Ahh... OK... I would think you'd showcase a particular video people can see this working on. That'd clear a lot of this up and restore faith...

V, none of the people here complaining right now WANT to restore any faith. Why bother?

Currently, clips we find when uploaded are removed and not added to the site. So I can not really show you any monetization created by the system as of right now.

Regarding "only 9 tubes". First of all, as of 4 weeks ago there were technically 0 participating and now 9 major tubes are participating. Secondly, this technology can be applied to torrents. And here is what Fabian stated earlier:

As far as why tubes would do the monetization program when they use the technology. It comes down to a business choice. Some may prefer to just remove the content completely & not participate. In that case, they pay the cost of running that system. Some may see opportunities in the monetization program.

I think the answer is this. You remove submitted content, and all the tubes are left with is 4 min content. Ask any tube out there how long they will last without any content over the 10 min mark. If surfers don't see the full clips listed, they will move on to another tube who does have them. Its gonna be like playing whack-a-mole

You remember all that shit I was talking about when I called you and I was all fucked up? I was just kidding. I never knew her. And forget that stuff about tying Nathan to a tree and shoving a live chicken up his butt. Just jokes man. Just jokes.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Sean,
http://www.spankwire.com/Ashlynn-Bro...y/video220449/
http://www.spankwire.com/Ashlynn-Bro...y/video224664/
http://www.spankwire.com/Ashlynn-Bro...e/video224376/
http://www.spankwire.com/Ashlynn-Bro...s/video223350/
http://www.spankwire.com/ashlynn-bro...n/video223336/
http://www.spankwire.com/ashlynn-bro...e/video223300/
http://www.spankwire.com/Jenna-Haze-...e/video223274/
http://www.spankwire.com/ashlynn-bro...n/video222665/

etc etc

With the 2257 slate in tact no less... :disgust

Accept me on ICQ, SiMpLe :)

Here are some images I was given permission representing the technical components a bit more. This may seem overwhelming for some so I will add our experience. We've created digital finger prints with a couple different providers. With one provider it took us a month, with the APAP system it took us 3 days with minimal human intervention because their system was so well automated.

Here's the Finger Print Process:

http://av.echid.com/vobile/VideoDNA.JPG

Here's the Monetization Process:
http://av.echid.com/vobile/mediawise.JPG

A little more info on the Biz Rules:

http://fscapap.com/images/slide3.jpg

and then the potential result:http://fscapap.com/images/slide5.jpg

Why not also sharing footprint? If the uloader know he can be sued, he will not upload infringements.

Is that you agreeing you cannot find a single quote from me defending piracy or supporting it?

Brilliant.

Your debating game is weak, Sir.


Damian: Blackmailing IP addresses is not a good look for the following reasons.
Slutboat: YOU FUCKING PIRATE
Damian: Can you quote any instance of me support piracy?
Slutboat: YOU FUCKING PIRATE
Damian: No really, do you not understand? Saying one doesn't like blackmailing IP addresses is not the same as saying I love piracy?
Slutboat: YOU FUCKING PIRATE
Damian: Sigh

While you do run circles around me on a lot of things... Public relations is not your strong suit and never has been. Not sure if you or John rubbed off on the other or if you were both that way before joining forces...

But if you kept it up it'd begin to work. If there is anything you can take away from the BP disaster it is that I am right here. The CEO would still have a job if he just put his personal life on hold like a CEO should and handled the situation with a gracious smile instead of a fuck-me-what-the-fuck scowl...

But anyway... It's your battle. Have fun with it or don't.

thats the biggest load of bs ever. avoiding the question as always, you dont plan on ever getting rid of pirated content on your sites, admit it, or else people would be stuck with watching 3 min brazzers vids, not the 50 min videos people upload

Accoring to nathan, its ok to pirate your content , and make money off your hard work, as long as they remove it *when* you find out.

:helpme

money making scam + one formerly respected program (by this poster) now aligned with scumbags + an industy organization desperate to stay relevant having a suck each other off party in the desert. bring your condoms. there's diseases out there.

i would like to see someone explain how a hidden mirror backup of a tubes content gets resynced on a regular basis and puts content removed by dmcas back on the offending live sites. anyone want to explain that? just hypothetically of course.

ok wait...

then why do you have paid partner accounts?

its not like you are letting watermarked content get uploaded..

from my experience, when i tried to upload watermarked content, i was told i needed a partner account..

so, by that response i would take it that you do monitor uploaded content and if you monitor uploaded content then you should now if something raises red flags..

your argument loses credibility when you selectively filter content based on your ability to monetize content...

if an uploader tried to upload content without a watermark, it should be a red flag that they dont own the content...

if they upload watermarked content than at least the owner would get type ins...







.

marketsmart,

depending on what watermark it is, we let it be uploaded, of course we do. There is a ton of content with watermarks on our tubes.

If the watermark creates a red flag for us, it's different of course.

Also, partner accounts simply add in the ads. They are still treated like other accounts otherwise.

Never said it is my strong suit. I'm getting better though, slowly... ;)

This thread was to explain Vobile, I am nice enough to reply to people that accuse me of all kinds of things and call me names on top of that though.

This is not a battle btw.

My biggest concern is that with the current DMCA law..which allows just about anyone to become a DMCA agent, and without any regulation allows these type of institutions to become viable and for-profit business models..we will see a new breed of copyright trolls who are simply profiteers and are not interested in protecting intellectual copyright at all. Unless we have safeguards, this can be an ends-to-a-means for our industry as I forsee it. What safeguards can be implemented from preventing this?

Noe, can you explain a bit more what you fear might happen or what Vobile could do that would be bad for the industry in that regard?

Or maybe I misunderstood your comment.

Let's keep this thread actually productive and get back to people getting asking questions regarding finger prints please.

Several companies have hit me up personally to get information and I welcome that if anyone prefer not to post.

Unproductive comments, complaints, or opinions I don't have time for, but I'll continue to be happy to respond to any person willing to take action to realistically curb piracy.

thank you for clarifying..

i tried to upload watermarked content in the past and it was always rejected...

i will try again and report back my results..

i will say that i respect you coming here and regardless of the comments, you continue to stick around and don't disappear when the conversation becomes heated...





.

marketsmart, thank you.

And I second Allison's post. Although we of course expected some of this, let's try to stick to the actual subject and that is Digital Fingerprinting.

My concern I guess is the lack of regulation on who can become a DMCA agent and how those agencies can operate; not necessarily content owners who are interested in protecting their content from being pirated. I guess this is an issue that you and Allison can't resolve, but one that needs to be addressed at the DMCA level. I commend you both for at least working towards a solution together; I'm all about longevity for the industry lol and don't like to obsess on the problem, but rather solutions.

Many thanks for all the explanatory slides :thumbsup

wow
just wow

Here's how

Very simple to have video disappear and reappear.

I used to really respect you, now I think you should go fuck yourself. Selling out to the bad guys, I hope all affiliates realize this and stop traffic immediately.

Nathan, please pass it on to your reviewers to "red flag" and reject all clips that bear FerroNetwork logo on them, unless they were sumbitted by users with the e-mail addresses like *anything*@ferrocash.com

Nautilus, we can add it and you take a partner account. If not, to only red flag if email is different is too complicated, sorry.

Thanks Allison, that clarifies alot.

Can you please also ask them to post some specs about the accuracy of their method. What I'm interested to know is outlined in the list of questions below:

1. What is the average discover rate for this tech in most of the standard cases? I mean, out of 100 videos that were posted at tubes more or less as is, without big changes such as half screen logo and recompressed at standard 400-700kb/s, how many will be found?

2. What is the lowest bitrate threshold for videos to still be recognizeable by this tech? 200kb/s, 100kb/s? Basically, the question is how badly a tube needs to recompress a video to fly under the radar unnoticed.

3. Will videos be still identifiable by this tech if they were distorted? It is not uncommon for many of the tube uploaders to take a 16:9 HD video, add their own watermark and then reencode it to a 4:3 SD video (I'll post some screenshots later of this happening).

4. Will videos be still identifiable by this tech if they were BOTH cropped AND distorted. It is happening often with our HD vids - some uploader crops out about 150 pixels from both left and right to remove logos, then adds his own watermark and reencodes it to a 4:3 SD video. The resulting video looks shitty, but it is still somehow passable for many tubes and they accept his uploads. And it is both cropped and distorted, so it's DNA signature must be very different from the original one.

5. What % of the image should be rewatermarked/changed to avoid detection? I've seen videos where the new logos/ads added by thieves were pretty much half screen. Can this tech still deal with those?

6. If an HD (16:9) video was resized to a SD (4:3) video by using color bars full of ads, can this tech still deal with those? It is pretty much widespread nowadays for tube uploaders do downsize a 1280x720 HD vid to a 640x360 piece and embed it into a 640x480 template and then use the remaining space to add lots of promo - they do that because at most tubes their flash players are still SD. Those ads are not simple color bars that are easily identifiable. It is most often a colored text, but sometimes full color images too.

mansef strikes again

If it's too complicated than simply red flag it.

Thank you.

A little off-topic here, but when your fancy whizbang system identifies a fingerprinted video that is clearly copyright infringement, will you delete the profile of the uploader and all of the other videos that profile has uploaded? You could seriously cut down the massive amount of piracy on your site by implementing that one little thing.

It treats it as one infringement, so counts against their number allowed before they are banned. I think that currently is 3 infringements. What happens to their old videos is a good question, I can not say right now, have to find out.

Nautilus, we will try to red flag it if we can identify it.

Also, regarding your questions of what is detectable: I do not know the specifics but it detects on both audio and video, and that even afterer at least some cropping and quite a bit of quality drop. We are going to test a bit with our own content.

Regardless of that though, someone recutting the video most likely is not covered by DMCA safe harbor, just FYI. Although it is not 100% clear, it's likely they would lose in court.