method to protect multimedia content in future GLVWULEXWLRQFKDQQHOVGXHWRLWVSDVVLYHDQGÀH[- ible nature. With the success of this technology, the amount of potentially watermarked content transferred via the Internet will increase. This includes legal but also illegal channels. More DQG PRUH FRQWHQW LQ ¿OHVKDULQJ QHWZRUNV DQG on pirate Web sites will need to be scanned for an embedded watermark. Therefore the need for HI¿FLHQWZDWHUPDUNGHWHFWLRQZLOOLQFUHDVH$IDVW GHFLVLRQLIDPHGLD¿OHLVPDUNHGRUQRWLVYLWDO when dealing with a multitude of content to be scanned. This may lead to the common usage of meta-watermarks or templates (Pereira & Pun, 2000), which on the one hand increase the deci- sion about the presence of a watermark, but on the other hand easily become the target of attacks against watermarking algorithms.
The development of presence watermarks allowing distinguishing between marked and unmarked content therefore will be an important
future trend and challenge. Special attention will be placed on high robustness and security, while watermark payload is of no concern: The mark is the message.
$QDOWHUQDWLYHWRHPEHGGLQJDVSHFL¿FPHWD watermark into the content can be to utilise the area of steganalysis (Fridrich & Goljan, 2002; Johnson & Jajodia, 1998; Ozer, Avcibas, Sankur, & Memon, 2003) where researchers aim at distinguishing between marked and unmarked content by scanning for typical artefacts or char- DFWHULVWLFVRIZDWHUPDUNVHPEHGGHGE\DVSHFL¿F algorithm. While the current research has the security of embedding algorithms in focus and is used to identify hidden information channels, the results of this research can also be used to TXLFNO\GHWHUPLQHLIDPHGLD¿OHLVSRWHQWLDOO\ marked by an algorithm the scanning party has DGHWHFWRUIRU,IWKLVLVWKHFDVHWKH¿OHFDQEH passed on to the detection algorithm. Of course, this approach is only applicable if the steganalysis process is faster than watermark detection (see chapter XII, Steganalysis: Trends and Challenges
and chapter X, Computational Aspects of Digital Steganography). This is especially the case if the artefacts of an embedding process are easier to ¿QGWKDQWKHHPEHGGHGZDWHUPDUN
A third and already mentioned technology to LPSURYHWKHGHFLVLRQVSHHGRIZKHWKHUDPHGLD¿OH is marked or not, is robust hashing. To circumvent WKHQHHGWRVFDQHYHU\PHGLD¿OHIRUDZDWHUPDUN any party using watermarking could submit a robust hash of marked content to a central data- base, building up an index of potentially marked FRQWHQW)RUHDFKPHGLD¿OHIRXQGE\DVHDUFKLQJ party its robust hash can then be checked for its presence in this index. Only if the check is posi- tive, searching for an embedded watermark would be initiated. Similar to meta-watermarking, this DSSURDFKZRXOGVSHHGXSWKH¿OWHULQJSURFHVVDV robust hash calculation is usually faster than wa- termark detection. But attacks against the robust hash characteristics may also be possible masking marked content from the searching party.
REFERENCES
Allamanche, E., Herre, J., Helmuth, O., Fröba, B., Kasten, T., & Cremer, M. (2001). Content-based LGHQWL¿FDWLRQ RI DXGLR PDWHULDO XVLQJ 03(* low level description. In Electronic Proceedings of the International Symposium of Music Infor- mation Retrieval.
Anderson, D. P., Cobb, J., Korpela, E., Lebofsky, M., & Werthimer, D. (2002, November). SETI@ home: An experiment in public-resource com- puting. Communications of the ACM, 45(11), 56-61.
Andrews, R. (2005). Copyright infringement and the Internet: An economic analysis. Journal of Science & Technology Law, 11(2).
Anderson, R. J. (Ed.). (1996). Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Information Hiding. (LNCS 1174). London: Springer.
Belloni, S., Formaglio, A., Menegaz, G., Tan, H. Z., Prattichizzo, D., & Barni, M. (2006, Fe- bruary). Is haptic watermarking worth it? In B. E. Rogowitz, T. N. Pappas, & S. J. Daly (Eds.),
3URFHHGLQJVRI63,(+XPDQ9LVLRQDQG Electronic Imaging XI.
Biddle, P., England, P., Peinado, M., & Willman, B. (2003, January). The darknet and the future of content protection.ACM Workshop on DRM
(LNCS 2696).
Cayre, F., Fontaine, C., & Furon, T. (2005, October). Watermarking security: Theory and practice. IEEE Transactions on Signal Process- ing, 53(10).
&R[,- 0LOOHU0/7KH¿UVW\HDUV of electronic watermarking. EURASIP Journal on Applied Signal Processing, 2, 126-132.
Cox, I. J., Miller, M., & Bloom, J. (2002). Dig-
ital watermarking. San Diego, CA: Academic
Craver, S. A., Wu, M., & Liu, B. (2001). What can we reasonably expect from watermarks?
In Proceedings of the IEEE Workshop on the
Applications of Signal Processing to Audio and Acoustics (pp. 223-226).
Digimarc Cooperation. (2006). Digimarc digital image watermarking guide. Retrieved March 21, from http://www.digimarc.com/comm/docs/Wa- termarkingGuide.pdf
Digital Display Working Group. (1999, April).
Digital visual interface, DVI. Retrieved March 21, from http://www.ddwg.org/lib/dvi_10.pdf Electronic Frontier Foundation. (2007). EFF: Sony BMG litigation. Retrieved March 21, from http://www.eff.org/IP/DRM/Sony-BMG/
Fridrich, J., & Goljan, M. (2002). Practical stega- nalysis—State of the art. In Proceedings of the
SPIE Symposium on Electronic Imaging, San
Jose, CA.
