GFY EDUCATIONAL SERIES: How to prevent Piracy - A new way.

**ottopottomouse** · 10-03-2010, 01:07 PM

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?

**borked** · 10-03-2010, 01:18 PM

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...

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

**Paul Markham** · 10-03-2010, 01:23 PM

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.

**SpongeBub** · 10-03-2010, 01:25 PM

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?

**borked** · 10-03-2010, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by ottopottomouse

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?

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

http://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

**Jdoughs** · 10-03-2010, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by Paul Markham

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?

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.

**borked** · 10-03-2010, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Paul Markham

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?

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.

**nudecanada** · 10-03-2010, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by borked

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...

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

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

**Tickler** · 10-03-2010, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by Ethersync

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.

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.

Originally posted by ottopottomouse

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?

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.

**borked** · 10-03-2010, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by Tickler

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.

**Paul Markham** · 10-04-2010, 12:13 AM

Originally posted by Jdoughs

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.

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.

**ottopottomouse** · 10-04-2010, 02:41 AM

Originally posted by borked

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

Nice

Bit easy to remove though.

**ottopottomouse** · 10-04-2010, 02:44 AM

Originally posted by Tickler

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.

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

**borked** · 10-04-2010, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by Paul Markham

Andy, I dropped you a line.

Replied in detail

Originally posted by ottopottomouse

Nice

Bit easy to remove though.

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

**ottopottomouse** · 10-04-2010, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by borked

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

**Eric** · 10-04-2010, 12:36 PM

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

**Tickler** · 10-04-2010, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by borked

This is fine for transmitting hidden data between receiving parties, but I think it has its limitations, especially in video,....

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.

**borked** · 10-04-2010, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by Tickler

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.

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):

Code:

Adler32      : C4BA841B
CRC16        : F520
CRC16.CCITT  : 03B3
CRC16.XMODEM : 1356
CRC32        : EE43CE75
CRC64        : 38734BC8 493899BD
ED2K         : 1770324D BF331EFB 9B6D3FDF 42B1FA5F
ELF32        : 08ACEA09
FCS16        : 27C4
FCS32        : EE43CE75
FNV32.1      : 3D7D5302
FNV64.1      : 0D075BAE 14C4736B
GHash32.3    : 5B8409CF
GHash32.5    : E2FFF6CF
GOST-Hash    : 45D90023 65795C97 8B0111B6 CB5DB1F4 0A2984E7 8AD9E54A 79390BAB 685EB5CD
HAVAL256.3   : 84A910CA BE2FB254 906D51B4 D8F94F66 BAAB2A08 F6544E9D E21EEE2C 9668A390
HAVAL256.4   : 3741BA73 4F22CE21 8A8269D1 27D259F0 DF8062C0 89DA8E87 6A997AB4 662CF5E6
HAVAL256.5   : F58E487D 79E852E8 5FC5E248 C7B095BE 1925805E 6C33260F D4EA7F7E 14BF25F1
MD2          : 4341B1F0 3DCB05B4 4345EFE2 A7EEE352
MD4          : 1770324D BF331EFB 9B6D3FDF 42B1FA5F
MD5          : E3ACFD11 D7A66FF1 12572F2F 06AD3471
RipeMD128    : 302E360F 641B171F C7B0155F 5D61B2A1
RipeMD160    : 31A56722 F8A04705 2E5D2444 47D37F5D 319BF614
SHA1         : 4A03BA2E 7A9BD9D6 DFB6469B 46AF505E 5297DA4F
SHA256       : EA83B80E 91B3233E 675A833C A48AEA75 EDB0504B 9604900D D61000C7 6BF4BA36
SHA384       : 3EA3B4B9 BF9E9AA7 AECBDAE9 709344B9 78D2A70E C64986CD D6B5B22C 43781F51 02703400 B0E92BCB 25801C52 E7BB9048
SHA512       : A865F4B1 F54F13A2 9C4A23C2 7C9C4421 0E9F991C 8F95062D 77ECF26B 54499A25 936FFD3D 57D8A0F5 9045CF92 E6F388D2 7A204DD0 437D98DB 1BC73408 97FC7E67
Size64       : 00000000 00000C0E
Tiger        : FC8E3D7F EFDB0086 9FE0234F 4D23BC34 2A85F91D BCFFC8B4
XUM32        : E24DCD6F

