Sony Patents Anti-Piracy Blacklist for Smart TVs and Media Players

[jagdtigger]

Summary

 

This "technology" would allow them to create, maintain, and enforce a blacklist on devices implementing it. Its pretty vague and isnt clear if Sony will actually due it.

 

Quotes

Quote

Sony is patenting a technology that can detect and blacklist pirate apps on media players and smart TVs. Through the use of monitoring software, third-party applications sideloaded onto these and other devices can be blocked, effectively protecting rightsholders against online piracy.

Quote

The proposed patent, titled “Anti-Piracy Control Based on Blacklisting Function,” describes a technology to ban third-party applications that allow users to access pirated content. These illicit apps will be detected on consumer hardware through the use of monitoring software, which in turn will form part of an operating system.

 

My thoughts

So corporations want to dictate what users can and cannot do with the device they bought and own? Not surprising, and it pretty much crosses the line. When they sell a device they should loose any and all control over said device, period. No remote monitoring and other BS like this. It blows my mind how corporations are getting away for what is essentially surveillance without any sort of authorization from any court and law....
One more issue with this is the very vague and broad criteria for blacklisting, essentially any media player could end up blacklisted...

 

Sources

https://torrentfreak.com/sony-patents-anti-piracy-blacklist-for-smart-tvs-and-media-players-230111/

[jaslion]

So basically dont use the built in smart tv features and avoid sony players?

 

Sure not hard to do

[jagdtigger]

Just now, jaslion said:

So basically dont use the built in smart tv features and avoid sony players?

Yeah, until they baki into the sw that only certified devices  can be connected. They already have way too much control, letting them do any of this is just asking for trouble....

[kirashi]

36 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

So corporations want to dictate what users can and cannot do with the device they bought and own?

As far as corporations are concerned, you might "own" the hardware, but you only "license" the software, including both the Operating System and boot ROM code. If said boot ROM just so happens to enforce cryptographic key signing, say goodbye to running whatever you want on the product until someone breaks the encryption. I don't like it either, but it seems the only alternative is to manufacture our own electronic chips. Anyone own a silicone fabrication plant?

[LAwLz]

I am trying to read the patent to understand exactly how this works (and judge how bad this might be), but I feel like I'm having a stroke.

Am I too sleepy to read patents, or does the entire abstract sound like gibberish? 

 

Quote

An electronic device is provided for control of an execution of a third-party application based on a blacklist function. The electronic device includes circuitry that executes a monitor application that is a part of an operating system rooted onto the electronic device. The monitor application has system privileges to examine the code and execution of the third-party application installed on the electronic device. The circuitry identifies, by the monitor application, one or more requests to access a network resource from a runtime code of the third-party application. The circuitry extracts, by the monitor application, one or more first network resource identifiers associated with the network resource from the one or more requests. The circuitry compares, by the monitor application, the first network resource identifiers with the blacklist associated with the monitor application. The circuitry controls, by the monitor application, the execution of the third-party application based on the comparison.

 

It sounds to me like they will have a program running in the background that hijacks network requests from third party programs, and if it detects traffic against a known piracy website (by looking at a blacklist they host) they will block the requests.

Not a fan of my own computers treating me like a criminal, constantly monitoring what I do and ready to interject if they don't like it. Especially not since Sony doesn't have a great track record when it comes to security (as the article points out, one of their previous anti-piracy attempts ended up being a security nightmare).

 

Doesn't seem like it will have a high risk of false positives which is what I was mostly worried about, so there is that. Or well, well, it is Sony so they might flag their own streaming services as piracy. But IF they don't fuck up (big if) the system shouldn't have many false positives. 

[jagdtigger]

12 minutes ago, kirashi said:

but you only "license" the software

Yes, but that doesnt give them a free-pass to do whatever they want on my property....

As for the crypto farce the PS5 already got jailbroken, guess how good the security is on a smart tv.

[BobVonBob]

Banning anything that can access pirated material?

 

Guess there goes any web browsing (the pirates live in the internet!) and local video playback (local files could be pirated!!). Make sure to block off all network access (a VPN could trick the poor little streaming services into showing the wrong library, that's basically pirating!!!), and don't forget to remove all display inputs too (computers can pirate!!!!).

 

I don't doubt they'd try it if they thought they could get away with it, but luckily a piracy-proof TV would, by necessity, absolutely suck and nobody would buy it. I suspect this is Sony registering a patent just to have a patent, to dip their fingers in the pie if someone else tries it, not them intending to make it. Just like that patent for yelling out brands at your TV to make commercials go away.

 

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

I am trying to read the patent to understand exactly how this works (and judge how bad this might be), but I feel like I'm having a stroke.

Am I too sleepy to read patents, or does the entire abstract sound like gibberish? 

