DSL Gateways to Fight Piracy by Marking Video 337
Stony Stevenson wrote with an article about home gateway devices being set up to identify video pirates. The article reads: "Home gateway manufacturer Thomson SA plans to incorporate video watermarking technology into future set-top boxes and other video devices. The watermarks, unique to each device, will make it possible for investigators to identify the source of pirated videos. By letting consumers know the watermarks are there, even if they can't see them, Thomson hopes to discourage piracy without putting up obstacles to activities widely considered fair use, such as copying video for use on another device in the home or while traveling to work."
I'm not buying. (Score:5, Insightful)
So copies go out with my ID attached? No, thanks. I'll buy brand X. Or Y. But not Thompson.
A tool is supposed to do things my way. Not the manufacturer's way.
If Thompson wants to help prevent copyright infringement, there are better ways to do it, such as financial support for civil lawsuits against pirates.
Re:I'm not buying. (Score:5, Interesting)
What you fail to understand is that it's so much easier to find a way to screw you over than to actually come up with something new and useful.
I started getting pissed when I found out the video card that I had bought specifically with a TV-Out port wouldn't let me watch DVDs I had purchased on my TV (despite this being fair use) because surely I was a pirate and wanted to copy that DVD. Well fuck them, now I rip movies that I rent and/or download movies, and watch them anywhere I want in my house. Call me a thief. They are bigger theives - I don't remember a label on my video card saying "Hey, the TV Out port you want and paid an extra $100 for won't actually WORK due to something called Macrovision".
Come and get me, no DMCA in THIS country. Let's see, which movie should I download tonight?
Re:I'm not buying. (Score:4, Interesting)
Do you think they really care if you download a movie? Of course, they pretend to, but in the end it just helps them 1) spread their movies and 2) claim that everyone's a pirate and they're losing 100 trillion dollars due to piracy. Go watch an independent movie instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm not buying. (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh? This isn't reporting you when you put a black-market DVD into your hardware; it's allowing a mechanism for investigation when you put a movie or show this hardware rips up on BitTorrent or YouTube.
Personally, I think this is an outstanding compromise; it leaves legitimate fair use rights in place, but provides a means for large-scale-distribution violations to be prosecuted. It's certainly a far better deal than mandatory DRM, which in all seriousness is the other contender. I'll take watermarks over DRM any day.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Since when is it up to anyone except the owner of the content to protect their interests? There is only one reason that a third party would want to get involved with this bullshit -- kickbacks from the MPAA and other media conglomerates.
Re:I'm not buying. (Score:5, Interesting)
No, no, no. The reason for a hardware manufacturer to get involved (and I think it's a damned compelling one) is avoidance of contributory infringement suits.
Mod parent up (Score:2)
Re:I'm not buying. (Score:5, Insightful)
But the courts have already ruled repeatedly and conclusively that manufacturers of VCRs cannot be held liable for contributory infringement. I fail to see how "on a digital device" should suddenly change the way the law handles things, and if it does, the law should be changed. Contributory infringement is no more valid for a PVR than "on the internet" patents are for common everyday activities, and for precisely the same reason.
Re:I'm not buying. (Score:5, Interesting)
Back onto topic... the Betamax case is no longer so sweeping as it once was; the breadth of its holding was significantly reduced by Grokster, and there are ongoing attempts to legislate around it entirely. A simple PVR is safe for now, but once one starts adding any kind of network functionality to it (even functionality clearly intended for space-shifting within a household), things become significantly less clearcut.
As you say, the law should be changed for the better (and ongoing attempts to change it for the worse should be resisted) -- but if I were a hardware manufacturer in that line of business right now, I'd want to cover my arse for the event that it changes for the worse.
Re: (Score:2)
In the event that I'm that far south, will do.
Frankly, I wouldn't want to be a hardware manufacturer in that line of business right now. The amount of crap that they have to put up with is unbelievable.... :-)
I don't disagree with you that it's being eroded, but I don't think the erosion is as bad as you thing. Grokster was pretty much designed for piracy. It's a little extreme to take a case against software that was primarily designed for mass sharing of other people's content and try to apply that
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure that it should be legal for me to pay a vendor to remove functionality from a product that the vendor is going to sell to you.
