NBC Universal Patents a Way To Detect BitTorrent Pirates In Real-Time (ndtv.com)

An anonymous reader writes: NBC Universal has been granted a patent, titled "Early detection of high volume peer-to-peer networks in real-time," to try and restrict piracy of its copyrighted content. "Early detection of high volume swarms in a peer-to-peer network, including a data feed of peer-to-peer swarm activity, and an analytics engine processing the data feed and identifying the high volume swarms that have parameters that exceed a threshold. The system can include a pre-processing section for conditioning the swarm data for the analytics section. There can also be a verification section that confirms that the peer download file matches the target file," notes the patent document issued by USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office). "The early detection provides for enhanced anti-piracy efforts, improved allocation of network resources, and better business decision-making," it adds. NBC Universal says that the "P2P infrastructure has many advantages" but it has also led to abuses. Piracy is estimated to cost content owners billions of dollars annually. "These costs are typically passed along to the consuming public in terms of increased costs for legitimate purchased works and higher charges for increased deterrents to the piracy," NBC Universal added. The patent NBC Universal received was applied for back in 2009, but only granted last week.

Comments

So. . .

[fl_litig8r]

So, they've had this ability for 7 years. How's that worked out for them? The fact that they're getting a patent on a process that hasn't stopped their content from being pirated doesn't seem like that big a deal. I think the decline in the quality of their content is a bigger deterrent to piracy than anything else they've done.

Re:So. . .

[tnk1]

Good point.

Oddly, this seems less like something I'd want to patent (and describe publicly) than something I'd want to keep as secret sauce for myself.

After all, as soon as the method is well known, it can be worked around.

This leads me to believe that this works just enough to try and make money on it, but not well enough to actually be worth keeping close to the vest.

Re:So. . .

[ceoyoyo]

You're assuming there's secret sauce. It sounds like the do a search for whatever their TV show is, and draw a pretty graph of the number of seeders and leechers. There can optionally be a "a verification section that confirms that the peer download file matches the target file."

Sounds like a pretty standard waste of the patent office's time.

Re:So. . .

[MagnumChaos]

Actually, there is a lot of quality content available out there. The biggest hangup seems to be that they are overcharging users for access. Game of Thrones can be watched via an HBO subscription or an HBO Go subscription... or, downloaded for free. HBO/Go is $15 a month, versus Netflix's approximately $10 a month and Amazon Prime's $99 a year.

Re:So. . .

[Ace17]

Please note that it doesn't have to work to be patented.

Re: So. . .

[easyTree]

They should patent the production of unentertainment content. That would allow them to compensate for their losses due to... making unentertainment content.

Re:So. . .

[AmiMoJo]

They are probably hoping that if they patent all the anti-piracy methods then when they find the magic one that turns pirates into paying customers they can get rich and stop all the other media companies using the same technique.

Too bad for them that the magic pirate->customer conversion formula is already well known and too obvious to patent.

This was predictable

[Anonymous Coward]

I see a time when it will be much easier to track this kind of activity and apparently it's not too far off. As sales dwindle for digital content the increase to stop illegal downloads will increase. Heck, is there anything worth downloading illegally anyway? Why risk it when you end up with a lousy copy that maybe doesn't work and has ate up a ton of your data. Just to find out the content sucked anyway.

Re:This was predictable

[Jhon]

"Heck, is there anything worth downloading illegally anyway?"

Old movies.

Re:This was predictable

[Anonymous Coward]

"Heck, is there anything worth downloading illegally anyway?"

Music. Roms. Software. Movies. TV shows. Books.

Re:This was predictable

[StikyPad]

Not that I condone piracy, but if you're getting crap and/or exposing yourself to any risk, you're doing it wrong.

CFAA violation

[hackwrench]

So when's Universal going to be slapped with a CFAA lawsuit? You just know that they have to be interacting with systems they don't have rights to to do this.

Even more on why comcast sucks like I want to prit

[Joe_Dragon]

Even more on why comcast sucks like I want to download shows off of NBC.

When will they learn?

