Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Patents Flagging Technology For 'Repeat Offenders' Of Pirated Content (torrentfreak.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the clouds-are-just-other-people's-servers dept.

An anonymous reader quotes TorrentFreak's report on Microsoft's newest patent: Titled: "Disabling prohibited content and identifying repeat offenders in service provider storage systems," the patent describes a system where copyright infringers, and those who publish other objectionable content, are flagged so that frequent offenders can be singled out... "The incident history can be processed to identify repeat offenders and modify access privileges of those users," the patent reads. [PDF] The "repeat infringer" is a hot topic at the moment, after ISP Cox Communications was ordered to pay $25 million for its failure to disconnect repeat offenders...

As far a we know, this is the first patent that specifically deals with the repeat infringer situation in these hosting situations, but it's not uncommon for cloud hosting services to prevent users from sharing infringing content. We previously uncovered that Google Drive uses hash matching to prevent people from sharing "flagged" files in public, and Dropbox does the same.

53 comments

  1. Encrypt everything, everything, everything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If people would use end-to-end encryption even on their "private" cloud file storage, none of this fingerprinting would be possible. It's pretty simple, really.

    If sharing files, send the decryption keys out-of-band to the intended recipients.

    Mass sharing to unknown anonymous recipients is somewhat problematic, but if one is of the eyepatch-wearing, shoulder-parrot-hosting type, I'm sure there are plenty of common drinking holes on which to post such shared decryption hints.

    1. Re:Encrypt everything, everything, everything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your idea is based on the notion that some actual proof is required in copyright cases.
      No more proof than "I say that they are filthy pirates and criminals" is needed.

      For just flagging someone as a potential pirate, even less so. That shit can be automated.
      Then when enough flags are set you bring the person to court and can say "They computer says so, and it isn't capable of lying!"

    2. Re:Encrypt everything, everything, everything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Nope. The encrypted data can be intercepted prior to encryption at the source or after decryption at the destination, then hashed then linked to the encrypted file hash along with the key needed to decrypt it.

      Face facts buddy. You don't own that computer. Microsoft, the government, and hollywood's finest own "your" computer, and if you do something with it they don't like, you will be penalized for it. Hope giving up control the damn thing, because the general public was too lazy to run updates or really take any level of self-interest in it, was worth the dystopia we have coming for us.

    3. Re: Encrypt everything, everything, everything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using torrents at all will label you a pirate.

    4. Re:Encrypt everything, everything, everything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe YOUR computer is owned by Microsoft.

      Mine is not.

    5. Re:Encrypt everything, everything, everything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Encryption is useless on Windows 10. They just keylog your key, or lift it right off of your hard drive if it's a key file. Either way it ends up on Microsoft's servers and they can do whatever they like with it.

    6. Re:Encrypt everything, everything, everything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're not going to be able to decrypt your files without the proper key, which they will just fetch from the windows 10 "telemetry" which captures screenshots of your system.

      It's far more likely that your files will be deleted as a violation of policy or if they're pussies will just randomly disappear. To the defense of these cloud hosting solutions there's a lot of value in de-duplication that can't be done whenever you're encrypting files.

    7. Re:Encrypt everything, everything, everything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Answer seems easy: don't run fucking Windows.

    8. Re:Encrypt everything, everything, everything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Microsoft only owns the stupid's computers.

      They do own a patent on flagging repeat perpetrators, so nobody else can do that now. If someone accuse you of pirating again, report them to microsoft for infringement.

      To bad one cannot report a second infringement though . . .

  2. You don't own your own computer.... by JWW · · Score: 3, Insightful

    if it's operating system spies on you and reports you to the authorities...

    1. Re:You don't own your own computer.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This must be true. If MS did spy on its users for its own profit, they would get banned. But as they give the spied data to NSA too, they get permit to spy as much as possible.

    2. Re:You don't own your own computer.... by dwywit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In such a hurry to get first post, user fails to read article, consequently posts irrelevant complaint.

      "Disabling prohibited content and identifying repeat offenders in service provider storage systems"

      IOW, not about things done on your own computer.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    3. Re:You don't own your own computer.... by Calydor · · Score: 1

      Except cloud storage is pushing more and more for PCs to be essentially dumb terminals.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    4. Re:You don't own your own computer.... by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The "service provider storage systems" is the cloud for now. How soon before the desktop computer gets a free scan too?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    5. Re:You don't own your own computer.... by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      You don't own your own computer if it's operating system spies on you and reports you to the authorities.

      Just because you made some poor choices about what OS to use and/or how it is configured does not mean you no longer own your computer.

    6. Re:You don't own your own computer.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "PCs are going to become dumb terminals" since '98

    7. Re:You don't own your own computer.... by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      OneDrive is tightly integrated into windows, with no easy way to remove it, so no its not just things off your computer

      --
      Good-bye
    8. Re:You don't own your own computer.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In 1998, we didn't have Windows 10, with features such as built-in spyware, forced updates, and license provisions that let them access your files any time they wanted, nor application software pointed straight at tethering you into Microsoft (re: Office 365).

      Though I suppose you're right, they won't be dumb terminals. They'll be smart terminals that you pay for, but Microsoft will control, and with UEFI's Secure Boot no longer requiring motherboard or PC manufacturers to provide a deactivation function, they'll control what alternative OS's you can use, if any.

    9. Re:You don't own your own computer.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its just an executable that runs on an operating system and can be terminated just like any other executable. If it contacts any outside hosts, that can be blocked, just as with any other executable.

      The operating system kernel AFAIK doesn't contain one drive.

  3. Microsoft loves pirates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    By patenting this obvious "technology", Microsoft has prevented any of its competitors with online storage systems which people actually choose to use (as opposed to relying inertia from non-tech savvy customers by on building it into their monopoly products) from using such schemes to prevent piracy, thus proving their love for the pirates.

  4. I've patented... by Gabest · · Score: 2

    ... repeated masturbation. If you do it more than once, you have to pay me.

    1. Re:I've patented... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does the patent cover nocturnal emissions?

    2. Re:I've patented... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or multiple orgasms?

  5. So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They've patented a database?

  6. Re:Repeat offender by CBravo · · Score: 1

    ++1

    --
    nosig today
  7. Dumb Patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My Patent: Get the user to use their hard earned cash to by a system they technically rent from us, whenever the users system is detected with "questionable content" flag the user to receive subscription discounts for remedial services of piracy in addition to further opening up their system for ads and spying. Totally bypassing the hosting services of the internet.

    Oh wait a minute...

  8. Only on Windows by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

    I hope.

    --
    thegodmovie.com - watch it
  9. Question. by Falconhell · · Score: 1

    Its not my area of expertise, would just adding a few seconds to a video change the hash and therefore bypass this method?

    1. Re:Question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes

    2. Re:Question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unless they implement an array of hashes, lets say covering every 10% of the file...

    3. Re:Question. by dwywit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, you're correct, but there are other ways to identify infringing material. If you're silly enough to store the original extracted material without a quick pass through ffmpeg to process it through a different codec, and maybe a little compression, you deserve to be "flagged". Of course, as another poster mentioned you can always encrypt it.

      I'm more concerned that the terms of service allowing the provider to inspect your content will be accepted by many.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    4. Re:Question. by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Soon if the file is unencrypted sections will be looked at in real time. Does the music, actors face, content match something thats protected?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    5. Re: Question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if they use similar methods as Shazam to identify the media

    6. Re:Question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think you're missing something here.

      MS SALES DORK: "How can we force enterprise users to stick with Microsoft server?"
      MS ENGINEER: "Sir, the OS suck and you won't let us fix that...."
      MS DORK: "Damned straight! People love them some menus and we must have a unified user experience."
      MS ENG: "Okay... So the only way to get people to use our server...."
      MS DORK: "Make! Make people user our server."
      MS ENG: "Make. Sure. So the only way to do that would be to have the government require businesses to run it."
      MS DORK : "You mean like a law that somehow makes our servers mandatory? But how would we do that?"
      MS ENG: "Piracy is still a thing. Why don't we have make it so files stored on our servers can be tracked. There can be a law requiring files to be tracked and...."
      MS DORK: "YES! I'm a genius!"

