"Cinavia"/Verance BluRay audio watermark protection

[Ghitulescu]

What makes you think that Sony implemented Cinavia detector only in one product and not in the others? Because they had different processors? Verance site already said that they had detectors for multiple procs. Was it a test? Why would you test on the most popular product, at first?

The latest (at the time I've check it) SDK from Sigma design for its almost ubiquitous SMP processor already contained cinavia. It appears that all gear made since the last year have this ticking bomb inside. I mean not only BD players, but also the mediaplayers (with or without a HDD), the TVs, the AVRs, anything that contains a SMP. I think that Realtek, another major manufacturer, walked this path, too. And probably also SI. Now intel wants to include a further level of DRM straight in the core (to avoid the danger of linux or free software).

Welcome again in the digital world!

PS: We'll talk again towards the end of 2012, after 6 months of "analog blackout" ...

[hello_hello]

How did you check? Did you look into the firmware?

Just did a lot of Googling and tried playing a Cinavia infected encode.

[hello_hello]

Now intel wants to include a further level of DRM straight in the core (to avoid the danger of linux or free software).

It's often hard to tell exactly what mixture of speculafact and confabulation much of your scaremongering might be.

I just did a Google looking for info on this Intel DRM and this is all I could find:
http://www.technewsworld.com/rsstory/71568.html
"Thou Shalt Not Stream
One particularly interesting reported detail regarding the processors is that Intel will incorporate hardware-level copy protection technologies.
The technology it'll use is apparently called "Insider." It will incorporate an end-to-end protection layer and a management feature to unlock high-definition movies downloaded from online streaming services or off DVDs."

From Intel:
http://www.overclock.net/intel-cpus/910972-sandy-bridge-intel-insider-killswitch-technology.html
"Intel Insider (This feature will be available only if your motherboard supports the Intel HD graphics and when using this feature you are using your Intel processor's Integrated Graphics) Requires a H67 motherboard ##
This feature does not affect any of the files of your computer. It is simply there to allow hardware protected streaming of specific data to your computer."

So it's for streaming video, and this might explain why it hasn't taken off:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/11/01/07/1553241/Intel-Insider-DRM-Risks-Monopoly-Investigations
"Intel Insider DRM Risks Monopoly Investigations:
"Intel's Sandy Bridge line of processors is impressing the tech community with its power, but a sneaky little feature designed to appease Hollywood has some concerned about Intel's intentions: Intel Insider. If a major video streaming service, such as Lovefilm or the US-based Hulu, were to implement Intel Insider technology on their movie streams — as a way of convincing Hollywood to release films sooner and in high definition without worrying about piracy — it would mean that only those who use Intel's very latest Sandy Bridge CPUs would be able to stream movies. Not only would those using older Intel chips that don't support the technology be cut off from the service, but those on systems featuring CPUs from rival manufacturers such as AMD and low-power specialist VIA would also be excluded."

So what is this further level of DRM Intel is wanting to include straight into the core? Is it one which allows you to provide some links to demonstrate it's fact?
__________________
It's not difficult to find the ideal signature. Difficult is refraining from using it.

[Ghitulescu]

It's often hard to tell exactly what mixture of speculafact and confabulation much of your scaremongering might be.

Feel free to learn, unless this contravenes your precepts, my dear yetanotherid. That you refuses to accept or to understand the things surrounding you won't make them disappear, like in the very well-known tactics of the ostrich digging its head into sand.

Besides, googling is not equal researching, if I am allowed to freely quote prof. Langdon of Harvard.

[laserfan]

I think the strategy here is to not let the users know which player implemented Cinavia yet, so the sales are not biased. Let everyone (manufacturers) implement it. That takes time, lots of it. And when the time is right, when users have bought with high confidence (Sony players or other brands), the bomb ticks and in a short time, every player will have Cinavia detector enabled.
You can think what you want to, but until just one settop player becomes Cinavia-enabled "overnight" by virtue of a simple firmware update, I will be skeptical that this can be done, at least for pre-2009 player designs.