[ausekilis]

When will the content producers realize that "Pirates" are not lost sales. They never were sales, thus estimating losses is pointless. The only way to really combat a large number of people wanting something for free is to make it accessible for a price the population is willing to pay. It also doesn't help that everybody wants such a tight grip on their own stuff that they force consumers (not pirates) to find simpler routes to the content, that don't involve first borns or animal sacrifice.

For our visual folks, this cartoon from the Oatmeal should help.

Personally, if I had to pay $10 for each of NBC, Disney, CBS, and other channel groups, I might as well just suck it up and pay for cable TV. If instead I was able to pay $1 for a channel that I actually cared about a-la carte, then I'd be much happier. Then those lesser-watched channels would fade away and content providers would actually have to work to make good stuff, not tack-on the "old lady watering her garden" channel HD. I'd be spending $15 a month and getting what I want. If the channel doesn't pull in enough, then maybe they can subsidize with some self-promotion like HBO does.

Re:When will they learn?

[Jhon]

"When will the content producers realize that "Pirates" are not lost sales. "

You are wrong. They are lost sales -- just not a 1:1 ratio. I have no doubt that many folks who would download the latest Avengers flick for free would actually purchase it if that were the only avenue to have it. Not all. Probably not most. But I doubt it's an insignificant number.

That's just for the content. For TV specifically, the lost "sales" are not JUST "sales" of the show(s) -- the lost sales are also to ADVERTISERS -- who either will not buy time from a network or will only pay a reduced rate.

Re: When will they learn?

[Jhon]

"One of the biggest reasons some folks pirate media is because of the ADVERTISORS, but at the same time aren't willing to buy the media. So I'd still consider that 0% in lost profit."

Then you don't understand how networks charge for advertising. You watch the show live with commercials for "free" and the network makes money by selling time to COLA A. The more viewers, the more they charge. If however, you do NOT watch a show live with commercials but BUY the DVD, the network makes money from that. If, however, you just download a show and watch it clipped of commercials then the number of "live" watchers go down which means the amount they get for COMMERCIALS goes down which means lost profit.

But, as I indicated, there would be some who would be unwilling to watch a show with commercials or buy the show if there were no other avenues. I think that's on the low end of the spectrum, though.

You "KIND" of acknowledge that when you say why "some folks" pirate. Yes -- from THOSE folks it is zero. But those "some" are not all.

Re:When will they learn?

[rtb61]

So lost sales in terms of exactly the opposite of this lie "These costs are typically passed along to the consuming public in terms of increased costs for legitimate purchased works and higher charges for increased deterrents to the piracy". So piracy does reduce the sold price of content and not increase it.

So the lie is to claim, people will eat less, not buy clothes, live on the street instead of paying rent, have no furniture and instead give all their money to drunken drugged up minstrels and their publishers. Reality is people are already spending more than they have, any increase in spending is just a delusion.

So much of the new content is such bad crap, the only way it gets viewed is via piracy. PR the most advertising is spent on crappy content selling itself before the real reviews kick in (piracy tends to short cut the bullshit review game).

Re:When will they learn?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

First, as other people have commented, a percentage of pirates are lost sales.

The Oatmeal cartoon is pretty flawed. First, iTunes and Amazon take a nasty cut from content, so I can understand content providers not using those services. Secondly, Netflix and Hulu are being paid, sure. But "I'm paying someone" and "I'm buying something" are really different. I mean, it's not like Netflix needed to pay extra for GoT, cause you're already subscribed. And it's not like GoT can be carried for free.

But yeah, you can buy HBO (but not GoT) ala carte now.

Personally, if I had to pay $10 for each of NBC, Disney, CBS, and other channel groups, I might as well just suck it up and pay for cable TV. If instead I was able to pay $1 for a channel that I actually cared about a-la carte, then I'd be much happier.

Of course you would. I'd be happier if things got cheaper too. But it makes sense for Disney to offer any of their channels for $15. I mean, yeah, you only want a subset. But they have to transmit all their channels anyway. So, why not let you choose among them? I mean, you're only paying for the one you want, but the implied value is higher..

Re:When will they learn?

[Xest]

"You are wrong. They are lost sales -- just not a 1:1 ratio."

How do you know this, where is your data? I never used to watch super hero movies, like the Marvel and DC ones, they were never my thing I thought, until I did actually download the first Avengers movie and really liked it. As a result I bought it on Bluray along with all the other surrounding films like Captain America, Iron Man, and some of the DC ones like Green Lantern.

Not only was my pirated copy of Avengers not a lost sale, it actually has netted them over 30 additional Bluray sales now. So that's a ratio of 30 movies purchased for one pirated movie.

So again, where is your data? I'd wager not only is it unlikely that there are not lost sales from piracy, but there are in fact gained sales as is most definitely the case with me. Were I not able to download that initial Avengers movie, the industry would now be down 30 sales including a copy of that movie itself.

You seem to be making wholly unfounded assertions, without having anything to back them up.

Re: When will they learn?

[ausekilis]

The point I was originally trying to make is that (estimated) piracy is so high due to a multitude of reasons. Obnoxious advertising, too many commercials, too difficult to get to the actual content, too expensive to get (e.g. cable networks), take your pick. When I had cable TV some years ago my cost for basic+ went from $35 a month to near $85 in the span of 3 years. I gained a dozen channels, none of them I wanted. That barrier for entry keeps rising (best I can tell).

For broadcast networks, the "lost sales" is entirely advertising money. Fewer folks watching live and being forced to watch the latest BS add for a phone that features an action movie star on a motorcycle surrounded by explosions. For cable networks, it's part subscriber revenue and advertising. For premium channels (HBO and such) it's all subscriber revenue.

I'd argue it's not so much an entitlement issue for the masses, though there are some folks that will always go for the free (torrented or such) stuff, it's that the barrier is too high for the common person. GoT was the most pirated show, then HBO took notice and made it easier to watch legally. I no longer have to pay for cable + premium channels ($100+ a month, last I checked) and set aside time from my week (and potentially from my kids), instead I can pay the $10 a month and watch it whenever I have time.

Re:When will they learn?

[TangoMargarine]

If I knew that the money I was spending was actually making it to the people who create the content I'd be much more inclined to slap down the money.

When I know 90% of it is going to RIAA and MPAA soulless leeches and lawyers to sue grandmas with, not so much.

Re:When will they learn?

[Bengie]

Science says you're wrong. On average, movie piraters spend about 2x more money on movie entertainment, like going out to movies and purchasing movies. Science has also shown that people who pirate increase demand in others. Pirating is as much a "lost sale" as advertising that fails to influence 100% of its viewers.

Re:When will they learn?

[Jhon]

Science usually provides citations and reproducibility.

Correction:

[kheldan]

Where TFA reads:

Piracy is estimated to cost content owners billions of dollars annually.

It should read:

Piracy is estimated to cost ADVERTISERS billions of dollars annually.

It's television, folks; the only people making any money off this are the advertisers. Oh and by the way? Most of us aren't paying any attention to your damned commercials anyway. We skip right over them, one way or another. Personally if I couldn't do that, I'd go back to the Old Days of just muting them and paying attention to something else until the program came back on. Or, if I couldn't use a DVR anymore for some reason I'd probably stop watching TV completely, since little-to-none of it would fit into my schedule anymore. So how about you stop whining about 'piracy', NBC (and television in general), at least we're watching your damned shows at all. Look at it this way: You're getting people interested in watching your shows this way. Make it too much of a pain in the ass, and many people just won't bother.

Re:Correction:

[AmiMoJo]

We need to come up with a better way of paying for content. The Netflix model of a low monthly fee isn't bad, but of course every shitty network wants to have their own service and the cost quickly gets silly. Either we need one low monthly payment for everything, or maybe a way to do nano-transactions. Like â0.10 for an episode. Maybe â0.50 for a brand new high production value show. Less if there are restrictions/DRM etc.

Don't tell me tiny transactions don't work, phone companies have been charging me less than that for phone calls for decades.

That's what cable/satellite should be like, but instead it's ridiculously expensive and even after you have paid there are adverts. Broadcast is just a bad way to distribute programming, far inferior to streaming in terms of convenience and video quality (at least in the UK), and yet somehow it costs several times as much.

Re:Correction:

[kheldan]

If they embedded the same commercials in television shows streamed over the internet that they embed in OTA broadcasts and offered them for free streaming, then that would make the most sense, but the problem with this is that it's never been about what's 'fair' or 'good for the viewers', it's about 'squeezing every last penny they can out of viewers regardless of whether it's fair or not'. I'm 51 years old. When I was a kid we had B&W all-tube (i.e. not solid-state) television in the house, and an antenna. My point being that I come from the time before videotape was anything other than what the Three Big Networks could afford to use, no VCRs yet. My point is that if the Three Big Networks (which BTW is all there was, and some piddly little independent stations) had stomped all over VCRs back then as hard as they're trying to stomp on digital filesharing now, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, there wouldn't be 'streaming video', there wouldn't be DVRs, and there wouldn't have been VCRs of any kind in the hands of consumers, they'd likely only be professionals' tools, with no tuners, just baseband video inputs for a camera. I'm sure all the networks and 'content producers' are now regretting not stamping out consumer video recording of OTA video now, seeing it as a missed opportunity to create a perpetual monopoly on all things Television. But that doesn't stop them from, now, stomping as hard as they can on streaming and filesharing now, even if it makes no sense, and trying to gouge us for every penny they can, whether they do it fairly or not. The fact of the matter is that if I can record 1080i video from an OTA signal and hand-carry a copy of that to a friend for them to watch, then it makes no sense for them to charge to watch it streaming over the internet. Again: it's all about profits, not about 'paying the content providers' or what's fair for anyone. Comcast/Xfinity/Paramount/Universal doesn't give a crap about what's fair, they want to make as much money as possible, and they'll do it any way they can, unless someone with a gun (Congress, for instance) walks up and points it at their head and tells then 'No, you will not'. Again: If they could shut down DVRs entirely, preventing people from recording their 'content', they'd do it, but that horse long ago left the barn, back in the 80's when VCRs became a Thing that people could go buy; DVRs have been Grandfathered in, and they can't make a case for killing them off now because of that (but, again: they wish they could go back in time and change that). So that's what this is really about: Trying to turn consumers upside down and shaking us down for what they can make fall out of our pockets, fair or not. But it's not fair. The closest they can come to 'fair' when it comes to charging us for streaming digital content, is if it's commercial-free, end-to-end, but so far as I know? It's NOT. They should allow people to stream everything for free if it has ~42 minutes of content and ~18 minutes of commercials like OTA; that would be fair. But they'll never do it unless someone points a gun at their heads and makes them. People know this, therefore they download from wherever. That's where we're at.

how long until...

[Anonymous Coward]

they implement something like this on comcast? what's the rate on false positives? what will they do when they 'detect' something 'unwanted'?

feds, still think it was wise to approve such a large merger, combining so much content with two different, and conflicting, delivery mechanisms?

Will this require ...

[PPH]

... the installation of some software on various nodes of the Internet backbone? Because I have a patent for a piece of software that replies to any such request to install such software with a reference to the response given in Arkell v Pressdram.

ISPs

[SumDog]

They'd have to introduce this at the ISP level, similar to how Time Warner Cable sends cease and desist letters to people if they detect you're torrenting their or their partners' content (a friend of mine got one for HBO shows. They required him to run a script on his computer verifying the file was deleted. WTF?!)

But the thing is, people who get massive amounts of content this way don't BT to their machines! Most use seedboxes and rsync back to their home machines. They're only going to get the people who are not big in the game (relatively).

Plus, once you identify, the next phase may be blocking at the ISP level. Then you get into censorship, network neutrality, etc.

Fuck everything about this.

Re: ISPs

[easyTree]

What does that even mean? "I require you to blah blah blah" ?

Re: Who cares? GIMME

[hackwrench]

I'm entitled to a lot more than what they want me to have and throwing their muscle around, so I'm quietly taking things we would have agreed I wouldn't in compensation.

Re:Who cares? GIMME

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm entitled to ignore their product and not use or buy it.

In their eyes, I'm just as bad as you are.

Make no mistake, they want to force-feed everyone their product and then bill you for the honor. I'd rather someone force-feed them bullets and then all the survivors would be happy. Screw those greedy bastards in every orifice with a rusty wire brush.

Comcast

[darkain]

Can we just have the article renamed to Comcast instead of NBC Universal, since they're the same danm company? This is similar how they always file their lawsuits under the the RIAA/MPAA names, to mask who's doing the bullshit.

