Imagine any one person getting one of your songs and spreading it across the world... I don't want to be responsible for that.

When those smug mac users tell you that M$ never innovates, now you have proof that they are wrong.

This is an old idea. I expect the patent application will be challenged. Whether the challenge is successful depends on how innovative the twist on the old idea is.

It is worth noting that Apple got a lot of flack in the press for including user metadata in the file. For instance, user name and email address. I suspect Microsoft will in the very least place the same sort of data into the music, and hackers will figure out how to access the data.

to stop anyone else from implementing a similar solution, to protect their existing DRM stuff built into WMA.

First business, "Worse then DRM" should be "Worse than DRM".

I assumed that the iTunes Plus tracks were watermarked or at least contained some sort of "atom" just like the protected ones. Not the same thing I know since the atom can be removed without digitally changing the audio data and is not "mixed" with it. Maybe someone can confirm?

Not all that inventive, it's the most logical thing I assumed would be done to discourage piracy. So this has to be a patent on a particular method of watermarking and I'll bet lots of others can do it other ways. I like it better than restrictive use.

...and therein lies the flaw. What it still does not do is prove who actually shared the file. Without the ability to prove that Mr X who paid for the file was the same person sitting at computer Y who performed the actions required to transfer said file onto machines A, B, C and D

OK. But who says its about proof? It gives an investigator a starting point. Just like marking each print of a movie, then when copies appear, they can see what print it was. From there, they then have to figure out what went on.

This is no different then the watermarking used in photos, yet I don't hear people whining about that all the time.

I'd rather have a DRM scheme that "reminds" me of restrictions then something that "stealthy" tracks my actions.

Then stay away from iTunes Plus! Because Apple put your information in the file, yet didn't tell anyone about it.

What happens if my iPod or computer is stolen? Am I still responsible for the use of my music? What if my son or daughter sends a song to a friend who then posts it online (and what's to stop them) will I be held responsible?

Man, I see people spend a lot of time worrying about their music being stolen. You know, way back when, before going on a business trip, I decided to rip some of my CDs onto my work laptop, in WMP (pre-iTunes). When I got back, I tried copying the files to my work PC or mac. I found out two things. One, I ripped them in WMA format (who knew). Two, they were ripped with DRM (yes, MS's default at the time ripped your music with license files!). Their reasoning, as it said in the help, "This way you can protect your music from others who might want to take it" (or some such thing like that).

At the time, I thought it was hilarious, but now I see so many here are worried about it, maybe you should all start ripping your music with DRM, and that way you won't have any concerns.

The only problem with the Apple DRM is that if Apple go bust, then you've lost all your music.

Or, Apple decides to just kill the iTMS (like Google did with their video) and shut down their servers, meaning you can't authorize anymore.

...than Apple's implementation of the DRM-less EMI catalog? I mean, there's no DRM on those songs, and customer info is watermarked into each song file to discourage piracy.

Please stop calling this DRM. It's a solution to the same problem, but DRM is the name for a specific solution. Whether you prefer this or not, it's something else.

This is an old idea. I expect the patent application will be challenged. Whether the challenge is successful depends on how innovative the twist on the old idea is.

Watermarking is an old idea (the name comes from marks put in paper, after all). However, reading the collumn on arstechnica, its not about the watermarking as much as watermarking that can stand several types of conversions (for example, converting the file to MP3, or sending it through to analog then back to digital).

It is worth noting that Apple got a lot of flack in the press for including user metadata in the file. For instance, user name and email address. I suspect Microsoft will in the very least place the same sort of data into the music, and hackers will figure out how to access the data.

Yeah, and most of the flack was unwarranted and stupid (like people complaining, "What if someone steals my iPod! Then they can get my email address and sell it to spammers!" (Like spammers can't get your email from thousands of other sources).

"OK. But who says its about proof? It gives an investigator a starting point. Just like marking each print of a movie, then when copies appear, they can see what print it was. From there, they then have to figure out what went on"

Yes, because the RIAA would never just sue someone because they found their IP address on a file sharing client. They would certainly perform due diligence to make sure they have the right person!

People's defense would just be "there must have been some spyware on my security hole-ridden PC that stole my music. Perhaps you should sue MS for allowing this to happen."

But still, I would rather not be hauled into court to begin with.

I think a lot of people are concerned about their music being lost or stolen because a lot of people have their iPods or laptops lost or stolen. It's a legitimate concern and the RIAA has proven themselves ruthless at tracking down and prosecuting people they "believe" have violated copyright laws. If you're suggesting ripping all your songs with DRM to prevent this type of abuse then why would I want to by music that uniquely identifies me without DRM?

And no, iTunes Plus isn't anything like this at all (I think that "controversy" has been beaten to death). The owner's email has always been included in iTunes songs. It's clearly visible in iTunes and easily changed. MS's scheme would embed user information in the song itself. It's sole purpose is to track the use of the song in an undetectable manner.

I'm not to concerned with Apple dropping iTunes but I would be concerned about MS changing the watermarking scheme making songs unplayable. They don't seem to have a problem switching gears if they think they see bigger profits on the horizon, i.e., dropping Plays Any Where (and s******* their partners) in favor of the Zune.

Same subject has been discussed when Apple introduced DRM-free music. Few people realised that Apple has been putting meta data with user info for the past four years (i.e. since the very beginning). Again, people, same as with MS, meta data won't hurt anyone!!! Your personal info is available everywhere, beginning on your MySpace/Facebook pages!! Now, if someone steals your player and then puts the music they find there online, by then you probably have already reported your device stolen (I would if someone stole hundreds of $$ worth of hardware and songs from me). You will have a very simple and easy way to prove that you were NOT the distributor of those files.

As for the "is it DRM or not" discussion, this watermarking feature can easily be used as a part of a DRM system. MS could make their player software to refuse to play back files that don't contain the proper watermarks. While the file won't be encrypted, it still wouldn't play back, which essentially ends up the same thing for the user. Obviously, third party developers could hack out players that ignore watermarks, but this could be legally challenged.

Besides, this is all beside the point. Apple's ecosystem continues to grow and solidify its dominance against all other players. MS keeps shifting its technologies around (first Play for Sure; then the Zune DRM; now this watermark; what's next tomorrow?). It is unlikely that any of them would be taken seriously by hardware makers, after seeing all these changes recently.

Apple has nothing to worry about this.

I think a lot of people are concerned about their music being lost or stolen because a lot of people have their iPods or laptops lost or stolen. It's a legitimate concern and the RIAA has proven themselves ruthless at tracking down and prosecuting people they "believe" have violated copyright laws.

Yes, but its a lot 'easier' to track down suspected file traders at the moment (since they can track it down to the specific computer, using an IP address). You can't argue "Someone stole my computer!" since they know it was in your house at the time (you can argue "Someone was using my wireless!", but that's an iffy defense).

If they just find a song with your name on it, that's not proof of anything except that you originally bought it. The EFF will have a field day making a mockery of the RIAA if they tried suing if all they had was your name in a file.

MS's scheme would embed user information in the song itself. It's sole purpose is to track the use of the song in an undetectable manner.

No, technically, its purpose is to verify the integrity and ownership of the file (as any watermark's point is).

I'm not to concerned with Apple dropping iTunes but I would be concerned about MS changing the watermarking scheme making songs unplayable. They don't seem to have a problem switching gears if they think they see bigger profits on the horizon, i.e., dropping Plays Any Where (and s******* their partners) in favor of the Zune.

In case you didn't realize this (and probably you don't pay attention to these things), Plays Anywhere has NOT been dropped. They came out with the Zune which uses its own format and DRM (just like Apple), but PlaysForSure or whatever is still licensable and usable. What do you think all those non-iTMS stores use, anyway?

I'd worry far more about msft going bust. They are bleeding out money in an attempt to stay relevant in a world that has learned (partly via apple) to live without them. They are teetering on the brink of falling into a downward spiral.

this is the death of the mix disc. personally i enjoy making mix discs to give to friends... just as i once enjoyed making mix tapes.

with this i have to worry that anyone i give it to might rip the disc and post it online. brilliant.

i guess the suggested course of action would be to give people a sheet of paper with a recommended playlist and mixpoints on it and $20.

right.

deleted

deleted

M$ going under is never likely to happen, at all. PCs are too cheap, easy to setup and have many compatible programs. All people really need to do now is "plug an play" and have thousands even millions of different products, addons, plugins ect . . . at their finger tips where as (no offence to mac users and I am one myself) we have better programs but fewer of them (even more so of the games!), but you have to think of the price difference between a top end pc and a lower end mac. Which will the average user choose? A top end PC or a lower end Mac. Its pretty ovibous. Only those who actually did their reasearch and know about macs are likely to choose them.

Anyway back on topic. I dont really think this will be much of a problem for me as I buy most of my music anyway! But for those who don't it doesn't really matter, because the patent doesnt say that it will send this information anywhere so even if they did start this, you could still dowload the music without any trouble all this will do is force hackers to either come up with a way of either overwriting the watermark or managing to get rid of it.

As far as I can see personally this wont really affect me.

retarded initiatives I have ever heard from, stunning even in its stupidity coming from Microsoft.

This is DRM and calling it otherwise is inaccurate. The tracks will retain information about the purchaser of the title and rather than protecting the music or disallowing distribution, it will merely expose the original purchaser whose music may be redistributed through no fault of their own.