[Ghitulescu]

You can think what you want to, but until just one settop player becomes Cinavia-enabled "overnight" by virtue of a simple firmware update, I will be skeptical that this can be done, at least for pre-2009 player designs.

There are means to "update" a player other than by a FW upgrade. For instance, the "end of cycle" (the products are worse and worse and people are inherently forced to buy new hardware to replace the dead ones). Or by imposing new technologies and making the older gear obsolete: masochistic people ran to buy 3D players despite their old players were only 1-2 years old, another good chance to implement cinavia. When the 3D technology (I think there are 4 majors and several minors here) will finally get rid of the 3D glasses, probably it's another good opportunity to change the HW base.

[laserfan]

You keep trying to change the subject. Show me one, just one, set-top BD player that has been "updated" to Cinavia-enabled via firmware.

[Ghitulescu]

I'm not deviating, I'm pointing to other possible alternatives. For now I know no player personally, but I have seen in various posts, also here, that the PS3 has been cinavied by FW, also certain models of LG and Samsung that have been contaminated or decontaminated ;) . If they lie, I'll you you, too :) .
I am not really concerned about my BD player, although I should do an update to have it decode HD audio, but about my mediaplayer, which seems to be in a perpetual beta stage. I am thus afraid that the required stability (one incentive to update) will come within the same package as cinavia.

[hello_hello]

Feel free to learn, unless this contravenes your precepts, my dear yetanotherid. That you refuses to accept or to understand the things surrounding you won't make them disappear, like in the very well-known tactics of the ostrich digging its head into sand.

Besides, googling is not equal researching, if I am allowed to freely quote prof. Langdon of Harvard.

You may freely quote anyone you like, but your post does nothing but prove almost conclusively you're just making stuff up. As for your claim I'm like an ostrich digging it's head in the sand, well you're obviously being childish.
I can accept or understand things around me, but telling me I'm refusing to do so is silly given a mentally challenged goldfish could understand that "the next CPUs will have a further level of DRM protections inside", means the next generation of CPUs will have additional in-built DRM, and it does nothing to show your claims are real.

Are you sure you don't make stuff up a little as you type, and after you've repeated it in several posts it becomes real to you?

[setarip_old]

Post 996 (by "xkodi") indicates that the "elephant in the room" (SONY, with its PS3, standalone players, studios, etc. - and the driving/controlling force behind AACS LA) has not yet found a way to prevent circumvention of "Cinavia"/Verance protection.

It's my speculation that SONY is actually pinning their "Cinavia"/Verance hopes on the next generation gaming plus video playback system...

[derbeDeus]

Just did a lot of Googling and tried playing a Cinavia infected encode.

Well... that is not enough to be sure that the player you got won't have Cinavia at some point in the near future (2011-2012).

I think I explained quite clearly why they will be implementing it without telling anyone and then they'll just activate it. They don't want your purchase power to have a choice.

You can think what you want to, but until just one settop player becomes Cinavia-enabled "overnight" by virtue of a simple firmware update, I will be skeptical that this can be done, at least for pre-2009 player designs.
There's the example of the LG player that had Cinavia activated and then they deactivated it. Do you think they removed the code? Nope, probably they activated it by mistake, too soon.

Old players have two choices: either the manufacturer continues support for them and puts in the watermark detector or the player is not updated any more and therefore it dies because of lack of support for new discs (no aacs keys to decrypt latest mkb == dead).

[Guest]

Ghit and hello_hello, knock off the ad hominems or strikes can follow. Thank you.

[hello_hello]

Well... that is not enough to be sure that the player you got won't have Cinavia at some point in the near future (2011-2012).

I think I explained quite clearly why they will be implementing it without telling anyone and then they'll just activate it. They don't want your purchase power to have a choice.

I don't think I claimed Sony would never try to activate Cinavia on my model player in the future, only that it doesn't have it now.

Likewise, I thought I explained quite clearly there's virtually zero chance of them ever activating it on mine. I don't plan to ever update it and if for some reason I need to, it'll only be after researching the update, especially in relation to Cinavia.

