Forums

  • avatar
    3095 sounds
    479 posts

    soundhead
    Most thieves are likely to be too lazy to remove watermarks...
    Not that I'm advocating watermarking every sound.

    I agree, too lazy. Watermarking probably is overkill, but some form of label would be nice. Like the stamps used to mark books in many libraries - I think they call this an 'ex libris' ?

    Something that can be added automatically at uploading, some form of hash, a unique combination of size-date-time appended at the start/end, or... I don't know
    Thank you for the feedback

    D

  • avatar
    0 sounds
    1 post

    I need a sample of an old bench/swing creaking. Like with the metal chains being strained. Also, the pitches of the creaking have to go from low to high and then high to low, if that makes sense. The sample is being used as percussion in a song I'm making.

    The closest I could find was this: http://www.freesound.org/samplesViewSingle.php?id=33256

    The pitches in the creaks are what I'm looking for but the background/wind noise I do not want. I sent a message to the uploader if he could clean it up so it was just the creaking but he hasn't gotten back to me.

    So if anyone could get me a similar sample or clean up the above one that would be helpful. Thank you. happy

  • avatar
    15 sounds
    135 posts

    Most thieves are likely to be too lazy to remove watermarks...
    Not that I'm advocating watermarking every sound.

  • avatar
    0 sounds
    1 post

    Check out her beautiful voice in the player at www.myspace.com/LBArecords

  • avatar
    26 sounds
    107 posts

    who thinks timtube needs a new way of reaffirming his life's worth?

  • avatar
    29 sounds
    37 posts

    That technique, like virtually all audio watermark techniques, uses a common secret keystream for both watermarking and watermark recovery. That is, in such schemes, you can't tell someone how to see if the watermark is present without also telling them everything they need to know to remove it. That's fine for some purposes, but probably not for the purposes under discussion here.

    Also, these watermarking schemes exploit perceptual coding techniques (as MP3 does) to be inaudible only under normal listening conditions. They are not guaranteed (and are unlikely) to remain inaudible under the kind of heavy post-processing that samples here are intended for.

    Unfortunately, it's just a hard problem.

    -matt

  • avatar
    606 sounds
    276 posts

    Note, the link is still down!

    http://www.freesound.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1256

    digifish

  • avatar
    37 sounds
    44 posts

    mab wrote:

    Digital watermarking (of audio, pictures, video, etc) has been an active research area in computing security and cryptology for the last decade or so. Unfortunately, unless I'm mistaken (and I could well be; I've not been doing research in the area for a couple years), the current state of the art has not yet produced a robust audio watermarking scheme that's both inaudible and infeasible for an attacker to remove. It's a very hard problem.

    I read the articles in the forum discussion of digital watermarking, and followed many of the links. Bram had posted a google search there. I followed it and came to this link that seems to be a robust scheme. I am *not* an expert in this area so I might have missed the obvious but it seemed to cover the bases very well. The neatest thing was that the watermark varied in amplitude with the audio and the amplitude of the watermark was calculated so that the tone was masked by the audio. They have an ingenious method for preventing people from stealing a watermarked work and calling it their own as well. All in all, it looked very good. They tested it pretty hard and the results were impressive..

    research.microsoft.com/users/binzhu/Papers/audio2.pdf

  • avatar
    29 sounds
    37 posts

    wisslgisse
    I wonder how hard it would be for the freesound site to add such a digital watermark that said freesound, or any other symbol, over and over again in the 20 KHz to 40 KHz range, or the 0 to 20 Hz range to every sample uploaded.. Small effect on the sound but any spectrograph shows it clearly. Done right, it would probably be difficult to remove too.

    I vaguely recall those posts. I'll have to go back and read them.

    Digital watermarking (of audio, pictures, video, etc) has been an active research area in computing security and cryptology for the last decade or so. Unfortunately, unless I'm mistaken (and I could well be; I've not been doing research in the area for a couple years), the current state of the art has not yet produced a robust audio watermarking scheme that's both inaudible and infeasible for an attacker to remove. It's a very hard problem. My sense is that the advantage will tend to go to the attacker here. Google "information hiding workshop" to get a sense of current work in this area.

    And I strongly agree that the most effective and practical countermeasure to the kind of "piracy" being discussed here is indirect rather than technological or legal. Flood the 'net with high quality, freely usable content (that's why I'm here, for one...)

    -matt

  • avatar
    2 sounds
    62 posts

    Anyway, I for one will take this lesson home: let's all keep flooding the internet with free content of good quality, that's our best move. At present, each time I watch some amateur video from Youtube being reproduced on TV, I smile to myself. In a few years time, who knows?

    Thank you so much for saying that, Dobroide! And watermarking is sensible, too.

  • avatar
    18 sounds
    456 posts
    hi

    Hi and welcome smile I gave you some tips on your other post. Here's another tip though: keep recording sounds wherever you can, and share them here if you want, you'll learn each time you hit that Record-button. I know I still do smile

  • avatar
    18 sounds
    456 posts

    DJ Chronos
    In another series about space (it might have been The Universe again but it can't remember) they say that a small part of radio hiss or white noise is actually "sound" from the Big Bang. Supposedly the "sound" is actually radio interference caused by remnant electromagnetic energy still floating around out there from when the universe was formed.

    I saw that too, however the amount of noise from the Big Bang is only a few percent, hardly noticable. Still cool to think that same energy still reverberates after so many million and million years.

  • avatar
    18 sounds
    456 posts

    With most audio software, you should be able to take any sound and convert it to 8 bit, mono, 44.1 or 22.05 kHz.

  • avatar
    18 sounds
    456 posts

    They're all a bit too loud. When recording, try to maintain headroom. Try keeping the input below -12 or -9 dBfs and certainly try to keep it always under -3 dBfs. Also when modifying and mixing your recordings, make sure you never or very very rarely hit 0 dBfs.
    Digitally, you can't go higher than 0, if you're trying to do so anyway, your sounds will clip there, which results in distorted sounds.

  • avatar
    18 sounds
    456 posts

    Thanks Bram, you show you care for your users.
    Other sites that allow selling user's content have manual review (such as revver.com, videosite). After all they too make a profit of the content. If they make profit of illegal content, they're also responsible for that. They review for their own well-being. Audiosparx should do so too (btw, YouTube should too, even though it's an excellent source to watch some old music videos).

  • avatar
    306 sounds
    74 posts

    http://www.audiosparx.com/sa/play/play.cfm/sound_iid.32552
    An orchestra playing Rimsky-Korsakow's Flight of the bumble bee. Artist: Usama. Yeah right. 30 seconds cost only 179 dollar. What a bunch of crooks.

  • avatar
    37 sounds
    44 posts

    I wonder how hard it would be for the freesound site to add such a digital watermark that said freesound, or any other symbol, over and over again in the 20 KHz to 40 KHz range, or the 0 to 20 Hz range to every sample uploaded.. Small effect on the sound but any spectrograph shows it clearly. Done right, it would probably be difficult to remove too.

    I vaguely recall those posts. I'll have to go back and read them.

  • avatar
    3095 sounds
    479 posts

    wisslgisse

    .
    .
    .

    I think it is ironic that the people shouting the loudest about copyright breaking, the movie studios, might have broken copyright themselves by using sounds from audiosparx.

    Thank you, wisslgisse. Yeah, not only ironic, it also gives you something to think about. Years ago a guy said all property is theft. Of course the statement is contradictory (as "If no property is rightfully owned, that is, if nothing is property, there can be no such concept as “theft”; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft ), but we all get the point, I guess smile And by the way, I was thinking of this kind of problems when, several months ago, I wrote about digital watermarking of sounds in this same forum. People prone to claim authorship on other's samples should know they are taking risks wink

    Anyway, I for one will take this lesson home: let's all keep flooding the internet with free content of good quality, that's our best move. At present, each time I watch some amateur video from Youtube being reproduced on TV, I smile to myself. In a few years time, who knows?

    D

  • avatar
    2 sounds
    62 posts

    Radio-Jupiter Central
    http://www.radiosky.com/rjcentral.html

    Hear the Sun Sing
    http://solar-center.stanford.edu/singing/

  • avatar
    37 sounds
    44 posts

    Dobroide,

    You're right. After reading your post I come around to your point of view. Audiosparx is stealing those sounds just as much as the vendor is because they are making money from them and also extending their license to cover the vendor.

    A couple of possible remedies.

    They require their vendors to post $100 bond in order to be registered. If a copyright holder finds their work being sold by someone else, they get the $100 and any revenues that have been charged for that work. The vendor has to repost the $100 bond. This makes it in the financial interest of both audiosparx and the vendor not to sell materials they do not have copyright to. And the copyright holder gets some compensation out of it.

    Another option is to leave all works on freesound as they are, but also automatically register them on audiosparx as well. If downloaded from freesound, they are under the creative commons license. If purchased from audiosparx, they are under the audiosparx license and the copyright holder gets the revenue. Then people who take the trouble to look can use the work under creative commons, but those who don't at least pay the copyright holder instead of a thief.

    I think it is ironic that the people shouting the loudest about copyright breaking, the movie studios, might have broken copyright themselves by using sounds from audiosparx.