Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Startup Tries Watermarking Instead of DRM

Posted by Zonk on from the commendable-actions-mean-profits dept.

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.'"

5 of 344 comments (clear)

  1. What's the enforcement mechanism? by flanksteak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sounds reasonable. But then how does the copyright holder distinguish between the purchaser engaging in illegal distribution vs being the victim of theft? The article never covers that. I think I can guess how the **AA will react to any watermarked file floating around the net with Joe User's name/account reference embedded in it. They'll call a SWAT team and have Joe's house raided. No proof. Sorry, Joe, for the mess. We're on to harassing the next person we vaguely suspect of illegal distribution.

    1. Re:What's the enforcement mechanism? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Heck, the pirate can randomly filter out a few more bits and thus fingering some other patsy instead of him/herself?

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  2. Excellent by mustafap · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This sounds perfect. As they say, it makes *me* responsible for the file; I can make millions of copies as backup. Of course I wont give it away, to do so is at my own risk.

    The authentication will be a problem of course; it means I will not be able to make an anonymous purchase on the web - something that people are quite reasonably concerned about being able to do. What will it be signed with? My DNA? What about identity theft?

    A heck, I give up. I was wrong. It's another stupid idea.

    --
    Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
  3. Ohhhhh... by sterno · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You thought this was something intended to defeat deliberate large scale pirates? Why would you think that? I mean none of the DRM crap stops them either, so why should this? :)

    --
    This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
    1. Re:Ohhhhh... by nine-times · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I actually think this is just about right in terms of copy protection. You're right, really professional pirates won't be stopped, but they never will be. However, it discourages individuals from posting their purchased copy online.

      So long as you don't have any moral issues with piracy, anyone can buy a CD, rip it, and put it online. It's easy, doesn't require any expertise, and loads of people do it. That's part of the reason why there's an absolute flood of music online. However, if you knew that every copy online could be traced back to the first guy who purchased it, far fewer people would do it.

      So, if you accept that hard-core professional pirates just can't be stopped, and your goal is to discourage casual piracy without preventing people from doing valid things, watermarking is a good solution.