[Ghitulescu]

Well... that is not enough to be sure that the player you got won't have Cinavia at some point in the near future (2011-2012).

I think I explained quite clearly why they will be implementing it without telling anyone and then they'll just activate it. They don't want your purchase power to have a choice.

There's the example of the LG player that had Cinavia activated and then they deactivated it. Do you think they removed the code? Nope, probably they activated it by mistake, too soon.

Old players have two choices: either the manufacturer continues support for them and puts in the watermark detector or the player is not updated any more and therefore it dies because of lack of support for new discs (no aacs keys to decrypt latest mkb == dead).
That's more or less my reasoning, too. The player-media issue is too tight, one keeps the other one alive and vice-versa. Lack of playback devices "kills" the media, and lack of media makes a gear technically obsolete. The game between manufacturers and media content producers is generally a win-win one. The losers will be, as usual, the customers, since they cannot choose any longer (a pseudo competition, a hidden monopoly).

I also said that implementing cinavia (or any other DRM technique) will transverse the gear, the idea of one-chip-device being anything but new (IIRC 15 years old). And there is no legal arguments why cinavia shouldn't be implemented: it won't harm your own recordings, neither the original ones. It can only affects the copies (which you are not authorised to make under most legislations). It may only decrease (how bad???) the quality, but this never stopped people from copying DVD-Audios, with the watermarking still within. The only legal issues remain the tax leverage on recordable media, since these can only be used for personal media. And of course what happens after the copyright term expires (it will eventually expire, despite the united efforts to prolong it till Doomsday).
Ghit and hello_hello, knock off the ad hominems or strikes can follow. Thank you.
I'll promise that I'll ignore him and keep the topic. Thank you for understanding.
Post 996 (by "xkodi") indicates that the "elephant in the room" (SONY, with its PS3, standalone players, studios, etc. - and the driving/controlling force behind AACS LA) has not yet found a way to prevent circumvention of "Cinavia"/Verance protection.
It's my speculation that SONY is actually pinning their "Cinavia"/Verance hopes on the next generation gaming plus video playback system...
Since the presence of cinavia (or any other similar DRM) cannot be legally prevented, it's fairly ok to assume this.

[hello_hello]

I'll promise that I'll ignore him and keep the topic. Thank you for understanding.

I really do try to understand, and after having replied to my on-topic questions with a post containing nothing but personal insults, the magnanimous way you've now promised to ignore me to keep the topic has me a little closer to understanding your similar process for converting speculation into fact.

[xkodi]

Post 996 (by "xkodi") indicates that the "elephant in the room" (SONY, with its PS3, standalone players, studios, etc. - and the driving/controlling force behind AACS LA) has not yet found a way to prevent circumvention of "Cinavia"/Verance protection.

It's my speculation that SONY is actually pinning their "Cinavia"/Verance hopes on the next generation gaming plus video playback system...

actually, they already released something even more terrible - the new PS3 model CECH-3000B that has just been introduced and starts selling has:

AACS 'Analog Sunset' protection

so, no more HD video playback either (in case it's not AACS encrypted) and of course CECH-3000B has "Cinavia" that cannot be disabled, because all PS3 firmware version 3.56+ are uncrackable.

[Ghitulescu]

Any AACS licensed product Produced on or after December 31, 2010 shall be able to detect the Audio Watermark.
End of story.

[bigdog660]

Or even cheaper, start writing your congressman to outlaw these things.

Writing our Congress or Senate here in the U.S. is useless. Might as well piss in the wind since they all do whatever benefits them financially.

[rotty]

Writing our Congress or Senate here in the U.S. is useless. Might as well piss in the wind since they all do whatever benefits them financially.

Is'nt it comforting to know that Politicians are crooks throughout the WHOLE world.

Who lets them be like this .......................

US.

[Chancey]

we're only one disgruntled employee away from figuring out Cinavia....chill

[rotty]

we're only one disgruntled employee away from figuring out Cinavia....chill

I wouldnt mind betting that that was the BD+ story also.

Although, the figuring out is absolutley a massive weapon to the defeat, it may still leave us with a nightmare to correct in the domestic enviroment. Like I said before, removal butchery and Re encoding audio to say DTS MA, how.

