Quote:
Originally Posted by riddler
chances are its not the member thats uploading the content but someone who brute forced the site and got access to their account so chances are you would be punishing a user that is clueless to having content uploaded with his "watermark"
|
Hey Riddler.
This is not the case at all.
I did quite bit of research into this, using my script, and Raven Riley's site as the test - so there was definitely exposure.
Here are the things [again] that I found - and they really were quite surprising.
#1 - Content was stolen, and posted on torrent sites, rapidshare, and various forums.
#2 - Out of all of these, torrents sites were the slowest to update, and had really, really old sets on them. Forums had the most recent sets.
#3 - 2 weeks after deploying the script, I noticed that there was a trend of 5 - 10 accounts that were constantly being used to distribute content. I found the accounts compromised, and removed the accounts.
#3 - 3 weeks after deploying and 1 after removing the accounts, the amount of content posted on forums had reduced *dramatically*.
#4 - From here on, and I watched this for about 6 months - the accounts that were stealing and reposting content were members that had been with the site for 6 - 12 months, or more - the members that you 'trust the most'.
It wasn't new members doing a pump/dump, it was the older members, who, especially in the case of a solo site, feel that they have some 'right' to the content, as they've been a member for so long.
And, it's a tough choice: do you cancel your most supportive members, or let your content leak.
In regards to the privacy issue, my script covered it 2 fold:
#1 - The information was: username, IP, timestamp of download, and original filename of download. All this information was encyrpted, packed, and obfuscated.
#2 - If the member never distributed the content, there was no privacy concern
By the way, this style of content protection is used by Apple w/ iTunes - for the non DRM tracks, your name is embedded in the file - and fuck, they don't even encrypt it.
I don't by any means pretend that the script I posted was a deploy and forget solution, mainly because it depends on the system used [CMS, manual downloads, etc] - but was and is, a proven, completely working system, completely free.
You might also be interested to know that no-one, and I mean no-one ever contacted me about using it, and I'd contacted the CMS developers, etc. Not so sure why it is, but it's sure a shame that this problem is still ongoing when it's already been solved.