Haitsma, J., Kalker, T., & Oostveen, J. (2001). 5REXVWDXGLRKDVKLQJIRUFRQWHQWLGHQWL¿FDWLRQ In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Content-Based Multimedia Indexing.
Halderman, J. A. (2002). Evaluating new copy- prevention techniques for audio CDs. In Proceed- ings of the ACM Workshop on Digital Rights
Management. New York: ACM Press.
Johnson, N., & Jajodia, S. (1998). Steganalysis: The investigation of hidden information. In Pro-
ceedings of the IEEE Information Technology
Conference.
2]HU+$YFÕEDV,6DQNXU% 0HPRQ1 (2003, January). Steganalysis of audio based on audio quality metrics. Security and Watermarking
RI0XOWLPHGLD&RQWHQWV9 of Proceedings
of SPIE55-66. Santa Clara, CA.
Pereira, S., & Pun, T. (2000). Robust template PDWFKLQJIRUDI¿QHUHVLVWDQWLPDJHZDWHUPDUNV
IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 9,
1123-1129.
Rosenblatt, B. (2007, March). Thomson moves watermarking into consumer devices. Retrieved March 21, 2007, from http://www.drmwatch. com/drmtech/article.php/3667096
Rosenblatt, B., Trippe, B., & Mooney, S. (2001).
Digital rights management: Business and tech-
nology. New York: Hungry Minds/John Wiley
& Sons.
Schmucker, M., & Ebinger, P. (2005). Promotional and commercial content distribution based on a legal and trusted P2P framework. In Proceedings of the Seventh IEEE International Conference
on E-Commerce Technology (CEC’05) (pp.
439-442).
Schneier, B. (2001). The futility of digital copy pre-
vention. In CRYPTO-GRAM. Retrieved March
21, from http://cryptome.org/futile-cp.htm Steinebach, M., & Zmudzinski, S. (2004). Com- plexity optimization of digital watermarking for music-on-demand services. In Proceedings of Virtual Goods Workshop 2004 (pp. 24-35). Illmenau, Germany.
Swaminathan, A., Mao, Y., & Wu, M. (2006). Robust and secure image hashing. IEEE Transac- tions on Image Forensics and Security.
Vassiliadis, B., Fotopoulos, V., Xenos, M., & Skodras, A. (2004, April). Could grid facilitate demanding media watermarking applications? In
Proceedings of the 4th International LeGE-WG Workshop, Stuttgart, Germany
Venkatesan, R., Koon, S.-M., Jakubowski, M. H., & Moulin, P. (2000). Robust image hashing. In
Proceedings of the International Conference on Image Processing,3.
Wolf, P., Steinebach, M., & Diener, K. (2007). Complementing DRM with digital watermark- ing: Mark, search, retrieve. Online Information Review,31(1), 10-21.
ADDITIONAL READING
Barni, M., & Bartolini, F. (2004). Watermarking systems engineering: Enabling digital assets security and other applications. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Cvejic, N., & Seppanen, T. (Eds.). (2007). Digital audio watermarking techniques and technolo- gies: Applications and benchmarks. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Delaigle, J., Devleeschouwer, C., Macq, B., & Langendijk, L. (2002). Human visual system features enabling watermarking. Proceedings of theIEEE International Conference on Multimedia
DQG([SR,&0(µ2, 489-492.
Gomez, E., Cano, P., De Gomes, L., Batlle, E., %RQQHW00L[HGZDWHUPDUNLQJ¿Q- JHUSULQWLQJ DSSURDFK IRU LQWHJULW\ YHUL¿FDWLRQ of audio recordings. In Proceedings of IEEE International Telecommunications Symposium ,76, Natal, Brazil.
Herley, C. (2002). Why watermarking is non- sense. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 19(5), 10-11.
Johnson, N., Duric, Z., Jajodia, S., & Memon, N. (2000) Information hiding: Steganography and
watermarking—Attacks and countermeasures.
Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.
Moulin, P. (2003). Comments on “Why water- marking is nonsense.” In IEEE Signal Processing
0DJD]LQH(6), 57-59.
Radhakrishnan, R., & Memon, N. (2002). Audio content authentication based on psycho-acoustic model. In Proceedings of SPIE, Security and Watermarking of Multimedia Contents IV, 4675,
110-117.
Steinebach, M., & Dittmann, J. (2003). Water- marking-based digital audio data authentication.
EURASIP Journal on Applied Signal Processing, 1001-1015.
Steinebach, M., Zmudzinski, S., & Bölke, T. (2005). Audio watermarking and partial encryp- tion. In Proceedings of SPIE—Volume 5681, Security, Steganography, and Watermarking of Multimedia Contents VII.
Steinebach, M., Zmudzinski, S., & Neichtadt, S. (2006). Robust-audio-hash synchronized audio watermarking. In Proceedings of the4th Inter- national Workshop on Security in Information Systems (WOSIS 2006) (pp. 58-66).
Yuan, S., & Huss, S. (2004). Audio watermark- ing algorithm for real-time speech integrity and authentication. In 00 6HF ¶ 3URFHHGLQJV RIWKHPXOWLPHGLDDQGVHFXULW\ZRUNVKRS on Multimedia and security (pp. 220-226). New York: ACM Press.
=KX%6ZDQVRQ0 7HZ¿N$:KHQ seeing isn’t believing. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 21(2), 40-49.
Zmudzinski, S., & Steinebach, M. (2007). Robust message authentication code algorithm for digital audio recordings. In Proceedings of SPIE Volume 6HFXULW\6WHJDQRJUDSK\DQG:DWHUPDUN- LQJ RI 0XOWLPHGLD &RQWHQWV ,; 63,(