Watermarks, Holograms as DVD CSS Replacement

andyo writes: "Given all the discussion of technical anti-copying measures recently, it might be interesting to see the replacement technologies that the industry is working on after the DeCSS embarrassment. Watermarks (which came up in an earlier Slashdot discussion) and holograms are mentioned in this article on Planet IT."

Comments

Planet IT registration

[WinPimp2K]

I thought I'd post a comment on their article, but first I had to join up and become a member. After filling out their nice form and submitting it, they rejected my application. Seems I don't make purchasing decisions worth enough money for my opinions to matter :)
Anyhoo, the article reads (between the lines) like the writer has a clue. They spend four pages explaining how CSS was designed to prevent "piracy", how it failed, and what factions are involved in the next generation of "copy protection". The holograms to identify legit DVDs is actually a good way (for now) of detecting counterfeit (read commercially pirated) disks, but what evidence have we seen that the MPAA even remebers that the commercial pirates are the people who are really hurting their members bottom lines?

This is macrovision,..

[Vermifax]

...and it exists on near every DVD player not just the PS2.

http://www.macrovision.com

Vermifax

Re:This is macrovision,..

[Col. Klink (retired)]

And it is defeatable for about $25 from Radio Shack.

Watermarks and Holograms....

[Anonymous Coward]

I read the article and all I can say is "whoopdie doo"...

Watermarks - rely on a detection chip. Sure the average LUSER won't be disabling the chip, but ya wanna bet that the pirates do? How hard can it be to pull some line high, or cut it? Or reprogram the firmware.... The watermarking is a waste.

Moreover, at least *SOME* DVD producers won't want to use watermarks, and the players will have to accomodate this. So if I rip out a watermark, or change the right bits on a bit-by-bit copy to tell the box that it's not watermarked, then it's gonna play anyway...

Who benefits from this? NO ONE...

As for the holograms, yeah, they look pretty, but beyond "verifying" that I've got 'authentic' software, what good is it? Again, even if they check for it, the hardware's gonna have to accomodate people who don't want to waste millions to put a hologram on the disc (well, besides the Pirates and the MPAA members)... And if the disc is supposed to have one that the player is going to check for, then guess what - again, it's a software bit saying "verify that hologram" and bits can be flipped (pesky cosmic rays!).

I know it doesn't check for the holo right now, but assuming it did - and I scratch the holo? Then what? Do I get a new DVD that I have to purchase? Will they just send me a new one in exchange? (yah right!)...

Gist: Copy protection doesn't work. Can't work. and Won't ever work... Stop wasting everyone's time and money on this useless shit and innovate so I have to continually buy something that's worth buying rather than trying to protect something that can't be protected...

Re:Watermarks and Holograms....

[radja]

the average user will now not only buy his DVD player chipped, but also his TV, radio and toaster. So the only thing that happens is that everything gets a little more expensive, will sell less because of the higher price, and anyone implementing this is shooting themselves in the foot with a depleted uranium shell. PLEASE implement watermarks...As for the hologram: the hologram only shows that the DISK is real, but doesn't do anything for the content. it just makes it easier to distinguish between an original and a copy. a scratched holo is also not problem. it just means you're hologram has a scratch on it.

//rdj

Re:Watermarks and Holograms....

[DaveHowe]

A lot depends on how the hologram is checked - if the check is in the machine, then people are likely to get their machines chipped to prevent a little dirt or a large scratch on the hologram killing their disk. in any case, even if it isn't profitable to pirate the hologram, I can imagine a situation where low-cost DVDs are recycled into rubber-backed "covers" to fit on top of the playing pirate dvd as a "protection adaptor".

on the whole though, if they are putting holograms on for anti-piracy, but *not* checking them, then they are more than acceptable - one of the risks must be of buying what you think is a full, legal copy of a DVD and ending up with a pirate copy. if all DVDs carried hard-to-copy holograms, then you couldn't claim if caught that you couldn't tell the difference.
--

Watermarking and fines

[meldroc]

Putting a unique watermark on a DVD or MP3 could work, but I'd do it a bit differently. Say I was the evil overlord of an online subscription based music company and I wanted to deter piracy, I would do as follows:

1. Make the customers sign a legally binding agreement (snail-mailed & signed with a pen if necessary) before allowing them to use my service. The contract would make them responsible for preventing copyright infringements, and make them pay a $100.00 fine for each infringement traced back to them.
2. Every time a customer downloads a song or album, it would have a unique watermark attached to it (ideally using heavy encryption and steganography to prevent cracking and prevent altering of the watermark,) so each track can be traced back to the downloading customer.
3. The customer is now free to use the music however he/she wishes. He can even copy it and use it in any way permitted by Fair Use. There is no copy protection in this scheme, just copyright protection. Thus, there is little incentive for most people to crack the watermark.
4. If a track is found on the net or on the streets in an obvious copyright infringement situation (on a warez site, or found in the hands of bootleggers,) the company uses the watermark to trace the song back to the original customer, and adds a $100.00 fine to his bill. The amount is important. $100.00 is high enough to be irritating and an effective deterrent to home users, but low enough to make it not worth fighting. Legally speaking, this kind of offense should have the seriousness of a minor traffic ticket. Most infringers will gripe and grumble, but pay the fine without a big legal battle. The customer did sign a contract, making it harder to break this system with legal action. A bonus to this system is that the company and artists get a new source of income from fines. The idea is that the company issues lots of fines as a routine part of the business, rather than spending thousands of dollars trying to get a small number of pirates hung, drawn and quartered in court.

