This disclosure relates to the field of embedded data, known as watermarks, and copy control for media.
Digital content, including audio, video, images, multimedia, etc., is easy to copy and expensive to create. Thus, it is a great target for illegal distribution, defined as piracy. Currently, this piracy is occurring with audio, using MPEG-1 Layer 3 (MP3) bit-rate compression format and the Internet. The MP3 format is used by new artist who want their music freely distributed, as well as by people transforming CD audio into MP3 and possibly illegally distributing it on the Internet. Professional artists and record labels want to stop the second action while allowing the first, and even distribute new content in MP3.
The problem with robust embedded data based methods of protecting content in this insecure format is that they are computationally intense. The prior-art describes numerous examples of such methods using embedded data (a.k.a. watermarks or steganography) that require frequency transformations. Assuming a different watermark is required for each user, player, storage unit and/or content, distributors will need expensive equipment to protect the data and users will require expensive devices to render the content.
The problem with efficient embedded data methods used to protect the content in this insecure format is that they are easy to remove, even though they can be made robust to duplication, such as utility patent application Ser. No. 09/404,291 (U.S. Pat. No. 7,055,034) entitled “Method and apparatus for robust embedded data” submitted on Sep. 23, 1999 by Levy, included herein by reference. Removal of embedded data is not a problem if you require the content to contain the embedded data in order to be rendered, but this concept only works in a secure format. In other words, in an insecure format, if the embedded data that informs the rendering device that the content can or cannot be played is removed, the content can always be played. However, with a secure format, removal of the embedded data that informs the rendering device that the content can or cannot be played leaves the content useless since the device cannot render, such as decrypt, the content without this embedded authorization. For example, in MP3, an insecure format where there is a desire to freely distribute content without protection, the removal of the watermark creates useful pirated content.
Cryptology can also be used to secure the content. However, not only is this technique computationally intense since it requires many operations using a large number of bits, but also one can argue that the format has been changed since existing players cannot play the protected content.
This object of this novel process is to efficiently protect content in an insecure format using two different layers of embedding data (referred to as watermarks for ease of understanding).
One watermark is robust and declares that the content is protected. This watermark is embedded when the content is created in the desired format, such as MP3, CD or DVD. This means that the computational intensity of adding the watermark is not an issue because the watermark is only added to the audio once, and copied with the audio by the distributor. This watermark is labeled the Protect watermark.
The other watermark gives the content its rights, i.e. declares that it is okay to play or record the content. It is efficient, and does not need to be difficult to removal, since removing it produces no advantageous results. The efficiency of this watermark is desirable since it must be embedded each time the audio reproduced, such as downloaded on the Internet, possibly to link the content to the user, player, recorder and/or storage device. Thus, it greatly reduces the cost of copy management for the distributor. In addition, it lowers the cost of the portable players, since they only have to find this efficient watermark. This watermark is labeled the Rights Watermark.
To this end, it is desirable to use different types of watermark for each layer and not two different layers of one watermarking technique. For example, it is not desirable to use one watermarking technique where one layer is embedded at a low-level, thus being fragile, and another layer is embedded at a higher-level, thus being robust.
Importantly, non-protected content may contain neither watermark and can be rendered by any device from any storage. Thus, the rendering devices can be both forward and backwards compatible.
The invented apparatus, which implements the described process, includes an analog or digital logic processor and a storage unit, such a random access memory.
This disclosure begins by explaining the terminology. Content refers to the data, including but not limited to audio, video, images and smells. Storage refers to device that stores the data. The term watermark refers to any system of embedding data that is minimally perceived when the content is played, and is also known as steganography. Data embedded in the header, and not hidden within the content is still considered a watermark. Robust methods are difficult to bypass. A pirate is an individual who attempts to illegally copy or distribute the content.
The protect watermark 110 declares that the content is protected. The protect watermark 110 must be extremely difficult to remove, and, accordingly, may be computationally intense. Many existing watermark methods meet this description, and future ones will certainly be designed. The rights watermark 120 gives the user rights to render the content. This watermark may link the content to the user, player, recorder and/or storage device. This link would determine if the user may copy and/or play the content. The rights watermark 120 must be a computationally efficient method that is hard to duplicate. Currently, Levy's application, as referenced above, describes how to design embedded data that is hard to duplicate, i.e. transfer between content to give rights to content that should not include these rights. However, it is expected that more duplication resistant watermarks will be produced in the future.
