Third party based tracking of pirated copies

Abstract

According to implementations of the present disclosure, a third-party based pirate copy tracking scheme is provided. In the scheme, a report of a pirate copy of digital content is received from a third party, where the report includes first secret information characterizing a first identity, time information, and tracking information of the pirate copy. Subsequently, a request to verify the report is received to determine whether the report is valid. Upon determining that the report is valid, a licensee associated with the report is marked in a first state to indicate that the pirate copy is likely leaked by the licensee. Thus, the third party can be effectively utilized to track the pirate copy, and the tracking information in the report can be hidden to avoid repeated reporting by other third parties using the tracking information.

Description

BACKGROUND

[0001] The rapid development of networks provides great convenience for information exchange, while also bringing severe challenges for the protection of digital content (also referred to as "digital assets"). The piracy and illegal use of digital content causes great economic losses to the content owners of the digital content.

[0002] With the development of computer technology, watermarking technology has been gradually applied to protect the copyright of digital content. By identifying the watermark information carried in the digital content, illegal copying and pirated digital content can be identified. However, due to the characteristics of network transmission, the content owner usually has difficulty in comprehensively monitoring whether the digital content owned by the content owner is illegally pirated. Therefore, how to effectively track the pirated copies of digital content has become the focus of attention. SUMMARY

[0003] According to the implementation of the present disclosure, a third-party-based pirated copy tracking scheme is provided. In the scheme, a report of a pirated copy of digital content is received from a third party, wherein the report includes tracking information for characterizing a first identity, time information, and the pirated copy. Subsequently, a request to verify the report is received to determine whether the report is valid. Upon determining that the report is valid, a licensee associated with the report is marked in a first state to indicate that the pirated copy can be leaked by the licensee. In this way, the third party can be effectively utilized to track the pirated copy, and the tracking information in the report can be hidden, thereby avoiding repeated reporting by other third parties using the tracking information.

[0004] The summary is provided to introduce a selection of concepts in a simplified form that are further described below in the detailed description. The summary is not intended to identify key or essential features of the claimed subject matter, nor is it intended to limit the scope of the claimed subject matter. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS

[0005] FIG. 1 A block diagram illustrating a computing environment in which a number of implementations of the present disclosure can be implemented is shown;

[0006] FIG. 2 A flow diagram illustrating an example process for tracking a pirated copy according to some implementations of the present disclosure is shown;

[0007] FIG. 3 A flow diagram illustrating an example process for providing incentives to a third party according to some implementations of the present disclosure is shown;

[0008] FIG. 4 A flow diagram illustrating an example process for a licensee to appeal according to some implementations of the present disclosure is shown; and

[0009] FIG. 5A block diagram illustrating an example computing device, in accordance with some implementations of the present disclosure, is shown.

[0010] In the drawings, like or similar elements are referred to by like or similar reference symbols. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0011] The present disclosure will now be discussed with respect to several example implementations. It should be appreciated that these implementations are discussed solely for the purposes of exemplifying the present disclosure and to enable those with ordinary skill in the art to better understand and thus practice the present disclosure, and are not intended to limit the scope of the subject matter in any way.

[0012] As used herein, the term "includes" and its variants are to be read to be analogous to "comprising," and the term "based on" is to be read as "based at least in part on." The terms "one implementation" and "an implementation" are to be read as "at least one implementation." The term "another implementation" is to be read as "at least one other implementation." The terms "first," "second," etc. can refer to different or identical objects. Other explicitly and implicitly recited definitions come with the context of the following claims as well.

[0013] As discussed above, how to effectively track pirated copies is one of the core issues in the copyright protection of digital content. Some traditional schemes require the content owner to detect copies on the network to determine whether there is an illegal pirated copy of the digital content. However, such a way requires a large computing cost of the content owner, and such detection can be incomplete.

[0014] Other traditional schemes track pirated copies of digital content by collecting reports from third parties. However, on the one hand, such reports can be opaque, so the third parties can not trust such a reporting mechanism, and thus lack the motivation to report pirated copies. On the other hand, some content owners encourage third parties to report pirated copies by providing incentives to the third parties. However, if such reports are transparent, other third parties that are visible will be able to obtain detailed information of the reports. Some other third parties can take advantage of the public reports to repeatedly submit reports about pirated copies to obtain undue incentives. This will bring unnecessary losses to the content owner.