The idea here is not to bankrupt people or create drawn out court cases, we want a simple deterrent, while still allowing fair use of copyrighted works. There should be a limit to the fines - a customer shouldn't have to pay $100,000,000 if the company catches 1,000,000 infringing copies of his track on the net. Also, there should be a fair appeals process in place, preferably through a disinterested 3rd party so the customer can contest the fine, but the process should be quick, cheap and final.

Of course, depending of the evilness of the people implementing this plan, there are probably lots of ways for this plan to be abused. But maybe it can be turned into a fair way of fighting piracy.

Ok, I think I just let something evil loose, flame away!

Re:Watermarking and fines

[VValdo]

Interesting idea, but what happens if someone sells a DVD to someone else who then pirates it? Or what if someone breaks into your house, steals your DVDs and pirates them? What if your computer is hacked, and your 50000 song watermarked-mp3 collection is stolen? Who's responsible?

(Sounds like you want a kind of Viral GPL type license where you sell it to someone and they are now obligated under the same terms... or something? I dunno if you can do that. Cuz what if I just want to sell it outright..?)

What if the songs are cracked and your id # is watermarked into them before they're distributed?

Do you really waa legally binding agreement when you buy a DVD or music? What happened to the idea of just buying something outright and just plain owning it?

BTW-- is your $100 fine per song? per album? per DVD? Would a double-album be some huge multi-thousand dollar fine? Is it per-infringement, or if my song gets "out" and is pirated 1,000 times, do I owe $100,000?

It seems I'd get my 1,000,000 Napster friends together and we'd just all co-own the album, paying .000000001c each.

W

-------------------

Watermarking and Insurance

[Anonymous Coward]

I expressed this opinion once before at the late, great, Technocrat.net . May it rest in peace.

My theory is that watermarked copyrighted media will create a new situation that isn't much different then the situation with our automobiles.

When every copy of a copyrighted work is marked with a watermarked, unique serial number, the store clerks will simply record the ID of the purchaser. This isn't going to be much trouble - most people use credit cards to pay for things anyhow. And you must have an ID to rent movies - you need to present proof-of-age for certain movies - it won't be any trouble for the RIAA/MPAA to push this scheme through.

So now what? If they find a copy of Star Wars Episode 3 with serial number 12305439 on a warez site, they can legally go after the person who purchased that title and sue him for damages. Considering the cost of this title, they will probably want $1e6 or so. He won't have the money to pay it - so what will he do?

The customer here will do the same thing as automobile owners do today. Just as an auto can kill a whole family, causing megabucks in damages, so can copyrighted material "escape". You can't expect the customer to keep it in a locked safe and guard it with his life, anymore then you can expect a driver to never hit anything. People crash cars, and information gets "freed".

The purchaser of copyrighted material will purchase "infringement insurance" to pay the damages for when his copyrighted material gets "freed", just as an automobile owner will purchase "liability insurance" for when he smashes another car and/or the occupants.

In fact, just like autos, the States will probably require their citizens to purchase "copyright insurance" in order to have access to copyrighted material - just as auto insurance is mandatory.

Of course, in order to prevent the poor from not being allowed to read, there will probably be some sort of subsidy to purchase copyright insurance for low-income individuals, as well as subsidized insurance for libraries and schools. Perhaps the government will even pay losses to copyright holders in the event that the infringer's insurance has lapsed! They do that here in Michigan for autos. This will all come out of tax money.

It'll happen, we'll survive, and the insurance companies will get even richer. We'll be a little poorer for the insurance money.

And can be defeated for about USD$30

[yerricde]

Macrovision plays with a VCR's automatic gain control by placing fluctuating signals in the normally invisible vertical blank portion of the video signal, causing the reproduced signal to fade in and out. It also plays with some televisions; this can be fixed with a video stabilizer that costs in the neighborhood of $30. But if you use a stabilizer to remove the Macrovision signal and tape a DVD, you are in violation of 17 USC 1201.
Tetris on drugs, NES music, and GNOME vs. KDE Bingo.

To sell more DVD players.

[yerricde]

Why prevent people from making copies of their DVDs onto VHS tapes? What if they wanted the copy to take it to a relatives house to watch it, but the relative didnt have a DVD?

In that case, you're supposed to buy your relatives a DVD player for Christmas; royalties on DVD patents go straight back to Hollywood, who makes more money when you "Collect all six!" (one for each DVD region).

Tetris on drugs, NES music, and GNOME vs. KDE Bingo.