If somebody else posts it or shares it (e.g. Google, the NSA), what then?
I tried a simple test. I have a 9.5 MB video. In it I removed a caption from the middle of the video. Then I saved as MP4 and chunked it in 1 MB chunks. I created MD5 checksums for the last chunk (#10) before and after and they were different.
3 Likes
I believe @janitor’s right here in this case. We’re basically at the mercy of the MPEG4 compression algorithm. If removing a single frame from a video causes the entire contents of the final .mp4 file to change, then this will create an entirely different set of chunks when run through self-encryption.
Even if this didn’t happen, it would presumably be trivial to inject a tiny difference in each frame at the 1MB boundaries and achieve the same effect.
4 Likes
Again if they aren’t a trustworthy entity why are you trusting them with your data (Google or the NSA via Google.) And ultimately again if you want something to be private you don’t upload it or you make sure it stays encrypted. This is why maidsafe will be very useful.
Think of all those music videos on youtube. The same song with some minor tweaks.
Indeed, but if we remove or significantly reduce the incentive to create such videos, who’s going to bother doing it?
My own guess as to the popularity of such videos is down to two main points - the illegal copy is more convenient to access than the legal one, and the illegal copy is significantly cheaper than the legal one.
We should be able to completely remove issue one, and issue two will be minimised if the original artist is receiving micro payments automatically (i.e. without the downloader doing anything explicitly relating to payment).
3 Likes
I recall something. A man hosted a concert for his piano skills. He offered to 150 people free tickets. He chose an incredible venue, catered the food; and he is an amazing pianist. None except a dozen of the tickets were ever redeemed. Each of these 150 people knew, heard of, and/or respected this pianist and knew of his talents.
Some months later, the same scenaio only this time there was a fee associated with the tickets, they had a $25.00 on them, and it was issued that at the door one must present the ticket and pay 25.00 to gain entry and also only those with tickets may enter.
The event sustained more than 150 people, where individuals had brought along friends hoping to have them admitted based on ‘friend’ status. There were claims that ‘oh, if we cant get in, then we’ll just enjoy the pub some blocks away’. Also, important to note was that in the first several attendees the 25.00 fee was trying to be revoked, and the reactions of these folks was intense; Recalling that some were offended by the cancellation of the fee, most were startled yet enthusiastic, feeling like VIP.
Those who arrived with extra guests were admitted. Though the point of the tale is the following: something that has a price tag, and is available for free will be taken advantage of. That which is free for the sake of free will go ignored.
So if you want a successful video, or have beneficial content - it must be ultra exclusive, and also be made available.
Would anyone care about downloading a movie if the production company offered it for free. The answer is likely not. In otherwords, it is to a benefit of fame to have content hi-jacked, and also available in 100 different place in 100 different ways they will each be utilized.
1 Like
I don’t agree 
I always value free things,
And this with price tags turn me away alot of the time.
I guess everyone’s different though.
Biodiversity at its finest:)