The DTS encoder is very expensive and would not be part of a cheap solution package for the normal domestic market.

I know I keep saying it, but avoid Cinavia polluted audio media, thats a big weapon, we shouldnt have to put up with corrupted audio anyway, prevention is better than ......................

[k-c-ksum]

with dvd-a watermarking certain listeners could here the watermark, dont think thats the case here so the corrruptted audio angle wont get you anywhere :(

[Andy o]

with dvd-a watermarking certain listeners could here the watermark

Source? I've never heard or read any reliable report, only off-the-cuff assertions that were never backed up.

[Ghitulescu]

Source? I've never heard or read any reliable report, only off-the-cuff assertions that were never backed up.

There's nothing better than to test it yourself. Discussions can anyone stand ... :)

[derbeDeus]

Source? I've never heard or read any reliable report, only off-the-cuff assertions that were never backed up.

http://www.ambisonic.net/watermark.html

[Andy o]

Well first of all let me be clear. I am not saying that the watermark is inaudible. I am saying that there's no evidence for the claims that it's audible in real-world settings (i.e. not a direct ABX comparison between same source, watermarked and unwatermarked, which is an unrealistic scenario).
There's nothing better than to test it yourself. Discussions can anyone stand ... :)

If you would point me to an unwatermarked source, and the same source watermarked, and then tell me what to look for, then it would be easy.

What seems suspicious to me is that nobody that claimed to hear the watermark could clearly explain what it was that they heard.

And derbeDeus, I have read that article, and it doesn't explain anything. Just arguments from authority, which frankly seem exaggerated. No links, no detailed explanation on how the tests were conducted, or even if they had access to the same source, watermarked and unwatermarked. If someone was able to identify the watermark, they would be able to explain what exactly the watermark is and sounds like, not just say vague statements like it will "reduce the perceived quality of DVD-A to somewhere between a good MiniDisc and a below-average CD".

Also:

If a compression algorithm removes inaudible sounds, it can be argued that a watermark will be removed by such techniques - if the watermark is inaudible. If this is the case, it serves no purpose. However, if the watermark is not removed by lossy compression, it will be, by definition, audible.This is only a half-truth. There are many ways to change sound inaudibly that would survive psychoacoustic-based lossy codecs. For instance a 0.1dB fade in/out every certain time interval, or a very slight slowdown or speedup. Not to say that the watermark works like that, but it invalidates the argument that "if the watermarked is not removed by lossy compression it will be audible".

[Andy o]

BTW, I'm also aware of the SDMI challenge and how Ed Felten's team beat the watermarks. It was a contest though, and they were provided with both watermarked and unwatermarked versions of the same files. In their paper (find it easily by googling) they do clearly and explicitly identify the watermarks, contrary to most or all other claims of identifying the watermarks I've seen online.

[rotty]

with dvd-a watermarking certain listeners could here the watermark, dont think thats the case here so the corrruptted audio angle wont get you anywhere :(

The audio is supposed to be true to the original, when is passes through phase and lag it is NOT true to the original.

Besides, the audio should not be tampered with on principal.

It may well be that in most cases you dont notice it, but if you dont know how the original sounded then how could you, BUT does that make it OK.

It may even have narrow shift FSK applied to certain notes.

[SamuriHL]

The simple fact is this....these manipulations of the audio stream are NOT for the consumer's benefit. It's not like they're improving the sound quality on our behalf. They're artificially manipulating the audio to embed this watermark. Whether it can be heard or not it's still defective by design.

[rotty]

The simple fact is this....these manipulations of the audio stream are NOT for the consumer's benefit. It's not like they're improving the sound quality on our behalf. They're artificially manipulating the audio to embed this watermark. Whether it can be heard or not it's still defective by design.

Yes, yes yes and yes.

P.S. Samuri, dont forget to swap the Goose for a wet Lettace if its a DVD watermark. (step 3 in the other forum), had some complaints it didnt work for DVD so had to tweak it.