[0015] According to implementations of the present disclosure, a scheme of dynamic management of computing resources is provided. In the scheme, a report of a pirated copy of digital content is received from a third party, where the report includes first secret information, time information, and tracking information (e.g., watermark information) characterizing the pirated copy. For example, the first secret information can be determined through an irreversible hash operation, so that other third parties cannot directly obtain the tracking information.

[0016] Subsequently, a request for a verification report is received to determine the report's validity. This request includes a third party's second identity and second secret information, which characterizes tracking and time information. The validity of the report can be determined based on the received report and request, thus preventing other third parties from using publicly available first secret information to submit duplicate reports. Upon determining the report's validity, the licensee associated with the report is marked in a first state, indicating that the pirated copy may have been leaked by the licensee. This allows for the effective use of third parties to track pirated copies and enables the concealment of tracking information within the report, thereby preventing other third parties from using this tracking information to submit duplicate reports.

[0017] The basic principles and several example implementations of this disclosure are illustrated below with reference to the accompanying drawings.

[0018] Example environment

[0019] FIG. 1 A block diagram of an environment 100 in which multiple implementations of the present disclosure can be implemented is shown. It should be understood that... FIG. 1 The environment 100 shown is merely exemplary and should not constitute any limitation on the functionality and scope of the implementation described in this disclosure.

[0020] like FIG. 1 As shown, computing environment 100 includes content owner 105, which is the owner of digital content 105. Content owner 105 can be any individual, organization, or institution. Digital content 110 is any type of digital asset owned by content owner 105, such as images, videos, audio, documents, models, software, etc. This disclosure is not intended to limit the form of digital content 100.

[0021] like FIG. 1 As shown, digital content 110 is shared with multiple licensees 115-1, 115-2…115-M (individually or collectively referred to as licensee 115). To facilitate the tracking of pirated copies, digital content 110 is augmented with different tracking information (e.g., watermarks) to create multiple licensed copies 120-1, 120-2…120-M (individually or collectively referred to as licensed copy 120). FIG. 1 As shown, each licensee 115 will have its corresponding licensed copy 120.

[0022] In some implementations, in order to subsequently determine which licensee leaked the pirated copy, evidence of transmission 125-1, 125-2...125-M (referred to individually or collectively as transmission evidence 125) indicating that the authorized copy 120 was shared with the corresponding licensee 115 can be stored in the pirated copy tracking device 140.

[0023] In some implementations, to prevent content owner 105 from maliciously accusing licensee 115 of disclosing the corresponding licensed copy 120, the sharing of the licensed copy 120 can be achieved based on an existing unintentional transfer (OT) protocol. Accordingly, the corresponding transfer evidence 125 can be OT evidence generated by the OT protocol.

[0024] In the OT-based transmission, each licensee 115 will be provided with multiple candidate copies, and the licensee 115 will randomly select one candidate copy as the licensed copy 120. In this way, the content owner 105 cannot know which copy the licensor 115 has specifically selected.

[0025] As discussed above, without the knowledge of the content owner 105, some licensees 115 may intentionally or unintentionally leak licensed copies 120, resulting in the circulation of pirated copies 125. For example, in an unauthorized manner, a licensed copy 120-M may be leaked and appear on an unauthorized forum for users to download. The copy available for download on the forum will be referred to as a pirated copy 125.

[0026] like FIG. 1 As shown, one or more third parties 130 may obtain pirated copies 125. For various reasons, these third parties 130 may provide reports about pirated copies 125 to the pirated copy tracking device 140. In some implementations, the content owner 105 may, for example, incentivize third parties 130 to report their obtained pirated copies 125 to the pirated copy tracking device 140 by providing valid reports of pirated copies 125.

[0027] According to an implementation of this disclosure, a third party 130 may first provide a report 135 regarding a pirated copy 125 to the piracy tracking device 140, and subsequently submit a request 145 to verify the report 135 at an appropriate time. Once the report 135 is determined to be valid by the piracy tracking device 140, the licensee 115 associated with the report 135 may be flagged as potentially having disclosed the corresponding pirated copy 125. In some implementations, to incentivize more third parties to proactively report pirated copies, the content owner 105 may provide the third party 130 with an incentive 155 corresponding to the report 135 through the piracy tracking device 140.

[0028] In some implementations, the pirate copy tracking device 140 can also receive a complaint request 150 from the suspected licensee 115. For example, the pirate copy tracking device 140 can utilize the maintained transmission evidence 125 to prove the licensed copy 120 that the licensee 115 actually obtained, and determine whether the licensee 115 is a leaker of the pirate copy 125 based on a comparison of the licensed copy 120 and the pirate copy 125.

[0029] It should be appreciated that although the pirate copy tracking device 140 is shown as a single block in FIG. 1 , the pirate copy tracking device 140 can include a standalone device, or a group of devices connected through a network. In one example implementation of the present disclosure, the pirate copy tracking device 140 can include one or more nodes deployed on a blockchain (e.g., a public chain or a consortium chain).

[0030] Example implementations of pirate copy tracking will be discussed in detail below.

[0031] Tracking of pirated copies

[0032] FIG. 2 A flowchart illustrating a process 200 of pirate copy tracking according to some implementations of the present disclosure is shown. The process 200 can be implemented, for example, by the pirate copy tracking device 140 in FIG. 1 .

[0033] At 202, the pirate copy tracking device 140 receives a report 135 of a pirate copy 125 of the digital content 110 from the third party 130, where the report 135 includes first secret information that is used to characterize a first identity, time information, and tracking information of the pirate copy 125, and the time information indicates a creation time of the first secret information. The pirate copy 125 is a leaked version of a licensed copy 120 of the digital content 110 that is authorized by the content owner 105 to the licensee 115.

[0034] As discussed above, the third party 130 can obtain the pirate copy 125 in certain situations. In some implementations, the third party 130 can extract the tracking information in the pirate copy 125, and generate the first secret information based on the tracking information. Illustratively, the tracking information can include watermark information contained in the pirate copy 125, which is added by the content owner 105 in the process of sharing the digital content 110 to the licensee 115.

[0035] In some implementations, to avoid the leakage of the tracking information, in generating the report 135, the third party 130 can combine the tracking information with the time information, and hash the combined data to obtain a first hash value. Further, the third party 130 can combine the first hash value with the identity of the third party, and hash the combined data to obtain a second hash value. The second hash value can be used as the first secret information.

[0036] In one example, the first secret information can be represented as Equation (1):

[0037]

[0038] where cm1represents the first secret information, represents a hash operation, || represents concatenation of two data, id xy represents the tracking information, T represents the time information, represents the identity of the third party.

[0039] In some implementations, the time information T can be represented by creating a time period in which the first secret information is created. Specifically, after sharing the digital content 110, the content owner 105, for example, can set a specific time window to allow the third party 130 to report the pirated copy 125 of the data content 110.

[0040] In some implementations, the time window can be further divided into multiple time periods, and the time information T can represent the serial number of the time period in which the first secret information is created. For example, if the first secret information is created in the second time period, its time information T can be determined as the value "2", for example.

[0041] In some implementations, when generating the report 135, the third party 130 can also obtain a first index indicating the licensee 115 associated with the pirated copy 125 and a second index indicating the version of the authorized copy 120 corresponding to the licensee 115 among multiple versions provided to the licensee 115. Specifically, the third party 130 can send the hash value of the tracking information to the content owner 105 to query the first index and the second index according to the tracking information, for example.

[0042] In some implementations, the content owner 105 can maintain a hash table to indicate the mapping relationship between the hash value of the tracking information of different authorized copies 120, the index value of the corresponding licensee 115, and the index value of the authorized copy 120. By querying the hash table, the content owner can return the first index and the second index corresponding to the tracking information in the pirated copy 125. Exemplarily, the first index and the second index can be included in the report 135 in plaintext form, for example.

[0043] Exemplarily, the report 135 can be expressed as formula (2) for example:

[0044]

[0045] where cm represents the report, which includes a 3-tuple (cm1, cm2, cm3), and x and y represent the first index and the second index respectively.