The reality is that Comcast doesn't want you to use your Comcast connection to download Comcast content without using the Comcast approved DRM software. WOAH, I'M STARTING TO SOUND JUST LIKE THE APPS GUY ON HERE NOW!

Re:Comcast

[kheldan]

Well, what this really is, is Comcast/Universal/NBC seeing that their outdated advertising model is dying, they're not making the money off it they used to, and they think that clamping down on people downloading 'content' (that they could get OTA for free, anyway) is somehow going to 'fix' that for them and suddenly they'll be rolling in cash again. In the meantime you don't see them trying to make DVRs illegal, do you? When you can record shows from an OTA antenna for free, and nobody is the wiser, and you can edit that video to remove the commercials (or at least skip over them), what's the difference? Basically they're whiny, greedy crybabies, who aren't even operating in reality.

Piracy is transfering funds

[future assassin]

from one market to another so there is no money lost, it just gets spent somewhere else. It fuels other market segment and might even generate more tax from sales/services for the gov. NOW that is if you believe every download means a lost sale. I got 800+ reason to download my dvd collection when I feel like it and delete the digital file when I don't want it anymore.

Re:How fucing stupid do they have to be.

[kheldan]

Lots of people watch free OTA TV, and last time I checked (which was less than an hour ago, LOL) broadcast radio is alive and well. Bluray (learn to spell it correctly, will you please?) hasn't caught on as well as DVD did, and DVDs still sell. Not everything is digital streaming and not everybody buys into it. If you had been born prior to the mid 1990's then maybe you'd understand that.

Exactly

[aliquis]

I spend $1000-$2000 on Humble Bundles per year.

I haven't pirated a single game during this time.

I guess there are a few which do a little of both because they need to own the product for online play or really want stats or skins or whatever but beyond that there are of course those who buy their product and those who don't.

They are free to argue that if everyone HAD to pay then more WOULD pay and as such they could deliver more expensive to make products.

But now that's not the scenario and the pirates are irrelevant and they will make the content they think they can manage to sell. It's not like they will make this game or movie or whatever they don't think they can get their money back on and then increase the prices much more for everyone to become totally sure they totally won't get their money back .. :D

That's complete bullshit.

Yeah, if we are fewer who pay we get a shittier product.
But don't tell me they act like if everyone would buy the product even though they know they aren't.

I have downloaded the occassional e-book or comic possibly because I could and could save money that way but sometimes also to "complete" the collection I got through the bundle. But the thing is if they didn't offered the bundle I wouldn't had paid for it and I wouldn't had known about their product and no I won't buy single issue comic books electronically for $10 each thank you so the situation is that they got their $15 for a bunch of comics regardless. It's just that if they decided to not include the last 2 issues or future issues or whatever then maybe I'll try to get them later too. They still got my money. Be happy.

Even if all the comics for instance is available as torrents $15 is cheap enough I can pay that even for something I could get for free. It's a fair price and I don't mind fair prices. I can pay some euros for smaller games and up to 30 euro or so for a larger title too. I think $1 is a fair price for an ebook. I don't think $10 is a fair price for a PDF file or that small games should cost â30 and that large titles should cost â150 with all the DLC. Or well, feel free to price them as such but I won't be buying them!! That doesn't mean I'll pirate them either.

I guess if NBC wanted to sell to someone like me then they better NOT increase their prices but rather lower them and I'll pay because I'd consider both the product and my time worth it.

w00 antipiracy!

[DMJC]

Bring it on! If anti-piracy becomes 99.99% effective then we'll start seeing a lot more open source projects/free projects. Right now, there are thousands of developers/ICT guys with a lot of spare time being dedicated to consuming Hollywood content. Kick them off that gravy train and see what happens. Noone is going to start spending money they don't have on stuff they don't need.

Re:They want to make money on catching pirates.

[Jhon]

This is awesome. This technology can be used to catch pirates of this technology!

"We used NBCs piracy detection widget to ID a copyright infringement of NBCs piracy detection widget!".

Re:How fucing stupid do they have to be.

[Calydor]

The moment everyone has the same access to easy, reliable and uncapped internet as they do over-the-air TV, then the TV channels might have to consider torrents or some other form of streaming.

