Is there software out there that can add a sort of sonic watermark to an mp3?

February 21, 2009 8:13 AM

I'd like to start an music blog, but don't want to irk musicians by sharing their music without their consent. Is there software out there that can quickly add some sort of sonic watermark to an mp3?

I don't mean this kind of watermark, more of a sound that appears periodically to show it's a copyrighted work. A beep or computer generated voice or whatnot. Preferably something that does batch processing.

I guess it'd be fairly easy to do with any kind of audio editing software, but I'm trying to minimize the steps I need to take.

posted by stokast to media & arts (10 comments total)

Please don't do that. It makes your blog totally worthless, and speaking as an amateur musician, I'd hate to have some stupid computer generated voice over my music. It'd ruin any chance of someone actually listening to it and enjoying it, which is really the only reason I'd want my music shared at all.

Most musicians will be happy to have a track or two shared, as it's basically advertising. It's whole albums getting traded that can irk people, though in reality most musicians make their money off concerts and merchandise rather than records. The record labels are the ones who get really angry over album sharing.

Seriously, please don't do that. Please.
posted by Magnakai at 8:24 AM on February 21, 2009 [3 favorites]

I agree with Magnakai's points.

Chances are what you're sharing is already being shared elsewhere anyway.

I think the best thing to do, from a music rightsholder's standpoint is to have a clear statement saying that upon request, files will be removed.
posted by tybeet at 8:33 AM on February 21, 2009

If you do decide to do it, though, I think you should follow the lead of hip-hop radio DJs and include lots of sirens and bomb noises and ladies cooing 'Ooh, stokast!' and gruff-voiced dudes barking 'Stokast is in the building!' and whatnot.

At the risk of saying something obvious, adding a sonic watermark is not the same thing as getting musicians' consent before you share their music.
posted by box at 8:35 AM on February 21, 2009

What magnakai said; this is a terrible idea: it'd irk musicians and listeners alike. It also wouldn't protect you against DMCA claims, if that's what you're worried about -- adding a periodic beep hardly counts as transformative use.

If you're planning on blogging obscure, non-mainstream or unreleased artists, contact them and ask permission; most will be thrilled to get the extra exposure, and you could parley it into interviews or other original content which would help it not be just another music blog.

If you're planning on blogging well-known music, you can either fly under the radar until you get caught (IANAL, this is bad advice, but you'll probably get away with it) or else only upload short pieces of the songs that illustrate whatever you want to say about them (I'm assuming by music blog you mean blogging about music, not just uploading tracks without commentary) or, safest of all, just link to existing channels where people can buy or listen to the music.
posted by ook at 8:38 AM on February 21, 2009 [2 favorites]

I think maybe you'd be better served by the standard "I want my readers to buy your music so I share it with them, if you want it taken down, contact me here" blurb commonly put in the sidebar of MP3 blogs. Ex:


"Song listings that appear on this website are automatically gathered from music blogs all over the internet. We do this to let people discover new artists, fall in love, buy their CDs and go to their shows. If you are an artist (or represent an artist) and are concerned about information in our listings, please see more information about our copyright policy and feel free to contact us directly."



"I'm always looking for new music to write about. Send me an email. If you are the artist/manager and want a song taken down please contact me and I will delete the link. If you like the music you find on this site go out and buy it."

posted by Juliet Banana at 8:40 AM on February 21, 2009 [1 favorite]

Er, thanks, I guess.

An online music store I love uses this technique (audio clips + brief sine wave) and it's not as offensive as you guys make it out to be.

So, does anyone know of any kind of software like this?
posted by stokast at 9:16 AM on February 21, 2009

Audacity is free and supports batch processing.
posted by ook at 9:37 AM on February 21, 2009

Why not ask the artist? You do have permission to put mp3s of their songs on your site, right? Ask them how they want them presented. If you dont have permission then there's a larger issue of copyright here that watermarking will not solve and will just turn people off.
posted by damn dirty ape at 10:23 AM on February 21, 2009 [1 favorite]

Sorry if I come across like a jerk, but I'm just looking for software that does what I want, not a lesson on copyright or the fickle tastes of blog readers.
posted by stokast at 10:49 AM on February 21, 2009

I can't help you (beyond saying that you can make a beep somewhere and multitrack the audio in a DAW), but I want to say that I shop at Boomkat too and it doesn't annoy me. I don't think you are mistaken with your idea as others are saying.

Another tactic that I know has had success in on-line review sites is to ensure that your clips are short and couldn't be seen as constituting free access to all or most of the track.
posted by galaksit at 1:25 PM on February 21, 2009