[0046] In some implementations, the pirate copy tracking device 140 can store the report 135 in a report list (expressed as CMList T for example) associated with a time period in which the report 135 is received. In some implementations, in order to ensure the transparency of the report, the pirate copy tracking device 140 can be a node deployed on a blockchain (e.g., a public chain or a consortium chain). The pirate copy tracking device 140 can maintain the relevant information of the report 135 on the blockchain, so that the first secret information, the first index and the second index included in the report are accessible through the blockchain.

[0047] By storing the report 135 by using the blockchain, the implementation of the present disclosure can reduce the risk of the report 135 sent by the third party 130 being maliciously modified, thereby improving the accuracy of the pirate copy tracking. In addition, by generating the first secret information by using the tracking information, the time information and the identity, the implementation of the present disclosure can also avoid the tracking information or the hash value of the tracking information being directly exposed to other third parties, thereby avoiding other third parties from maliciously generating false reports by using the tracking information in the report.

[0048] At 204, the pirate copy tracking device 140 receives a request 145 to verify the report 135, where the request 145 includes the second identity of the third party 130 and the second secret information, which is used to represent the tracking information and the time information.

[0049] In some implementations, the third party can submit the request 145 to verify the report 135 to the pirate copy tracking device 140 at a predetermined time after sending the report 135. Specifically, as discussed above, the time window in which the report of the pirate copy 125 of the digital content 110 by the third party 130 is allowed to be accepted can be divided into multiple time periods. In some implementations, the third party 130 can send the request 145 in the next time period after sending the report 135. Unlike the traditional verification of the report after the end of the time window, by verifying the report 135 in time, the implementation of the present disclosure can timely feedback the verification result of the report 135 to the third party 130. In addition, this can also support the timely provision of incentives to the third party 130, thereby encouraging the third party 130 to actively report the pirate copy of the digital content.

[0050] In some implementations, to avoid other third parties from maliciously generating fake reports using the disclosed reports 135, the third party 130 can include the identity of the third party 130 and the second secret information in the request 145. Illustratively, the second secret information can be a hash value obtained by performing a hash operation on the combination of the tracking information and the time information. For example, the second secret information rv1 can be expressed as equation (3):

[0051]

[0052] The definitions of the elements in equation (3) can be found in equation (1) and equation (2).

[0053] In some implementations, the request 145 can also include path information, which indicates the corresponding path in the Merkle tree maintained by the content owner 105 for the first index, the second index, and the event information discussed above.

[0054] In particular, in the data sharing phase, the content owner 105 can construct a Merkle tree, in which each licensee 115 includes a plurality of nodes as expressed in equation (4).

[0055]

[0056] where K represents the number of time periods included in the time window, i represents the index information of the licensee 115, and j represents the index information of the corresponding authorized copy 120 in the N versions provided to the licensee 115.

[0057] In some implementations, in generating the report 135, the content owner 105 can also query the Merkle tree with the first index x and the second index y and the time information T to determine the path Path xyT corresponding to x, y, and T, and send the path to the third party 130. Accordingly, the path can be included in the request 145. Illustratively, the request 145 can be expressed as equation (5):

[0058]

[0059] where rv represents the request 145, which includes a triple (rv1, rv2, rv3), id xy represents the tracking information, represents the identity of the third party.

[0060] At 206, the pirate copy tracking device 140 determines whether the report is valid according to the first secret information, the second secret information, and the second identity.

[0061] In some implementations, the pirate copy tracking device 140 can determine whether the second identity included in the request 145 matches the identity of the third party sending the request 145.

[0062] As discussed above, the pirate copy tracking device can be a node deployed on a blockchain. Thus, reports and requests sent by other third parties are visible and accessible to all nodes and users on the blockchain.

[0063] On one hand, some malicious third parties can directly copy the content of a previously reported and requested report from other third parties and submit it as a new report and request. Accordingly, the pirate copy tracking device 140 can determine that the plaintext identity included in the request does not match the identity of the third party 130 sending the request, and thus the report is invalid.

