Content theft & a proposed solution (that ended up shelved) - READ

**Barefootsies** · 10-01-2009, 05:23 PM

Interesting proposal.

**cyber_ninja** · 10-01-2009, 05:27 PM

i must be blind,i dont see the watermark

**tical** · 10-01-2009, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by Barefootsies

Interesting proposal.

Thanks, I'm trying!

**Kelli58** · 10-01-2009, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by cyber_ninja

i must be blind,i dont see the watermark

I was thinking exactly the same thing.

**tical** · 10-01-2009, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by cyber_ninja

i must be blind,i dont see the watermark

Perfect

First two frames, the watermark is a broken "grid" in the middle... has a purple/pink tint to it.

To our review software, it reads: "X marks the spot"

**closer** · 10-01-2009, 05:31 PM

Good approach, though I see some loopholes which defeats the whole purpose.

If someone signs up for a trial, downloads your member area, is behind a proxy and cancels their membership? I mean, for content thieves, that's not so inconceivable

**tical** · 10-01-2009, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by closer

Good approach, though I see some loopholes which defeats the whole purpose.

If someone signs up for a trail, downloads your member area, is behind a proxy and cancels their membership? I mean, for content thieves, that's not so inconceivable

Yeah, but if they share your video. The leaked video has their info on it, forever. So in 6 months when you find it on TUBE123, you run it through your software and see that Joe Blow downloaded it from IP 123.123.123.123 on 10/1/2009 at 6:32pm - maybe you can do something. But that would be up to the lawyers and the company stolen from.

If they're keeping it for themselves, then yeah, this won't help much.

Edit: I missed the proxy part.

Have you ever tried to download high quality video via an anonymous proxy? In most cases it would be like pulling teeth. Still a valid argument though.

**closer** · 10-01-2009, 05:40 PM

My point being, If they are behind a proxy, then it'll be very hard to link that IP to an actual person.

**cherrylula** · 10-01-2009, 07:59 PM

why use Harry Potter and not a porn video? LOL the irony on gfy sometimes makes me fall over ;)

**stickyfingerz** · 10-01-2009, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by closer

My point being, If they are behind a proxy, then it'll be very hard to link that IP to an actual person.

Credit card info on signup unless they are carding.

You can't stop anyone if they want in bad enough they will get what they want. You can't look at the small percentage that will rip you off.

**WiredGuy** · 10-01-2009, 08:17 PM

Very interesting, the watermark looks like nothing more than digital disruption/data loss which most users will have no clue. If you have software that can encode the video on real-time to timestamp/ip stamp each play uniquely and software to extract that from frames, that's great. That's the biggest hurdle right there and it seems you have it down already.
WG

**marketsmart** · 10-01-2009, 08:29 PM

i agree if you can insert something that only imprints on a frame or two at a random time..

the challenge would be finding that frame easily at a later date,,

if even possible...

i am not a video expert but i have thought of the above scenario for a long time..

**jakethedog** · 10-01-2009, 08:34 PM

hit me up via messenger or email ... I have a url that would be perfect for this and I could be interested in this as a business venture ..

**mmcfadden** · 10-01-2009, 08:35 PM

i like it... however i think the technology lies in the data... not the image.

in 6 months time there will be for sure a method to protect the "majority" of tube uploads

**stickyfingerz** · 10-01-2009, 08:40 PM

This thread should be in the new section so not visible without being logged in folks. Ice or Eric you would be wise to move this.

**Jakez** · 10-01-2009, 08:41 PM

Well you could attach an ID in the hidden watermark to each specific viewer to track who duplicated the video, but by the time you catch the video on another site they've probably already ripped your entire site (with NO watermarks, unless you're putting a 2nd more noticeable one somewhere throughout the vid), otherwise they could/will probably just move on to another username or find another way to access the site.

**mmcfadden** · 10-01-2009, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by stickyfingerz

This thread should be in the new section so not visible without being logged in folks. Ice or Eric you would be wise to move this.

i tried you on ICQ earlier... this is a hot topic for sure

**Jakez** · 10-01-2009, 08:42 PM

Can't say it isn't worth a shot though, I just think the internet is far too anonymous for this to be effective. Maybe if you tried to hold the credit card owner responsible for the duplicated content? I don't know if that would fly in court though lol.

**tical** · 10-01-2009, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by marketsmart

i agree if you can insert something that only imprints on a frame or two at a random time..

the challenge would be finding that frame easily at a later date,,

if even possible...

i am not a video expert but i have thought of the above scenario for a long time..

That is what the 2nd piece of this solution does, it takes the video and searches for watermarks, like this (this was the result after scanning the trailer that the frame shots were from above):

**tical** · 10-01-2009, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by mmcfadden

i like it... however i think the technology lies in the data... not the image.

in 6 months time there will be for sure a method to protect the "majority" of tube uploads

The problem with putting it in the data (like embedding it into the file somewhere) is that it will be removed, anytime the file format changes, or the video is cropped, etc.

This way, unless you want to screw up the video by finding & removing chunks of frames, the watermark has to stay.

**Jakez** · 10-01-2009, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by tical

That is what the 2nd piece of this solution does, it takes the video and searches for watermarks, like this (this was the result after scanning the trailer that the frame shots were from above):

Pretty cool, does this still locate the watermark even if the video has been cropped?

**marketsmart** · 10-01-2009, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by tical

That is what the 2nd piece of this solution does, it takes the video and searches for watermarks, like this (this was the result after scanning the trailer that the frame shots were from above):

then you have a winner and a true viable solution....

**tical** · 10-01-2009, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by Jakez

Pretty cool, does this still locate the watermark even if the video has been cropped?

Yeah, cropped, re-encoded, re-sized, etc. The software searches frame by frame for the fingerprints. It is pretty quick too.

When the video is re-encoded or changed, some of the watermarks might be missed by the software - but we only need to find a match 1 time for it to be effective.

**PornAddict** · 10-01-2009, 08:53 PM

Just wanted to chime in and say that I appreciate your trying to battle piracy in a realistic way. Some may find flaws in what your method, but kudos for actually trying to make positive steps forward on the topic. Thank you!

- PornAddict

**Kevin Marx** · 10-01-2009, 08:59 PM

Sounds to me like a simple addition to Terms of Service would hold the CC holder responsible for any redistribution of content. Identifying that the content from a side holds distinguishing features which will identify the downloader would be plenty IMO. After that, they take the law into their own hands.

Even identifying that fact every time someone comes onto the site (whether you are a first timer or you are back for your 1,000th visit, legally you are letting someone know on each visit.)

I like the idea a lot.

**mmcfadden** · 10-01-2009, 09:13 PM

never mind

**tical** · 10-01-2009, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by mmcfadden

i'm actually confused... you can prove that video uploaded was indeed stolen but who stole it? Who downloaded the vid and uploaded it to a tube?

The law now is to protect the tube site because somebody else uploaded it... ya need to go after the surfer who did it imo

The watermark would be able to tell you who downloaded the first copy of it (before it was released) to the public. So if that user shared a video he downloaded by uploading it to a tube - you would be able to know it was him.

What happens after that would be entirely up to the paysite owner, content producer, and their lawyers. I can't guarantee this would stand up in court, but if it did, just ONCE, it could put a nice dent in this type of piracy (at least coming out of the states).

**mmcfadden** · 10-01-2009, 09:18 PM

Originally posted by tical

The watermark would be able to tell you who downloaded the first copy of it (before it was released) to the public. So if that user shared a video he downloaded by uploading it to a tube - you would be able to know it was him.

What happens after that would be entirely up to the paysite owner, content producer, and their lawyers. I can't guarantee this would stand up in court, but if it did, just ONCE, it could put a nice dent in this type of piracy (at least coming out of the states).

yeah... i reread your OP...

at this point it does not matter if it would stand up in court... content providers could file all kinds of lawsuits to scare the shit out of surfers

**Iron Fist** · 10-01-2009, 09:21 PM

Hmm not a bad idea... looks like a Semacode using offset color, offset enough for a machine to detect, but unobtrusive enough for humans to ignore.

Good idea... I can see this going places. Hope someone picks this up.

**tical** · 10-01-2009, 09:28 PM

Here, you can see it in action. I watermarked this one on the fly a while back with the message "hello GFY!".

http://66.78.31.74/samples/terminator-trailer-wm-1.mov

Now there are some places where the watermark is pretty visible (on black esp toward the end). However, the technique used here was just a crude one. We have things in the works to pick the best frames for insertion so the watermark remains practically invisible. But this is how it looks in action... the trailer has been watermarked 6 times.

This trailer has a lot of distortion in it already so it isn't the easiest to work with hah. Another sample is below though.

Code:

The log is output below.

Input #0, mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2, from 'terminator-trailer-wm-1.mov':

  Duration: 00:01:02.33, start: 0.000000, bitrate: 6770 kb/s

    Stream #0.0(eng): Video: h264, yuv420p, 1280x544, 24 tbr, 24 tbn, 48 tbc

    Stream #0.1(eng): Audio: aac, 48000 Hz, stereo, s16

    Stream #0.2(eng): Data: tmcd / 0x64636D74

    Stream #0.3(eng): Data: rtp  / 0x20707472

    Stream #0.4(eng): Data: rtp  / 0x20707472

Watermark detected! The message is 'hello GFY!'

Watermark detected! The message is 'hello GFY!'

Watermark detected! The message is 'hello GFY!'

Watermark detected! The message is 'hello GFY!'

Watermark detected! The message is 'hello GFY!'

Watermark detected! The message is 'hello GFY!'


End of log.

Here is another sample, with less distortion going on. This trailer is watermarked twice.

http://66.78.31.74/samples/munich-trailer-wm-1.mov

Code:

Input #0, mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2, from 'munich-trailer-wm-1.mov':

  Duration: 00:02:30.21, start: 0.000000, bitrate: 2043 kb/s

    Stream #0.0(eng): Video: h264, yuv420p, 1280x544, 23.98 tbr, 23.98 tbn, 47.96 tbc

    Stream #0.1(eng): Audio: adpcm_ima_qt, 48000 Hz, stereo, s16

Watermark detected! The message is 'hi GFY me again'

Watermark detected! The message is 'hi GFY me again'


End of log.

Here is another, shrek trailer. Watermarked 10 times. Remember the method is crude and this is only for development purposes. The final versions would pick the best frames to watermark so that they remain almost invisible to the naked eye using a special algorithm.

This one was watermarked harshly, they should be pretty visible if you're keeping an eye out.

http://66.78.31.74/samples/shrek_the...h640w-wm-1.mov

Code:

The log is output below.

Input #0, mov,mp4,m4a,3gp,3g2,mj2, from 'shrek_the_third-tlr1_h640w-wm-1.mov':

  Duration: 00:02:06.17, start: 0.000000, bitrate: 1367 kb/s

    Stream #0.0(eng): Video: h264, yuv420p, 640x360, 23.98 tbr, 23.98 tbn, 47.95 tbc

    Stream #0.1(eng): Audio: aac, 44100 Hz, stereo, s16

    Stream #0.2(eng): Data: tmcd / 0x64636D74

Watermark detected! The message is 'jason was here'

Watermark detected! The message is 'jason was here'

Watermark detected! The message is 'jason was here'

Watermark detected! The message is 'jason was here'

Watermark detected! The message is 'jason was here'

Watermark detected! The message is 'jason was here'

Watermark detected! The message is 'jason was here'

Watermark detected! The message is 'jason was here'

Watermark detected! The message is 'jason was here'

Watermark detected! The message is 'jason was here'


End of log.

**Loch** · 10-01-2009, 09:48 PM

I dont get it, call me stupid but why would you do this?
So that you can spend days, weeks looking for potential stolen videos?

Why not just use a normal watermark?

**Iron Fist** · 10-01-2009, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by Loch

I dont get it, call me stupid but why would you do this?
So that you can spend days, weeks looking for potential stolen videos?

Why not just use a normal watermark?

Normal watermarks can be cropped out... this can be placed in the middle of the video in places where it can't be easily cropped.

**cLin** · 10-01-2009, 11:39 PM

How hard would it be to watermark on the fly if an user wanted to download a video? Do you plan on charging for this knowledge/service?

**tical** · 10-02-2009, 12:16 AM

Originally posted by cLin

How hard would it be to watermark on the fly if an user wanted to download a video? Do you plan on charging for this knowledge/service?

That would be included in the service. Any video that leaves your server (streamed or downloaded) would pass through this solution and be tagged on the way out.

Ultimately, I would like to either sell the rights to the product (at an acceptable stage) to a company interested in providing a solution to others or sell an ownership stake and receive funding to continue development.

**rowan** · 10-02-2009, 10:51 AM

As well as outing the customer who did this (which may be difficult to follow up in the real world) I can see another clear use... you could use some sort of crawler to check tube sites for your content. A script which runs regularly could spit out a bunch of URLs, maybe even write the DMCA for you. A quick human review and it's sent off. Doable?

**AsianDivaGirlsWebDude** · 10-02-2009, 11:13 AM

Bump for ingenuity...

ADG

**tical** · 10-02-2009, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by rowan

As well as outing the customer who did this (which may be difficult to follow up in the real world) I can see another clear use... you could use some sort of crawler to check tube sites for your content. A script which runs regularly could spit out a bunch of URLs, maybe even write the DMCA for you. A quick human review and it's sent off. Doable?

Yeah, I'm sure this could be done without much difficulty. The software could be plugged into an existing spider or work with an exclusive one as part of an additional service.

**gideongallery** · 10-02-2009, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by Kevin-SFBucks

Sounds to me like a simple addition to Terms of Service would hold the CC holder responsible for any redistribution of content. Identifying that the content from a side holds distinguishing features which will identify the downloader would be plenty IMO. After that, they take the law into their own hands.

Even identifying that fact every time someone comes onto the site (whether you are a first timer or you are back for your 1,000th visit, legally you are letting someone know on each visit.)

I like the idea a lot.

you can't TOS away fair use

you also have huge privacy conserns with this

that being said, look up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography

much better solution, and significantly more effective, especially if you use a strong key encryption for getting the personal information.