[Chancey]

The simple fact is this....these manipulations of the audio stream are NOT for the consumer's benefit. It's not like they're improving the sound quality on our behalf. They're artificially manipulating the audio to embed this watermark. Whether it can be heard or not it's still defective by design.


At this point i don't think the peeps putting out movies give a rats ass about sound degradation that the average consumer wont notice. They think they are gonna gain profits but i don't think they realize that 99.9% of pirates copy movies that they wouldn't of bought in the first place. And even if they are selling the copied movies, 99.9% of the peeps there selling to wouldnt buy the original either lol. just my opinion.

[SamuriHL]

If you want to talk about Cinavia as a piracy prevention mechanism, then it's already failed IMO. What pirate is going to rush out and buy a Cinavia enabled player when they can play their ripped off content in VLC or some other PC based media player? Those aren't going to detect Cinavia, so, there's a pretty big back door here to exploit. That's what happens when you have an unfinished spec and keep adding to it over time. The problem is they have to maintain backwards compatibility to the beginning of the spec....which didn't include Cinavia. WOOPS. So as an anti-piracy mechanism, I think it's not so good. As was mentioned in another thread, the potential is there, but, you have to ensure that 100% of the playback mechanisms support detection and follow the rules. Without that, it's not effective.

[rotty]

At this point i don't think the peeps putting out movies give a rats ass about sound degradation that the average consumer wont notice. They think they are gonna gain profits but i don't think they realize that 99.9% of pirates copy movies that they wouldn't of bought in the first place. And even if they are selling the copied movies, 99.9% of the peeps there selling to wouldnt buy the original either lol. just my opinion.

Hi Chancey

It 's just that it really should be like this by now:

Every time attempts are made against our rights and or quality etc then we should resist it at our most strongest.

It should be second nature to us.

We shouldnt be hearing things like, it wont make a difference etc.

We shouldnt have to even think about resisting, it should be automatic.

They certainly do give a rats ass about their profits, I promise you.

[setarip_old]

@Chancey, @rotty

Hi!

When I started this thread (and specifically mentioned several times subsequently), the purpose was stated to be postings regarding the technical advances accomplished and or explored regarding the elimination or circumvention of "Cinavia"/Verance protection.

You folks are drifting O.T.

[rotty]

I thought threads goal was to combat Cinavia.

Are you saying that removal is better than it not being there in the first place. i.e. Dropped.

[setarip_old]

It is already there...

[Chancey]

@Chancey, @rotty

Hi!

When I started this thread (and specifically mentioned several times subsequently), the purpose was stated to be postings regarding the technical advances accomplished and or explored regarding the elimination or circumvention of "Cinavia"/Verance protection.

You folks are drifting O.T.





Perfect way around cinavia, ill record myself saying the lines and yall put that audio file of me reading the lines on ur blu rays. maybe ill pop balloons and stuff in the background for sound effects. lol :p


but seriously if the watermark is above or below human hearing could you not cut the high and low off without degradation of the sound? or is it audible but hidden very well? im a total nubcake i know, sorry if someone has mentioned this in the thread already but there are to many to read them all.

[rotty]

It is already there...

Yes hence the word Dropped as it was with watermarked audio disks.

Dont be defeatist, we are the ones with the power not them.

[foxyshadis]

but seriously if the watermark is above or below human hearing could you not cut the high and low off without degradation of the sound? or is it audible but hidden very well? im a total nubcake i know, sorry if someone has mentioned this in the thread already but there are to many to read them all.

The complexity of watermarking is far beyond that; here's an overview of basic audio watermarking (http://beepdf.com/doc/92591/iscgav_01.html), and newer techniques are far beyond these.

@rotty, your posts are useless in this thread. Create a new thread in general if you wish to discuss how much you hate it and what you think should happen to those who engage in it. This thread is for the semi-technical discussion of identifying Cinavia-infected audio and how to remove it once it's there.

[rotty]

@rotty, your posts are useless in this thread. Create a new thread in general if you wish to discuss how much you hate it and what you think should happen to those who engage in it. This thread is for the semi-technical discussion of identifying Cinavia-infected audio and how to remove it once it's there.

What do you mean by the comment in your post that I have hilighted.

I have NO hate for anyone, everyone has the right to do what they wish.

And where on earth do you get "what you think should happen to those who engage in it" from anything I have said.

I have no problem with you making comment on what I have said, however, implying I have said something I have not is a different matter.

I did think the thread was for all solutions both techincal and pratical. Although I agree with you, perhaps another thread would have been better.

P.S. As you have said, the watermarking is complex. It is therefore unlikely to be solved easily technicaly here, the solution I have proposed is probably the most pratical and best, i.e. not to have the watermark there in the first place.
It also sends the right message.

We get what we deserve

I will leave it there.

[victorth]

I've followed the links to some of the Cinavia documents and read them. They seem to provide enough information
for someone to do their own watermarking. So I was wondering if anyone has thought about
superimposing a second bogus watermark on top of a Cinavia-watermarked audio stream, one that just
happens to interfere with the Cinavia watermark?

Assuming that the above is possible, the next step would be to remove the bogus watermark and see if its
removal would still leave the Cinavia watermark disrupted.

[Chancey]

The complexity of watermarking is far beyond that; here's an overview of basic audio watermarking (http://beepdf.com/doc/92591/iscgav_01.html), and newer techniques are far beyond these.

@rotty, your posts are useless in this thread. Create a new thread in general if you wish to discuss how much you hate it and what you think should happen to those who engage in it. This thread is for the semi-technical discussion of identifying Cinavia-infected audio and how to remove it once it's there.



ya that stuff is way beyond me lol thanks for the link.

[olyteddy]

This guy (John M. Strawn, Ph.D.) has a pretty impressive resume for a 'consultant'...I wonder if he's for hire?
From: 2004 Client: Verance
To: 2005 Location: San Diego, CA
Duties:
Working closely with Verance R&D staff, implement the Verance Content Management System/Audio-Visual (VCMS/AV) watermarking technology for motion picture sound (now known as Cinavia) in Motorola 56300 assembler in the TC Electronics M6000 environment. In use in major film studios starting early 2005. Travel at client's request to TC Electronics headquarters in Denmark to facilitate integration. Provide and supervise a subcontractor to assist with filter design, filter implementation, and other tasks. More than 30,000+ lines of 56K assembler source, several hundred pages of documentation, a dozen CD-ROMs of debugging data and lab notebooks.

[Ghitulescu]

This guy (John M. Strawn, Ph.D.) has a pretty impressive resume for a 'consultant'...I wonder if he's for hire?

To do what exactly?
I assume you know that these guys generally signed an NDA with effects even (and especially) after they've left the position.

And please, do not confound the detection (which is simple) with removal. Cinavia algorithms are public, Detection is known (should be), removal is difficult - I dare to remind that the watermarking of DVD-audio has not yet been "solved".

[[SLiM]D12]

those with JB PS3's will be able to remove cinavia in not too long...


http://psx-scene.com/forums/content/disable-cinavia-drm-proection-task-ps3mfw-builder-1266/

[mike20021969]

D12;1516773']those with JB PS3's will be able to remove cinavia in not too long...
I think you mean bypass (cinavia detection).

[derbeDeus]

...or remove detection routine. It is correct to say remove Cinavia from PS3.

[xkodi]

D12;1516773']those with JB PS3's will be able to remove cinavia in not too long...


http://psx-scene.com/forums/content/disable-cinavia-drm-proection-task-ps3mfw-builder-1266/

that's actually already has happened some time ago:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1511538#post1511538

[discorob3]

we're only one disgruntled employee away from figuring out Cinavia....chill


this says it all...

[Ghitulescu]

...or remove detection routine. It is correct to say remove Cinavia from PS3.
this says it all...
To repeat myself.
To do what exactly?
I assume you know that these guys generally signed an NDA with effects even (and especially) after they've left the position.

And please, do not confound the detection (which is simple) with removal. Cinavia algorithms are public, Detection is known (should be), removal is difficult - I dare to remind that the watermarking of DVD-audio has not yet been "solved".