    7. Re:Question. by lgw · · Score: 1

      Video fingerprinting techniques are pretty good these days. If all they're doing is hash matching, they're not really trying.

      Most storage service providers don't want people streaming video of any sort out of their public folders. Simple techniques that encourage people to put their pirate booty in a zip file or something at least stops the streaming.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  10. *OTHER* objectionable content? by wierd_w · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I see your piracy desire there MS, but please, DO elaborate on this "OTHER objectionable content" of which you speak. Do you mean things like kiddie porn, or do you mean things like "Donald Trump does not like that picture of him kissing Putin" ?

    Because the technology to track either of the first two, can be used to track and punish the latter as well. Just wondering if you are willing to directly assert that you will never do this latter thing, and do so publicly.

    Doubt you will, but hey, it never hurts to ask.

    1. Re:*OTHER* objectionable content? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It means it's a patent and they're trying to make sure obvious extensions of the technique are covered (or at least disclosed), so that they can't be patented by competitors. This kind of generalization is absolutely normal in patent descriptions (but less so in the claims), so put the tinfoil hat away for once.

    2. Re:*OTHER* objectionable content? by wierd_w · · Score: 2

      I don't consider it tinfoil hattery when people in a western country can still be brought on charges for something as dumb as "blasphemy."

      http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

      Or, should regulatory authorities in various more infamous countries decide that they can track any "objectionable" content they might take offense over, say pictures of Mohamed the prophet with a bomb shaped hat, or satire of the king of Thailand.

      THIS is the stage to object to it at-- NOT when they have already decided that it is a perfectly normal (and essential) business tool.

    3. Re:*OTHER* objectionable content? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or Obama and Hillary going oral on George Soros for donations?

    4. Re:*OTHER* objectionable content? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      This kind of generalization is absolutely normal in patent descriptions

      That's the problem. patents shouldn't be generalisations, they should be pretty fucking specific.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    5. Re: *OTHER* objectionable content? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stephen Fry case has been dropped.

  11. A rock and a hard place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... offenders and modify access privileges of those users ...

    This is censorship and its use will not stop at copyright pirates or even copyright infringers. Cox is in a difficult place as it earns money from connecting devices and it must also disconnect those devices according to a blanket ruling which makes Cox responsible for the 'losses' of other corporations because it didn't enforce the abusive practices of the DMCA. Does this mean the copyright lobby can demand DMCA-compliant tel-cos disconnect their customers?

  12. Worth a patent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Limiting or banning users based upon pirated content? You got to be fucking kidding me...

  13. It's not about Copyright it's about the ISP by zifn4b · · Score: 1

    So basically, we don't really give a shit about copyright infringement what we do give a shit about is if an ISP like Cox doesn't have the processes in place to deal with copyright infringement (or anything else for that matter) and fails to respond competently in a timely manner, it will be sued. In summary, we are trying to protect ISP's from financial harm that are trying to squeeze every last time out of subscribers and then want to put internet toll roads in place to further extort the subscribers due to corporate greed.

    --
    We'll make great pets
  14. Liability by currently_awake · · Score: 2

    1-If you actively screen users for illegal activity then you are liable for any crime you let through. 2-ISP's won't be able to screen for copyrighted material because it's patented.

    1. Re:Liability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3 - ???

      4 - Profit!

    2. Re:Liability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is the best part of this patent. ISP will no longer be able to do it, thus not be held accountable.

      Microsoft will be held accountable and thus sued into non-existence.

      I say Win-Win situation!

    3. Re:Liability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they could just do a CRC lookup... they don't need to have the actual files

  15. My title is better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For some reason I read the title as "Microsoft Patents Flogging Technology for 'Repeat Offender's...". It must be Monday.

  16. haha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Huh, I finally stopped pirating Windows just in time for them to give a shit. I have to say, Linux on the desktop is not the misery it once was, and for those few things I do need, MS licenses virtual machines for browsing testing here.

  17. what was old is new again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    uuencode and uudecode.................. just like the old days