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

Code:

Adler32      : 9CF30B65
CRC16        : 9B6E
CRC16.CCITT  : F65C
CRC16.XMODEM : 0AA9
CRC32        : 7092DFED
CRC64        : FBA6C0A0 3D6DFA3B
ED2K         : DACC7615 E2DA15E0 E18C9B16 8F8F4B02
ELF32        : 00AB12C9
FCS16        : F6C9
FCS32        : 7092DFED
FNV32.1      : B5594220
FNV64.1      : D0C29B97 F3351EA3
GHash32.3    : 9F39C995
GHash32.5    : 5091A2CD
GOST-Hash    : 3D3E2665 B424BFD2 06827D7F F2291012 CA43F7BB AAA2CEB0 BAD6EB4D 781C290D
HAVAL256.3   : 88414280 498DD738 93A570AF CF7A2C9B 11A8573E CBDA1EBB 6E299CB4 72B5180D
HAVAL256.4   : 99ADC2CD F34674B1 D29D3637 F4928277 2DCF93E6 5FB624A5 7B716320 6384474F
HAVAL256.5   : F11859CB 005FF63C 1F35FB1B F5A22AAB 8237C866 C26AC6C8 C8FE9884 FF27D348
MD2          : A277E5B3 38E20642 2051D9B1 15493976
MD4          : DACC7615 E2DA15E0 E18C9B16 8F8F4B02
MD5          : B2236F8A 45481513 C546FC6D C79626B0
RipeMD128    : 71CD3611 897E2DD9 F426CAB8 CE493304
RipeMD160    : D2621808 60207BA4 045ACE1C CEEB9857 1FBAE694
SHA1         : AA403182 B4B469D7 90403247 CC11893B 933AF9A8
SHA256       : 4A5CCA0B F09D04E0 1B4E56F7 A0774032 0E3F8015 0BD6B29B 2D580F4D 4E191D01
SHA384       : 7C2DDA2F D4FFAF72 4162BBE9 738874B2 8261A06A 2DAD4405 2ADCFB71 2F8254AC 0C570B5D 465CE216 0DFBEF82 C9A53B86
SHA512       : EAFF29CE 43A7B0A6 D11EAB16 8E07DEE3 9833626A 0E6B0220 8C719F1E 849083BA 568D8310 3E5E491B 77F01B0B 50C322D7 9969424A 1B47C5AA 50E002C9 64C9F200
Size64       : 00000000 0000B707
Tiger        : AA70F467 3AABEF02 7D6AE897 F1D9301D 3EBBBAAD A2805392
XUM32        : C795DF25

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

Code:

Algorithm                | Hash length | Hashed bytes/second
============================================================
Adler32                  |     32 bits |              149 MB
CRC16                    |     16 bits |              200 MB
CRC16.CCITT              |     16 bits |              177 MB
CRC16.XMODEM             |     16 bits |              204 MB
CRC32                    |     32 bits |              211 MB
CRC64                    |     64 bits |               49 MB
ED2K                     |    128 bits |              239 MB
ELF32                    |     32 bits |              130 MB
FCS16                    |     16 bits |              217 MB
FCS32                    |     32 bits |              216 MB
FNV32.1                  |     32 bits |              149 MB
FNV64.1                  |     64 bits |               88 MB
GHash32.3                |     32 bits |              274 MB
GHash32.5                |     32 bits |              259 MB
GOST-Hash                |    256 bits |               17 MB
HAVAL256.3               |    256 bits |              117 MB
HAVAL256.4               |    256 bits |               87 MB
HAVAL256.5               |    256 bits |               62 MB
MD2                      |    128 bits |                4 MB
MD4                      |    128 bits |              232 MB
MD5                      |    128 bits |              132 MB
RipeMD128                |    128 bits |              110 MB
RipeMD160                |    160 bits |               55 MB
SHA1                     |    160 bits |               78 MB
SHA256                   |    256 bits |               46 MB
SHA384                   |    384 bits |               16 MB
SHA512                   |    512 bits |               17 MB
Size64                   |     64 bits |                2 GB
Tiger                    |    192 bits |               38 MB
XUM32                    |     32 bits |              110 MB

