How to stop people hi-jacking public content for their own benefit (as on YouTube)?

Wouldn’t that be the equivalent of reposting a video on YouTube to get enough views to be paid through ads (in this case safecoins based on GETS)? Granted there will surely be a lot of space and I think deduplication is brilliant but YouTube pisses me off anymore with all the junk. Is there a way to curb or stop this further? Just curious I know nothing can be perfect

What is “that” that would be equivalent of a video on YouTube?
You can’t prevent anyone to upload to the SAFE network whatever they want, but you can refuse to access what you don’t want to see.
Once a non-gameable rating and reputation system is available, we can only hope that crappy content will not rank well.


I was commenting on the injection of slight variation in data while uploading for similar files so de duplication was not successful. It made me think there could be a way for people to not share an original public file through the process of de duplication but instead upload their own slight variation as to try and benefit through gets and adding pointless copies of essentially the same file to the network. I believe people repost videos on YouTube to try and catch some traffic in hopes of monetizing off ads. In our case safecoin based on gets. Hope I’m being clear enough. My point is this could potentially ruin the opportunity for movie companies to torrent their own films and benefit fully like has been discussed in other threads and for artists to not benefit fully either. I mean if you can download or rip the original file and ad randomness and reupload then you could potentially charge a little less safecoin and bank on the gets. Your thoughts if any

1 Like

We talk about the security of the safenetwork and the encryption of its files. Would it be so hard to develop an app that encrypts files (that are are made public on the safenetwork) with owner rights? Rights that enable ONLY the content owner privileges to where the content can be viewed, security on download prevention, etc… I’m sure there’s even ways to prevent screen captures when movie files are being played to prevent external methods of copying files.

Thinking, the best way to do anything is to incentivize. So how could be incentivize people to be loyal to the content creators? For artists with live shows and first access passes this may be easy. Perhaps this will only spark invention as it will be necessary and there are prolly plenty of solutions just few I am aware of. If anyone could eighteen me I’d appreciate it. I don’t know but I hope in time maidsafe takes on the world of bullshit gives it a big noogy and sets it packing

1 Like

I like your proposal each person who does whatever it takes to be granted access could be given a one time randomly generated address? In a sandboxed app that prevents recording or output? Not sure if the last part is possible but might make sense

That was discussed on @russell’s thread.
You have no way to prevent anyone from posting anything.

You’re trying to solve the same problem that tens of thousands of people from distribution companies, record companies, movie studios, authors, etc. have been trying to solve for 20 years.
Let’s not be delusional and expect that we’ll come up with a new & splendid solution for that here. :slight_smile:


It’s new to me but understood.

1 Like

When are you people going to figure out this simple concept: Copyright = surveylance. Privacy and freedom is not compatable with copyright and surveylance. THE TWO MODELS ARE NOT COMPATIBLE AND CANNOT COEXIST! The business model of having content creators dictate what happens with their content after it’s uploaded is OBSOLETE! It’s been obsolete since the invention of the tape recorder. It’s long past obsolete since the advent of ftp. Deal with it and develop a new business model already!

Look say you coded some way to rent out a movie using safecoin. Say you even coded it to rent out by the minute, theres been lots of talk about that. What if I paid my safecoin then set up a tv camera in front of my computer screen, recorded the movie in high def, then uploaded the movie onto the safenet? It’s crude but basically the same concept as going to the movie theatre and camming the movie there. Now you can MONITOR for these copies and intrude on people’s privacy and right to upload or you can realize that your pay per view system doesn’t work. If I wanted pay per view I’d get cable. My point is you can’t enforce copyright without having surveylance and infringing on people’s privacy.


I believe the whole concept of the SafeNetwork is the ability to protect your own data - private and secure… I would think original content can easily fall in that bracket.

Just like my personal medical records, i should be able to determine who is able to view my content and prevent it from being copied, downloaded, etc…

With the way the system breaks up these files and encrypts it into all these tiny pieces - it’s amazing how it works where only I have the ability to put it all together. When you make your content available to the public - the thought is you give everybody that ability of putting all the pieces back together. But say when you upload your original content onto the public network, you only give SAFETUBE that right to gather all the pieces and no one else…

Yeah, you can get a HD camera and record it off your monitor… but have you ever tried it?.. the quality is pretty crappy.

1 Like

Somehow I don’t think…

  • That the vast majority of forum members here give a damn about copyright.
  • …Or that they should
  • …or ever will…


If this is as big a deal as everyone keeps saying…
We should treat all mention of copyright infringement on maidsafe as someone trying to derail our network by asserting issues that do not exist. If maidsafe is as great as everyone’s saying, then there are indeed dark forces in the world who would happily try to harm mass adoption by… for example… proposing that all maidsafe users are pirates and forcing them to pay a $500/day mandatory licensing fee.

About that scenario: Stranger things have indeed happend. There are a number of topics we should probably begin to treat that way. They will be used to keep people (always those who need it most) from realizing the benefits of this technology, mark my words.

To the team: are you scared yet? You should be. It is indeed difficult to change the world for the better.

Protect the sainted coders of maidsafe from the doom that befalls many a geek trying to do good and rain purifying fire upon the enemies of freedom anywhere.


Apologies if this has been answered in another thread, but I believe that any slight variation would have to exist through the entire length of the YouTube (for example) clip in order to not be suitable for deduplication. This is because data is hashed at a chunk level.


I don’t think that’s the case*, but that can be easily tested.

  • Because the format is compressed. Why do I think you may be right: pirates usually put a logo overlay throughout the video, but I still think that’s for marketing reasons.

Sorry @janitor, I’m not 100% sure from your response what you mean, can you please re phrase?

A huge misconception might be the perceived purpose of deduplication. My understanding of it is that it’s not meant to claim ownership. It’s meant to keep the size of the network down by eliminating redundancy.

So unfortunately, artists will need to use a different approach.

When you find it, you’ll be a rich man/woman.

I think the purpose of the safe network is to protect data that you deem private. So things you don’t want to be available publicly will stay private. Art is public, and is obviously a lot harder to protect. Damn near impossible, really. Dropbox is private until I post a public link.

@Janitor is probably right. I think any changes to the video affect the entire video because of the compression. Swapping out the first shot affects the entire file, I believe. Yanking random data from the middle ruins the entire file. Although this could also be compression-specific.

1 Like

I see both sides at this point although I think some peoples attitudes are a little less than sympathetic to others passions once being more easily viable for sustenance where in the future the passions of those lacking that understanding could be leveled too. On the other hand this subject has been worn thin I’m sure. Nobody likes others getting any sort of credit for the time, energy, and thoughts put into any work that they have worked hard for. That said I like the bittunes model still where music movers get a cut in spreading music of the music makers (cuts out middle men for the most part since the listeners are actively paid to be promoters). A little bit more incentive and the artist at least more easily gets recognition and a larger audience without having to slave over every other aspect of the business world and never even get to pick up their instruments. Network99 sounds cool I hope this gets more traction I think about it quite a bit. I appreciate people who may be busy contributing to this project it’s very important to us all but let’s remember to be nice folks :wink: we’re all here for the same end result mostly

There is a difference between protecting your data from being accessed by unauthorized personel (ie your encryption being broken) and from you trying to create artificial scarcity by telling people not to share something you have deliberately and willingly made public. (ie a file you’ve uploaded to public spaces.) If you upload a file to your website and publish it for all to see then it’s your own damn fault if people copy it. In fact it could be argued it’s your own intent for others to copy it because that’s the whole purpose of publishing it: so others can see it. If you don’t want it to be seen then share your data with only selected individuals, don’t publish it.

Last time I checked we don’t publish our medical records on facebook or on public websites where just anyone can see. This is not an apt analogy. If you post it somewhere where someone CAN copy it then don’t blame them for asserting their ability to do so. If the data is sensitive we need to share it with only select people, like our doctors for our medical info, and those people only. We do not publish sensitive information to public spaces and blab our secrets all over the net. If you want something to be private then keep it private.

I don’t think this would work for technical reasons, mainly anyone watching safetube would have to have access to the actual file in order to watch it, but be that as it may what you’re proposing is pretty much the status quo for the majority of people who don’t know how to download videos offf youtube. Even so how do you think videos get onto youtube in the first place? People upload them. So the videos exist somewhere. And people LIKE to be able to download them so if you have safetube and neosafetube and on neosafetube you can download the vids then pretty much people will gravitate to it instead of safetube. People do not want to be restricted in the way you describe. We’ve had enough of that from corporations and are sick of it.

That was a crude example to demonstrate it could be done, a screencast would probably be more efficient. Point is it could be done.



I hope you join into the upcoming test networks and attempt to game the deduplication process with Video and Audio files…some answers would be great on this.


@nicklambert, I mean if you insert a new frame between frames 385 and 386, I don’t think that just the first chunk (megabyte) of the video will change. I don’t think that frames are “sequentially” compressed, but also as you can imagine if one additional frame gets added, all the others get pushed back, so I think that in any case a new frame changes all chunks of a video file (at least those after it, but I think those before it as well).
I could try to do that right now but I’ve just started bitcoind to catch up with few hundred blocks and need to do some other IO intensive stuff so I can’t afford that resources-wise. If you have a video editing app you could add a frame to a video, chunk it and compare befores and afters.

I will ask the devs this morning and see if I can find out more. I had assumed (first mistake) that chunks of the video would be hashed, replicated and stored on the network. If another video, identical in every respect but for a different 10 second title section was uploaded, only that title section would be stored as the network already had stored the rest of the video. As it already had the rest of the video stored, it would only need to increase the subscriber count of those chunks.

1 Like