 

 

It sounds to me like they will have a program running in the background that hijacks network requests from third party programs, and if it detects traffic against a known piracy website (by looking at a blacklist they host) they will block the requests.

Not a fan of my own computers treating me like a criminal, constantly monitoring what I do and ready to interject if they don't like it. Especially not since Sony doesn't have a great track record when it comes to security (as the article points out, one of their previous anti-piracy attempts ended up being a security nightmare).

 

Doesn't seem like it will have a high risk of false positives which is what I was mostly worried about, so there is that. Or well, well, it is Sony so they might flag their own streaming services as piracy. But IF they don't fuck up (big if) the system shouldn't have many false positives. 

Patents are intentionally made difficult to parse and as vague as they think they can get away with, that way you can bully more people with tangentially related products for more of that sweet, sweet licensing (or patent troll) money.

[leclod]

Are there nice pirate Apps running on TVs I should know about ?

[porina]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Am I too sleepy to read patents, or does the entire abstract sound like gibberish? 

Patents have their own language. I have been involved in the creation of a paten during a previous job. A dedicated lawyer translated it into patentese for us, but we still had to sign it off. That was challenging.

 

1 hour ago, BobVonBob said:

Patents are intentionally made difficult to parse and as vague as they think they can get away with, that way you can bully more people with tangentially related products for more of that sweet, sweet licensing (or patent troll) money.

The language being difficult to understand is separate from coverage of a patent. For whatever historical reasons it the way they are written is what it is. Choosing how to describe the patent is a different skill in itself. As a creator of one, you want it as general as possible to cover as much as you can, but not too general it gets rejected or later invalidated.

 

 

As for the alleged content blocking, personally I never used smart TV features and I don't connect it to the net. I want a dumb TV - basically like a monitor. My external boxes can do the work. 

[mr moose]

I see a future for custom TV ROM's that essentially wipe out all the "smart features" and leave you with a glorified monitor.

[Arika]

I saw "Sony patent" and thought it was going to be about this shit I just came across

 

 

a patent that would force viewers to exclaim the brand name during commercials to end them.

[suicidalfranco]

2 hours ago, Arika S said:

I saw "Sony patent" and thought it was going to be about this shit I just came across

 

 

a patent that would force viewers to exclaim the brand name during commercials to end them.

corporate worshiping to the nth level 

[Quackers101]

sony doing what others have done with audio and video, blasting everyone with horrible ecosystems that you have to be a part of.

[Kisai]

6 hours ago, jaslion said:

So basically dont use the built in smart tv features and avoid sony players?

 

Sure not hard to do

PS6 not on your Christmas list then.

 

Avoiding Sony SmartTV's is relatively easy. Samsung has pretty much owned the Television market (30%) for the last 10 years, and LG (10%) vs Sony's (3%) https://www.statista.com/statistics/782217/smart-tv-share-by-oem-in-the-us/

 

Where Sony has leverage is in content. Sony (formerly Columbia, formerly Coca-Cola and Tri-star) Pictures, and Sony music (formerly Sony/ATV and EMI) , so if a SmartTV is going to allow Netflix, HBOMax, Disney+, CrunchyRoll (which Sony also owns) or whatever apps on the device, they have the leverage to say "We will only permit the apps on locked down devices running our anti-piracy tech.

 

From experience though, a lot of anti-piracy/DRM tech is ineffective because users do not comply, and fair-use laws give them the leverage to not comply. How do you know that Plex installation isn't connected to the user's 10,000 film piracy library? It can't. All it can do block Plex if you want Netflix and HBOMax to function, and if that's the case, people will just not watch Netflix and HBOMax content legally, they'll just acquire it like they've been doing so before their SmartTV tried to block them.

 

This also opens up the argument about what value SmartTV's even have. They pretty much have zero utility beyond "I don't need a second piece of hardware to play "peppa pig" and Youtube Kids for little timmy." That 32" TV in their room can safely sit there and play all the G rated content on Netflix and Disney+ with the parental controls turned on... you did turn it on right?

 

Meanwhile that 40-60" screen in the living room, if Sony won't let you watch the pirated content, then you'll just connect something to the HDMI input that will. Problem solved.

 

 

[TetraSky]

Another reason not to buy a Sony TV or device. 

[Forbidden Wafer]

6 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

Yeah, until they baki into the sw that only certified devices  can be connected. They already have way too much control, letting them do any of this is just asking for trouble....

Or until they implement live content-id based on the displayed image, which would prevent any kind of workarounds.

[Commodus]

Folks: this is a patent, not a product roadmap. Sony isn't guaranteed to implement this, so screaming "omg boycott!" is premature at best.

 

That's not to say we shouldn't be wary, but it's pretty common for companies to patent ideas just to cover their legal bases (and give them a way to charge royalties if someone else uses the concept).

