Log in

View Full Version : Client, Victim of Piracy, Asking for Copy Proof Video Online


BassPig
14th September 2012, 03:05
I have a client who produces instructional videos, and due to his fame and demand for these videos, the traditional DVDs have been pirated and he stopped production this year upon discovery.

This summer, his manager talked him into doing the videos again, but this time only releasing them online, through his web site, using heavy copy protection, perhaps something like Artiscope. While this can thwart most digital copying, my client also wants to prevent copying with a camcorder off the screen. I don't believe there is currently any rendering technology that can do this, and Googling the topic found nothing but encrypting against digital copying.

So my question is whether anyone knows of a company that makes a product that causes video to be viewable to the naked eye, but not recordable with a camcorder?

I have been thinking about ways to implement this myself, and my thoughts are along the lines of the methods used to protect checks (microprinting) and currency from copying. The protection results in a severely degraded copy, perhaps revealing a watermark, when the copying resolution is not the same as the original printing.

For a video, something like a 50% checkerboard matrix of pixels with the video and another with reversed video colors, where the video could be viewed normally, but the slight blurring of a camcorder lens would blend the pixels together and result in a grey solid area instead of video. Obviously there is a fundamental flaw with this, in that the naked eye would see a confusing image, even if it could decipher it, but I'm bringing it up just to show you what direction my thinking is taking on this.

If it is possible, and there is a product, my client wants to know where he can get it and how much it will cost. If not, I need a credible source to state that such technology is impossible in the current state of the art and that he's wasting his time with any such efforts.

So what do you embedded video experts think? Is there tech on the horizon that can address camcorder copying AND encryption? Or will this be way too far in the future?

Guest
14th September 2012, 03:26
Protect the audio with Cinavia?

BassPig
14th September 2012, 03:54
Protect the audio with Cinavia?

That's an interesting angle. However, what about older camcorders pre-2009? Won't they ignore the watermark?

Guest
14th September 2012, 12:36
It would give protection only when playing back the content on a Cinavia-enabled bluray player so it's really not useful for your scenario. Don't know what I was thinking. :confused:

TheFluff
14th September 2012, 15:08
It can't be done, at least not in any even remotely reliable way. It's also pretty useless, since all known digital DRM is crackable, at least in principle (DRM suffers from a fundamental cryptographical flaw; you're trying to protect the message from the entity that is supposed to be reading it, which is obviously impossible). It'd be easier to just copy the digital version. The reason camrips exist is not that digital cinema DRM is uncrackable (several known schemes have already been circumvented), it's that it's just hard to get physical access to the HDD's containing the movies. If Artiscope hasn't been cracked yet, it's most likely primarily because it's obscure.

Ghitulescu
14th September 2012, 15:43
Instructional videos are addressed to an advised public.
If they are pirated that can only be traced down to their price.
Doing whatever copy protections will do nothing else than to anger the honest viewers, and increase the price, which again will strengthen the piracy.

poisondeathray
14th September 2012, 15:48
Even a digital watemark, steganography, where you can trace it back to the user - won't hold up in most courts, because you have to establish that the user actually distributed the content. (e.g. Perhaps the user got hacked and someone else distributed it)


my client also wants to prevent copying with a camcorder off the screen


WHHHAT ? This is actually what the MPAA suggests you do for backups (instead of a 1:1 digital copy) - does anyone recall that stupid promotional video ?