Sadly those days still seem very far off.

Re:How fucing stupid do they have to be.

[Desler]

Have any evidence for all those assertions?

In Capitalist America...

[Sperbels]

...we spend more money tracking down people pirating movies than we do tracking down people who topple sky scrapers.

Re:In Capitalist America...

[Anonymous Coward]

If it were a matter of capitalism, you wouldn't be using the term "we"; you'd be referring to "they".

Really??

[Lord_Rion]

Soooo.....

IF people didn't pirate the content, you would sell it for cheaper??

I may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night....

and

[luther349]

its not the the pirates didn't catch on 7 years ago and start encrypting all the torrents.

Re:The best part about it being patented

[bigfinger76]

Unless you have Comcast.

The thing is, patent papers are public information

[BitterOak]

By filing a patent, the techniques are all now publicly available, including to the designers of torrent clients. With these techniques made public, it won't be long before a new generation of torrent software is available which can circumvent those techniques.

Increased costs?

[fluffernutter]

When they lower the cost for a movie, I'll believe that piracy results in increased costs.

Re:Who cares? GIMME

[Dunbal]

Downloading the show that I missed last night on the cable service I pay for is cheating content providers out of their fair share! They are entitled to an extra $15 just because I have to work when they choose to air their show!

Re:NBC?

[boudie2]

As long as they have Jimmy Fallon and that other dolt that comes on after him, people illegally downloading "content" is the least of their problems. Wouldn't bet on NBC being around in 5-10 years.

Ftfy

[easyTree]

NBC Universal says that the "UPTO has many advantages" but it has also led to abuses

Why patent?

[ET3D]

Are they planning to sue every other content provider which tries to detect piracy?

Re:Who cares? GIMME

[Merk42]

... show that I missed last night...because I have to work when they choose to air their show!

If that's the case, why not just use the app or even website to watch it?

Hollywood

[Bender Unit 22]

I care less and less about what Hollywood has to offer, endless reboots of movies and tv entertainment filled with shameless product placements to pay for the insane paychecks.
Maybe it is just that I am getting old and have seen most of what they have to offer before, just in another wrapping.
I like youtube now and all the amateurs videos you see around their(not the professionel "youtubers" so much).

Re:How fucing stupid do they have to be.

[TangoMargarine]

Bluray (learn to spell it correctly, will you please?)

Ooh, so close. It's actually hyphenated.

Blu-ray or Blu-ray Disc (BD) is a digital...

Does encryption render this meaningless

[Supp0rtLinux]

I know a guy who knows a guy who does the following to help protect his torrenting actions... 1) he uses a blocklist of the known IPs of the MPAA, RIAA, their attorneys, and media content owners (ie: NBC)... 2) has his torrent client configured to be encrypted and only connect to encrypted peers... 3) uses a free VPN service and routes all traffic through the VPN in a foreign country while torrenting. So I'm curious... does the above detection in the patent still have bearing with what is essentially double-encrypted? Is my friend's friend flirting with danger but doens't realize it? And if encryption is the answer... at what point do we start telling all torrent client dev's to default to only talking to encrypted peers?

Re:How fucing stupid do they have to be.

[kheldan]

Congratulations, you've managed to be more pedantic than I allowed myself to be. Sadly, this does not impress me, it only makes me sad. :-/

Old movies

[phorm]

Although in many cases, these can be found as physical media on Amazon etc. There's something nice about having a shelf full of "classics" up beside the TV

The really old stuff I'm not sure they'd even bother to be monitoring.

Re:Old movies

[Jhon]

I completely agree. There's a host of old movies I'd love to own on DVD/Bluray that I doubt I ever will -- because they have expired copyright. There's no money to be made by some of the holders of the only existing physical media to give it the treatment it deserves. The best I can do is find 3rd rate VHS rips to DVD.

marketing speak?

[Some_Llama]

"Piracy is estimated to cost content owners billions of dollars annually. "These costs are typically passed along to the consuming public in terms of increased costs for legitimate purchased works and higher charges for increased deterrents to the piracy,""

did anyone else read this as "we think we should be making more money than we are, so we will blame pirating and charge more for our stuff".