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!

**borked** · 10-04-2010, 01:00 PM

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...

**ottopottomouse** · 10-04-2010, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by Tickler

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.

Thankyou

**borked** · 10-04-2010, 01:28 PM

For those of you actually reading this thread - it means you are actually interested in piracy prevention and proper detection....

The "real world" is light years ahead on all this as visual hashing is a massive research area (especially in videos given transcoding, youtube, copyright etc)

For one example (warning scientific paper, but well written and good visuals!) - see this PDF manuscript. There are hundreds more like it (but more mathematically detailed!)

The real world is moving forward a lot, which is why large companies can easily send take down notices to google because things are automated.

When it's so easy for some to send out mass emails to end-users of pirated content, why the need for all this piracy prevention?

I really do find it extremely amazing that there has been only one person to date that has actually contacted me to discuss wanting to implement things discussed in this thread on their sites. (4 days on the front page is like 8 years in real human terms)

If piracy is such a major problem in this industry, I only see a handful of people interacting in a serious thread that is highlighting how to combat it

**borked** · 10-05-2010, 09:39 AM

Timely bump for people to digitally fingerprint their own content easily...

**Zyber** · 10-05-2010, 11:04 AM

Bump for borked's solution.

**DamianJ** · 10-05-2010, 11:08 AM

Now this is getting interesting. I didn't like the branding each stream with a username and IP as I thought it was an ugly idea, and branding each customer as a thief. In stores, they remove the security tag on purchase.

However, this hashed pixel idea is brilliant.

I'm a magician as a hobby, and have several magic content makers that would love this technology/idea Borked.

I assume you are OK with mainstream work and I can tell them about your ideas?

Thanks

Damian

**borked** · 10-05-2010, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by DamianJ

Now this is getting interesting. I didn't like the branding each stream with a username and IP as I thought it was an ugly idea, and branding each customer as a thief. In stores, they remove the security tag on purchase.

However, this hashed pixel idea is brilliant.

I'm a magician as a hobby, and have several magic content makers that would love this technology/idea Borked.

I assume you are OK with mainstream work and I can tell them about your ideas?

Thanks

Damian

Branding videos with username IP was just an idea, but yes visual hashing is where the mass screening detection lies.

I have no idea what you have as an idea, but go ahead!

**SCORE Ralph** · 10-05-2010, 02:53 PM

Nominated for Thread of the Year... great business thread.

**borked** · 10-07-2010, 03:08 PM

UPDATE - compare images on the fly

OK, I got very intrigued by all these algorithms, so much so, I spent many many sleepless hours these last few days trying to get my head around them (already 1am here!)

I've got something I think is pretty darn smart in comparing images here...

Please give it a whirl with your own images and let me know what you think....

Try to make them as different as possible....

http://borkedcoder.com/image_comparison/

Report back here your ideas + suggestions....

**borked** · 10-07-2010, 03:10 PM

tested with...

gave:

The two images below are very similar and would be flagged as pirated!

**Tdot** · 10-07-2010, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by borked

yeah, username/IP - that's a great deterrent but huge server overhead (and delay before download) to do that as it needs re-encoding for each download. Possible, but practical?

This would work for my sites. I would love to have software that can do this.

If I could figure out which member was the downloading maggot, I could have them permanently banned from re-joining my site or any other ccBill provided site.

**Tdot** · 10-07-2010, 06:10 PM

help please...