[Heliian]

1 hour ago, TetraSky said:

not to buy a Sony TV

Whoa whoa whoa.  Just because some smart feature b.s. that would only be copied by every other manufacturer doesn't mean that they don't make the absolute best tv's on the market.  

They ain't cheap but I will not buy anything else.

I also don't use "pirating" apps so it's of no concern.  

This is also a patent filing, it's nothing real at the moment.

 

 

 

[MageTank]

21 minutes ago, Heliian said:

Whoa whoa whoa.  Just because some smart feature b.s. that would only be copied by every other manufacturer doesn't mean that they don't make the absolute best tv's on the market.  

They ain't cheap but I will not buy anything else.

I also don't use "pirating" apps so it's of no concern.  

This is also a patent filing, it's nothing real at the moment.

Sony doesn't make their own panels anymore though, at least not on their OLED models. They source their OLEDs from LG. My advice when buying a TV is to ignore the brand, buy a warranty from the retailer and  find the best panel for the best price then throw your own media player device on it. OEM TV warranties can be a nightmare to deal with (they hire third party local repair shops to schedule repair and that can take multiple weeks, only to end with no part availability and a warranty buyout anyways). TV software can be hit or miss. Samsung has issues with their remote being bluetooth only instead of IR and the integrated bluetooth module is a common failure on their TVs now.

 

Would recommend the Shield TV but with Nvidia repeatedly killing off support for their own products while still marketing said products with the support they intend to kill, can't recommend it in good faith. A Fire TV stick or Roku device would be fine, or any of your preferred android smart TV boxes. That way, if you ever upgrade or swap TVs, you don't need to learn a new OS design.

 

 

[CTR640]

8 hours ago, jaslion said:

So basically dont use the built in smart tv features and avoid sony players?

 

Sure not hard to do

Better yet: don't buy their products.

[Mark Kaine]

10 hours ago, kirashi said:

As far as corporations are concerned, you might "own" the hardware, but you only "license" the software, including both the Operating System and boot ROM code.

Actually i only always see presumably consumers saying this (for some weird reasons) never the corpos.

FYI you *own* the software you buy here, including any rights to resell said software that you *own*  and paid for, its not just a "license".

 

 

you also need to differentiate between software ownership and intellectual property rights,  which are two completely different things. 

 

10 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

Yes

Actually, no.

https://publicknowledge.org/eu-court-when-you-buy-software-you-own-it/

 

[jaslion]

4 hours ago, Kisai said:

PS6 not on your Christmas list then.

I have a ps4 it's never been connected to the internet because I didn't feel the need for it

 

As for your point of not watching netflix n stuff because piracy blocking. Yeah that'll happen. As you said people have plenty other devices to use for that. Hell unless they also got a sony they have a big display right there with all the watching features needed :p.

 

All this will do is hurt Sony as well their competition can just not do it and win here

 

 

[suicidalfranco]

3 hours ago, Commodus said:

Folks: this is a patent, not a product roadmap. Sony isn't guaranteed to implement this, so screaming "omg boycott!" is premature at best.

 

That's not to say we shouldn't be wary, but it's pretty common for companies to patent ideas just to cover their legal bases (and give them a way to charge royalties if someone else uses the concept).

Them thinking about it should be reason enough to boycott.

[wanderingfool2]

1 minute ago, suicidalfranco said:

Them thinking about it should be reason enough to boycott.

Lots of ideas get patented though, and if they think that it might become a thing better patent it instead of waiting for a competitor to (and having to license it).

 

Other thoughts on why you patent something, you can use it as a patent block (as no one else can really implement a feature similar now without Sony's blessing...even if Sony doesn't intend to utilize the patent).  It effectively gives them control in a market space potentially.

 

Then you have Microsoft owns the patent to page up or down, or emoji text prediction.  The act of patenting something doesn't necessarily mean you pursue people...but it does give them ammo for any litigation (e.g. If a Linux dev decides to sue MS, MS can just utilize a page up patent as a weapon).

 

Until there is actual talk about implementing a patent or utilizing it, there really shouldn't be much boycotting of it.

 

12 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

So corporations want to dictate what users can and cannot do with the device they bought and own?

Well to an extent they are verifying it's not used for illegal purposes.  If you are connecting with Kodi and it detects you are watching the newest Spiderman.  It's getting harder and harder to enforce copyright these days as well.  You can't set up trap files in torrents anymore, you can't sue the owner of the IP since an IP doesn't identify a person, at a certain point it becomes nearly impossible to enforce.

[ewitte]

My Comcast box allows me to install Plex but not attach it to the local server.  What good is that?  You can add a Roku, Nvidia shield, generic Android boxes, etc.  There are a lot of options and most of them are way faster than what is built into the TV.