Warner Bros. Accused of Pirating Anti-Pirating Tech 228
psycho12345 writes "German firm Medien Patent Verwaltung claims that in 2003, it revealed a new kind of anti-piracy technology to Warner Bros. that marks films with specific codes so pirated copies can be traced back to their theaters of origin. But like a great, hilariously ironic DRM Ouroborus, the company claims that Warner began using the system throughout Europe in 2004 but hasn't actually paid a dime for it."
Re:Novel? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm pretty sure all color printers 'hide' something in each print, and I wouldn't be surprised if digital cameras did too.
Yes, they do [eff.org] (well, actually just laser color printers).
Re:Patents? (Score:4, Informative)
TFA isn't overly precise about what's going on. However, they do say that Warner is being sued for using their software without paying for it (ie. 'stealing' someone's 'IP', not giving back to the creators etc - basically the same stuff that the music industry says about file sharers). This looks the same as someone making a copy of Windows and using it without paying MS (or whatever).
Slightly confusingly, there's mention of patent infringement. This suggests that Warner went along to Medien and saw what they were up to. They then left, and made the exact same thing themselves and started using that. If this is what's actually happening, then it's a straight patent lawsuit, with Medien looking for license fees for Warner to use their ideas.
It may not be a software patent per-se - it is possible to patent some software in (at least some parts of) Europe - generally, it has to be something embedded - an "enabler" of a bigger invention, if you like. (You can't patent Windows in Europe, but you might be able to patent an intelligent flow valve with embedded PIC, for example).
Techdirt article on lawsuit (Score:4, Informative)
http://techdirt.com/articles/20100521/1529489535.shtml [techdirt.com]
Has a couple of interesting tidbits.
Re:Novel? (Score:1, Informative)
Actually, the small defects (artifacts) of every inkjet printer can easily screw you.
Also, the microscopic aligment of pins of a dot matrix printer can easily be used to uniquely identify your device.
Fingerprints of typewriters have been used forever.
Re:Novel? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm somewhat surprised this is allowed. Making a mistake is one thing, but purposely falsifying information that someone is paying you for (perhaps even specifically for the accuracy!) is another.
Is this one of those things that is actually allowed by law or just unenforceable because they can claim it was a mistake?
I assume you're referring to the maps thing...
This is generally done with street maps, where the information should be pretty much identical from one manufacturer to the next. If you can steal your competition's map, you save yourself all the time and effort of actually going out and looking up all the information. And everyone is going to show the same streets in the same places, so how do you prove that they stole your map data?
The answer is that you put in some crappy little 1-block dead-end streets here and there.
Nobody lives on those streets, because they don't exist, so you don't have to worry about incorrect address information showing up. You don't have to worry about giving people bad directions because they're dead-end streets, so nobody will route down them. Nobody is going to be hurt by these little streets in any way.
But if you suspect that your competition stole some map information from you, you just check to see if there's a Fake Street in Chicago. If the street is there, in the same place as on your maps, you know they stole the map data from you.
Re:Novel? (Score:4, Informative)
Camera's do indeed, the exif data for one - which by default contains the camera's serial number. Some add other formats of metadata as well. Generally this is not particularly nefarious in intent - the reason for exif data is to allow photographers to recheck what settings they had used for a photo at a later date, and allow the picture to be identifiable to the photographer for credit/copyright purposes.
But it can be dangerous - political activist taking picture of police beating subject for example, may well not be aware that his camera's serial code (and depending setup - his name and contact details ) are embedded in the picture. Even just the serial code can be enough to trace you - if you paid with a credit card - it's all on record somewhere who owns the phone that took the picture.
For this reason there exists software (shipped for example with paranoid linux) that can strip exif data, either entirely or selectively for dangerous fields automatically. Or you can just do it on specific points using exiftool or one of the many gui's that interact with it.
But suffice to say - if you don't KNOW that they do it, you won't know to strip out the information and the same information that is an incredibly useful photographers tool in one setting can be a very dangerous privacy or even safety risk in another.
Re:Old anti-piracy message on DVDs (Score:5, Informative)
I hope we all get the reference, but just in case...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg [youtube.com]
Re:Novel? (Score:1, Informative)
exif data can also contain a thumbnail. Some photo editing software doesn't know about it, so you can crop an embarrassing picture and still be embarrassed. As famously happened to Cat Schwartz, though all the pictures of her boobies seem to have been pulled from the web.
Re:Do as I say--- (Score:3, Informative)
The kettle is polished metal; the pot only thinks the kettle is black because it sees its own reflection.
Re:Do as I say--- (Score:5, Informative)
There are only four big companies left in music business. And a colleague of mine personally worked with the bosses of all of them, when they were still five.
And according to him, they actually ARE lying cocaine-snoring hooker-addicted thieves all alike. I mean for a fact. :)
I would have no trouble stating that in public, as here it’s not illegal to state mere facts. I can easily prove them to be facts.