Karaoke Forums

Here's another shocker for you: I'm not on Twitter either. But since you don't believe anything, I'll leave it up to your magic MicroSoft tools to prove that there is a reason to believe you and ask you to put up or shut up if you can find me on a torrent, IRC or Twitter.

It's the most popular song of his. and the bar staff loves it. Paradigm Karaoke was the VERY first to recieve this track when they were completed.
As far as the torrents are concerned: the only Red Peters songs that are present (according to others that have read you accusation) are the re-recorded tracks that were made by SC (3 tracks) and none of mine. Another misdirection by you that has been dispelled... as baloney.

Your disbelief that the tracks are out there doesn't negate the fact that they are.

Do you think they are immune from piracy because you were involved in their production?

_________________
-Chris

Found this stuff in less than 30 seconds. Gee maybe SC should check it out...or is that PEP now.

http://kickasstorrent.proxyindex.eu/red ... .html#main

BALLAD OF A DOG NAMED STAINS - RED PETERS - SC8927-15.mp3 4.14 MB
YOU AIN'T GETTIN' S### FOR CHRISTMA - RED PETERS - SC8900-10.mp3 4.03 MB
HOLY S### IT'S CHRISTMAS - RED PETERS - SC8780-01.mp3 3.02 MB
HOW'S YOUR WHOLE FAMILY - RED PETERS - SC8532-09.mp3 2.52 MB
YOU PROMISED THE MOON (BUT I PREFER - RED PETERS.mp3 2.28 MB
BLOW ME (YOU HARDLY EVEN KNOW ME) - RED PETERS - SC8532-08.mp3 2.24 MB
Ams2001-15 - Peters, Red - Blow Me.mp3 1.98 MB
BALLAD OF A DOG NAMED STAINS - RED PETERS - SC8927-15.cdg 1.86 MB
YOU AIN'T GETTIN' S### FOR CHRISTMA - RED PETERS - SC8900-10.cdg 1.81 MB
HOLY S### IT'S CHRISTMAS - RED PETERS - SC8780-01.cdg 1.36 MB
HOW'S YOUR WHOLE FAMILY - RED PETERS - SC8532-09.cdg 1.13 MB
YOU PROMISED THE MOON (BUT I PREFER - RED PETERS.cdg 1.03 MB
BLOW ME (YOU HARDLY EVEN KNOW ME) - RED PETERS - SC8532-08.cdg 1.01 MB
Ams2001-15 - Peters, Red - Blow Me.cdg

OBTW just googled Red Peters irc and was the 5th item down. Went to the site to see what was there but didn't d/l anything.

_________________
I like everyone when I first meet them. If you don't like me that's not my problem it's YOURS!
A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet

All of these tracks were done by either AmeriSing or Sound Choice and not mine. Notice that "The Closing Song" is not in the list... Nor are any of the many others from his albums.

His tracks are watermarked..... thank you very much.

Yup LW... You didn't list one single title there that isn't already out there on a SC disc. I thought the point of your listing all of that, was to show ALL of Red Peter's work out there on at least one torrent site (not the ones that were already out there on known labels such as SC and AMS).

You can keep your head in the sand, but the tracks are out there. They aren't as easy to find as other tracks that have been I the wild for much longer, but they are out there.

Are the tracks watermarked on the fly so they can be tracked to the purchaser? That is a pretty sophisticated process to implement.

Time for some digital forensics......

_________________
-Chris

Not for nothing Chris, but instead of being insulting about this ("note "head in sand" comment), why don't you help out a fellow KJ? You said that ALL of Red Peters stuff is out there on various torrent sites. Why don't you just BE NICE (instead of adversarial) to Chip, and drop him a PM with a URL that has all of those exclusive (never released on any brand other than the ones Chip worked on with Red Peters). You don't have to post it out here for everyone else to see. Be a Mench and offer a peace pipe. Sometimes a nice gesture can go a long way between adversaries.

Even if *I* sent the info, there is absolutely nothing that can be done about it. Nada. Zilch. Zippo. The pee is in the pool and there is no way to remove it except by draining the pool. That will NEVER happen. It is simply impossible to remove the tracks from the pirate sites and I know this from experience. Some torrent sites will abide by a DMCA take down notices and remove trackers, but iRC networks rarely do.

My only point in this is that Red Peters tracks are no different from Sound Choice, or any other label. They aren't excluded from piracy. All of the Jonathan Coulton tracks are out there to. It sucks across the board for every karaoke company and there is nothing that anyone can do about it.

Besides, I know that Chip is a smart, resourceful guy and could figure it all out himself without anyone else helping him if he was really interested in doing so.

_________________
-Chris

So you are though you are hell-bent on finding some way to bypass the digital protection/identification in the track that you have purchased, please knock yourself out. Make sure that you come back here and tell everyone in the world what you discovered about the watermarking. And yes, it is a "pretty sophisticated process to implement."

I'll have to check the sales records to see if you have purchased more than a single track – for your multiple systems.

Don't forget when sound choice comes out with their brand-new "advanced purchased" songs, that you also perform the same digital forensics on their watermarked tracks and report to the world how to defeat those as well.

It amazes me when I point out your FUD and dispel it and expose it for what it truly is, your response is to attempt to distract the entire planet from the point that what you said – was simply a lie.

Exactly what am I lying about?

_________________
-Chris

You claim that all the tracks are out there....

Now you're claiming that they are "hard to find?" Really?

Because others here have called you out, you want now to insinuate that THEY are obviously incompetent to find what only you "the expert" can readily find?

Then show us where it is ('o great one) because we are all humbled by your presence.

Technically, those last two statements about the song tracks are not a lie.

Maybe he found them on the "Dark Web."

Exactly who besides you has called me out? Your anonymous sources? I don't really care if you have any or who they are, but don't claim that others have called me out using you as a proxy.

Since no one else has called me out but you, I will skip the insinuation and proceed directly to calling YOU incompetent. I am no expert, but I do have some basic skills that ANYONE (even you!) can gain.

I don't have to prove myself here. I have nothing to gain or lose either way. Plus, I believe that in this instance, I can stand simply on my word.

But just to humor you.....

If the tracks are truly NOT in the wild, then it would be a hit on my credibility. It would give you something to screenshot and pack away only to dredge up in some future argument when you are cornered and have no other means of countering. Plus, if the tracks are NOT out there, it means that Red Peters' tracks are safe and he isn't losing any money. That would actually all be a good thing for him. And something MOST of us would like to see for all karaoke tracks and companies.

If the tracks ARE in the wild (and they are) then Red Peters' is a victim of piracy just like everyone else. It sucks, but it is the current cost of doing business in a digital world. It also means that something you were involved in has been pirated and I am sure that just rubs you all kinds of wrong which is why you are trying to discredit me in the first place.

My watermarking investigation post is coming up.....but here is a preview -

Chip lied.

_________________
-Chris

That's unsurprising for several reasons, but probably the most important one is that individualized watermarking is extremely difficult to accomplish without interfering with the integrity of the track. In fact, that's probably the most technologically challenging aspect of our new production plan.

This accusation is completely unfounded and sensationalist. All I said was "Time for some digital forensics.....". My purpose for that is not to circumvent the watermarking, but to see if it exists at all *and* to see if YOU are telling the truth.

Let’s get to it…..

While it is feasible that Red Peters, Oglio (the company that processes the purchase), or whoever else is involved with the creation of the tracks has implemented a watermarking system, I find it very difficult to believe this to be true for just 21 karaoke tracks that aren't really all that popular compared to the rest of the karaoke world. If it were an easy thing to implement, ALL of the karaoke companies would be doing it and we would have heard about it.


And here are the results.....

I bought the same track - RedPeters-HolyShitItsChristmas-MXP-119.ZIP - using two different emails, two different names, two different PayPal accounts.
The emails are valid. The names are valid. The PayPal accounts are both valid, and both mine. (Something Chip should be able to verify)

Interestingly, I received unique payment receipts (one at each email address used) from Oglio Entertainment. However, I only received a single purchase receipt from the Red Peters site, to only one of the email addresses provided, with only a single download link. I just tried using the download link and recieved this message -

"This download is no longer valid, Please contact the site administrator for more information."

So, how am I supposed to re-download in the future if I lose the file?

Fortunately, at the time of purchase, a download link is provided in the web browser. Which is how I actually downloaded the files.

I downloaded each zip file to different directories to ensure no cross pollination.
The downloads were ~4 mins apart according to file stamps on the ZIP files.
I extracted each file to its own directory.

The .CDG files for both have identical Modified dates – 11/18/2011 at 8:33am which indicates they are the exact same file and have not been modified since that date.

The .MP3 files for both also have identical Modified dates – 10/19/2015 at 4:14pm which were modified about the time I purchased. However, since both have the same Modified date and time, this indicates they are the same file.

My Initial Conclusion – The MP3 might be watermarked, but not on a per sale basis and not uniquely traceable to the purchaser. This amounts to not watermarking at all if it is the same watermark for multiple purchases and proves to be completely useless.
I then used 2 different file comparison utilities. They look at binary/hex differences in files and display the results in an easy to read format.

ExamDiff – Reported all files as identical.

However, it is a very simplistic file comparison utility and intended more for looking at text based files. So I used another app to verify.

BeyondCompare – Reported all files as identical

This utility provides much more detail and shows differences at a Hex and a Binary level (you can’t get any deeper than binary unless you go atomic and that would be on the storage media itself, not within the file). All files are binary identical.

BeyondCompare has the added feature of specifically comparing MP3 files. It indicated both are identical as well.


My Secondary Conclusion – All of the files are identical. They may be watermarked, but they are not uniquely traceable to the purchaser.

I wasn’t satisfied though……

Since I did all of this from the same computer, I wanted to validate my findings by using different PC’s. I did this because there are methods to uniquely identify hardware via the web browser which could in turn be used to generate a watermark tied to a device. Of course this doesn’t do the seller much good since the MP3+G is portable and because hardware in a device can change or simply be transferred to someone else, thus breaking the tracking chain.

I also used the same Internet connection and thus the same IP. While that could also be used for identification, it suffers from a similar issue as the hardware check above. IP addresses are dynamic for most consumers and subject to change. But just to make sure, I decided to use 2 different PC’s on two different IP addresses for test #2.

For this test I appropriately used “Blow Me” as my test track.

Machine #1 – Used my mobile phone as a hotspot.

Machine #2 – Used my home Internet connection

Machine #3 – Used my mobile hot spot (not the phone above and also with a different carrier)

This time I waited about 25 minutes between downloads 1 and 2 and performed download #3 about 1.5 hours later.
I performed the same tests.

Same results - Both utilities report all files as being identical.

(Notably, I received Oglio purchase receipts at each email address, and again only one Receipt email from the Red Peters site for 3 purchases and again, the download link does not work. If you choose to buy tracks here, make sure you download from the web page link immediately to a safe place and back up since you won’t be able to re-download again after you close your browser or go to another page)

My final conclusion and one that was made with irrefutable proof is that the files are identical


In my previous post I said “Chip Lied”. That isn’t entirely fair.



I can’t state that the tracks aren’t watermarked at all, but I can state that multiple downloads of the exact same track are identical and thus any included watermarking is also identical. This renders the watermarking useless for tracking to a purchaser or an account. Those so inclined to pirating the tracks don’t appear to have anything to fear about being caught with a track purchased by someone else because there is no way to prove it.

Chip’s intent with his watermarking claim is that it is being used as a means of tracking individual purposes and perhaps as a deterrent to piracy. Neither is true since it is easily proven that multiple purchases of the same tracks are identical.

But I am going to stick with "Chip Lied" because I believe we all understand where he was going with his statement.

So Red Peters is in the same boat as all other karaoke companies. They know how many they sold, but they cannot trace those files to an account, PC, email address, or even a person.

Besides, *IF* they were watermarking, they are somewhat obligated to tell their customers. Especially since they don't seem to allow you to re-download. A multi-rigger who purchases 2 copies for two systems may inadvertently delete one of those. Since he can't re-download or just out of simplicity, they would likely just copy from one system another to get their second copy back and make use of what they paid for. This would break unique watermarking as well.

Finally.....



Do you really want someone with an axe to grind, and a litigious history, knowing your personal information?

It should also be noted that there is no EULA or TOS posted anywhere on the site. Neither is included with the purchase receipt email or download link email. Huge oversight and provides a gaping loophole for a single purchase and use on multiple systems *OR* simply giving the track away *OR* pretty much doing whatever you want with it since there don't seem to be any restrictions at all.

Seems to me that without any kind of agreement in place, one can do whatever they want with the tracks after they obtain them.

_________________
-Chris

Um, mic drop.

_________________
DJ Don

Please include the screenshot of the credit screen where you can point out that it plainly says; "Watermarked - Do Not Copy"

You "somewhat" don't pay attention apparently.

I figured my post was long enough. But since you brought it up..... It actually says "Watermarked do not duplicate".

You "absolutely" do not know your own stuff.

The wording also implies that you can't duplicate because they are watermarked. Since they aren't watermarked, is duplication allowed?

No matter, those 4 little words have not prevented the tracks from being pirated any more than the more detailed and pointed wording on lots of other more popular karaoke discs. Maybe a different font or size would do the trick?

Also, your consistency is lacking. While that wording does appear on the "Holy (@$%&#!), It's Christmas!" and "The Closing Song" closing screens -

(Permission granted by Chip to post screenshots)



It is noticeably missing from the "Blow Me" track -



Since it is devoid of a copyright mark, rights reserved notice, or bogus watermarking claim I am guessing that provides a lot of wiggle room.

Furthermore, for the tracks where it does appear, a KJ who reads that and believes they are watermarked may be lulled into a false sense of security and protection. They may feel that the claimed watermarking may help prevent a sub-contracted KJ from stealing the tracks.

They may also feel the claimed watermarking gives them recourse if they suspect a sub-contracted KJ did steal the tracks. If they were to sue a subcontractor for suspected theft and needed proof, they could subpoena the watermark information from the responsible parties to prove they purchased it and not the subcontractor who stole it from them. If it is discovered the watermarking does not actually exist, it might be possible to hold someone liable for not providing the protections claimed to be there.

Besides, enterprising pirates and even regular old KJ's may replace the .CDG file with one of there own to improve the wipes or use their own graphics, or even just to remove the dkUSA and Music Express info. I mean seriously, who wants to advertise on behalf of someone else? (We aren't your partner) Especially another KJ? Or maybe they just don't like the trade dress. Either way, replacing the CDG file would eliminate any claimed watermark in the CDG all together.

_________________
-Chris

Copyright notice is not required for a valid claim of copyright, at least not since 1987 when the Berne Convention came into effect in the United States.

Otherwise, spot on.

I stand corrected. Thank you, Jim.

_________________
-Chris