuses creativity.. mostly, on balancing petabytes of samples trough entropy nonresistant hard drives, and rumination on how - when successful - not to get cought with hands in a consecrated DRM jar.

 

I disagree.

 

generalizing much little banana

 

Well ... that's like your opinion, man.

In all seriousness, though, I do agree ... to an extent. I think samples, loops, arps, virtual drummers, virtual guitar players and bassists cut out a lot of the creativity that we used to spend most of our time figuring out how to make our old MIDI synths and samplers pass for the real thing, and that a lot of people wind up making "one-finger compositions" that end up sounding just like everybody else doing the same thing. I actually said the same thing you did the first time I saw somebody messing around with Acid back in '98 or '99: "Well, I guess this means nobody has to write music anymore ..." People have been saying the same thing about synthesizers since the Seventies. The truth of it is, though, that even in these creatively-barren times, when popular music itself is no longer the vast money-making or far-reaching industry it once was, the true artists can still use these tools to make something worthwhile, maybe even to introduce the next new genre of music. I mean, I hope that's what happens, because I'll be damned if the last notable innovation in music is fucking EDM.