Both watermarks are embedded and retrieved at different times in the reproduction process, as shown in
The rights watermark 120 is embedded when the content is reproduced, such as being distributed, placed on permanent storage, or encoded to an alternative form by a personal encoding device. The term reproduced refers to the legal transformation or distribution of the content, whereas copying refers to an individual producing an exact bit-for-bit replication of the content for legal or illegal utilization. Since rights watermark 120 is embedded every time the content is reproduced, its efficiency creates a useful reduction in cost for the supporting hardware. Since the rights watermark 120 is embedded after watermark 110 it must be okay to layer the watermarks, as known to be possible with existing technology.
Optimally, the watermarks are search and retrieved in a specific order, as shown in
When using a rendering device, such as a MP3 player, which has a portable section, the watermark processing tasks can be split between the loader, potentially a PC program, and the portable section. The split can be designed such that the portable section never needs to retrieve the protect watermark, thus reducing the price of the consumer electronics portable player by reducing required processing power in this portable section. For example, when loading the content to the portable section, the loader can check for the rights watermark and the protect watermark, if necessary. If the desired action for the content is not allowed, the content is not loaded. If the desired action is allowed, the content is loaded to the portable device.
Then, the portable device may only required to process the rights watermark, which is efficient to retrieve and embed, for future actions. The portable section would check for the rights watermark 120 if the rights watermark 120 contained information the portable device is required to understand, such that the portable device can intelligently (i.e. based upon an rules engine) decide how to act upon the content. For example, utility patent application Ser. No. 09/522,312 (U.S. Pat. No. 6,868,497) entitled “Method and apparatus for automatic ID management” submitted on Mar. 9, 2000 by Levy (included herein by reference), requires that the portable section (i.e. portable player) requires the user ID contained in the rights watermark such that the portable section can track usage and intelligently limit it to a specified number of users, while allowing all content to be previewed.
Finally, this invented process can be used to restrict copying and/or playing of the content. Since this content is easily created by individuals and desired to exist on storage in general purpose computers, it is preferred to use the technology to restrict playing.
In addition, a person familiar with the state of the art could implement the process with analog and digital circuitry, either separate or in an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC). The analog and digital circuitry could include any combination of the following devices: a digital-to-analog converter (D/A), comparators, sample-and-hold circuits, delay elements, analog-to-digital converter (A/D), and programmable logic controllers (PLC).
The foregoing descriptions of the preferred embodiments of the technology have been presented to teach those skilled in the art how to best utilize the technology. Many modifications and variations are possible in light of the above teaching. For example, even though this disclosure discusses audio and the Internet, it is extendable to other types of content and distribution. To this end, the following claims define the scope and spirit of the presently claimed invention.
