You guys might dig this. :-)
Looks like fee music and moviez will be coming to an end one fine day.
Multimedia Forensics and Content Screening
http://research.microsoft.com/users/...tent_Screening
Printable View
You guys might dig this. :-)
Looks like fee music and moviez will be coming to an end one fine day.
Multimedia Forensics and Content Screening
http://research.microsoft.com/users/...tent_Screening
404 page not found
Try this link:
http://research.microsoft.com/users/darkok/Research.htm
It is about 4th item from the top
Regards
D
Nothing will end music pirating. This will be about as effective as CSS is.
Regardless of your personal opinion on pirating or sharing music, the problem lies with the fact that distributors still to this day use a content distribution system which is no longer sustainable. This is no more effective than security policies without a written component. They are enforcing their content through the application of technology, instead of looking at the social and economic alternatives to their current system. I don't have a solution, but then again, I don't get paid to think of them. But it's pretty obvious that the current system just isn't working.
Bah, that's just my opinion on the matter in a nutshell. Digital fingerprinting will be no more effective than CSS because, like all anti-pirating technology, it ignores any reasons behind the need for its existence besides technological ones.
I agree Striek. From what I saw this is just another system that companies will throw money at that will eventually be broken. These sort of tecnological approaches address the symptom, but not the root cause. They need to invest in a system that makes the current file sharing system not worth the effort.
My $0.02 at least
D
re: link.
was having some problems. I will try again.
http://research.microsoft.com/users/...tent_Screening
I think the answer lies in some sort of hardware solution. I think when this starts to mature - you will see the end of piracy. They will have a way to track ownership and you won't be able to manipulate it.Quote:
Originally posted here by TechGrunt
I agree Striek. From what I saw this is just another system that companies will throw money at that will eventually be broken. These sort of tecnological approaches address the symptom, but not the root cause. They need to invest in a system that makes the current file sharing system not worth the effort.
My $0.02 at least
D
https://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/home
on the bright side - i also think that the costs of entertainment will go down.
as we have seen. price of music over here is canukland was in $20 range before filesharing. everyone complained about how expensive is was. the music biz kept saying "thats what it costs to make it, man! leave is alone."
now 5 more years on inflation - every other life cost has gone up but the "music biz" somehow magically managed to reduce their prices and are selling the same product for $10. yeah, right!
we should also see a similar trend in pc games and dvd movies. actually - i think we are already seeing that in DVD. they are cheaper and more feature full than they have ever been. i have no problem dishing out $20 for a double DVD with extras & packaging up the kazoo. seems fair to me. looking forward to when they are $10 - new hot off the shelf.
Once the various governing bodies of the recording and film industries change their business models I think this will occur. It is a bit of a fallacy the press they put out about costs associated with production and how piracy is driving prices up. In AUS last year the record industry association (ARIA) recorded their higher profit ever, in light of all the piracy.Quote:
Originally posted here by rowdy_yates
on the bright side - i also think that the costs of entertainment will go down.
Don't get me wrong, not condoning the practice here, all I am saying is that the industries profit margins are high and their business model wasn't equipped for the advent on online music. But there are definate signs they are changing their ways, which will ultimately put the file sharers offline - why risk downloading a rough version of the song you want (along with other viruses, trojans etc) when you can buy the professional version for only a few cents (in some cases).
D
They already tried on dvd. And was the result? a smart guy broke the code. Thi is another security myth: if it is built in the hardware, you cant broke or bypass .Quote:
I think the answer lies in some sort of hardware solution. I think when this starts to mature - you will see the end of piracy. They will have a way to track ownership and you won't be able to manipulate it.
And the problem is allways rely on: if they secure the format too much, adding a lot of crap to make a "digital signature", ppl will just launch another "free format" and just copy the "music part". Even they cant remove the signature, who will find the "original copy"? or for buy original music will be necessary to present an id card? Just for example, ive joined a hunt for a pirate copy of "documents to go". They (the pirates) had distributed the "key" and the registration identification of the original copy. and so what? it was registered to some "hi hyu ko" in China. Maybe the vendor is able to go there and arrest the buyer? I dont think so. Anyway, even we found the guy, the guy can just say "i dont know, ive bought a legal copy (and present it). Someone may had hacked me".