Would it be reasonable for Sony to pay Toyota to not include CD players in cars so that people would be more likely to buy aftermarket players? Would it be reasonable for the Wall Street Journal to pay the New York Times to not include stock prices? I'm not sure that there's something wrong there, but it's damn well sketchy - and it damn well wouldn't be good for consum
Re: (Score:2)
HARDWARE_VENDOR_A wants to build a system by which rich folks can digitize their whole DVD library and play back the movies they own on any screen in their house without needing to shuffle DVDs around. Thing is, the last folks who tried to do that were on the receiving end of a very nasty lawsuit from the motion picture industry (true story). So what does HARDWARE_VENDOR_A do? Well, one option is to buy a watermark chip from HARDWARE_VEND
Re: (Score:2)
Primarily that the company -- Kaleidescape [kaleidescape.com] that was the subject of the true story was doing roughly the same thing - essentially making it impossible to digitally pull the ripped video off of their unit's hard disks in a redistributable manner. They were doing it in conjunction with the DVD Copy Control Association and thought they had the sign-off from them to go forward. They got sued anyway.
I hope Thompson gets the same. You can'
Re:I'm not buying. (Score:5, Informative)
This is definitely an acceptable compromise between copyright holders wanting control and the purchaser of a copy of a work wanting control. I'd stand behind watermarking because it restores good faith and trust to the system, which is what I'm really complaining about whenever I bitch about DRM. I just want the copyright holder to trust me so that I don't have to deal with their rights "management." If I wanted their management I would've hired one of them as a consultant.
What the watermark does is skip all the easily broken DRM and go straight to a method by which the copy's origins can be determined. This returns some form of personal accountability to the process of piracy.
To the GP and anyone else who suggests that watermarking is unacceptable because it also reduces functionality, I've got a question. How, exactly, does a watermark with no other DRM prevent you from doing whatever you want with what you buy?
Re:I'm not buying. (Score:5, Interesting)
It degrades the quality of the video by inserting useless noise into it.
More generally, it's a feature that isn't beneficial to the owner of the product. If it's my video encoder, it should do things that are useful for me - a feature that serves no purpose except to allow others to track my behavior doesn't belong in my stuff.
This isn't unlike the unique tracking patterns that laser printers output on printouts. Sure, I'm less likely to use a TV encoder in the process of producing an anonymous political message, but embedding insidious tracking codes into all of our electronics just isn't something that should be considered even slightly socially acceptable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
it leaves legitimate fair use rights in place, but provides a means for large-scale-distribution violations to be prosecuted
Yeah right. It allows the OP's scenario to result in his bankruptcy while doing fuckall to stop real pirates, since they just rip the DVD and copy the cover art (or make more DVDs in the same factory). This is only good for harrassing morons who upload dvd clips to youtube and the people they live with.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As for making it useless, if youtube detects a mangled watermark they know you pirated it and they'll block it.
Re: (Score:2)
And what of Fair Use, such as if someone uploads a watermarked excerpt of the movie? Do you really think that would stop the MPAA from suing and forcing the uploader to suffer massive financial damage (either through settlement or legal fees) even though the uploader is ultimately in the right?
Re:I'm not buying. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The only way to do this would be to have a huge database where everyone was represented, along with serial codes for all the movies they'd bought. Maybe that would link in with a national ID card.
Of course, you'd also have to notify them of any DVDs bought/sold second hand - hence there'd have to be a central DVD 2nd-hand dealer - no doubt controlled by the same corpor
Re: (Score:2)
The watermarks aren't used to determine whether you're allowed to watch something; they're used to track down people who are sharing things for which the copyright owners haven't permitted redistribution. They're applied not to the media, but to the equipment that records and plays said media. I don't know where you get the idea that personally recorded media would also need to be watermarked.
The massive database you refer to doesn't need to track media ownership, but only player location (ownership can
Re:I'm not buying. (Score:5, Insightful)
Compromise?! Who decided the copyright cartel deserves even that?
And I'll continue to demand neither, thankyouverymuch!
Re: (Score:2)
They may not deserve it; however, what they deserve is far less important than what they manage to actually get.
If giving an inch of the public's privacy prevents the legislature from taking a mile out of our ability to make fair use of 3rd-party content, it's better than the alternative. Denying that we're even on the defensive does nothing to reduce the ground being lost, and reminds me very much of Executive-branch positioning regarding
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't about protecting "Moe and the Big Exit" from piracy, it's about ensuring all video footage loaded onto the net is uniquely identified. It's about ensuring whisleblowers are caught and punished for exposing corporate masters and that (eventually) indie films can be blocked at source.