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/750,487, filed Mar. 30, 2010 (U.S. Pat. No. 8,095,989) which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/551,607, filed Oct. 20, 2006 (U.S. Pat. No. 7,690,041), which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/801,515, filed Mar. 7, 2001 (U.S. Pat. No. 7,127,744), which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/188,462, filed Mar. 10, 2000. The above patent documents are hereby incorporated herein by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4238849 | Gassmann | Dec 1980 | A |
4807031 | Broughton | Feb 1989 | A |
5410598 | Shear | Apr 1995 | A |
5450490 | Jensen et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
5459583 | Nakata | Oct 1995 | A |
5481294 | Thomas et al. | Jan 1996 | A |
5526427 | Thomas et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
5579124 | Aijala et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
5606609 | Houser et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
5629980 | Stefik et al. | May 1997 | A |
5721788 | Powell et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5748763 | Rhoads | May 1998 | A |
5765152 | Erickson | Jun 1998 | A |
5822436 | Rhoads | Oct 1998 | A |
5841978 | Rhoads | Nov 1998 | A |
5845281 | Benson et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5862260 | Rhoads | Jan 1999 | A |
5875249 | Mintzer et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5905800 | Moskowitz et al. | May 1999 | A |
5910987 | Ginter et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5912972 | Barton | Jun 1999 | A |
5930369 | Cox et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5940134 | Wirtz | Aug 1999 | A |
5943422 | Van Wie et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5963909 | Warren et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5991500 | Kanota et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5991876 | Johnson et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6021196 | Sandford et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6031815 | Heemskerk | Feb 2000 | A |
6044182 | Daly et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6049627 | Becker et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6061793 | Tewfik et al. | May 2000 | A |
6112008 | Sugita et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6122403 | Rhoads | Sep 2000 | A |
6131161 | Linnartz | Oct 2000 | A |
6141753 | Zhao et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6185683 | Ginter et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6209092 | Linnartz | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6226387 | Tewfik et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6229924 | Rhoads et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6230268 | Miwa et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6233347 | Chen et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6233684 | Stefik et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6240121 | Senoh | May 2001 | B1 |
6246775 | Nakamura et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6272176 | Srinivasan | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6272634 | Tewfik et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6278792 | Cox et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6282654 | Ikeda et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6285776 | Rhoads | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6311214 | Rhoads | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6314192 | Chen et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6314518 | Linnartz | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6332194 | Bloom et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6334187 | Kadono | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6342924 | Ikeda et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6370319 | Matsumoto et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6374036 | Ryan et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6398245 | Gruse et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6418232 | Nakano et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6421450 | Nakano | Jul 2002 | B2 |
6425081 | Iwamura | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6427012 | Petrovic | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6430301 | Petrovic | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6433946 | Ogino | Aug 2002 | B2 |
6434322 | Kimura et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6437933 | Sugiyama et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6449367 | Van Wie et al. | Sep 2002 | B2 |
6449425 | Ogino | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6456726 | Yu et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6473560 | Linnartz et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6505223 | Haitsma et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6526510 | Kori et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6530021 | Epstein et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6535614 | Kimura et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6560349 | Rhoads | May 2003 | B1 |
6571220 | Ogino et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6580806 | Sato | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6590997 | Rhoads | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6591365 | Cookson | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6601046 | Epstein | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6633723 | Kuroda et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6636551 | Ikeda et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6662198 | Satyanarayanan et al. | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6674858 | Kimura et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6674876 | Hannigan et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6687802 | Kori et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6700989 | Itoh et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6707774 | Kuroda et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6721437 | Ezaki et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6728390 | Rhoads et al. | Apr 2004 | B2 |