I really think that the prices are going down (not so fast as i would like) BECAUSE the piracy. If we stop the piracy, they wont need to low the prices down.Quote:
on the bright side - i also think that the costs of entertainment will go down.
Although i hunt pirates (one of my "clients") i allways say that the prices and the commercial approach are wrong. As Shriek said, they must rethink all.
take music for example: at some point you would have to distill the signal into the music itself for it to be enjoyable. anyone can than take that signal, which is ment for your speakers and record it as plaing old music anyway...
you can retrace the steps w/ video as well. point is that MPAA/RIAA are pretty waayyyyy off in the left field w/ trying to solve this technologicaly. (they are trying to contain "SOUND" for Christ's sake)
... who really feels sorry for them anyway...
/unhappy goes back to dl'ing anime
I agree with this statement. I have always thought that software vendors would be far better to channel the money from the development of security system that will eventually be broken by legions of pirates into making their product cheaper. Why would anyone go searching for dodgy software if they can pick it up at a low price.Quote:
Originally posted here by cacosapo
I really think that the prices are going down (not so fast as i would like) BECAUSE the piracy.
What is going on here is another method of distributing pre-release songs. If you are a big music company, and want some reviewers in the industry to listen to it and give it the thumbs up, you send them a CD. Maybe one of the reviewers "leaks" their copy to the Internet. With this finger printing tech going into the audio mix, as long as you know that you sent copy "12345" to reviewer "Music Magazine 53" or something, if you find that copy "12345" somewhere on the Internet you know who leaked it and can seek legal recourse against them along with making sure that the industry tanks their company.
Another interesting thing is that if the reviewer for copy "12345" and "23456" and "34567" worked together to try and remove the embedded signal, they end up embedding their fingerprint into the stream and all of them can be tanked.
It isn't meant to be used wide-scale for every disc sold with some sort of customer ID system (It would cost a lot to license it from Microsoft at this scale) but it could be useful if you are a music company wanting to figure out who the feck leaks your pre-release discs. If they went to such extremes as gluing a CD-player shut, you know they mean business and would probably consider something like this.
Of course when the company is building up their release inventory a month or two in advance of the release...
1. free is better than cheapQuote:
Why would anyone go searching for dodgy software if they can pick it up at a low price.
2. becasue they can
3. so they can say "yea I cracked blah blah blah"
4. they think it sounds cooler to say "haha I didnt pay for any of this"
5. they dislike the company
6. practice cracking software
probably a ton of other reasons.
True, but I would argue that this would at the very least help the problem. You are always going to get people breaking rules of any kind. Lowering prices would cut a reasonable % of the piracy figuresQuote:
oh, I didnt sya it wouldnt help. But it wouldnt even come close to stopping the problem.
True. In fact, nothing will stop the piracy. However, if i can buy a music for US$1 (here), i wont never d/l it from internet. Its easier go to an online shop and buy it.Quote:
Originally posted here by XTC46
oh, I didnt sya it wouldnt help. But it wouldnt even come close to stopping the problem.
For example, a (official) pc game here costs ~US$25,00. Its cheap. But about of 70% of games copies here are "alternative". why? because its too expensive for a country like mine. If its costs about $10, noone would buy a pirated one. But the industry allways think "i cant sell the game for $10.. i will loose money"..
Well, speak of the devil.Quote:
Full LinkQuote:
Page 1 of 1
Sparks fly as Ottawa releases new Copyright Bill
By: Joaquim P. Menezes
IT World Canada (21 Jun 2005)
The Canadian government, yesterday, kept one promise many had hoped it wouldn't.
It introduced new copyright legislation that is generally favourable to music companies and recording studios, but has some public advocacy and consumer groups in a tizzy.
