Injection is now totally random, though this now makes it harder to find the injected data yourself!!

Strangely, by doing it random, I don't see the flash on the screen of the injected data now

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh
That was just an example of useful stuff - you could inject anything you want!

Hey, why not inject http://domain.com that way by watching the movie the user is bombarded with subliminal advertising and without knowing it they will type in your domain!

With the previous version I just put it on 0.12x speed and could see the overlay clearly. Now I can't find it.

Not necessarily. A lot of screen recorder software records audio too.

Yeah, it's really hard (but frame by frame finds it - just a pain)

I've made it so the data gets injected once and only once at the half way point. This way it's random for each movie, but can be customised to each user (ie half way plus X)

That way you know exactly where it has been injected in your videos.

If we have learned anything from Middle Men, it is that the best anti-piracy is shit content that nobody wants

Will read it all later. I'm off to watch the soccer.

How do you stop people pirating DVDs and others going to view them rather than paying?

Sadly not enough of the content on Internet porn sites is good enough to warrant shutting off their content from downloaders. They will watch one babe on a sofa as soon as watch the other one.

You have to have something worth protecting before you start protecting it.

You know now that I think about it why not clearly embed the user details at the beginning and end of the videos. That will cut down on 90% of the file sharing right there because no one wants to re-encode each video clip and they would have to do that if you they wanted to edit out the embeds. Also, if you include the person's actual name in the embed details that would be one hell of a deterrent. On top of the obvious marking you could put some hidden stuff too if you really wanted to.

Yes - this injection of the user details into the mpg is purely a proof of concept that it can be done on-the-fly with no server/time overhead.

To my knowledge, this has not been demonstrated yet.

So, yes - some will want to show the user details at beginning/end (quite easy to strip out though by the end pirate), some will want random insertions, some will want it placed at a certain time point etc etc. What you inject is purely up to you!

Add the credit card details too - then the pirate gets raped by other pirates lol!

It's a matter of adapting the proof of concept to your own needs.

Paul - If I knew how to stop DVD pirating, I'd sell the idea to the MPAA for a billion bucks! Like I said in the OP - this is *purely* for online material and now with the mpeg injector, you can adapt it to your needs to track the original pirate and so still leave downloads on.

Beginning to wonder if I got a version where it failed to put the overlay on as i've been through several times frame by frame now and still found nothing.

Chopping the beginning and end off something is a really simple job.

It's currently injected at exactly half way (8 secs) and at the very end.
I'm seeing it clearly with quicktime (pause the movie then advance frame by frame with the left/right arrow key).

The original mpg is lousy and buggy to start with - if someone wants to send me a lightweight HQ mpg movie I can use freely for this test, please do (email in sig)

For one video sure, but it's not really that easy to do in bulk though. They import the clip into an editing program, clip off the embeds and the render out a new video (quality loss). Many people will just not bother. The more organized releasing groups, if they do porn (I have no idea), may make the effort to strip out the details, but I think even they would prefer to just pirate other porn and skip the more difficult stuff.

Now, how about a way a way to do this with JPG files on the fly in the same way? :thumbsup

Just downloaded it again.

It is on the very last frame in this one.

Can't find it anywhere around the middle though.

that's easy!!

http://borkedcoder.com/photo_injector/

I meant as metadata, but that could work too. Might stop a few hearts though when members first see it :1orglaugh

I think this would be a great solution here if it could be done on the fly and kept totally invisible to the end user: http://www.phpclasses.org/package/33...anography.html

You could encrypt their own personal details in each jpg image. Then you could have scripts scrape forums and torrent downloads and run through all the jpg images to find who released it. Then Steve could sue them specifically and he would have the support of all of GFY :)

the exact middle of the movie...

http://borkedcoder.com/movie_injector/example.jpg

very easy to add comments to photo exif data on the fly with exiftool

That should be quite easy to adapt - I'll have a look at it later on as I need to pop out.

You should package this all up and license it.

I looked into that - works great and would have been great for this. However, 2 probs:

1) only output as PNG can be done as the resulting image has to be lossless

not a problem as most browsers can handle PNG but...

2) created images containing the stenographic injection are 10x larger than the original (blame PNG)

So, is fine if you don't mind having 10x more bandwidth from images...

--edit
and yeah, I tried outputting the image as 100% jpeg quality, but it didn't work

http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/2...tingstuffs.png

Random thought related to the php jpg.

Is there anything similar to the QRCode square barcode that could be generated that wasn't quite so obvious as to being an image branded with writing on?

UPDATE - inject user details into your images on the fly

In addition to injecting your user details on the fly into a mpg movie, you can now do the same with your jpegs...


http://borkedcoder.com/photo_injector/whore_dog.jpg

Save that image and view the exif info (with whatever app you use to read exif info)...

Your user details are stored in the Description tag :upsidedow

OK read a lot more and can offer this.

Borked's solution would work if the only place to get porn was on the Internet. It won't work for most because DVDs can be ripped, unless they invented a blocking program that's 100% secure. Even then what about all the DVDs that don't have it?

So pirating can continue. The pirate sites what ever their format will not stop and let all their traffic disappear, they will make sure there's full length DVD rips for their surfers.

Plus 75% or more of the sites on the Internet have porn that's fairly well indistinguishable form 100s of other sites. So if you lock down your site of a teen getting fucked on a sofa, the surfer has loads of other options to get free porn just like it.