**pornpf69** · 10-02-2009, 03:11 PM

that sounds like a good solution...

**Mutt** · 10-02-2009, 03:17 PM

good job tical - i think quantum-x has posted his own crude way of watermarking video and photo content tying it to the member who downloaded it originally.

the problem with this solution is that if you wanted to go after this member for copyright infringement all you really have is proof that the member downloaded the video to his own computer - if you don't have more evidence that points to him uploading to a tube or rapidshare you probably don't win. if every time that file got moved around it got tagged with IP address then you'd have a smoking gun - proof the member not only downloaded it from the members area but also proof he distributed it from his computer.

and that's where i think the only success will ever come in this battle, suing the pants off people and winning.

**tical** · 10-02-2009, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by gideongallery

you can't TOS away fair use

you also have huge privacy conserns with this

that being said, look up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography

much better solution, and significantly more effective, especially if you use a strong key encryption for getting the personal information.

the string would obviously be encrypted before it was written to the video

if the string is just a record number, like 434 for example. there would be no privacy concerns even if it was able to be decrypted, and this record id could be looked up in the owners database.

essentially, we're doing exactly what you suggested

**tical** · 10-02-2009, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by Mutt

good job tical - i think quantum-x has posted his own crude way of watermarking video and photo content tying it to the member who downloaded it originally.

the problem with this solution is that if you wanted to go after this member for copyright infringement all you really have is proof that the member downloaded the video to his own computer - if you don't have more evidence that points to him uploading to a tube or rapidshare you probably don't win. if every time that file got moved around it got tagged with IP address then you'd have a smoking gun - proof the member not only downloaded it from the members area but also proof he distributed it from his computer.

and that's where i think the only success will ever come in this battle, suing the pants off people and winning.

yea that could be tough, but ip addresses are linked to computers when leased out by isps... so in theory, the connection to the content being downloaded to their computer is there

legally, i dont know how far a lawsuit could go in that regard... that would be for a lawyer to figure out

**gideongallery** · 10-02-2009, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by tical

the string would obviously be encrypted before it was written to the video

if the string is just a record number, like 434 for example. there would be no privacy concerns even if it was able to be decrypted, and this record id could be looked up in the owners database.

essentially, we're doing exactly what you suggested

yes and no
there is no way to clip out steg.
it not even visable

it what my remove your content solution uses. It happens to be for software so we are talking about compiler plugin that does the encoding into the executable but it does allow you to identify applications that are yours automagically from simple download of an rss feed.

when you combine it with a private tracker, it very effective in getting the torrent pulled.

**tical** · 10-02-2009, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by gideongallery

yes and no
there is no way to clip out steg.
it not even visable

it what my remove your content solution uses. It happens to be for software so we are talking about compiler plugin that does the encoding into the executable but it does allow you to identify applications that are yours automagically from simple download of an rss feed.

when you combine it with a private tracker, it very effective in getting the torrent pulled.

thats the problem with video though, the bytes, encoding, length, etc can all be changed, cropped, downsized, etc and the media can still be viewable.

this is as close as you're going to get to a fingerprint system for electronic media like this... there might be variants in the future, but they will all work on the image or audio - not the raw data

**Fucksakes** · 10-02-2009, 06:55 PM

could your software overwrite watermarks..

meaning lets say badguy who owns a site.. gets your software.. and than uses it on their tubes sites to overwrite waterwarks of uploaded videos.

**Fucksakes** · 10-02-2009, 06:57 PM

or use it to detect other ppl watermarks on videos and clean them up..

**snaker** · 10-03-2009, 02:40 AM

Seems like a very specialized technique that could be effective

**alias** · 10-03-2009, 02:47 AM

Fucking slick tical.

**gideongallery** · 10-03-2009, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by tical

thats the problem with video though, the bytes, encoding, length, etc can all be changed, cropped, downsized, etc and the media can still be viewable.

this is as close as you're going to get to a fingerprint system for electronic media like this... there might be variants in the future, but they will all work on the image or audio - not the raw data

go thru the link i gave you
your wrong about what your saying
if the footprint of data is small enough each frame can be taged with the steg. data
be completely hidden in the whitespace, background and still stay there no matter what changes you make in formating.
it not script kiddie stuff but it is definately doeable.

that being said you still have the fair use problem to deal with, if the action is protected by fair use then your attempt to stop it are still censorship and actionable.

you can't TOS away fair use, because of the conditional nature of fair use.

You have to create an economic consequence that is independent of the fair use rights.
private trackers do this by forcing the uploaders to explain why they are choosing a less effective backup solution (public tracker) over the more effective (private tracker) and causing economic harm (lost seeders, non paying copies) to do it.

Content theft & a proposed solution (that ended up shelved) - READ

Content theft & a proposed solution (that ended up shelved) - READ

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment