Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

MPAA Developing Digital Fingerprinting Technology

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the following-in-your-tracks dept.

Privacy 544

Danathar writes "The MPAA is looking to use digital fingerprinting technologies that in conjunction with legislation will enable and force ISPs to look for network traffic that matches the signatures. " From the article: " Once completed, Philips' technology--along with related tools from other companies--could be a powerful weapon in Hollywood's increasingly aggressive attempts to choke off the flood of films being traded online."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Encryption (5, Insightful)

Odo (109839) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663032)

And ISPs are going to search for fingerprints in encrypted downloads how exactly?

It would be relatively easy for the next generation of P2P applications to add very basic encryption. Possibly based on a captcha (just a regular zip file encrypted against the random letters contained in a gif).

Or will the MPAA's next trick be to purchase legislation banning encryption.

i like bacon (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11663093)

but nothing beats a soft stick of butter wrapped in cheese

Re:Encryption (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11663110)

While this appears to throughly defeat the fingerprinting technique I suspect that they would claim the p2p app is designed specifically to trade copyrighted material. Then to go after the app itself.

Re:Encryption (2, Informative)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663114)

Probably a lot easier to just use SSL [openssl.org] . Most existing protocols (like HTTP, POP3, IMAP) add an encryption layer this way.

There are already some P2P programs that support encryption, such as Freenet [sourceforge.net] and MUTE [sourceforge.net] .

Re:Encryption (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11663221)

> Probably a lot easier to just use SSL.

Yes, but SSL still leaves you open to the MPAA running a robot to download stuff, check for fingerprints in what it has downloaded, and recording the IP addresses of where it obtained the material. A captcha means they'd have to pay someone in Bangladesh $15/day to type in codes.

Re:Encryption (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11663222)

but one side will need a certificate, otherwise key exchange will be via anonymous DH. And anonymous DH is quite sniffable.

So the problem would seem to be how to get a p2p network to use certificates... I'm not going to purchase one just to participate in p2p.

Re:Encryption (1)

ReeprFlame (745959) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663267)

WHy don't we all switch to linux, put up accounts for SFTP through SSH for anyone, and share our files that way? Encryption to the max. And if the *AA get in without us telling them our un/pw, then thats breaking into the system.

Re:Encryption (2, Interesting)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663120)

Uhh.. I thought it was obvious that the way these systems would work is to actually fetch from the user whatever files they are offering and then process them. The only solution I can think of for this is to put one of those public turing test systems into the P2P client which forces the downloader to prove they are human before you allow them to download your files. Of course, I'm sure the MPAA's system could get around that by passing the test off to someone else who wants to download files, which would also give them the benefit of being able to inject junk files into the network.

And the best part about encryption (1)

Atroxodisse (307053) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663148)

Is it would be against the MPAA and RIAA backed DMCA to break the encryption and detect the fingerprint.

Re:And the best part about encryption (3, Insightful)

chrome (3506) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663197)

Don't think so. The DMCA is there to protect media rights holders, not the common man.

You can't, say, have a encrypted hard disk, then sue the MPAA for decrypting it when they arrest you for movie trading, based on the DMCA.

You might have a case with regards to privacy ... oh, wait, all privacy laws have been stripped away from US citizens since 9/11, so I guess that won't work either.

Face it America: You're screwed.

Re:And the best part about encryption (1)

Atroxodisse (307053) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663272)

Read the DMCA. Whatever it is designed for, part of it includes legislation against breaking encryption. They can't slap you down with the DMCA at the same time as they are breaking it.

Why Bother Encrypting? (1)

fidget42 (538823) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663168)

Your solution is too complicated. All you need to do is a slight file format transforamtion (just uuencode and then zip) will mask the watermarks. I suppose that this could be considered "encrypting" but it is almost the same as using ROT13 "encryption."

Re:Why Bother Encrypting? (1)

SunFan (845761) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663220)


Another possibility would be to just randomly alter the last bits of each sample (for formats that this works with).

Re:Encryption (4, Interesting)

Breakfast Pants (323698) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663182)

The ISPs will be legally required to do man in the middle attacks. When you start up an SSL connection they will accept it as if they were the destination and then make a request to the destination for a connection. They will then pipe all info between the two connections through their fingerprinting program, and then pipe the approved data to you and to them. None of this will ever happen.

Re:Encryption (1)

Yartrebo (690383) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663241)

This wouldn't work with public key encryption.

Have the 2 peers send over their public keys and then any data to be sent is encrypted with the corresponding public key.

The ISP in the middle cannot decode either stream without breaking into the recipient's computer and copying the key.

Who pays for the equipment? (2, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663183)

And who exactly is going to pay for the Equipment to scan all IP packets? I'll be DAMNED if the government forces ISPs to pay out of their own pocket book which then has to be passed down to the consumer!!!

MPAA

1. Get government to pass laws.
2. Get government to force consumers to pay for equipment the ISP needs to enforce MPAA cartel.
3. ...
4. Profit WITH YOUR FUCKING TAX DOLLARS!

Re:Encryption (5, Insightful)

mickwd (196449) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663186)

Maybe the MPAA's next trick is to publicise some scheme they're thinking of using, letting it get published to Slashdot, reading what Slashdotters have to say, and using this to help decide on its viability, before investing any serious amount of money in it.

Free technical review.

Doesn't anybody else here think that occasionally someone from the "usual suspects" (Microsoft, RIAA, MPAA, etc) might read what some of their "opponents" are saying about them ? Especially when people here openly post how they will get round what the organisations concerned are trying to achieve (rightly or wrongly).

Re:Encryption (1)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663229)

Maybe the MPAA's next trick is to publicise some scheme they're thinking of using, letting it get published to Slashdot, reading what Slashdotters have to say,[...] Free technical review.

So let's see: will the MPAA/RIAA implement a first-posted, GNAA-encrypted soviet russian copyright protection scheme after reading the feedback from here?

Free technical review on /.... Gee, you must be kidding surely.

A few years too late (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11663034)

Peer to peer encryption anyone?

Forget it (5, Insightful)

Karamchand (607798) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663035)

Trying to make bits uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet. -- Bruce Schneier

Re:Forget it (4, Interesting)

evilmousse (798341) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663067)


aaaactually, mr wizard taught me that it's just the water's skin that's really wet--that is, it's self-adhesive properties...

pour a shitload of babypowder on a cup of water, and stick your finger down to the bottom. it'll be baby-fresh instead of wet.

Re:Forget it (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11663097)

Analyzing humor is like dissecting a frog: Nobody really enjoys it and the frog generally dies as a result. -- E. B. White

Re:Forget it (1)

evilmousse (798341) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663156)


yes i got the joke

yes, i already figured most of us are geeks and already know it

it's still a fun and interesting fact~

(that's an awesome quote BTW)

Re:Forget it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11663176)

but it's -3 off topic btw are you a girl or what with all these ~~~~s?

Re:Forget it (1)

Piquan (49943) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663212)

No, he just picked it up from manga. I'm not exactly sure how you pronounce "that~", though.

Re:Forget it (1)

evilmousse (798341) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663233)


+5 insightful ^^

i know i picked it up like 10 years ago as a teen on anime irc chans. i don't think i've seen it in a true manga per se tho.. it's fanculture as far as i know.

(lets see just how much more offtopic we can get with each reply, geez ^^)

Re:Forget it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11663252)

mangas are for girlies my dear

or for fetish loving perverts

Computer = COPY (4, Informative)

BoldAC (735721) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663036)

As long as you can get it onto a computer, people are going to figure out how to make it copy it.

Just take the new napster mess where everybody is loading up on free music right now:

Napster/Winamp hack to get unprotected free music [tech-recipes.com]

Re:Computer = COPY (0, Offtopic)

mboverload (657893) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663050)

I would never use that. 320 kbps music all the way. I'm not downloading freakin 112 kbps quality music =P

Re:Computer = COPY (1)

caino59 (313096) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663129)

forget a computer

as long as you can WATCH it - you can copy it.

then even easily re-digitized.

Re:Computer = COPY (1)

cnettel (836611) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663178)

It's quite a different thing to copy a bit and to remove waterprinting data with an acceptable loss in quality. On the other hand, I would be truely impressed if they succeeded in creating a technology which made reading the print trivial even with a transcoded and compressed copy down to a level where the compression would make the copy "uninteresting". It could be relatively easy to make a perfect rip 100 % identifiable and force all copies to lose some quality in covering up the waterprint. And, no, even by knowing the algorithm and the waterprint data that doesn't mean you can restore back the original picture/sound/date.

Encryption of the transfers will, of course, only make this useful when the source of some material is questioned after a warrant.

Crypto (1)

alehmann (50545) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663037)

And then P2P programs will start encrypting traffic. What's the point?

Re:Crypto (1)

eddy (18759) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663060)

I guess to point is to waste millions and millions on a stillborn project, 'cause at least then "we're doing something".

Hey, beats lowering prices, eh?

Re:Crypto (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11663086)

Yeah, but let's make it against the TOS to encrypt traffic! Only support SSL on port 443 or against know servers (banks, big web shops)

And make all encryption enabled P2P software illegal too.

Re:Crypto (2, Informative)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663171)

What prevents someone from running a p2p app across port 443? It's not like ports are hardcoded into protocols; they're simply defaults or "recommended." Maintaining a list of "known" HTTPS servers is rather unwieldy, sort of like going back to the days when we all used /etc/hosts for name->IP lookups, no? Also what about SSH, VPN, and so on? There're a lot more standard encrypted services people use than HTTPS.

It'd also be quite difficult to tell what is encrypted and what isn't -- encrypted data, like ideally compressed data, is indistinguishable from random noise.

The only route would be to outlaw encrypted p2p apps, I would guess, which would probably be unenforceable in a practical sense anyway. (It's illegal to trade copyright material already; do you see that stopping too many people?)

Better than upstream measures (2, Insightful)

dostalgic (701463) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663041)

While I'm certainly no a fan of the **AA, and I don't believe we need any more legislation, this to me is the least offensive method of combatting piracy. Assuming the technology works properly, this stops the actual illegal activity (i.e., trading copyrighted material) rather than needlessly infringing upon your right to make a legitimate backup or degrading the image with copy-protection schemes.

I've long argued that such upstream measures are unfair. By moving the enforcement downstream to the proximate illegal act, we may be free to legally digitize our collections. Opinions?

Re:Better than upstream measures (1)

mboverload (657893) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663076)

They are scanning MY traffic! What do you not get about this. ISP are being forced by the cartels to do their bidding.

This is a step away from the goverment scanning traffic to pick out "evil terrorists trying to kill innocent American babies".

Re:Better than upstream measures (1)

dostalgic (701463) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663117)

Hate to break it to you, but they're scanning your traffic now. Never do anything online that you wouldn't do if your mother/wife/boss/local cop were looking over your shoulder. BTW, I didn't say I support the measure--I'm a Libertarian and card-carrying member of the ACLU and EFF. Just soliciting opinions.

Re:Better than upstream measures (1)

mboverload (657893) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663145)

Yes, I know. I use gaim-encrytion whenever I know one of their taps/other measures would be alerted.

Hardware firewall, software firewall, seperate network from the internet to share files between computers, whack hard drives with a sledge hammers before I throw them out, etc. I didn't know the EFF had card, I will ahve to look into that.

Re:Better than upstream measures (1)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663204)

I'd add encrypted filesystems to that list, if you're on an OS that supports it. Also make sure by "whack" you mean "completely destroy the platters" otherwise it's really not good enough. I'd suggest melting/burning them instead; of course with a disk encrypted in the first place it's less of an issue.

Re:Better than upstream measures (1)

mboverload (657893) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663244)

Oh yeah, I use PGP disks with 256 bit AES for all my important files. Also thinking of hooking up my hard drives to a shotgun or something, for emergencies =)

Oh course theres no real reason they would want me but it's a good feeling to know your data and life is secure =)

Re:Better than upstream measures (1)

mboverload (657893) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663261)

Hey, is that link in your sig for real? It's not like a white sumpremisit movement or something? I wouldn't do it, but sounds like a cool idea, an oasis of freedom. =P

Re:Better than upstream measures (4, Interesting)

schon (31600) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663137)

this to me is the least offensive method of combatting piracy

Yes, until you get your new bill from your ISP, which includes an extra $50.00 per month so that they can afford to comply with the law.

See, I'm pretty sure that the MPAA won't be paying the ISP to implement this technology, to purchase the additional equipment to use it, and to maintain it.

Re:Better than upstream measures (1)

zakezuke (229119) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663185)

While I'm certainly no a fan of the **AA, and I don't believe we need any more legislation, this to me is the least offensive method of combatting piracy

It's the most offensive method if you are like me and store your .mp3s at home and access them via remote.

It's funny... (4, Interesting)

DoraLives (622001) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663044)

that some of the scariest 1984ish stuff would be coming out of the fricking entertainment industry fer chrissakes.

Re:It's funny... (1)

mboverload (657893) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663113)

Well, the big corporations ARE the government now. Senators all just puppets fighting other puppets. The US leadership is full of people who were previously in the major industry private sector, with alliances to their old contacts. Many will be rehired by their coporations once they do their damage.

This is not a Republican/Democrat thing, this is a GOVERNMENT thing.

Re:It's funny... (1)

TFGeditor (737839) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663237)

" that some of the scariest 1984ish stuff would be coming out of the fricking entertainment industry fer chrissakes."

Wasn't there a movie based on that? Convicted criminals fighting for their lives and the whole thing televised? TV execs in charge of the world kind of thing?

Re:It's funny... (4, Insightful)

SunFan (845761) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663273)


Perhaps this will lead to a division in society between the people who know the MPAA can't take our money and those who don't. These companies exist only because of us, the customers. I have no problem at all telling them to %$#@ off, because I know entertainment is cheap and very easy to come by. Take my kid to a movie vs. take my kid to a park vs. take my kid to a ball game, whatever. Movies really are not that big of a deal. Sure I might miss great movies like Dr. Strangelove, but, ultimately, movies are just a medium for these stories and certainly not a requirement. Indy productions, stage adaptations, etc. are all different ways for the talented people out there to tell their stories. Big company execs can kiss my ass for all I care.

Philips technology? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11663045)

The only Philips technology I use is CD-DA. Fingerprint this suckers!

So, uh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11663046)

Are they then going to just illegalize ssh, so that their fingerprints aren't totally obliterated?

Technology developed at CMU (1)

NoticeOfMeowery (858639) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663048)

This sort of thing has been around for several years, with Carnegie Mellon University being at the forefront. I've read several papers regarding this, the most interesting being its implementation on the 8255 using PicoJava. It's a shame that research like this ends up being perverted at the hands of the "bad guys".

Come on! (3, Insightful)

neonstz (79215) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663059)

Even if they managed to get the fingerprinting to work, it is dead easy to circumvent.

Instead of splitting a torrent they way it is done today, just put every N bytes in the first block etc.

Another approach can be to just encrypt each transmission from a peer to another peer with a key unique for that particular connection. XOR will work just fine. (Unless they extract the key of course, but that will require more sophisticated sniffing software).

Imagine the sheer amount of data that has to be processed...

Re:Come on! (1)

spudgun (39016) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663142)

just fine. (Unless they extract the key of course, but that will require more sophisticated sniffing software).


public/private key
excrypt on public ... , decrypt on private ,
the negotiate phase sends public keys both directions. - as the private key is never sent ....
privacy!

Re:Come on! (1)

Bri3D (584578) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663166)

I don't think ISPs are even going to be able to pull off this simple fingerprinting, especially not with bittorrent. Why? Bittorrent is 30% of internet traffic. Either the ISPs are going to have supercomputers, or they're going to have to use simple fingerprinting. Fingerprinting with collisions. If someone can find a collision between a movie and a fairly small file the MPAA will get so many positives this will be useless.

lol (2, Interesting)

IncidentA5 (844618) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663061)

Their war is futile. Lol, you could compare the P2P community to the borg.

"Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated."

All of their new 'tricks' end up being incorperated into nexgen p2p apps. So whats the point; do they really want to fund the nextgen p2p apps by releasing research/specs/documentation on this?

right... (1)

saiha (665337) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663064)

"The trick is to make that identification process work even if the file is compressed, turned into a different computer file format or otherwise changed slightly. For a song, this means basing the fingerprint on the music's acoustical properties, rather than on the ones and zeros that make up a given digital file."
Wow, you know you must be on the right track when a ROT13 encryption will defeat your fingerprinting.

Re:right... (1)

thedustbustr (848311) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663209)

Wow, you know you must be on the right track when a ROT13 encryption will defeat your fingerprinting.
You mean, ROT-1? Or, for the especially hardcore, you could go ROT-16 or ROT-256.

Some stats...... (1)

sammykrupa (828537) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663070)

Okay here are some stats that will make the ISP's task impossible:

How many file transfers are there at any one moment? Let's say there are 2,000 for each ISP.

How many thousands of computers will the ISPs need? Probably 1 or 2 for each 4GB file transfer in progress, if you want to do it unnoticeably.

Made by Philips? (4, Insightful)

mr.henry (618818) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663075)

It is sort of amusing that this technology is being developed by Philips, makers of the Philips DVP-642 [techtastic.ca] , probably the most pirate friendly DVD player on the market today.

Re:Made by Philips? (2, Insightful)

fyoder (857358) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663191)

It is sort of amusing that this technology is being developed by Philips, makers of the Philips DVP-642, probably the most pirate friendly DVD player on the market today.

Makes sense. Make money selling tech to both sides.

Quick! Let's trash the MPAA! (1)

casuist99 (263701) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663085)

I mean, we all know the MPAA trash-talking is coming. I do seriously hope, however, that the MPAA is working on two fronts with respect to movies and the Internet.

Stopping illegal downloads and uploads of movies is certainly a fine goal, as the MPAA wants to make money. I understand that from a pragmatic, capitalist perspective.

The problem I have is that I have heard little from the MPAA about developing a content distribution mechanism through the Internet. Allowing people to pay for movies online (for a reasonable price) would certainly generate additional revenue. Let's face it, some nights you just want to stay in, and there's nothing decent at Blockbuster. Additionally, being able to pause the movie to take a break for some reason is worth money in sheer convenience.

In any event, the digital fingerprinting technology is a move to stem the file sharing, but unless the MPAA moves towards providing a service as well, it's doomed to failure.

As a side note, does this fingerprinting have uses in areas other than just stopping copyright infringing file transfers (e.g. security applications, firewalling, etc)? As a secondary question, would this mean (as I believe) that the MPAA would try to require ISP's to actively monitor every move I make online?

Great (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11663090)

"legislation will enable and force ISPs to look for network traffic that matches the signatures."

Its a good thing the MPAA can essentially create legislation at will now.

5 years from now.. (4, Insightful)

evilmousse (798341) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663091)

..govt. and coportate interests will lament the day they drove the average user to encryption.

Re:5 years from now.. (1)

thpr (786837) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663135)

...the *AA will be attempting to tax every bit - regardless of content - in the argument that each one could be a transmission of media that is depriving thier coffers of some money.

even funnier... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11663095)

is they think this will make us pay for something we wouldn't otherwise buy. be glad we even listen to the crap mtv produces these days.

Encryption (1)

ac7xc (686042) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663100)

All you need to do is encrypt the file with PGP in zip format with another file added in and there is no way to tell what is going across a network.

Re:Encryption (2, Insightful)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663227)

I'd suggest encrypting the entirety of the p2p traffic (SSL layer or something), otherwise things like headers and searches are still visible.

Oh. Sure. I believe you. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11663108)

So they start sniffing networks for bits with the "acoustic properties" of music.

And just by coincidence-- maybe a glitch or something-- they happen to latch on to a VoIP phone conversation I'm having with a friend about a sensitive personal matter. Maybe the dryer's running in the background. And their algorithm decides it's "acoustically" music.

And they send out a subpeona, and they check, and they find oh no, you weren't trading music, you were just using the phone. And everything's dropped, and there's no problem.

But in the meantime my intercepted phone conversation is sitting on a computer at Verizon somewhere.

And this is acceptable ... why? I would not continue to do business with any ISP running this sort of software.

in other news (1)

tod_miller (792541) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663111)

anti-gay-signature.sf.net was not shut down by the MPAA despite the continued erosion of peopels rights in the US.

The open source software removes the tracking that it says violates peoples rights to copy thier own music around with them using thier own networks.

in a pres release anti-gay-signature.sf.net said:

"Hahaha Pwned! How do you like that MPAA?"

I am glad I am not hooked up to an ipod life support machine 24/7.

Resolution (1)

zakezuke (229119) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663115)

To the tune of Phish - Reba

Zip it
Encrypt it
digital signatures work no more

Screw em (3, Interesting)

Whammy666 (589169) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663116)

Personally, I don't trade mp3's. But considering the extremist and blatantly arrogant posture that the **AA has adopted leaves me feeling no pity for any losses (real or imagined) that they may have suffered. With this in mind, I refuse to purchase any music or videos anymore... not that anything that gets released is worth a shit (let alone $20) anyway.

If they want to assume an anti-consumer posture, then they can just all go out of business. Screw em.

Re:Screw em (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11663248)

I refuse to purchase any music

The RIAA isn't the entire music industry...

In an unrelated story... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11663118)

...P2P apps add ROT-13 encoding of all files. When asked why the creators said "no reason in particular," and then began whistling innocently.

Don't They Know? (1)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663122)

That information has a desire to be free?

SneakerNet the Ultimate (4, Insightful)

LionKimbro (200000) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663126)

We have 1TB disks coming up soon.

I don't know how many terrabytes of released music exist in the world, but I imagine it's a finite number.

We'll probably have 100TB disks, and then 10,000 TB cubes at some point in the future.

Perhaps all the worlds music will fit in the space of a cubic centimeter.

You visit your friend's house, put your cube-disk next to his cube-disk, hit "copy", and then walk home with your copy of the entire world's music.

Really, there's not a whole friggin' lot you can do about that.

Perhaps the possesion of world-music cube-disks will be the next marijuana possesion.

Re:SneakerNet the Ultimate (1)

Bri3D (584578) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663207)

Except that as time goes on our population is sadly getting bigger exponentially. Meaning there are more people who may have the music gene/music skillz/good relatives/whatever. Meaning there will be more music. Admittedly music is growing slower then disk, but just as a point...

Only one thing will end copyright infringement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11663128)

The end of copyright.

When will they learn (1)

Master_T (836808) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663133)

Piracy is not stoppable with legislation. They try over and over, but people just like free stuff too much for their silly ideas to work. It is time that a new system for rewarding the creative was invented. Our market economy's system of "buy it don't get for free" just ain't working. on the other hand who can blame them for trying? If there is no gain to be gotten in making stuff due to piracy then why create movies, software and games etc? Piracy could literally kill art-forms if it grew into the rule rather than the exception.

Artists (2, Informative)

Atroxodisse (307053) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663234)

Musical Artists make most of their money from concert sales. Most of them have prohibitive contracts where all of the money ends up in the hands of others. If an artist is good, people go to their concert.

Re:When will they learn (2, Funny)

Spacejock (727523) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663253)

Product placement! Every song could become a lengthy commercial for selected high-quality items of interest to the consumer. They could even delve into their back catalogues and digitally enhance older tracks by substituting words like 'smoke', 'like' and 'scavenger' for well-known brands.

Then they could do this with movies, cunningly inserting sponsored products at the most inopportune moments, and-- Oh...

You've lost. (0)

EverStoned (620906) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663134)

I hate seeing a sore loser with deep pockets trying to buy legislation that infringes on my rights just because it isn't dynamic enough to deal with a 'new' problem. It's clearly time for the MPAA and the RIAA to change their buisness models and stop suing their customers.

Hopefully the ISPs will have more influence than the MP/RIAA here. Some ISPs are spineless and cave in demands for personal information, but some (IIRC, Comcast) have actually taken a stand. Hats off to them, at least.

who will pay for this (1)

a11 (716827) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663140)

Yes, you can encrypt traffic over a distributed network, but this could damage most current networks. My question is: since all the extra cpu seconds will be used up by fingerprint detection, having to scan most traffic, are the *AA going to pay for the extra hardware, or is the cost going to be passed down to subscribers?

doesn't seem fair

You know who (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11663152)

Anyone who actually buys their product. Yes, that's right, the real paying customers will be the one penalized. Just like when you have to sit through an MPAA anti-copying ad at the theater... where you paid to see the movie.

Two ridiculous science fiction stories in one day? (4, Insightful)

bigtallmofo (695287) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663150)

First I read this story [slashdot.org] today, and I swear I still want my 5 minutes back from wasting my time reading it. Then comes along this story about the MPAA developing "fingerprinting" technology. I suppose that when someone rips a DVD using DVDShrink or DVDDecryptor or any number of other programs that said program is going to copy said fingerprint wholly intact into the resulting file even if it compresses said file. Then, after I convert it to DivX format, I'm sure the fingerprint is still going to be intact. Then after I transfer it with (Insert any of BitTorrent, WinMX, IRC, FTP, etc, etc, etc, etc) the fingerprint is going to be sent intact without using a fragmented TCP packet. Assuming all this to be true, my ISP is supposed to then pick out this needle-sized fingerprint in a galactic-sized haystick.

This is pure science fiction.

Who needs encryption? (0)

tredman (229468) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663157)

Forget encryption. You could just ZIP or RAR the file and beat that kind of fingerprinting.

To the MPAA, from all Internet users (0, Troll)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663160)

Please go fuck yourself. We don't want YOU or the technology YOU invent in our little world. Go fuck with the latest prosti^H^H^H^H^H^H Pop singer movie tie-in

ants, hornet, etc. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11663169)

Would this undermine anonymous, decentralized P2P?

Sigh (1)

SeventyBang (858415) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663173)

If you can see it or you can hear it, it can be manipulated or copied.

I suppose they either think they can outsmart the rest of the world or they're obligated to put up some type of resistence instead of rolling over and playing dead.

Hmm, wouldn't... (2, Insightful)

scifience (674659) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663175)

Wouldn't this digital "fingerprint" just be erased/garbled when it is encoded in a different format, like, say, DivX or XViD?

Re:Hmm, wouldn't... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11663266)

Yes.

More silly initiatives from the usual suspects.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11663189)

I agree with someone else when p2p starts encrypting content and or using steganography this sort of technology is irrelivant.

Also irrelivant unless every ISP across the world adopts it. Interesting that RIAA, MPAA, Disney and all the others are so obsessed on this sort of thing, when they really know it's doomed.

I often wonder on the real cost of so called piracy anyway. Are these really lost sales ? I bet a huge amount are people who wouldn't pay anyway.

These sort of things are always unpopular with paying consumers too. Does anyone actually care about DVD region stuff anymore ? No. How many patches are out there to render your DVD drive region free ? Zillions. It's almost normal now.

Anyway apart from being intrusive and snooping, this new technology is a pointless idea. The sooner all content creators realize that the war against this sort of thing is effectively over and lost and just accept it and move on the better for them and the consumer.

I say that as a content creator myself who works very hard, but all this DRM and intercepting traffic with digital finger printing other shit is just really crap and creates a bad image for everyone who makes film/video/music/animation whatever.

Bassackwards (1)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663198)

It seems to me that the MPAA and RIAA are spending more time and money making the Internet and digital technology conform to their will than they are figuring out how they are going to exist in it. It's like traveling to another planet where animals, birds, fish, and other wildlife are already thriving yet insisting to not only keep your spacesuit on, but running around and trying to put one on everyone who's already figured out that you can breathe there.

Can fingerprints survive encryption? (2, Interesting)

G4from128k (686170) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663200)

I wonder if these fingerprints can be designed to be detectable in an encrypted file? Given that the MPAA knows the pattern of the data itself (the music) and the fingerprint, it seems possble that ghosts of that known data would be detectable in the encrypted data. I remember a cautionary tale of encrypting images with a particular implementation of DES. If the image contained large expanses of pixels of an indentical value, the outline of the image appeared in the bits of the DES-encrypted output.

Although good encrytion should make it impossible to recover unknown bits in the original file, it seems to make no gaurantees that one can't detect the presense of known data (of a sufficiently clever pattern) in the encrypted file.

IANAC, so any expert comments about why known data is made irreversibly invisible by encryption would be appreciated

Freenet (2, Interesting)

wr0x2 (840346) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663210)

It surprises me that no one has mentioned freenet so far. Although I believe that freenet itself is condemned to fail, it certainly sets a standard as far as privacy and encryption are concerned. http://freenet.sourceforge.net/

This does NOT matter (2, Informative)

AntiPasto (168263) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663216)

... The hackers are taking over TV and movies anyway.

http://www.ourmedia.org/ [ourmedia.org]
http://www.unmediated.org/ [unmediated.org]

etc... just google for it... Get involved in your public access TV today.

Allright (1)

Deliveranc3 (629997) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663217)

There is already concern about the nature of copywrite... now they will slow down the entire internet to suit their needs?

These guys going down!

Finally!!! (1)

Duncan3 (10537) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663223)

A good use for ROT13 :)

Business Sense (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11663225)

If the MPAA stopped chasing people around, redeveloping obsolete technologoies as seen here, and throwing lawsuits at anybody within a 1500 miles radius, imagine how many millions of $ it could save. If I owned a movie production company, I would rather be given a portion of this hard cash, than have the MPAA (purporting to be acting in my interests) frittering away cash on lawsuits against P2P users.
Also worries me, that in this time when Bush harps on and on about "the threat of international terrorism", America's premier crime fighters, the FBI, have nothing better to do than to be the MPAA's personal army.
P2P is here to stay, no matter how many pathetically useless slogans the MPAA gets its PR company to think up.
"Illegal Downloading - Inappropriate For All Ages" or "You can click but you can't hide". Purlease. It would be a beautiful irony if they got sued for ripping off other people's mantras.

umm.... (2, Interesting)

nukem996 (624036) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663230)

Wont someone figure out how to remove the finger prints? Isnt that law unconstitutional(invasion of privacy)? This hole thing seems like its going to fail horribly.

Common Carrier ? (2)

steve6534 (809539) | more than 9 years ago | (#11663245)

If the ISP's are operating as common carriers how are they going to "Force" them to look for this type of traffic ? If this is the case how long will it be before every company that has "IP" (MPAA, RIAA, Proprietary software vendors) forces isp's to monitor for traffic that matches their fingerprint ?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?