The latter are particularly riled at proposed amendments to the Canadian Copyright Act that they see as infringing on the rights of users – Canadian consumers, educators, students and researchers.
These controversial amendments include a "making available" right that grants copyright holders the exclusive right to control the dissemination of copyrighted material on the Internet.
This provision, according to a posting on the Department of Canadian Heritage's Web site means any "unauthorized posting" or P2P file sharing on the Internet will be treated as "an infringement of the copyright."
The bill also contains legal protections for technological measures (TMs) – encryption, password requirements and rights management systems. Under the new provisions, any removal or tampering of TMs with a view to violating copyright will itself constitute an infringement. Copyright holders are offered "additional tools" to take legal action against P2P file sharing or "unauthorized" posting of copyrighted material.
Advertisement
The Bill, expectedly, has been hailed by music companies and organizations such as the Canadian Cable Television Association, but has been slammed by public advocacy groups, including the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC).
"This is not a happy day for Canadians," said CIPPIC director Philippa Lawson. She criticized the bill saying it "calls for a massive transfer of rights and entitlements out of the hands of the Canadian public and into the hands of copyright holders." According to Lawson, foreign content industries would be very happy with the government's draft legislation, "as they are the big winners here."
That's a view echoed by Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa.
In a blog posting on his site after the legislation was announced Geist noted that lobbying efforts of copyright owners – particularly the music industry – have paid off as they are the big winners in this bill.
The bill, he said, focuses almost exclusively on creating new rights for this select group including legal protection for technological protection measures, legal protection for rights management information, the ability to control first distribution of material in tangible form, new moral rights for performances, a reproduction right for performers, and an adjustment in the term of protection for sound recordings.
Under the proposed legislation, Geist said, Internet service providers (ISPs) would be virtually compelled to notify subscribers of alleged copyright infringements and to retain relevant personal information for six months.
But ISPs, he said, also fare well under the new bill, as its provisions clearly state that they are not liable for caching or other hosting of third party content. ISPs are obligated to send a notice if there is a claim of copyright infringement and retain records that reveal the identity of the suspected violator. However, they are permitted to charge for the service (the government will set the maximum fee).
Geist says the bill provides little solace to millions of Canadians and does nothing to address several key concerns. For instance, he says, greater transparency for Canada's copyright collectives, "which collect hundreds of millions each year, but provide precious little information (on) how that money is spent or distributed is not addressed."
A Canadian Cable Television Association (CCTA) spokesperson, however, welcomed the proposed amendments. "The cable industry is pleased that the Government of Canada recognizes that as intermediaries, ISPs have no control over the copyright material that passes over their networks," CCTA president Michael Hennessy said in a statement.
The bill was also hailed by Canadian Recording Industry Association president Graham Henderson as ushering in "a new era for Canada's music industry." He commended the Canadian government "for breaking the log jam and moving this vital legislation forward."
If anything, he said, the new legislation doesn't go far enough. "The bill fails to provide digital businesses with adequate protections from hackers, and we believe Internet service providers should shoulder more responsibility for piracy that occurs on their networks.
I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I bearly make enough to support myself and my family. Fat chance I could afford expensive lawyer fee's. I think I will just stick to paying $10 for CD's.
First, im not advocating the usage of "alternative distributing system". I use to hunt those guys :)Quote:
I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I bearly make enough to support myself and my family. Fat chance I could afford expensive lawyer fee's. I think I will just stick to paying $10 for CD's.
But if i understood correctly, this act is another vaporware against piracy. If the act of "distribute" or "make available" is against the law, i couldnt see there if download the material is against the law. Aparently is not. So, since a lot of rippers groups start those rip' distribution on several parts of world at sime time, they will simply create the seeds out of countries such as Canada, USA. UK. And everybody will still able to download their favorite "alternative material".
And for those that dont know how they distributed to the "seeders" on p2p, rippers use cripto transfers thru internet or just use private links - the current fashion is "sat torrents". Very effective for spreading contents thru the world. You can even sign up the service on some places in Europe. How to fight against those? put the satelites down? :)