63

Should I be concerned before I share a video I downloaded from a site I needed to log in to with a username and password? Does the file I have include data that references my account? If so is there away to remove it before I share it?

Signed I am tired of feeling like I don't contribute to the community.

top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] LuycYQ2uUiTjR3yLri@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's unlikely that there's some identifying information, but you can use ffmpeg (using the "copy" codec to avoid a re-encode) to strip metadata. It's also theoretically possible for the video to have used some stenography techniques, but that would be much harder and expensive for the video creator/publisher so I doubt that happened.

It's not unlikely. Watermarking is real. And they don't make it easy to strip off.

[-] TimewornTraveler@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

why is your username a password

[-] 7Sea_Sailor@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

Would this require specific stripping flags or is a simple

ffmpeg -i video.mkv -c:v copy -c:a copy out.mkv

enough?

[-] doyadig@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

The :v and :a is not needed.

ffmpeg -i video.mkv -c copy output.mkv

This will automatically copy the audio and the video without a reencode.

Use -map_metadata -1 to strip all metadata.

[-] navigatron@beehaw.org 7 points 1 year ago
  1. Yes, because:
  2. It could
  3. And if it does, you probably can’t remove it

Streaming sites can embed an unhearable data stream into audio signal. It’s possible

That being said, it’s extremely improbable, given the costs to do it at scale.

If you’re part of a large company’s beta program and have access to some unreleased product, maybe worry.

If you grabbed a file from some mega host updown whatever site, don’t worry.

And if you’re still worried, take a sha256 hash and put it into google search. If you get any results that even mention your file’s title, then you’re good.

[-] matey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago

I think Amazon does this, right?

[-] Schmeckinger@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago

A stream copy with only a audio change is pretty cheap computation wise.

[-] abbadon420@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Can't you convert to to some lossy format?. Mp3 compresses files by erasing all audio channels outside (or on the edge of) human hearing range, maybe there's some format that does the same in video? (I was thinking of mp4, but mp4 is lossless)

[-] navigatron@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago

Spread-spectrum audio watermarks will survive multiple re-encodings and are extremely difficult to detect.

Iirc google widevine will embed a device code, and if a pirated copy of some content is found, they will blacklist the gpu’s device code so it can’t receive 4k content anymore. That’s video, but it’s the same idea.

[-] n7gifmdn@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

I don't understand how anyone can choose to watch 4K. maybe I'm just so cheap I tell myself I can not tell the difference, but anything higher than 480P just feels like overkill to sell more bandwidth and overpriced hardware.

this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2023
63 points (98.5% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54390 readers
349 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS