Talk:Cinavia/Archive 1

Blu-Ray / DVD Watermarking

I added the DVD and Blu-Ray lists back in to the article. The "citation" can be found on the packaging (covers) of these video releases. For example, here -> [1] is the back cover of Salt. The lower left area has the pink Cinavia logo. I am not sure how to properly cite the video packaging as a source. If any more experienced editors know how to do so properly, please do so instead of deleting these lists as they are useful to people. - Artificial Silence (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

At this point I am not sure if Blu-Ray discs and DVD discs use the same Cinavia watermark. There may be a different one for AACS (Blu-Ray) and CSS (DVD). We know that there is a different watermark for theatrical releases and optical discs, since different behaviors are triggered on the PS3 for CAM bootlegs and Blu-Ray backups. So for now, I just added the section "List of Known DVD Releases with the Cinavia Watermark" for Takers until it is known if AACS and CSS use different Cinavia watermarks. - Artificial Silence (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is a mess, it needs clean up!

What's this? Look at this index; in its current form this has nothing to do on Wikipedia.

4 List of Known Releases with Cinavia Watermarking
4.1 Blu-ray
4.2 Blu-ray - Region C
4.3 HDTV Or TV
4.4 DVD
4.5 DVD - Screener
4.6 DVD - Region 5
4.7 Workprint
4.8 Digital Distribution Copy
4.9 Pay Per View
4.10 Telecine
4.11 Telesync Or Cam

Questions:

4.1 What region does does chapter 4.1 refer to?

4.4 What region does does chapter 4.4 refer to?

4.11 What is "Cam"?

Are1981 (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

A Cam is a video camera recording taken from inside a theater. It is similar to a Telesync except it uses the video camera's audio feed. You can see more in the link I have reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.169.136 (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

First edit :o, Smurfs WORKPRINT is protected by Cinavia Stalksta (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to be listing all the releases that use this technology! The list will keep growing and growing and I am sure websites will cover it, wiki doesn't need to. Perhaps just some examples will do nicely. Tyros1972 (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Devices with Cinavia

I removed NeoTV 550 from the list of devices with Cinavia protection. Back in February 2011, there was a lot of noise about this player being infested with Cinavia. However, when it hit the market, there was no Cinavia on it. Until anybody can confirm that a firmware update has been released that includes Cinavia detection, NeoTV should not be in this list. TrondM (talk) 12:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources

The current version of this article exclusively references verance.com (the developer's website) and cinavia.com (the website by the developer about the technology); both are primary sources and we need reliable, independent, secondary sources to achieve verifiability. —danhash (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Effect on lossless audio

As audio-watermarking on Blu-ray Discs introduces artifacts into lossless audio streams (within the human hearing frequency range), it is loathed by audiophiles as this necessarily means that all lossless audio tracks containing Cinavia are in fact no longer lossless. Thus future versions of watermarking will probably be applied to the (lossy) video streams rather than audio streams, as video streams are not lossless to begin with and so adding imperceptible artifacts will not be noticeable. - 168.140.181.4 (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This comment makes absolutely no sense --Spuzzdawg (talk) 09:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The comment makes perfect sense. Most Bd's these days come with DTS master audio. something that is supposed to be lossless and therefore identical to the studio recording. Introducing a watermark necessarily changes this. This fact is pertinent and should be included in the article if a reliable ref can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.212.184 (talk) 11:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

That should go in the article if it's a more destructive process than: Analogue audio recording, A/D conversion, mixing hundreds of tracks into 7, 5, or 2, compression/limiting, downsampling 96khz to 48khz, and all the rest of the sound production. Until your speakers stop producing a million times the distortion of Cinavia, there is no point in mentioning that it's no longer "pure" lossless. Foxyshadis^(talk) 23:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, we don't know, do we? Nobody has access to the audio track before Cinavia was applied to it, so it's effectively impossible to do a comparison to find out if Cinavia affects the sound, and if so, how much. TrondM (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

lossless is just a container format, which in fact has nothing to do with how it compares to the "original master". Lossless just means the audio has not been lossy compressed that's all. If "audiophiles" knew anything they'd understand there is no such thing as lossles when it comes to digital sampling, only analog is truly continuous and lossless. Tyros1972 (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Cinavia's technique is to use what they regard as an inaudible distortion (phase-domain) of the audio signal(s). whether or not this is actually discernable by "golden ears" or normal people or dogs or whatever remains to be proven, but for releases that are audio-only or especially feature audio content, it defeats the object of the high-resolution, high bitrate digital disc, which is to try to approach the transparency of a good analogue rendering of the content. Duncanrmi (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Article clean up

I have removed a large amount of unsourced information from the article. We do not need to list every player with Cinavia or every Blu-ray or other release with Cinavia. Such lists are not necessary, they are unmaintainable, and they are not relevant to the article (major notable players such as the PlayStation 3 may deserve mention, but not every single player). There are plenty of other online resources for users wishing to learn about a specific player or release's implementation of Cinavia or lack thereof. One way to determine if a player is notable enough for inclusion in this article is if the player has its own Wikipedia article and there are reliable, secondary sources discussing the player's inclusion or lack of Cinavia. One way to determine if a film, Blu-ray, or other type of release is notable enough for inclusion in this article is if there are reliable, secondary sources documenting Cinavia's effect on consumers relating to that specific film/release. Entries based off of information gathered from cams, screeners, workprints, R5s, telesyncs, telecines, and the like is not eligible for inclusion unless a reliable source can be found and cited stating the presence or absence of Cinavia for that release. —danhash (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment from a frequent reader: The list of infected players and titles was VERY USEFUL in order to guide consumers on what to buy and what to avoid!

Some of the information you deleted was researched, tested and posted by me. So - Terrific - nice job - you have now made this article mostly useless and we can delete it from our browser bookmarks! Watch out for verance staff or supporters preventing sharing of info in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.219.201 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not from verance nor am I a supporter of the watermark. There are websites dedicated to listing all of the players and movies such as Slysoft and DVDfab you can monitor them. Wikipedia does not need to maintain a list as it just gets messy and keep growing and growing. Wiki doesn't keep lists for ANY copy protection, that is not our purpose. Tyros1972 (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

66.234.219.201, please take a look at what Wikipedia is not. The article in its former state included a large amount of unsourced information which was likely original research. Feel free to improve the article but only with verifiable information. —danhash (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Be all of that as it may, this article went from being useful to not being useful. I'm all for Wiki's style guidelines though, so if it's in violation then that's that... Is there another method (a stub or something like) that could be used to maintain a list? It sure was useful, and while other sites may maintain lists, they are not as accurate as Wiki was back when it had a list. No other site is as thorough as WP's list was due to the lack of the sheer volume of editors. Jdbarras (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Useful or not, the list is not acceptable. This is an encyclopedia, and information needs to be properly verified and have some encyclopedic value. BTW, the reinstatement of the information was NOT vandalism, so Tyros, mind your 3R. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've reverted to a previous version without the lists. Unless this information can be verified, it does not belong, per WP:V. As Drmies points out, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All the back and forth reverting is unnecessary and will result in a trip to WP:ANEW, either source it, or leave it out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 08:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Stating that the information cannot be verified isn't strictly true, at least for Bluray/DVD releases containing Cinavia: To protect their proprietary DRM, Cinavia includes a "Protected by Cinavia.com" logo, incorporating 3 arcs. I agree that you'd find it difficult to verify all and sundry screeners, telesyncs and so on, but commercially pressed DVD's and Bluray's are, by definition standardized... and the presence of Cinavia is noted on the packaging, and thus can be disproven (or verified.) I agree that the page could become cumbersome including an ever increasing list of Cinavia DVD/Bluray releases. We should have, as many other entertainment wiki pages do, sub pages broken out by year, with a citation of the cover art (or IMO... numerous references to Cinavia's inclusion by independent contributors on DVDFab/Slysoft's forum.) E.G. a page title of "List of known 2012 Cinavia protected DVD and Bluray discs" 76.25.46.130 (talk) 06:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

put a link to the list if you think it's valuable for purposes of providing examples of this "protection" or an idea of how widespread is its use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duncanrmi (talk • contribs) 16:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Bluray.com shows the back cover of blurays with the watermark logo, you nerds need to find something better to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.186.195.29 (talk) 04:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Workaround

Cinavia is only able to detect the watermark if HDMI audio output is enabled. If one disables the HDMI output, and uses another audio output, for example TOSLINK or analog RCA audio connectors, Cinavia won't work and the user is able to watch pirated movies without being interrupted. (Posted @ [www.infobarrel.com/Cinavia_Message_Code_Workaround]) -Torriedekat (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

"Cinavia" is the trademarked name of the watermark in the analog audio. "Cinavia" itself can't detect or do anything. Only the player can if its firmware is programmed to recognize the watermark. The article linked (which can be written by anyone) makes no mention of which make and model of player was used, or its firmware version. The results achieved in the article are unique to the specific make, model, and firmware version used by its writer. It cannot be assumed that these results will be true for all makes, models, and firmware versions. It should also be mentioned that a user watching a backup copy of a Blu-Ray disc that they legitimately own is not "pirating movies." -Artificial Silence (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

this is atypical behaviour. even if the audio is on passthrough the player is intended to decode it to the extent that it can detect cinavia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.212.184 (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't you like hardware that works against you when you buy it? It occurs to me that if someone wanted to censor anything, they'd just add these watermarks. After a while, most devices and formats will disallow playback of the 'tainted' recordings of those sounds. I can see how it could be added by a device playing in a croud. In theory, you could add this sound as a prank to the background noise of events you didn't like. Sadly, I'm not the first, nor the last to realize this angle of abuse of watermarks. Someone is already putting the ones for preventing the copying of money into their legal documents. 71.196.246.113 (talk) 03:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the OP in this section is missing the point; the watermark works by telling the player to look for a key elsewhere on the disc. if the player cannot find it, there WILL BE NO AUDIO decoded, HDMI or TOSlink or RCA jacks, whatever. That's how it works.Duncanrmi (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you dont understand how this works. The player has to read an audio stream for some time period (a good few seconds) in the first place to be able to know if it should validate movie or BD protected content via Cinavia. If it doesnt get to read the audio stream then it doesnt trigger the cinavia warning. I have personally validated that this work around is correct and valid both for the PS3 and at least 1 commercial BD player, 195.110.70.45 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC) {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Another workaround would of course be not to use a Bluray player at all. A home-built HTPC wouldn't care about Cinavia, right? I love how sometimes problems solve themselves. 83.250.172.154 (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

If you don't use a BD player then how is it a "workaround"? A workaround would be to use the BD Player and some how fool it to bypass Cinavia on an unauthorized copy. Tyros1972 (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Lossless Audio and Cinavia

I think a criticism section would be worth while. I'm sure there are lots. but i have read a great deal of criticism over the use of DTS-HD master audio, lossless, in conjunction with Cinavia. Principally that if there i an audio watermark then the audio can't be lossless. Anyone want to take this on. Flagpolewiki (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

"Lossless" is a file format. It means that the audio uses compression to make it smaller but does not change the actual data. Watermarking cannot make a file no longer lossless since it is a file format. This is a misconception due to ignorance from the audio-phile community as they don't know what lossless means. They assume (and incorrectly) that is a 1:1 copy of the master audio, this is also not true. As stated it is a "file format" nothing more. Uncompressed, Lossy and Lossless they are just file formats and thus it is irelevant to add a section covering it since it is all based on ignorance and assumtions. Tyros1972 (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

with the greatest respect you are completely wrong. firstly it is a criticism. whether you believe it is correct is neither here nor there, it is a documented and often levelled criticism. the principal of wikipedia is neutrality. secondly lossless is not a file format. you do seem to have an idea what lossless means so i guess it's phrase file format that you don't understand. thirdly the use of cinavia with dts-HD MA does mean it is a lossless encoding but that it is not the same as the 'original movie's studio master soundtrack.' it is simply not the master audio track. and therefore not a lossless representation of the master audio. whenever you find yourself stating that the entire expert community is wrong, as you have done, you have to at least consider that it might be you. your definition of lossless/lossy is subtly wrong. it doesn't simply refer to degradation, the loss can be systematic too. in this case the audio track has changed, it is not lossless. Flagpolewiki (talk) 12:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Look up DTS Lossless and Dolby Lossless and see what they are. They are a file format (lossless compression) just like MLP, they aren't uncompressed PCM but PPCM (packed pcm). Other then that I can see you also have no clue what lossless compression is (FLAC, MLP etc.). I have no clue how you define it? but it is a file format. Case closed. I stand my ground. Tyros1972 (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Lossless simply is not a file format. it may be a characteristic of some file formats. but it is not a file format. It may be convenient to your agenda to now refer to DTS lossless. but i was talking about DTS-HD Master Audio. I know that lossless does not mean un compressed. everyone does. you are arguing against a point that nobody has ever made. your discussion of lossless is a complete red herring. the fact remains that DTS-HD Master Audio with cinavia is not a faithful reproduction of the Master Audio track which is how it is advertised. And more importantly for the purposes of wikipedia it is a widely held concern of the community. regardless of what you think. Flagpolewiki (talk) 10:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Lossless is a digital term and industry standard to define compression type. Dolby Digital AC3 and DTS CD/DVD are lossy compression. When they first came out with DVD-Audio MLP Lossless was used, this makes the PCM much smaller but unlike lossy it does not modify the PCN data. This results in a smaller file size. As for Blu-ray if you did 2 hours 96/24 7.1 (8 channels) uncompressed PCM you are looking at 30GB what's left for the video? Lossless brings it down to 10GB (less the half the size). DTS-HD Master Audio just has 2 streams lossless and a lossy - simular basis to mp3 lossless. You can believe whatever you want but you don't understand what "lossless" in the industry is and you are wrong. It is a file format, a type of compression just like .zip is for PCs. Thus watermarking cannot make it "no longer lossless" and this whol discussion is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyros1972 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I will say this. If you can find RS that supports that DTS/Dolby Lossless are advertized as 1:1 lossless copy of the movie soundtrack or whatever you are assuming it is, then feel free to add your section along with the RS. No one here will have a problem if you indeed can find RS to support what you and the audio-philes think it is...I can tell you right now you are wrong and will waste your time looking for RS. What you and the audio-philes are asking is does Cinavia degrade the quality? Since it is a data file instead of having 100% of the user data, Cinivia indeed takes some away. So now you have 99.8% or whatever it uses. So yes you have less "user data" and technically speaking it is less so quality isn't 100%, it's now 99.8%. But it is NOT false advertising as lossless is simply stating that it is NOT DTS/Dolby lossy compression but lossless. Tyros1972 (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

What you fail to understand is there is no such thing as "lossless" digitally speaking. All digital audio is "sampled" not continuous. Sampling saves a lot of space, and it is does that by sampling the audio many times per second. That is limiting the amount of times per second. Analog will record everything for 1 second of audio, digital sampling does not. CD will do 44,100 times, your BD Lossless does it 96000 times per second...that is not by definition "lossless" it is sampling. Only analog is truly lossless in that sense and thus if DTS/Dolby were stating a claim that it's lossless 1:1 analog copy recorded digitally (which they aren't) they are false advertising far beyond Cinavia. Do some research before you assume anything and the audio-philes don't seem to and that's why there is so many ignorance and misconceptions in that whole community. Tyros1972 (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Analog is not lossless. that is physically impossible. go look up quantum physics. 24.86.164.161 (talk) 11:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Obviously you're just trolling and did not take the time to read what I said in context. As I stated above "Only analog is truly lossless in that sense" in that it is continuous and does not do sampling. Do you have any other comments Mr. Scientist? Tyros1972 (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Disagreeing with you is not trolling. And i am not trolling, i just don't want to be ranted at. or insulted, or called names. All the marketing material for dts hd ma says it is the same as the studio's ma track. eg http://www.dts.com/professionals/sound-technologies/codecs/dts-hd-master-audio.aspx 'Because DTS-HD Master Audio is bit-for bit identical to the studio master...' In the case of cinavia and dts hd ma that is simply not true. it is absolutely not bit for bit identical to the studio master. i see arbitrarily you have decided it is 99.8% the same. 99.8% the same is 100% not identical. As far as i can tell this is exactly what you asked for and completely proves me right. I look forward to your apology. regards. Flagpolewiki (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Why did you post that under anon? How would I know it was you? No that is certainly not trolling but in the future use your login so I know it's you. Yes you are correct that it is "false advertising" or at least "Misrepresentation" of the format. That is certainly an Reliable Source, so feel free to add that in the article, be sure to include the RS. I will keep it on my watch list and make sure no one removes it and I agree that it belongs there. Tyros1972 (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't me posting anon re quantum physics. Flagpolewiki (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I added it in the article, I did not state the "lossless not being lossless" as the DTS-HD page clearly considers that compression. I still disagree that the term lossless is not being used as format type "while conserving file size and bandwidth" but it does state it is bit identical and that is a misrepresentation if cinavia is used with it.Tyros1972 (talk) 13:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Upon further research, I have decided to remove the article. There are 2 lossless audio formats for blu-Ray, DTS-HD Master Audio and Dolby TrueHD Lossless (which also claims the same thing).

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/consumer/technology/home-theater/dolby-truehd.html 'Dolby® TrueHD is a 100 percent lossless audio format that ensures you’ll experience movies and music that are identical to the studio masters '

Obviously it is because it is a file format (i.e. not lossy) so if Cinavia is used on the Studio Master, they will as stated make a bit identical copy.

I don't see any evidence to support your claims, it appears as I said you are misinterpreting what the term lossless means and is being used for. I don't see this making any sense, unless of course you don't know what lossless means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyros1972 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. —Sladen (talk) 11:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the section you added entitled Controversy With DTS-HD Master Audio. it's sourced and correct. lossless, file formats etc. are irrelevant, a distraction over nomenclature. DTS HD MA claims to be bit-for bit identical to the studio master. which is not the case. cinavia is obviously not used on the studio master because from this master are made the cinema, DVD, broadcast, download etc audio streams, all of which should contain different watermarks. and as i said before the fact that the controversy exists is sufficient for it's inclusion in the article for it to be reported in that context. just as one might include that people are narked from a fair use perspective. they are genuine criticisms in the sense that they exist. Flagpolewiki (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The VCMS/AV audio corruption is added earlier the process. They're going to have fun a few years when the distributors want to re-Telesync mega-high-quality from their cinema masters and burn those onto the latest-optical-disc-format-of-choice. Perhaps it would be worth complaining to the Advertising Standards Authority (United Kingdom) (or equivalent local organisation). If the mainstream newspapers picked up the complaint, we'd have something to report on. In the mean-time what do you suggest writing that is purely factual and would cover the topic; eg; "Cinavia watermarking is added before a soundtrack is exported the studio, meaning that the alterations and perturbations made by the watermark will remain indefinitely present is all further prints or media copies created from the altered copy". If that's not what you had in mind, are you able to suggest a better phrasing? —Sladen (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue (or technical controversy) here is consumers are not getting 100% data, they are getting 99.8% or whatever Cinavia uses (we don't know what it uses). The only evidence I have found concerning this has been some forum posts and most of them are simply misunderstanding what lossless means "Cinavia makes it not lossless" and stuff like that, but I understand what they mean and also personally agree with it but don't think we have enough evidence. As I said this has nothing to do with the lossless encoding formats, it is entirely a separate issue.Tyros1972 (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

But this isn't related to DTS/DD-lossless transport mechanisms, which are delivering the audio tracks just as the studio intended them to be delivered. There is no loss involved in the audio transport mechanism. There is corruption (not loss), but that corruption (not loss) is precisely as the studio (== members of AACS LA) intended the corruption to be delivered. I do see your point about corruption (not loss), but ideally we need to find ways of explaining the corruption (not loss) that are purely factual. The reality of the modern cinema experience is automated popcorn machines, projectionists who leave the wrong lenses on, and a corrupted audio streams. That said, it is precisely as the studios and distributors intended it to be delivered. —Sladen (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Very well stated. I was using the wrong terminology, yes it is certainly not related to DTS/DD so that's out of the picture. data corruption not loss indeed is a better way of stating this. They are corrupting user data as a means of DRM. Since this whole debate was based on misunderstanding of DTS/DD lossless it was never delivered properly, but still it does exist. At least we have the proper terminology and description to use, of course we need to find RS concerning it.Tyros1972 (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Patent sources

Apparent Cinavia patents (transcribed + formatted as best I can). List as given in the list originally posted at AVSForum by AV journalist "Ruined"; and subsequently linked highlight on Wikipedia by User:Tyros1972 yesterday [2].

1. US application 2010111355, Petrovic, Rade; Tehranchi, Babak & Winograd, Joseph M. et al., "Methods and Apparatus for Enhancing the Robustness of Watermark Extraction from Digital Host Content", published 2010-05-06, assigned to Verance Corporation 
2. US patent 8085935, Petrovic, Rade, "Embedding and Extraction of Information from an Embedded Content Using Replica Modulation", published 2009-10-22, issued 2001-12-27, assigned to Verance Corporation 
3. US patent 7289961, Bocko, Mark F. & Ignjatovic, Zeljko, "Data hiding via phase manipulation of audio signals", published 2005-02-10, issued 2007-07-30, assigned to University of Rochester 
4. US application 2006239501, Petrovic, Rade; Tehranchi, Babak & Winograd, Joseph M. et al., "Security enhancements of digital watermarks for multi-media content", published 2006-10-26, assigned to Verance Corporation .
   • Continued and republished as US application 2012017091, Petrovic, Rade; Tehranchi, Babak & Winograd, Joseph M. et al., "Security enhancements of digital watermarks for multi-media content", published 2012-01-19, assigned to Verance Corporation 
5. Google patents search for "Rade Petrovic"
6. Google patents search for "Babak Tehranchi"
7. US patent 7606366, Petrovic, Rade, "Apparatus and Method for Embedding and Extracting Information in Analog Signals using Distributed Signal Features and Replica Modulation", published 2004-08-05, issued 2009-10-20, assigned to Verance Corporation 
8. US patent 7024018, Petrovic, Rade, "Watermark Position Modulation", published 2002-11-14, issued 2006-04-04, assigned to Verance Corporation 
9. US patent 6737957, Petrovic, Rade & Winograd, Joseph M., "Remote control signaling using audio watermarks", issued 2004-05-18, assigned to Verance Corporation 
10. WO application 2008013894, Tehranchi, Babak; Petrovic, Rade & Winograd, Joseph M. et al., "Signal continuity assessment using embedded watermarks", published 2008-01-03 

Would somebody be able to help check this list over for transcription errors (compared with the original forum post)? —Sladen (talk) 12:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

How do we know US patent 7289961 is being used by Verance for Cinavia? Also the last entry for US application 20080002854 the link doesn't work. Other then that it looks good to me. Thank you for all your help.Tyros1972 (talk) 11:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Good catch; the last one was a WIPO patent, not a US patent. I've changed the "US" into "WO" and put that reference number in instead, and hopefully it works now. In response to whether we now, we don't, ideally we find third party reliable sources (conference papers and magazine articles—not random forums threads) that state how the technology works. The AACS LA has a technical standard that states the requirements for the Blu-Ray and VCMS/AV; but whether the the AACS LA publish this or not I don't know. Perhaps you can help with hunting it down? That said, the patents are a pretty good indicator to what's happening, as if they weren't they'd be lying. (The deal with patents is that you get a limited short-term monopoly, but only in-exchange for fully declaring your discoveries, for the furtherance of humanity). The other things to do would be to find a manual, or Blu-Ray devices that says "contents technology covered by patents NNNN, NNNN, NNNN, … —Sladen (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a look at the AACS PDFs and see what I can find, and also look for other RS we can use. Good idea about the manuals, I will also search for those and see.Tyros1972 (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Wording is likely to be of the form per User manual / Mode d’emploi / Manual del usuario (PDF). Philips. 12 March 2012. p. 2. Retrieved 5 September 2012. This product incorporates proprietary technology under license from Verance Corporation and is protected by U.S. Patent 7,369,677 and other … {{cite book}}: |first= missing |last= (help); |work= ignored (help) which is US patent 7369677, Petrovic, Rade; Tehranchi, Babak & Winograd, Joseph M., "System reactions to the detection of embedded watermarks in a digital host content", published 26 October 2006, issued 6 May 2008, assigned to Verance Corporation  —Sladen (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I downloaded and searched all the AACS LA site and there is nothing in those concerning this. I'll keep searching and looking for manuals as well.Tyros1972 (talk) 11:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The AACS LA final adopter agreements that the Verance press releases repeatedly refer to, appear to be the ones on the www.aacsla.com/license page. These three 180 page+ agreements (for "AACS Adopters", "Content Providers", "Content Participants" respectively) contain various definitions; eg. "2.27 “Intermittent Mode” means screening of Audiovisual Content by configuring an Audio Watermark Detector to use the Intermittent Mode Duty Cycle as defined in the Cinavia Specifications."; "2.37 “No Home Use Mark” means the Audio Watermark state designated as “No Home Use” in the applicable Cinavia Specification,"; "2.42 “Primary Enforcement Logic (“PEL”)”"; "2.45 “Secondary Enforcement Logic (“SEL”)” … is enforceable in Long Form Content by finding the Trusted Source Mark in at least 13 out of 15 sequential 100-second screening intervals," (which is where the various ~20-minute intervals cut in). These are all ultimately bumped back the definition of "2.16 “Cinavia Specifications” means all documents necessary to implement the Cinavia audio watermark as provided by Verance Corporation. Such documents include, but are not limited to, the Cinavia Integrated Product Specification, the Cinavia System Specification, and the Cinavia Detector Specification."; "2.12 “Audio Watermark” means the audio watermark described in the Cinavia Specifications where such audio watermark contains the AACS Trusted Source State and/or the AACS No Home Use State." and places the requirement to sign up with Verance as "1.42 “Eligible Watermark Content Participant” means a Content Participant under a Final Content Participant Agreement that: (i) has signed a license Agreement with Verance Corporation to embed the Audio Watermark," (all from [3]). Most interesting for me was perhaps spotting "If Content Provider embeds the AACS No Home Use State in a given Theatrical Release of Digital Entertainment Content in any country of the world, then Content Provider shall, within the later of (a) fourteen (14) months of such first Theatrical Release,", thus stating that follow-up disc releases must be made for watermarked Cinema releases. —Sladen (talk) 12:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah I was looking at the WRONG page! I downloaded and searched all the AACS PDFs but they weren't there. Good find! I am glad you got them. So they actually require the disc release to update the code, so that the pirated version will also play? Tyros1972 (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I presume the 14-month republishing demand it is there with the intention to avoid the Fansub/Anime argument that since the content has not been released there is no way to purchase it, and therefore no revenue loss to the originator. However this is speculation on my part. The 14-month time requirement has nothing per-se to do with watermarking. For the second part; what do you mean by 'pirated version'? (The word "piracy" does not appear in these AACS LA documents, or at least I can't find it). The AACS LA documents do define terms such as "2.37 “No Home Use Mark” … (e.g., pre-release or working prints of a theatrical release, theatrical release prints, airline and non-theatrical public venue releases such as to cruise ships, military bases, etc.)" and "2.50 “Trusted Source Mark” … Note: Trusted Source Mark replaces the term “Consumer Mark” that was used in the Interim AACS Compliance Rules.", along with the aforementioned Enforcement Logic, Actions and Message Codes 1–4. —Sladen (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I meant if a "pirated" copy is released on the net before the BD release, and if you have that it won't play. But when you buy the BD it updates the mark so it will play? That's what I meant as didn't fully understand the " follow-up disc releases " but that's probably not what it is. I know AACS keys can be updated or banned, but wasn't sure about Cinavia. Tyros1972 (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

A cam (bootleg) recording of a theatre release will contain the "No Home Use" flag in the audio watermark, and so played on consumer equipment is designed to (indefinitely) trigger Code 1/2. Can you suggest how we could reword the present article text for greater prominence? —Sladen (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

OK I understand now. The way you worded it above would be easier to understand concerning that, but other then that, the article is fine as is.Tyros1972 (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The thesis Sui, Jiayuan (2008). A Security Analysis of Some Physical Content Distribution Systems (PDF) (Thesis). University of Waterloo. lead me to "How does Verance's VCMS/AV Watermarking Technology help you manage your content?". Verance. Archived from the original on 23 February 2008. and also an earlier revision of the page with intact diagrams and a different wording "How does Verance's VCMS/AV Watermarking Technology help you manage your content?". Verance. Archived from the original on 4 March 2007. —Sladen (talk) 08:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thesis: Pérez Freire, Luis (2008). Digital Watermarking Security (PDF) (Thesis). Universidade de Vigo., although nothing much useful. —Sladen (talk) 09:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thesis: Brett, Andreas (13 April 2009). Trusted Watermarks (PDF) (Thesis) (in English/German). p. 58. Retrieved 4 September 2009.{{cite thesis}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link) —Sladen (talk) 09:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

These papers may also turn something up: doi:10.1109/TELSKS.2011.6112006 doi:10.1109/TELSKS.2009.5339512 doi:10.1145/1161366.1161394 —Sladen (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

So are we going to add these to the main article? They have been sitting here a long time and I think they belong in there. Tyros1972 (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Go for it, it's a Wiki! —Sladen (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

OK I added them. If you think they should be moved go ahead and do that as I wasn't sure where to place them? I put them after history. Tyros1972 (talk) 10:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

New Info Box

An "Encryption Method" info box was added. Except... Cinavia is not an encryption method. It does nothing to encrypt anything. It is a watermark. The logo was also deleted. I've not the time or the energy to fight or edit war with anyone. But I'd at least like to point out somewhere (here I guess) the inaccuracy of calling Cinavia an "encryption." -Artificial Silence (talk) 04:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Which Infobox would you suggest? (I'm happy to use any, the previous one was designed for brands of washing powder and so-forth; while not perfect the Infobox encryption fields are slightly more relevant). Yes you are right about the logo. Can you find/suggest a suitable infobox that perhaps also includes a logo, or perhaps we could add it above/below? —Sladen (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks to User:Aspects for adding[4] the image= field again. —Sladen (talk) 06:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

List of Discs with Cinavia Protection

I would like to see a list of discs that use Cinavia protection (probably on a new, related page), but I am not sure if it would be appropriate for Wikipedia. I found a list at http://blog.dvdfab.com/cinavia-protection.html, but I do not know if it is kept current or not. A list that everyone could contribute to would be helpful. Your opinions? Raran75 (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

There used to be a list and it was decided that was not the purpose of the article. However, I can't say if you created a new page (like they do for TV Episodes) and linked that in the article that maybe OK. I can't say if it will be deleted? But adding it in the article it will be reverted for certain. Tyros1972 (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cinavia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121118095900/http://slysoft.com/download/changes_anydvd.txt to http://www.slysoft.com/download/changes_anydvd.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)