From the evolutionseries[dot]com website:

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT???

---> "undetectable to binary file comparison techniques" <---

Do you guys think we are little kids (or grown up STUPID people). Anyone with a BASIC knowledge on computing knows this is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE. If two files are different, a simple CRC32/MD5/SHA check (=a binary comparison) will show it up!

This is like saying that a genetics specialist using the proper equipment (and the proper knowledge) would not be capable of spotting any differences when comparing the DNA of two people who are not twins.

Let's make it easy for everyone to understand: You can not make two things different from each other while, at the same time, keeping their data exactly the same. Either you change the audio data itself (WAV, NCW), or you change the other "control data" that defines the audio data (KNI, NKX).

Oh... yes... you may think: "maybe the procedure used to compare data is not the proper one or they found a way to cheat it". The answer is a big "NO". We are in the digital domain, guys. A "0" is a "0" and a "1" is a "1". In HEX this is from "0" to "F". And that's it. There are no values inbetween. No way. In fact, in an electric circuit, when 0 Volt means a "0" and 100mVolt measns a "1", if 94mVolt is received, it is interpreted as 100mVolt (="1"), so, as I said, there are no values inbetween.

***EITHER*** things are equal, ***OR*** two things are different. You can NOT have two things which are equal ***AND*** different at the same time. And you can not be in New York and in Tokyo at the same time.

PLEASE, DON'T THINK WE ARE STUPID.

My conclusion: This is just a HOAX you are using to scare buyers and make them not copy your stuff.

(I would love anyone who could argue against this. Please, only if you have the knowledge. This is not philosophy, this is technology. ZEROs and ONEs, in fact.)


My best wishes!

[AudioTiger]

 

idiots

 

.... a lot of watching NCSI, CSI and other crime's

 

...before you run into conclusions, read this :
https://www.sit.fraunhofer.de/de/angebote/projekte/wasserzeichen/

This watermarking technology was invented by the German Fraunhofer Institute.
The same institute that invented mp3.

Continuata has not invented their watermarking technology,
they bought a license from the Fraunhofer Institute to use it.
Everyone can get a license.

The downside of this technology, (and there is one) wasn't mentioned by Continuata.
And the reason for that is very simple.

The watermarking is indeed robust and all they described, but...!(...and that is the big key)

The watermarking needs a minimum of 10 seconds of audio material to embed the data.
So far the technology !

Continuata tells the truth, but doesn't tell about the flaws.

 

What you're saying is correct--there is no way to implement such a watermark that fulfills all the critera listed above. Specifically, two files being bit-identical absolutely precludes any possible differentiation between them.

Continuata's website doesn't seem to make the claim that their watermarking system produces files bit-identical to each other, so it would seem like Evolution Series inserted that claim themselves. Likely, then, they are simply presuming a lack of knowledge on behalf of their audience and are exaggerating the extent of the watermark for whatever reason. Of course, anyone who knows what "bit-identical" even means would immediately recognize that the claim as written is not possible, so one might question the scare-tactic value of that claim's inclusion in the first place.

As Carface says above, the technology behind the implementation of 'undetectable' audio watermarks certainly exists (and if Continuata's service also watermarks the .nki, .nkr, and .nkm files as claimed they may well also use additional methodolgy to add signatures to those non-audio files), so that portion of the protection is both believable and plausible, but the files are not and cannot be bit-identical between signatures.

 

I feel like we have this discussion every other week on "the other site". I can also see that spending a huge amount of time responding with precise data on how it works will be a waste, as it will fall on deaf ears. Yes, I do "have the knowledge".

Here is what you need to know, and what is relevant. Please read each point before responding, because they build off of one another.

1. Watermarks do exist. The question is, should you worry about them? There are two main types. One is what you described, which is continuata's method, and the other is embedded within the samples themselves (.wav files, etc.) In most cases, the first method is only a "problem" for the original buyer (see below before responding), the second is something for everyone to be aware of.

I agree that there's some hyperbole regarding how it's done, how effective it is, etc., but to quote Moriarty: "That's what people do!".

Briefly, how the second type tends to work (for Cinesamples, 8Dio, Spitfire, and some others) is that developers create a specific pattern of EQ outside of the range of the vast majority of consumer EQ software (and most definitely outside of the range of human hearing), which marks the product as belonging to them. It is not individualized, but essentially allows the company to know with an incredibly small margin of error if a person is using their library, assuming they suspected that person enough to scan for it in the first place. It can be assumed that this would prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person pirated, but there have been no public incidents/court cases to create a precedent that I am aware of (they do bully some of the "bigger fish" into buying, but if you're successful enough to get their attention, I don't have much sympathy).

Which brings me to the next point.

2. These guys have bigger fish to fry. For one, if you're outside of their country, they really would have a rough time legally pursuing you. On top of that, if you're not a pro (not making money, or not making much money) they won't particularly like you, but unless you're stupid about where/how you advertise your music (some pirates love being really obvious on the vicontrol forums for some reason...) you certainly wouldn't be on their radar enough to merit a scan for their EQ pattern in the first place. They obviously don't have the time or resources to scan every single file uploaded to soundcloud, etc. That probably means that most people here are safe.

3. For the record, that safety doesn't mean that you shouldn't buy after you try if you use the product a lot, and support the developers- the small ones especially. Enough said on that, I know I say it a lot but it's truly important.

4. Sort of a combination of 2 and 3. What most developers are concerned about is the "suppliers", hence most of the focus being on scaring people into not sharing in the first place. Once a product's released, it's out there, and even if they spend hundreds of thousands on prosecuting those in their country (which only the really big devs have the money to do), most of them realize that there's not much they can do about it globally.

So, most downloaders/leechers can relax. That said, when you take into account all of the above, even supplying is relatively "safe", even if teams don't know how to remove all of the watermarks and personal information. It's risky if you literally live around the corner from some of them like I do (gulp), but otherwise you have a certain degree of safety as a supplier.

 

We need information from a legal Kontakt user...
to know the practical side of this situation.
A legal user could ask NI...like I asked a other Company...

"Dear NI i am so glad that my Library is Watermarked !!!
Now i can send you a sample of someone i belief has stolen
my Melodies and i can sue him...."

Can you dig it...they have to guarantee,that this is possible...
Demand them, to tell the truth....

I know from the other Company that my audio is not Watermarked,
only my license is Watermarked in the Program...they said the performance could be a problem...and would cost a lot of CPU.
That is why the most Companies would not do this...even if
possible...they said...

 

why do people keep posting these pointless topics

watermarking is only made to stop those people who think they can pirate a library and re-sell it on shady sites and pocket the cash

there is no way to use it to prove you stole it if you run it through any mastering process even tho its really easy to tell certain instruments like east west violins because they all sound the same with out heavy fx being added

so unless you are a true theft who cares

 

Great explanation Allshallfade!

I am just wondering, if the pattern is outside of human hearing range, and we mostly roll off ALL of those freq`s, would that not render the patterns dead?

 

The pattern is outside of the range of most consumer EQs-- for demonstration's sake, if our EQs only went up to frequency 12k (most go beyond that), the dev frequency would be placed at 16k. Doing a high cut with the consumer EQ would then be ineffective in erasing their watermark. From what I remember about their actual use, they are placed very subtly above 20k for one developer in particular.

Again, the only time I really heard of them being used against someone was when a buddy of mine was a dumbass and decided to pirate quite a few samples a very popular indie film a few years ago. ... Let's just say that he got a very politely worded email, and ended up buying all of his stuff within the week. Again, if you're not using this stuff on major pictures or being stupidly obvious about it on public forums, you'll be fine.

 

allshallfade: My understanding is that the watermark is not supersonic, since a simple cut-off filter will truncate that zone. They hide the codes in the most commonly used frequency zone in the spectrum which is also used by voice (below 4khz), this ensures that you cannot remove the watermark either by filter, eq, FFT, mp3. There is no future for watermarking in pro audio since it essentially destroys audio. For it to be successful it has to be incredibly aggressive.

Check out the technology behind Cinavia, most juicy details you will get about the audio watermarking is the DVD ranger white paper on Cinavia.

 

That makes sense to a degree, but what I described above is how 8Dio does things (or at least how they did about a year and a half ago). I have no doubt that different companies have different methods of doing the same thing though!

 

Ok. Wasn't aware of 8dio watermarking. They were the early adapters of the technology/scare-tactics in the old Tonehammer days.

 

Doesn't make that much sense to add watermarking to inaudible frequencies such as above 20KHz... Most music nowadays is compressed when distributed, and with mp3, for example, the compression works by eliminating the frequencies we are less likely to hear, and above 20KHz would be just the spot to cut out, since humans can't listen to it anyway.

 

The last thing I'll say here is to refer back to my original post- like I said there, I genuinely don't have the time to debate the how/why/pros/cons of watermarking systems that I'm not even the owner or administrator of. Again, for most of us all that matters is knowing that the watermarks are there, but that they're really not something to obsess over.

In my opinion, as long as a plugin/library isn't "phoning home" constantly, I couldn't care less about watermarks, since anything that I make money off of (and would be on their radar) is all paid for, and anything else I do with cracked stuff is strictly for evaluation.

 

Da Vinci code

 

Myth's and legends exists and will always exist ... that sells much. If you dring our tea, you will loose on weight in just two weeks... ha ha.

In my town, there is a locals music equipment store, and from the time Cubase 6 released, on my question about price, they told me: you know it's much better then Cubase 5, now it has stronger protection from piracy, and now there is no chance to one Russian guy crack that bla bla bla... and that's will be the main reason for buying it.

If I need Cubase 6/7 for my work as a producer, engineer, etc... I will buy it, because I'll make money with it. And I expect to have reasonable customer support etc... and that's all.

That's the same story... Our lib's have included watermark, and it's not like other lib's who hasn't... no one can steal from you bla bla bla... and from that point I, as pride customer !, tell: yeahhhhh, that's for mee...

It's not Arthur Clark, it's not DaVinci Code, it's small companies who want to make money (ofcourse).

 

Evolution team has it's own forensic team for analysing problematic no-customers

 

The only undetectable to crc check and inaudible watermark could be the file creation timestamp. That can easily be removed by saving or editing the file properties.

 

Watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIoR3PYpduo

there is no watermark at all...

There is one thing I liked, when the James Brows drummer says, i'm not worry because of my drum pattern is most sampled in the world, but I'm angry on people who use it and just can't say, "man, thank you"