Might work for Astral-blue.com and if Borked would like to contact me and give me a price we will consider it.

Isn't all of that very expensive to implement? How much does it add to the members cost? And when net neutrality goes bye-bye (probably 2011), how much more are you going to have to pay to keep that stream running at a bearable level?

on the fly qr code generation... I already brought that up ages ago, but could be adapted to this

https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=910434

as to anything similar - highly doubt it as qrcodes are used all over the place now by manufacturers... simple and effective

He never claimed to be able to protect your magazine shoots, or your over the counter DVD's that isn't what this board, or industry is about. Related? Sure, our problem? No.

He's showing WEBMASTERS how to stop their content from being shared that is downloaded of their sites.

Paul - yes I did put up the disclaimer that this was purely for online content. Protecting DVDs is a never ending battle with even the new BlueRay protection recently being cracked

If you want to protect DVDs I'd suggest asking the MPAA for help, since they have tried endlessly...

Implementing these things I've set out here are custom to each person's server setup, since it's adding a layer on to how images/movies are displayed and downloaded/streamed. So it would be near-on impossible to package things up for an all-in-one install package.

If you'd like them implementing on your site, drop me a line by email so we can discuss further. It shouldn't be hard or long to implement these things for a single site.

Wow, that is SWEET! Kinda freaked me out when I saw my details in the exif info! :thumbsup

A 10 minute vid at 30 frames-per second equals 18,000 frames. If the codes are inserted randomly, that is a whole of frame-by-frame checking. Make the code semi-transparent, it makes it even harder to spot. Or see the comment below.



1. You can do color shifting to hide numbers, in an image. Pick some square areas, and bump the colors in that area a bit. Basically be almost invisable to the naked eye.
For a "0" = current color + 4*10
For a "1" = current color + 4*1
For a "2" = current color + 4*2
For a "3" = current color + 4*3
...
For a "8" = current color + 4*8
For a "9" = current color + 4*9
Then just do a "mask" comparison between the original and the encoded to reverse the calculation.

This is fine for transmitting hidden data between receiving parties, but I think it has its limitations, especially in video, for trying to track a file. Simply because any type of compression algorithm will result in the hidden message being lost, so transcoding a video from say mpeg to flv will kill the information. I would say inserting random frames is far better since they will survive transcoding and nobody is going to search 1000s of frames for 1-10 "randomly" injected tracking frames.

Random because to the end user it's random, the to producer they could inject constantly eg every (#frames / 10 + 15) frames - random to the end user, the producer knows exactly where to look each time though.

A very selective reply. I did address your point and it seems I will have to again.

Our problem? YES. Because so long as there is pirated content being given away for free surfers will keep being surfers instead of members. They don't care if it's online or offline content, it's all content to them.

If you have something like Robbie has or I have with astral-blue.com there is a point to protecting it. If you have the same generic content as I have on paulmarkhamteens.com it's not.

Andy, I dropped you a line.

Nice :thumbsup

Bit easy to remove though.

I'm a bit lost with that, maybe it's just because it's monday morning.

I'll read it again later and hopefully won't need it translating into idiot :upsidedow

Replied in detail

Well, so is applying steganography. However, noone said you had to make the Description tag so obvious... I guess few people would think of stripping it out if all it said was

Tori Black #530419

where the number is of course a db entry ID containing the info :winkwink:

:thumbsup

Too much great info in this thread. Keep it coming!

The color shift comment was targeted at images only to make it invisible for the uploader/surfer to actually see the info.

Also using 99% transparent text is basically invisible to the naked eye.

But, a program can compare the before image to the after image and easily tell the difference. If the surfer doesn't have the exact "before" image they can't make the comparison.

ottopottomouse:
The color-shift would be done by changing the color over small rectangles in different parts of the image. Again the visual change is so small(aprox 0.001%) that only a computer comparing before & after images could actually "see" it.

No, what I meant was, if that image then went through a transformation (lets say linux "mogrify -sharpen 10" to sharpen up the image (or reverse "-blur") or make the image larger, smaller, then the way to extract the information to find out who is the pirate is lost, since jpeg is not lossless.

Unless I'm completely missing your point.

For example, if encoding images to something else wasn't a problem - ie someone stole your image and simply uploaded it elsewhere), then all you'd have to do is inject in a random pixel somewhere on the fly and calculate a visual hash of the image (and store it). The next user to view the image would have a different visual hash since the pixels are inserted randomly (more pixels added and higher res the pic, the more unique the hash). If you found your image somewhere else, you calculate its visual hash and then find out who pirated it.

eg - visual hash of an image (using multiple cryptographic keys):

I inject a two pixels randomly into the image on the fly and the visual hash is now


Now, on my dev server, these are the benchmarks for calculating those hashes:

Which tells me that while Size64 can compute far more hashes per second, it's chance of being non-random is quite high, so let's pick ED2K which is really not bad, processing 239MB haseed bytes per second.

So in that case, a script could easily go and download images from the internet from known problem sources and at ~100KB/jpeg image, it would search ~2000 images per second to find if any of them came from me, and if so who was the user pirating it

As an automation technique, visual hashing is definitely the way, and while algorithms exist to catch lossiness in recompression (as well as videos), it's frikken complicated maths!

Sorry for the technical replies - it's good to keep technical stuff out of the thread to not complicate things...

However, I'd love to discuss technical stuff over email or IM...

Thankyou :)