3 ms·
I think (invisible) watermarking media is fair, although I'm not sure how strong it is from a legal standpoint (blocking an account seems fair though). However
by contravariant 6y ago
I think (invisible) watermarking media is fair, although I'm not sure how strong it is from a legal standpoint (blocking an account seems fair though). However flooding P2P networks with corrupted copies seems a bit iffy, not just because it is a heavy handed unilateral move, but also because it seems really close to a DDoS and 'they started it' is not much of a legal defence.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- dane-pgp 6y agoI'm not sure how well a watermarking algorithm can work if the "attacker" has a few different copies of the same file. By averaging out the pixel values, and re-encoding the file, it would be difficult for any unique identifier (or unique combination of such identifiers) to be extracted. Worse, by reverse-engineering the watermark algorithm, the attacker could add watermarks that correspond to arbitrary IDs, possibly framing innocent customers (especially if those customers' IDs have been extracted previously by malware running on their devices). I agree with your other point too about DDoS. For a system to be effective at preventing people from finding the media file they want, it also has to be effective at preventing people from finding the right answer to search queries on every search engine, online forum, and social media platform.
- contravariant 6y agoDepending on the method used averaging the files would just result in a file with multiple watermarks (think something like a bloom filter). At any rate the worst that could happen is that the watermark doesn't work, which is a shame for the person that added it but doesn't really affect anyone else. Preventing the attacker from adding arbitrary IDs is as easy as cryptographically signing the ID (requires more bits, but the available space is huge).