6744906 | Rhoads et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6807534 | Erickson | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6829368 | Meyer et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6834308 | Ikezoye et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6868497 | Levy | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6871180 | Neuhauser et al. | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6882728 | Takahashi et al. | Apr 2005 | B1 |
6947562 | Hashimoto | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6987862 | Rhoads | Jan 2006 | B2 |
7006659 | Kim et al. | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7010144 | Davis et al. | Mar 2006 | B1 |
7020304 | Alattar et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7035427 | Rhoads | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7046808 | Metois et al. | May 2006 | B1 |
7050603 | Rhoads et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7055034 | Levy | May 2006 | B1 |
7127744 | Levy | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7248717 | Rhoads | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7266704 | Levy | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7372976 | Rhoads et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
7499566 | Rhoads | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7555785 | Levy | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7593576 | Meyer et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7650009 | Rhoads | Jan 2010 | B2 |
7689532 | Levy | Mar 2010 | B1 |
7690041 | Levy | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7756892 | Levy | Jul 2010 | B2 |
7792325 | Rhoads et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7953270 | Rhoads | May 2011 | B2 |
7965863 | Jones | Jun 2011 | B2 |
8005254 | Rhoads | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8095989 | Levy | Jan 2012 | B2 |
20010021144 | Oshima et al. | Sep 2001 | A1 |
20010024510 | Iwamura | Sep 2001 | A1 |
20010028727 | Naito et al. | Oct 2001 | A1 |
20010047478 | Mase | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010051996 | Cooper et al. | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20010052076 | Kadono | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20020033844 | Levy et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020059580 | Kalker et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020067914 | Schumann et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020097873 | Petrovic | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020122567 | Kuzmich et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020156742 | Ogino et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020181732 | Safavi-Naini et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030009669 | White et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030112974 | Levy | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20040059581 | Kirovski et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040169581 | Petrovic et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040240846 | Cookson et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050065890 | Benaloh | Mar 2005 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1077570 | Feb 2001 | EP |
1223742 | Jul 2002 | EP |
WO0105075 | Jan 2001 | WO |
WO0139121 | May 2001 | WO |
WO0161508 | Aug 2001 | WO |
WO0207442 | Jan 2002 | WO |
WO0219589 | Mar 2002 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Jul. 27, 2005, Office Action From assignee's U.S. Appl. No. 10/017,678 (published as US 2002-0090114 A1) and Jul. 29, 2005; Amendment in response thereto. |
Subset of allowed claims and Sep. 7, 2005, Notice of Allowance and Issue Fee Due, each from Assignee's U.S. Appl. No. 10/017,678. |
U.S. Appl. No. 60/116,641, filed Jan. 21, 1999, Cookson. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/636,102, Ramos et al, filed Aug. 10, 2000. |
Craver et al., “Can Invisible Watermarks Resolve Rightful Ownerships?” IBM Technical Report RC 20509, Jul. 25, 1996, pp. 1-21. (also published Proc. SPIE—Int. Soc. Opt. Eng. vol. 3022, pp. 310-321, conf. Feb. 13-14, 1997). |
Zhao, “A WWW Service to Embed and Prove Digital Copyright Watermarks,” In Proc. of the European Conf. on Multimedia Applications, Services and Techniques, Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium, May 1996, 14 pages. |
Response to CfP for Technology Solutions to Screen Digital Audio Content for LCM Acceptance, NTT Waveless Radio Consotium, May 23, 1999, 9 pages. |
Microsoft Response to CfP for Technology Solutions to Screen Digital Audio Content for LCM Acceptance, SDMI, PDWG Tokyo, May 23, 1999, 9 pages. |
Audio Watermarking Architecture for Secure Digital Music Distribution. A Proposal to the SDMI Portable Device Working Group by ARIS Technologies, Inc, Mar. 26, 1999, pp. 1-9. |
Audio Watermarking Architectures for Persistent Protection, Presentation to SDMI PDWG, Mar. 29, 1999, pp. 1-16. |
Audio Watermarking System to Screen Digital Audio Content for LCM Acceptance, A Proposal Submitted in Response to PDWG99050504-Transition CfP by ARIS Technologies, Inc., Mar. 23, 1999, Document Version 1.0, 15 pages. |
Thomas, Keith, Screening Technology for Content from Compact Discs, May 24, 1999, 11 pages. |
Cookson, Chris, General Principles of Music Uses on Portable Devices, presented to SDML, Mar. 5, 1999, pp. 1-4. |
NEC Data Hiding Proposal Response to Call for Proposal Issued by the Data Hiding SubGroup, Copy Protection Technical Working Group, Oct. 1997. |
Philips Electronics, Response to Call for Proposals Issued by the Data Hiding SubGroup, Copy Protection Technical Working Group, 1997. |
Digital Audio Screening Technology for Phased Rollout, Version 1.00, Philips Research, Liquid Audio, Framhofer Institute, May 1999. |
Pierce et al, “Interim Report, Results of Phases I and II, Issued by the Data Hiding Subgroup, Copy Protection Technical Working Group,” May 1998. |
“AIPL Greyhound Overview,” Hand-out distributed at meeting of Secure Digital Music Initiative, Mar. 29, 1999, 1 page. |
“AIPL's Copy Management System,” distributed on or after Oct. 1999, 5 pages. |
AIPL, “Our Proposal for SDMI's Short-Term Objective,” privately distributed, Mar. 11, 1999, 9 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20130011003 A1 | Jan 2013 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60188462 | Mar 2000 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 12750487 | Mar 2010 | US |
Child | 13347449 | US | |
Parent | 11551607 | Oct 2006 | US |
Child | 12750487 | US | |
Parent | 09801515 | Mar 2001 | US |
Child | 11551607 | US |