I am actively looking for a way of protecting the content on my sites. I am pretty attracted to the idea of a non-downloadable, anti-leech streaming system like the way Adobe and some other companies are boasting.

I called my billing company (ccBill) and they are promoting metrixstream. I spoke to them and their monthly licensing fee is pretty steep.

I am open to all suggestions that will slow down these file sharing maggots who rip off material for a measly membership fee and post my entire site on 10 different forums.

I really don't want to piss off my members, but more importantly, I just want a big deterrent to file sharing.

Any suggestions would be appreciated, and I am open to spending money on this, if it's a good service.

Hoping for some good help!

**Robocrop** · 10-07-2010, 08:33 PM

Great thread borked! this could be useful for many adult webmasters!

Wish someone could inplent a pincode into a movie or something verifying the user as a "member"

**uno** · 10-07-2010, 08:41 PM

Awesome thread.

**borked** · 10-07-2010, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by Tdot

This would work for my sites. I would love to have software that can do this.

If I could figure out which member was the downloading maggot, I could have them permanently banned from re-joining my site or any other ccBill provided site.

If you read further into teh thread, there is a way to do this on the fly, without the overhead of re-encoding.

You can produce a say 5 second roll at the start of the movie that says, "this movie was prepared for <username> <IP> on <data>. Copyright <your company> All rights protected. Do not pirate this movie.

That would scare a big bunch away from uploading it. For those that know how to remove frames, you would also inject that into the movie "randomly", injected as a single frame and the end user will never see it.

It's not the same as digital fingerprinting, but it's a good way of tagging the content.

Originally posted by Tdot

I am actively looking for a way of protecting the content on my sites. I am pretty attracted to the idea of a non-downloadable, anti-leech streaming system like the way Adobe and some other companies are boasting.

I called my billing company (ccBill) and they are promoting metrixstream. I spoke to them and their monthly licensing fee is pretty steep.

I am open to all suggestions that will slow down these file sharing maggots who rip off material for a measly membership fee and post my entire site on 10 different forums.

I really don't want to piss off my members, but more importantly, I just want a big deterrent to file sharing.

Any suggestions would be appreciated, and I am open to spending money on this, if it's a good service.

Hoping for some good help!

I would suggest going with http://www.wowzamedia.com/store.htmlWowzaMediaServer. At $65/mo for a license, it will server all your needs. If you need help setting it up, hardening it, and optimising it for streamlined production environment, drop me an email.

**borked** · 10-07-2010, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by Robocrop

Great thread borked! this could be useful for many adult webmasters!

Wish someone could inplent a pincode into a movie or something verifying the user as a "member"

you mean like the injection of user details/identification data as in post 76?

the data in the example is in a single frame at exactly half way into the movie.

**RycEric** · 10-07-2010, 10:39 PM

I wasted lots of money, with some fancy programming firm in Dallas, then finally said enough. This information is great! Thanks!

**borked** · 10-07-2010, 11:19 PM

an example of identifying the user in both preroll and injected somewhere in the movie

download
http://borkedcoder.com/movie_injecto...er=borkedcoder

the identifying data (given as example) is injected at the start of the movie and at exactly mid-point (search frame by frame at 8 secs, just where the boy starts walking) and at the end

**munki** · 10-07-2010, 11:21 PM

Nice writeup

**ottopottomouse** · 10-08-2010, 03:49 AM

Originally posted by borked

UPDATE - compare images on the fly

OK, I got very intrigued by all these algorithms, so much so, I spent many many sleepless hours these last few days trying to get my head around them (already 1am here!)

I've got something I think is pretty darn smart in comparing images here...

Please give it a whirl with your own images and let me know what you think....

Try to make them as different as possible....

http://borkedcoder.com/image_comparison/

Report back here your ideas + suggestions....

That's clever

I've just lost 1¼ hours thinking about it

**Nautilus** · 10-08-2010, 03:51 AM

Originally posted by borked

UPDATE - compare images on the fly

http://borkedcoder.com/image_comparison/

Report back here your ideas + suggestions....

