Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media Businesses Technology Your Rights Online

Startup Tries Watermarking Instead of DRM 344

Loosehead Prop writes "A U.K. startup called Streamburst has a novel idea: selling downloadable video with watermarks instead of DRM. The system works by adding a 5-second intro to each download that shows the name of the person who bought the movie along with something like a watermark: 'it's not technically a watermark in the usual sense of that term, but the encoding process does strip out a unique series of bits from the file. The missing information is a minuscule portion of the overall file that does not affect video quality, according to Bjarnason, but does allow the company to discover who purchased a particular file.' The goal is to 'make people accountable for their actions without artificially restricting those actions.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Startup Tries Watermarking Instead of DRM

Comments Filter:
  • re-encode the movie (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19, 2007 @03:47PM (#17685644)
    Solution: re-encode the movie, I prefer 2 pass xvid

    Could the missing bits affect the movie and be detectable?
  • Compression? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by P(0)(!P(k)+P(k+1)) ( 1012109 ) <math.induction@gmail.com> on Friday January 19, 2007 @03:47PM (#17685652) Homepage Journal

    From TFA:

    The missing information is a minuscule portion of the overall file that does not affect video quality, according to Bjarnason, but does allow the company to discover who purchased a particular file.

    I'll assume the people working on Streamburst are clever; but I wonder how susceptible the ghost-stream is to translation and recompression: whether it's possible to corrupt the signature-stream while retaining watchable quality.

  • by sokoban ( 142301 ) on Friday January 19, 2007 @03:48PM (#17685682) Homepage
    So, people who pay for a movie from these guys won't be able to share it via Kazaa or bittorrent or whatever is popular right now. I don't think that many people who pay to download a movie really do so with the intent of putting it on a filesharing network. I mean, why the hell would you do that? The people I know who do the whole illegal filesharing thing, don't pay for media they can get for free, and the people I know who buy digital download media, don't use illegal filesharing sites. Buying something legally kinda defeats the purpose of using a filesharing site, amirite?
  • Not To Bad (Score:3, Interesting)

    by endianx ( 1006895 ) on Friday January 19, 2007 @04:02PM (#17685942)
    I suspect this would be fairly easy to circumvent, but I love the idea!

    I have always thought that piracy should be solved through law enforcement, not technology. Much like traffic law enforcement.

    DRM is the equivalent to putting a 70 mph speed cap on all cars. This watermarking is sort of like requiring cars to have a license plate.

    If they can find a way to make this work I'd be overjoyed.
  • by tygt ( 792974 ) on Friday January 19, 2007 @04:03PM (#17685966)
    So much for selling old movies at a yard sale.
  • by KokorHekkus ( 986906 ) on Friday January 19, 2007 @04:09PM (#17686074)
    n principle, I like this idea. I don't really see a problem with it.
    If someone else gets access to that movie and spreads it, should you be held liable? You have X and someone manages to lay their hands on it and makes copies. If X is a DVD movie you wouldn't be liable (unless you helped the person in some way. But if X is a downloaded movie and the watermarking is to be any useful you must be liable... otherwise you can just say "uuuuh, somebody stole it from my computer... I didn't do nothing... you have to show I did it".
  • Re:Compression? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Code Master ( 164951 ) <codemaster@mac.com> on Friday January 19, 2007 @04:10PM (#17686098) Homepage
    But any modern codec does just that: tosses that information because can't tell. Modern video codecs don't try to accurately represent the color, etc.. they represent the edges, the motion, and some color. Speech vocoders such as for VoIP determine the parameters of your speech and encode those for resynthesis. they don't try to accurately determine sample by sample what things are. I feel that any change in codec would completely destroy any 'minor detail' fingerprinting. If they did content fingerprinting (timing of particular motions, scaling, etc) then they may be accurately reproduced.
  • by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Friday January 19, 2007 @04:13PM (#17686178) Journal
    First you have to know where to filter. As it is, the company should be able to spread the information across a number of frames and still not have it be seen. Interestingly, they can even do it up right so that the various transcoders will still show important info. Overall this is a pretty good idea.

    As to the theft vs. giving it away, well, there are some easy answers to this. Once a person is a "person of interest", then allow them to keep going, but track them closely. Most ppl will be found to give away the film. It is when it hits the net and is spread wildly, that the issues come in. I would guess that fewer than 1% of all film/music owners are at the core of thefts.

    This is overall a win/win.
  • by jorenko ( 238937 ) on Friday January 19, 2007 @04:18PM (#17686256)
    I don't think that's what he meant. Imagine you buy a movie off of this service. One day, the MPAA is browsing Kazaa and finds a copy of the movie with your watermark on it. But, you never put it there. How do they know that the file wasn't stolen from you, then shared by the thief?
  • Simple work around (Score:4, Interesting)

    by king-manic ( 409855 ) on Friday January 19, 2007 @04:22PM (#17686324)
    1-Buy 2 or more files from them
    2-do a bit comparison
    3-modify a copy to reflect a random profile of all removed info

    this would make any compairson hard.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19, 2007 @04:26PM (#17686390)
    Have you tried removing an industrial strength watermark (e.g. DigiMarc)? I tested various watermarks in a course project (Steganography) and it's not so trivial. A large number of watermarks were resistant to encoding, cropping, affine transformations, rotations, etc.

    The only way I could successfully remove the watermark without making the image unusable was by diff'ing the original with the watermarked. But where are you going to get the original?
  • by skiingyac ( 262641 ) on Friday January 19, 2007 @04:31PM (#17686494)

    Only if the pirate has access to the reference file. Without that, he's SOL.
    Or just find 2 bought copies, do a diff, and you've found the bits. Flip some of them.

    Better yet, steal a credit card number, "buy" a copy, and some other guy gets blamed for it.
  • I had a similar idea (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kasperd ( 592156 ) on Friday January 19, 2007 @04:36PM (#17686582) Homepage Journal
    At some point I did a scetch of a somewhat similar idea in some net forum. Though I would not remove bits, rather I'd do an encoding with slightly increased quality in a few random places. (That way I would hope to prevent people bitching about reduced quality). And how much the watermarking costs in terms of extra space could be computed exactly. I haven't done any calculations on the extra space, but I would expect a few KB for a full movie.

    To explain what my idea was I'll first give a short reminder of how jpeg works. Blocks of image data are transformed using something based on fourier transformations. The resulting coefficients are then rounded to different scales. For high frequency components a scale with larger steps can be used as errors in these components are not easilly noticed. There is a table of standard steps to be used for each combination of horisontal and vertical frequency. (I left out the part about how to handle colour components, which is not relevant for the following idea).

    Making a minor change to one of the step sizes is not going to cause a major difference in the size of the compression or the quality. By picking some of the entries at random and reducing the step size you are going to increase the quality of random parts of the picture. Now what I want to do is to make a redundant encoding of a signature on the text from the watermark and use those bits to choose places to increase the quality. The signed text itself is included in the begining of the file.

    First of all removing the signature would means you couldn't compute the step sizes, and thus you couldn't correctly decode the file. And if the file was reencoded, you might still be able to extract the watermark by comparing with the original uncompressed movie. You would just have to find enough of the places where quality was increased. (And enough is a lot less than all of them).

    The signature used in the encoding should be performed using the buyer's private key. In addition to this, I would sign the entire encoded movie using the seller's private key to be able to detect if a file is corrupted (as a service for the users). The part about the user signing something could be replaced with just using a hash of the text, but that might weaken the proof of origin of a particular movie a bit.

    Now all of this could be combined with features to prevent users from accidentially losing a copy to a cracker/pirate. Since this is not intended to prevent users from intentionally copying the file, it could be a lot better and less intrusive than DRM.
  • Re:Ohhhhh... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Omestes ( 471991 ) <omestes@gmail . c om> on Friday January 19, 2007 @05:01PM (#17687130) Homepage Journal
    Quick correction, MPAA, not the RIAA. It is easy to confuse your media giant defenders of.. er... themselves, I know.

    I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with this, though. I do like it better than nasty DRM, but it seems... Underdone, and perhaps still a step in the wrong direction. I think the various **AAs should learn that the problem isn't piracy, but that piracy is the symptom of a larger underlying problem, that their business model is outdated and self-defeating (may I add draconian?), and their prices are unfair.
  • Re:Ohhhhh... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by OglinTatas ( 710589 ) on Friday January 19, 2007 @05:01PM (#17687132)
    Indeed. This is a good thing because it is not there to prevent deliberate piracy, it is there to treat paying customers decently. That seems to have fallen out of favor, so I say bravo to them.
  • by walt-sjc ( 145127 ) on Friday January 19, 2007 @05:06PM (#17687220)
    I'm a much bigger fan of this than streaming solutions or DRM solutions because here I own my copy and can do whatever I want with it quite legally.

    So what happens if you decide you no longer like the movie, and sell it to someone on ebay who then decides to upload it on a torrent site? Are you still responsible? What if you sell it for cash to some kid down the street? What if THEY sell it again and the third person then uploads it? Are you liable?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19, 2007 @05:09PM (#17687268)
    Get a couple of copies and diff them against each other? Randomize the resulting bits?
  • Re:Excellent (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mustafap ( 452510 ) on Friday January 19, 2007 @05:11PM (#17687314) Homepage

    http://www.eire.com/2005/04/15/irish-bank-launches -an-anonymous-visa-card/ [eire.com]

    If it isn't widespread now, it certainly will become so.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19, 2007 @05:20PM (#17687482)
    "DRM is doomed to failure and addresses the wrong problem, but watermarking addresses the Social problem in making it less desirable to share with the Internet at large."

    What makes you think that technological solutions can solve social problems. DRM didn't, and watermarking is an even weaker technology. The honest have no need for any solution, and the dishonest will always escape them. The solution is hard, not because they require an engineer to develop, but because they require changing the human heart. And humanism so far hasn't come up with a good way to do that.
  • by noamsml ( 868075 ) <noamsml@gmai l . c om> on Friday January 19, 2007 @05:30PM (#17687670) Homepage
    Actually, you can take watermarking to more advanced levels by, say, tweaking the color profile of each bought copy just a bit. Nothing serious, and nothing that would be noticed, but just enough to distinguish between copies. It still won't foil pirates, but I don't think anything really will.
  • That's easy: (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Ungrounded Lightning ( 62228 ) on Friday January 19, 2007 @06:25PM (#17688570) Journal
    First you have to know where to filter.

    That's easy: Obtain two or more copies and compare them. The watermarks MUST be different, so the bits that are different tell you where they are.

    Assuming the watermarks are statistically similar to a fixed number of random bit-flips, two copies identify half of them, three identify 3/4ths, four identify 7/8ths, etc.

    Of course with a few samples you might be able to crack the system. If the watermark is a set of redundant copies of something you can identify, from then on it only takes two (the second being to be sure they haven't changed the system or added another.)
  • by McFadden ( 809368 ) on Friday January 19, 2007 @07:43PM (#17689472)
    Or just remove the bits altogether.

    I considered (as I'm sure many did) this exact same digital watermarking idea a couple of years ago for movies, images and audio files. Thought it might make a decent idea for a startup. However, within a few hours of researching the topic, it became pretty clear that it wouldn't work without additional DRM. The watermark is destroyed the moment you re-encode the file into a different format format. The DRM was required to prevent the re-encoding, and let's face it, once you introduce DRM, the watermarking becomes a bit pointless.

    Bjarnason and Co.'s argument seems to be that this is too much hassle. Since people have proven they are more than willing to spend the time ripping and compressing DVDs, or even sneaking into cinemas with video cameras, I don't think a little re-encoding is going to do much to prevent piracy. It only takes one person to create the non-watermarked version, and then this copy becomes the one which is distributed to thousands on P2P networks.

    So unless this new company has found some incredible new way to create non-destructable watermarks, I can't see what they're offering.
  • by Rakishi ( 759894 ) on Friday January 19, 2007 @09:12PM (#17690296)
    Exactly I see this going horribly wrong. Heck I can see some annoying script kiddie make a worm that puts these files specifically on P2P networks. Actually that sounds like a great method to get around the scheme, just flood P2P networks with these files from tons of innocent people.
  • Re:That's easy: (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 19, 2007 @10:14PM (#17690768)
    Your math is about right. Unfortunately for pirates who might try this, there's a distinct lack of understanding about just what it takes to uniquely identify a single movie or piece of music. Ignoring the complications of the encoding, assume you can manipulate roughly 1/10000th of a piece of media before it gets up to noticable proportions. For a 5mb MP3, that's 41,943,040/10 = 4194 bits available, of which less than 128 are required in order to provide a truely unique id. If you use indexed ids instead, you could easily get away with 32 or less. add in another half again for serious error resistance, and an indexed id could be as little as 48 bits, or 1/87th. By your own math the pirate would need to obtain 8 legal copies before he could identify sufficient modified bits to invalidate the watermark.

    If we talk about a 500mb movie instead, the pirate needs 27 legal copies before being able to isolate the watermark bits.

    In other words, the entire social circle you might feel compelled to share a watermark-free version with would already have had to buy the piece of media concerned, and risked giving you a copy, before you could isolate and remove the watermark.

    No, it doesn't stop commercial pirates, but there isn't really anything that will. It does prevent people from using reasonable means to remove the watermarking however.

    Regarding a "system", a system in (any half-decent) watermarking is simply a method of identifying low-impact bits within the piece of media format, it's not a reversable system, the bits to modify are chosen psuedo-randomly with limits to ensure format integrity and a bias towards bits that have less audible/visible impact. Cracking the "system" doesn't achieve anything, because the key to the psuedo-random function is the original piece of encoded media.

    There are a variety of proposed alternative attacks focused on simply making it statisticaly likely that all the ids have been ruined by adding noise all over the biased bits, and of course the various noise-removal approaches etc, but it is not the trivial exercise many people seem to think it is to remove this kind of mark.
  • Re:Ohhhhh... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by trytoguess ( 875793 ) on Saturday January 20, 2007 @12:27AM (#17691754)
    You just defeated your own argument. Yes, visual and audio entertainment is necessary for humans, but as you so nicely stated there are alternatives to recorded music, and movies. I think you're severely underestimating the human desire for entertainment, and overestimating the importance of mass media.

    Passive hi-tech entertainment isn't the only thing we can do when wanting to have fun with little effort. There's always hobbies with low mental/phycial useage like; interaction with humans or pets, exercise (yoga, walking/jogging, sex/masturbation), various crafts (origami, woodcarving, whatnot), etc. It's... odd even as someone who is defined as a geek to see such a strong need for recorded entertainment.
  • by endofcell ( 1018056 ) on Saturday January 20, 2007 @06:49AM (#17693410)
    As much as I like an alternative to DRMed files, and the 'idea' of moving over to social responsibility by having watermarked/named media, like others I'm still uneasy about the snowballing consequences if your media stash is compromised.
  • by bensch128 ( 563853 ) <bensch128@@@yahoo...com> on Saturday January 20, 2007 @10:38PM (#17698750)
    The real trick is to keep the extraction software secret

    Naa, you could just use a private key with a public encryption/decryption algorithm.

    In fact, if you're clever enough, I sure you could build a watermark system which has a public key to verify that the watermark exists and is "correct" but only a private key would allow to you locate the watermark...

    Not sure though,
    Ben

Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.

Working...