| Msg # |
User |
Message |
Date |
1
|
rearadmiral (0)
|
I have done so (or at least I think I have). Legal Porno claims to have a code embedded in each download that they can trace if the video ends up on a tube site. That doesn't bother me at all. If it helps stem piracy then go for it.
|
01-31-15 04:50am
Reply To Message
|
2
|
pat362 (0)
|
I picked no because as far as I know DRM is the kind of technology that means you can't view videos unless you have the access code which is always held by the producer. That means that you can't view any porn offline as you need the codes to see the videos and the producers can prevent you from viewing content you downloaded years ago at any time.
|
01-31-15 09:46am
Reply To Message
|
3
|
LPee23 (0)
|
Just to clarify, I don't mean DRM in the sense that you can't copy or view it without any restrictions. I just mean they added an invisible watermark or some other means of identifying each downloader on a master list.
I have joined a few sites that did this, and it doesn't bother me. You've got nothing to worry about as long as you don't pirate the content. As long as you are not pirating the content, then the only way anyone could use the codes to identify you is if they found the porn on your hard drive, but in that case I think they would know its yours anyways.
I'm surprised more sites haven't done this. I've seen sites close, with the owners complaining about the usual, no money in porn, piracy, etc, yet they never tried anything like this.
|
01-31-15 10:05am
Reply To Message
|
4
|
Wittyguy (0)
|
I hadn't really heard about this before. It makes sense from the production end and doesn't mess with legitimate users so I don't have a real problem with it. My guess, though, is that it's probably easy to defeat the codes or block them if you know what you're looking for.
|
01-31-15 01:38pm
Reply To Message
|
5
|
LPee23 (0)
|
REPLY TO #4 - Wittyguy :
If you do this right, they can't be removed. You place a watermark that is unique to each user, and it consists of very subtle color alterations of the pixels comprising the watermark, which can be off to the corner somewhere. You would never be able to see the effect of this.
If the webmaster wants to identify the downloader of a given image, all they have to do is subtract the pixels of their un-watermarked master copy from the watermarked image.
This cannot be decoded or removed without the master file, so there would be no way to defeat it.
Again, I would be fine with this. I once saw it implemented really badly though, with a semi-translucent alphanumeric code watermark right in the middle of the field of view. Ugh!
|
01-31-15 02:19pm
Reply To Message
|
6
|
nineinch (0)
|
I don't have a problem with sites wanting to track their content and go after crooks who illegally share it. At the same time, I do want them to publish and protect the explicit rights of the consumer. There should be no ambiguity in terms of what the DRM is supposed to do and some basics about how it works. I don't mean they should divulge exactly how it's done, but I do mean the behavior and legal rights of the consumer in plain English (as well as the 30 pages of legal sh*t).
|
01-31-15 07:30pm
Reply To Message
|
7
|
Jay G (Disabled)
|
DRM interferes with watching of porn you have bought. Bad idea. My experience in the past is that videos with DRM do not work well on my computers even though I bought them.
They used to put DRM on music & it also made it unable to be used on most devices. They stopped that practice because who wants to buy music you can't listen to?
|
02-01-15 02:56am
Reply To Message
|
8
|
LPee23 (0)
|
REPLY TO #7 - Jay G :
I may rephrase this poll in the future, because I didn't mean DRM in the traditional sense, I just meant a hidden watermark to identify each downloader.
|
02-01-15 06:31am
Reply To Message
|
9
|
Jay G (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #8 - LPee23 :
Thanks for the clarification. I have no problems with watermarks if they're not distracting, but my experience with DRM & music has influenced my dislike of DRM. I was burnt badly & learned, often I paid and got no useful product, but I admit it was a few years ago, but why would I ever take that chance again?
|
02-01-15 06:44am
Reply To Message
|
10
|
Wittyguy (0)
|
Well, I stand corrected. I think the main people here have with this is the word "DRM". Too many bad connotations for us old timers. Given how much personal information we give up to social media and big data every time we fire up our browser, I don't have much of a problem with this any more.
|
02-01-15 12:32pm
Reply To Message
|
11
|
Marcus (0)
|
Yep, I would join, and it seems like the fairest and most unobtrusive way of protecting content that I have heard of.
|
02-01-15 02:26pm
Reply To Message
|
12
|
Monahan (0)
|
Having been stung by promises that DRM would not cause me any personal problems with downloads, which turned out to be downright lies, Most such situations lock you out of your downloads if you aren't a continuing member of the site even if the liars say otherwise.
I will no longer join any sites with DRM. Period. There is no alternative that I would ever consider.
|
02-01-15 04:02pm
Reply To Message
|