The two images below are very similar and would be flagged as PIRATED!

Real cool job pal!

**ottopottomouse** · 10-08-2010, 04:00 AM

d7f3bf4563.jpg

Close as I can get at the moment and get NO PIRATE.

**borked** · 10-08-2010, 04:35 AM

Originally posted by ottopottomouse

d7f3bf4563.jpg

Close as I can get at the moment and get NO PIRATE.

oooh, you are sneaky!

OK, took care of that kind of detection avoidance by tightening up the crop-detection part....

cropped tight and a spherise filter applied...

The two images below are very similar and would be flagged as PIRATED!

thanks for catching that

anyone with any false positives? something I'm worried about is a very similar scene close up but from 2 very different movies...

**Nautilus** · 10-08-2010, 05:35 AM

Cropped, resized, distorted, severely recompressed, rewatermarked (typical tube action). And still:

The two images below are very similar and would be flagged as PIRATED!

Pretty cool thingy.

**Nautilus** · 10-08-2010, 05:44 AM

2 borked

How many images can your script compare in, say, 1 hour?

**Nautilus** · 10-08-2010, 06:06 AM

Damn...

The two images below are very similar and would be flagged as PIRATED!

**borked** · 10-08-2010, 06:11 AM

Originally posted by Nautilus

Damn...

The two images below are very similar and would be flagged as PIRATED!

thanks - that's what I wanted to see why a false positive came up... will look into it

btw, I've added a timer to the image comparing (doesn't include upload speed)
eg
time taken to compare images: 2.46392607689 seconds (~1461 images/hr)

**borked** · 10-08-2010, 06:18 AM

I've added the confidence level whenever the images are flagged as pirated.

It was set to anything > 70%, flag as pirated - your images were 72%.

75% is very good at not letting through false positives through, but with the problem of letting some false negatives through.

It is currently set to 73% or greater to be flagged.

**borked** · 10-08-2010, 06:21 AM

Originally posted by Nautilus

Cropped, resized, distorted, severely recompressed, rewatermarked (typical tube action). And still:
Pretty cool thingy.

Would still get flagged even by raising the bar as the images are 76% similar....

The more "noise" in the image, the better.

A big full-frame close up of a pussy and well, one pussy looks like another, so false positive rate is higher...

**Nautilus** · 10-08-2010, 06:31 AM

Originally posted by borked

btw, I've added a timer to the image comparing (doesn't include upload speed)
eg
time taken to compare images: 2.46392607689 seconds (~1461 images/hr)

Too slow unfortunately. To make it practical, it should do at least a billion comparisons/hour.

**ottopottomouse** · 10-08-2010, 07:02 AM

Originally posted by borked

oooh, you are sneaky!

thanks for catching that

Nearly everything I have tried doing has been with an aim of keeping the image as close to the original as possible and get it to pass as NO PIRATE.

Just think that to make your comparison test as good as possible I need to to be trying to think of a way I could get a whole photoset to pass while still having it acceptable to the human eye.

**VHNet** · 10-08-2010, 07:19 AM

Originally posted by chronig

A nice thought - and I am actually looking into this right now - but what about the screen capture programs that you just barely mention? More tedious? Yes. But doable? Yes.

Does screen capturing lose quality in the video? (Enough for surfers to notice?) I'd record my videos in super HD and possibly implement this... if it meant constraining an entire computer (video capturing) vs. downloading out of your cache and barely using any cpu resources PLUS a loss in quality I'd be very interested.

Screen capturing video, at least in my experience with using Camtasia, loses a bit of quality (especially in audio, and the videos jump a bit depending on the PC you're using to capture it with). The other aspect is that the user has to actually sit there for the entire feed to rip it -- for a lot of people, that's too much work....and not worth it.

GFY EDUCATIONAL SERIES: How to prevent Piracy - A new way.

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

Comment