Tagging illegally recorded video is one thing, and might just be acceptable. Tagging every bit of video you upload is an enorm
Re:I'm not buying. (Score:4, Informative)
This is not about DSL gateways, it's about "home media gateways" and set-top boxes. They do not in fact tag all video uploaded -- only video ripped using the hardware in question.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However cunning the steganography involved in these watermarks is the details are likely to become known quite quickly. Making it possible to alter the data. No doubt someone could easily pr
Re: (Score:2)
Hammer, meet nail. (Score:2)
I think the fear -- and I don't think it's a wholly irrational one -- is that once you get this watermarking technology built into
Re:Hammer, meet nail. (Score:5, Interesting)
So if the watermark applied by the PVR does its job, there isn't any need whatsoever for an additional one provided by the camera.
How would these even work? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course... (Score:2)
Of course if Thompson REALLY wanted to help prevent copyright infringement, they could lobby to have copyright lessened or repealed. Repealing copyright would instantaneously stop 100% of copyright infringement.
Re: (Score:2)
Way to kill your sales, bitches! (Score:4, Insightful)
Brilliant! (Score:5, Funny)
Now all those nasty, evil video pirates will suddenly be forced to... to...
Buy someone else's gateway???
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Orange is giving the LiveBox away with service.
Thomson &/or the MPAA (or their euro equivalents) can pressure/bribe the big network operators into only giving out free watermarking sets.
What a coup that would be for them. Each media compan
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I give it a month, tops. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
yawn (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who the fuck is Thompson? I've never even heard of them, much less seen any of their routers.
I don't think that this is the strategy you use when you want to take on Linksys/Cisco, Netgear, and D-Link.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson_SA [wikipedia.org]
They are about a quarter of the size of Cisco(based on revenues), but they dwarf Netgear and D-Link.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They aren't trying to take on Linksys, Netgear or D-Link -- at least, not with the products in question.
Well, it'll give the hackers something to do. (Score:5, Insightful)
Way to alienate the general public, guys.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would the general public care? Firstly, outside of the Slashdot RDF, most people don't seem to care about DRM. They bought DVDs before CSS was cracked, they buy songs from iTunes, and so on.
Secondly, the only legitimate reason for the "general public" to be annoyed by protection technologies is if it interferes with their fair use rights under law. Uploading shit to P2P networks is not a part of those rights, but it's what this is designed to discourage. So there can be no legitimate reason for annoya
Can we (Score:5, Insightful)
Altering user's data? (Score:2)
Sounds like "data corruption" to me. (Score:2)
If it systematically alters the bits of a user's payload at all (especially if it's in a way that passes the usual redundancy checks) it's "data corruption".
I'd be interesting to see what happens if somebody sues an ISP who provides one of these modems with their serv
Yes, it's about control. (Score:5, Insightful)
Suppose that I send my family home video. Does it watermark that?
I imagine they can add their evil bits to whatever you do. The ISP is not going to ask you, they are just going to do it. When I say evil, I mean it.
This is not about "piracy", it's about control. Real copyright violations happen in places where people set up DVD printing presses and make exact copies of works. As soon as these devices are everywhere, the AAs will redefine "piracy" to get the pay per play they want out of you. Suckering you for entertainment cash should be the least of your concerns, though. Imagine a world where nothing can be done anonymously ever again. The modem is a computer and it can be programed to track your communications. Whistleblowers and activists, beware.
This is *ALMOST* the right thing (Score:5, Insightful)
When you buy a car (yes, car analogies might not be perfect) you have a title and registration that you keep with the car for proof of ownership. When you buy a CD, you have the physical media as proof. The entertainment industries need to have something as simple, and usable as these examples.
Sure, as an idea there are holes in it, but the premise is good. DRM is not a registration that works as it is too limiting, just as the EU! When someone steals your CD, you just go without it and have to buy another one unless you have insurance that covers it. If they steal your car, same again. If either is used to commit a crime, you are not complicit but that is not how the current music industry is looking at things.
Individual watermarks in the content might sound good, but they can be stolen, and if its anything like DRM, it will get cracked in no time. The only sound answer is to make it not worth pirating by making the cost reasonable, the usefulness of the media robust, and the ease of use to the consumer no more difficult than toasting bread in an electric toaster.
Time again to mention that a CD sharing club of you and 20 of your friends can pirate music and videos indefinitely without being caught in order to reduce the cost of music and videos to a level that is acceptable. Its the Internet part that gets people caught. The entertainment industry is hell bent on fscking the consumer, and those people will continue to take back from the industry as long as they are being ripped off, or feel that they are.
Even opportunistic piracy is going to continue, has always been around, and cannot be stopped. They only thing they can stop is the online wholesale piracy. This 'watermarking' won't stop you and your CD club from your activities as long as nobody posts a copy to the Internet and gets caught.
Until they get these criteria right, people will pirate music and videos because they have enough reason to dismiss the minor chance they will be caught. The 'industry' will simply have to figure out how to make money while providing what the consumer has overwhelmingly demonstrated that they want... or just go out of business.
Personally, I vote for them going out of business. Let newer, better business rise from the ashes of the current entertainment industry!
Re: (Score:2)
To make DRM truely work, they have to sell a unique version to each consumer and manage unique keys. If someone shares their keys, those keys get revoked, and that consumer is forever shuned. Queue the movie naz
Re: (Score:2)
You're also responsible if you leave an axe in your yard and a kid falls on it. You can certainly argue that the kid shouldn't have been on your property and that the parents should
Re:This is *ALMOST* the right thing (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, if all entertainment media was serialized, it might work, but then the insurance vultures would have a toe hold on a new kind of policy: insurance against copyright infringement 'accidents' just as you can get them to insure against loss of employment, sickness, and autotheft etc. Then we would have to pay 50 times what the content is worth, and it could never be given to anyone else free of encumbrances.
The other implication that comes with serialized media is something the **AA cannot live with: Ownership! If it is serialized, its my copy and I can sell it, loan it to friends, and all the other things that come with ownership. Currently, the entertainment industry is leaning toward the rental business model rather than ownership. Yeah, yeah, I know it's a copyrighted work, but the car I drive has patented materials in it too, but I still own it!
There are a lot of ideas, but none of the good ones include the current **AA business model.
Re: (Score:2)
If they're businesses, they're still going to need to make money. Make a movie for $20 million dollars, and you still need to make at least that just to break even.
Much if your rant is aimed at those "greedy" businesses, but from my perspective all of those people on the other side who assume they're entitled to something for nothing are equally greedy, and no more than the flip side of the same coin.
Unencrypted digital video (Score:2)
I'm guessing no, though, which means that this is just another example of the huge consumer electronics industry kissing the ass of the much smaller content cabal, while making meaningless overtures to consumers.
Hidden benefit (Score:2)
1. Steal somebody's decoder box.
2. Make and distribute pirated videos.
3. Profit !!
And there is a hidden benefit here. You know how Thomson is saying "if consumers know the watermark is there, they'll be disincented to pirate videos"? Well it works the same way in reverse. If media companies know the watermark is there, they'll be disincented to commit further acts of DRM.
Media companies have already demonstrated writ large that they are too stupid to grasp the implications of (and hackability of) sof
Re: (Score:3)
More like the other way around. A person knows that if he will record a movie from his own cable, it will carry his watermark, so if it ever for any reason will end up accessible on a public network, he will be sued. On the other hand, if he will download a pirated copy, he shouldn't worry about it getting out -- at worst it has pirate's watermark.
Result: tim
Re: (Score:2)
If you believe that, I should introduce you to my Nigerian friend -- I'm sure you'll be happy to help him out of his bind!
Fundamentally, the MAFIAA don't give a shit about small-scale "piracy;" what they really care about is control. Until they get to the point where they get paid for every instance of every person playing every piece of media on every device, they're not going to stop pushing for continua
A better solution than DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
I know it's not a perfect solution - but I personally would not mind such a scheme, if it lets me do what I want (personally) with digital files I purchase and record.
DRM will never give you what you want. (Score:2)
With the watermark and no DRM, you can do as you please with your music/movie/media, and if it gets out onto the file-sharing networks - you'll be responsible ...
Don't be confused, this is just another means of implementing digital restrictions. It corrupts your files, removes anonymity from all your activities and sets you up for more of the same. DRM free means that and only that. Anything that identifies you is designed to enforce limits one way or another. One of the first things the bad guys wil
Fake watermark generator (Score:2)
You people are absurd (Score:5, Insightful)
Wake up and face the fact that fair use is dying, and if you want to save it, you've got to stop the tide before you can reverse it. All the fantasizing in the world about "starting from scratch" is never going to happen. If you continually indicate that you're not willing to work with content providers at all, then don't expect content providers to have any consideration for your interests. Of course, this is Slashdot, so maybe correcting problems is less desirable than bitching about them (but Slashdotter hypocrisy protects us from the same derision we give to politicians and executives for doing the same thing).
I know, I know, "they" started "it." Whatever. If you can't endorse someone taking a positive step toward a fair and equitable compromise between content providers and consumers, at least recognize the fact that one of those "evil corporations" is reaching out, even just a little.
And before the privacy nutjobs come out of the woodwork, do you think that your cable box and/or ISP don't already have the capacity to track what you do? Having watermarks is no more an invasion of privacy than having a Safeway club card or a commercial DVR. All that matters is what you DO with that information.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you continually indicate that you're not willing to work with content providers at all, then don't expect content providers to have any consideration for your interests.
If they want to sell anything at all, they'll listen to congress - all we have to do is fight for our rights. Compromising with these people will only result in them coming back later asking for another compromise that pushes the line further in our direction. What we need is legislation explicitly protecting our rights to enrich the p
Re: (Score:2)
No copyright, no cont
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright as a restriction on personal sharing is already dead. There are only two questions: 1.) Will the media distribution companies notice that they have to change their business models fast enough to survive, and 2.) How long will it take for the general public to realize that there's nothing wrong with downloading music and movies on the internet.
Currently, the pirates provide decent quality DRM-free releases of music and movies for free. The only points of competition that the media distribution co
Re:You people are absurd (Score:4, Insightful)
Corporations love the internet because it is, for the most part, free to them. At least, it's several orders of magnitude below the what the cost would be if they actually had to pay for their own infrastructure to send packets around the planet. Those of us unfortunate to live in towns with taxpayer-funded stadiums know full well that a corporation will gladly get someone else to pay for their fixed costs. It's no different with the Internet. They didn't build it, didn't think of it, and didn't think much of it when it came into popular use. So, they were late to the party and now they want to write the rules. They put up insecure e-commerce apps and complained when they got hacked. It wouldn't be possible for "hackers" (their definition) to cause "damage" to corporate assets if they didn't connect those assets to an inherently insecure network in the first damned place! Well, fuck them! Ditto for government, which does at least deserve credit for laying the foundation for the Internet. However, then it occurred to them the "damage" that can be done by people sharing information freely. (I'm not talking about pirated DVDs, either. I don't steal or even buy movies or music because it's all such crap these days it's not worth paying attention to.) Now government does everything they can to discourage anonymity, to make people think they're constantly being watched, and to generally discourage anything but online shopping also. Oh, and be sure to pay your taxes online so some corporation can charge you a "convenience fee", while we're at it.
Well, when the net is turned into a safe, locked down haven for commerce and everyone watches what's sent to them for their montly content subscription fees and nobody can do anything they're not "supposed" to do, people will get bored and drop off. Hackers, real ones, will have moved on to more interesting things anyway. Want to stop this? How about mandatory data destruction laws? ISPs should be able to retain logs only for a brief period of time and then only for the purpose of network maintenance and security. They should be prohibited by law from sharing this information with anybody without a court order. How about laws that put the same kinds of protections on your private messages that corporations bought and paid for concerning their "intellectual property"? This isn't about what's technically possible, it's about what's legal. That your government (pick one, they're all doing it) is currently trying to go the exact opposite direction shows what they think of you. Remember that well.
Oh, and never use frequent shopper cards. If you don't have a choice, at least never use them with your actual name and address on them.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think the inventors of the telephone would have been a
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary, fair use is actually getting better and better every day, and that's mostly because of our actions (and not the kindness of content providers).
Translating the bible for instance
That's especially ludicrous... (Score:5, Interesting)
That's especially ludicrous since American industry was actually founded on the VIOLATION of English IP law - breaking the mercantilist system that attempted to limit the colonists to producing raw materials for, and buying finished products from, British companies.
Oh, brother! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I *suspect* it would take about 24-48 hours from release of this technology for it to be worked around.
Circumvension (Score:2)
Compromise? (Score:2)
Now, tell me, would the companies supposedly losing money to piracy end up having more money if they were tax exempt as opposed to going around suing people (which makes them look like a bad guy) and such?
Re: (Score:2)
... and that's where stupid tax loopholes come from.
Copyright is intended to apply to for-profit distribution. Anything else is just money grubbing on the part of content distributors. There's no reason to compromise with these people beyond "you can keep your government granted monopoly on for-profit distribution".
Re: (Score:2)
They don't care if they look like the bad guys. They don't even care that they ARE the bad guys. Trust me, if even a hint of tax exemption is whispered about, the media companies will be jumping all over it with their usual "piracy" excuse.
Perhaps it's fitting that
Re: (Score:2)
A person or business creates material then copyrights it.
The person or business has two choices.
Choice one: Do as they do now. Pay taxes on their income generated from the copyrighted material, and go after those illegally downloading said material.
Choice two: Choose a tax-exempt option. They would be exempt from federal taxes on the income generated from the copyrighted material. However, if they so choose to do such a thing, the material becomes public domain. However, it would
WARNING (Score:2)
Why Pirate? (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's simpler than that. The rest of us apply for a job, and then do the work required for money delivered. Muscicans and such do things backwards: they do the job then whine when somebody uses the service already performed without paying for it. Then they want "protections" so they can do things backwards.
Well, reality recently caught up with conte
Anti-piracy technology undermines fair use (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you use a VCR? There's a show that you really want to watch, but you have another appointment. The broadcast flag is designed to prevent people from recording television shows for personal use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_flag/ [wikipedia.org] VCRs were declared legal by the Supreme Court, which the content providers want to overrule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America _v._Universal_City_Studios%2C_Inc./ [wikipedia.org] The purpose of this is to make you pay for the episode which you already paid your cab
Re:Why Pirate? (Score:4, Insightful)
When you were growing up, making durable, faithful copies of an audio or video signal was a technically difficult and impressive service. It was a source of value, and the market rewards a service with value by exchanging other things of value for it. Today, making perfect copies of an audio or video signal is something with a material and skill cost so negligible it is practically nothing. The market does not support the sale of a service which has no value.
I am more than happy to pay a musician to play a show, or a theater to project a film. The fact that making copies of media is no longer a service with economic value does not threaten the livelihood of a musician who can give a performance or a director who can create a film that is worth going out to see on a 50 foot screen. It only threatens the livelihood of professional copyists, whose business is now no longer worth anything.
That's what technology does. It put the thesis typesetters, buggy-whip makers, and telegraphers out of business. I do not see anything special about it having eliminated the need for media middlemen.
problems with this (Score:2)
A Tribute to George Carlin (Score:2)
> Thomson hopes to discourage piracy without putting up obstacles to activities widely considered fair use,
"Wow! THIS SOUNDS GREAT! Where can I buy one."
In other news today Thomson's share price plunged in the face of sluggish set top box sales. "We're mystified", said the Thomson spokesliar, "but we're expecting great demand for our new screenless TV. It has no screen, so lets see those rat consumers watch pirated video
Better than DRM (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Device should act as an agent of the owner. (Score:2)
This opens up the market for devices without WM (Score:2)
This misfeature is something consumers won't want, in particular the Arrrh Matey pirates, therefore they wont buy.
Keep up the good work.
Time for a hacker? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Once a proper watermark is agreed upon, it's useless. Watermarks are similar to steganography, they are only effect
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I hate to point this out to the Einsteins who are making this but all you would need to do is run two of these boxes on two different accounts and diff the resulting output of the two fixed length videos, eliminating any element that are not common to both. ...
This one is not even clever.
You mean to tell me you expect to rip from two sources and the only difference will be the watermark? You are dreaming more than the company hawking the technology.
If their watermark is something persistent in every frame, seems like it would be trivial to remove, but I wonder how clever they actually are. My guess is that it won't be visible to the eye, and it'll be dynamic -- the bits they're adding might be in different locations throughout the feed (so that you can't just add a bit of your
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess what I don't know is how that information get reported back to the tracker.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is about watermarking stuff from the cable company, before you even have it on your computer.
Re:Well, no more Thomson devices in this household (Score:2)
-uso.