[0064] On the other hand, since the identity included in the request is plaintext information, some malicious third parties can replace the identity in the previous request with their own identity. That is, the malicious third party can copy the content of the previous report to construct a new report 135, and construct a new request 145 by replacing the identity in the corresponding request.

[0065] In some implementations, the pirate copy tracking device 140 can determine whether the second secret information and the second identity included in the request 145 match the first secret information included in the report 135 to determine whether the report 135 is valid.

[0066] Specifically, the pirate copy tracking device 140 can generate a third secret information according to the second secret information and the identity. For example, the third secret information can be represented as The definitions of rv1 and rv3 can be found in equation (5).

[0067] Subsequently, if the first secret information matches the third secret information, the pirate copy tracking device 140 can determine that the report 135 is valid. Conversely, the pirate copy tracking device 140 can determine that the report 135 is invalid.

[0068] In some implementations, the pirate copy tracking device 140 can compare the third secret information with a list of reports (e.g., CMListT) associated with a previous time period (e.g., T) based on the time period (e.g., T+1) at which the request 145 is received. TThe first element of the triple in the report 135 is compared to the first element of the triple in the request 145, thereby determining whether there is a first secret information that matches the third secret information. Illustratively, if there is a first secret information in the report list that matches the third secret information, the pirate copy tracking device 140 can determine that the report 135 is valid. Conversely, if there is no first secret information in the report list that matches the third secret information, the pirate copy tracking device 140 can determine that the report 135 is invalid.

[0069] For the case of constructing a new malicious request 145 with the replacement identity discussed above, the pirate copy tracking device 140 will be able to determine that the third secret information constructed based on the request 145 does not match the first secret information included in the report 135, thereby determining that the report 135 is invalid.

[0070] Based on such a manner, the implementations of the present disclosure are able to effectively identify the requests and reports that are forged by other third parties using the already publicized requests and reports, thereby protecting the interests of the content owners and licensees, on the premise that the reports and requests are transparent to the blockchain.

[0071] In some implementations, if the request 145 further includes a path Path xyT , the pirate copy tracking device 140 can further query whether the path Path xyT indicates a valid path in the Merkle tree maintained by the content owner 105. If the path Path xyT does not indicate a valid path, the pirate copy tracking device 140 can determine that the report 135 is invalid. Illustratively, the Merkle tree can be stored on the blockchain.

[0072] Further, if the path Path xyT indicates a valid path in the Merkle tree, the pirate copy tracking device 140 may, for example, further determine whether rv1, x and y are included in the corresponding path, where rv1, x and y are information contained in the report 135. If it is determined that rv1, x and y are not included in the corresponding path, the pirate copy tracking device 140 can determine that the report 135 is invalid. By maintaining the hash values corresponding to the tracing information, the first index, the second index and the time information using the Merkle tree, the embodiments of the present disclosure can further improve the security level of the verification process of the report 135.

[0073] At 208, if the report 135 is determined to be valid, the pirate copy tracking device 140 marks the licensee 115 associated with the report 135 as a first state, the first state indicating that the pirate copy is likely to be leaked by the licensee.

[0074] For example, for FIG. 1For example, the pirated copy 125 is associated with licensee 115-M. If the report 135 is determined to be valid, the pirated copy tracking device 140 can, for example, mark the licensee 115-M as a first status.

[0075] By the methods discussed above, embodiments of the present disclosure enable effective pirated copy tracking by third parties. Furthermore, by the methods of verification based on the utilization of reports and requests, embodiments of the present disclosure are also able to defend against malicious third parties building false reports by utilizing the disclosed reports and requests.

[0076] Incentivizing third parties

[0077] The above describes an example process of pirated copy tracking according to implementations of the present disclosure. In some implementations, if the report 135 is determined to be valid, the pirated copy tracking device 140 can provide an incentive 155 corresponding to the report 135 to the third party 130. It should be understood that the incentive 155 can include any appropriate type of incentive, and the present disclosure is not intended to be limited in this regard.

[0078] Some existing schemes provide the same incentive for reports 135 regarding the same pirated copy 125, which leads to the same third party utilizing the same pirated copy 125 to submit repeated reports at multiple time periods by changing identities to obtain multiple incentives. This would harm the interests of the content owner and make it impossible to accurately estimate the number of pirated copies leaked by the licensee.

[0079] To avoid the same third party submitting repeated reports for the same pirated copy 125 by changing identities, the pirated copy tracking device 140 can dynamically adjust the incentives that can be obtained for the same pirated copy 125.

[0080] Specifically, the incentive obtained by the third party 130 whose report 135 is verified to be valid can be represented as:

[0081]

[0082] where B(I i , n) represents the incentive obtained by the i-th third party who successfully submits a report among a total of n third parties who successfully submit reports, where 0≤ξ i ≤2*ξ i+1 ≤c*2 -i+1 , and ξ1=0.

[0083] Based on such a manner, the incentive determined by the present disclosure can ensure that the total amount of incentives obtained by repeated submissions will be less than the incentive obtained by a single submission of a report, thereby effectively avoiding third parties from repeatedly submitting repeated reports by changing identities.

[0084] Unlike the conventional practice of issuing incentives after the time window, to encourage third parties to submit reports, implementations of the present disclosure can split the incentive into two parts, where the first part can be issued at the time period when the report is determined to be valid, and the second part can be issued after the time window expires.

[0085] The specific process of providing incentives will be described below with reference to FIG. 3 FIG. 3 A flowchart of an example process 300 of providing incentives to third parties according to implementations of the present disclosure is shown.

[0086] As shown in 402, if the report 135 is determined to be valid, the pirate copy tracking device 140 can provide a first incentive corresponding to the report to the third party at a second time period, where the first incentive is determined based on the number of third parties who submitted valid reports against the pirate copy before the report. The first incentive can be represented as, for example: FIG. 3

[0087]

[0088] where and The definition of ξ i can be found in equation (6).

[0089] At 304, after the time window expires, the pirate copy tracking device 140 can provide a second incentive corresponding to the report to the third party, where the second incentive is determined based on the number of third parties who submitted valid reports against the pirate copy within the time window.

[0090] Accordingly, according to equation (6), the pirate copy tracking device 140 can determine the total incentive that the third party should receive according to the number of third parties n who submitted valid reports against the pirate copy within the time window and the order i in which the third party 130 submitted the report. The pirate copy tracking device 140 can then determine the second incentive that needs to be provided according to the total incentive and the first incentive determined according to equation (7).

[0091] In this way, embodiments of the present disclosure can ensure that (1) earlier submitted reports can receive more incentives; (2) incentives can be provided to third parties in a timely manner; and (3) repeated submission of reports will result in less incentives.

[0092] Complaints by licensees

[0093] In some implementations, when the licensee 115 is marked as the first state, the pirate copy tracking device 140 can also receive a complaint request 150 from the licensee 115. ​​

[0094] In some implementations, licensee 115 may submit a complaint request 150 to the piracy tracking device 140 within a predetermined time. If no complaint request 150 regarding report 135 is received from licensee 115 within a predetermined time after receiving report 135, the piracy tracking device 140 may mark licensee 115 in a second state, indicating that the pirated copy 125 was leaked by licensee 115.

[0095] As discussed above, the authorized copy 120 can be sent by the content owner 105 to the licensee 115 via the inadvertent transmission (OT) protocol. In some implementations, the OT evidence 125 corresponding to this transmission can be maintained on the piracy tracking device 140. Specifically, the OT evidence 125 can be maintained, for example, on a blockchain to prevent unauthorized tampering by third parties, thereby ensuring the accuracy of piracy tracking.

[0096] The following will combine FIG. 4 This is a flowchart describing an example process 400 of a licensee appeal according to some implementations of this disclosure.

[0097] like FIG. 4 As shown, at 402, the pirated copy tracking device 140 can receive a complaint request 150 from the licensee 115 regarding report 135, wherein the complaint request 150 includes OT evidence co-signed by the content owner 105 and the licensee 115, a local random number maintained by the licensee 115 to determine the OT evidence, and a local index of the authorized copy maintained by the licensee 115.

[0098] Specifically, OT evidence can be represented as:

[0099] R = P l-r ·G (8)

[0100] Where R represents OT evidence, r is a random number determined by the licensee 115, and l indicates the index of the authorized copy among the N candidate copies provided to the licensee 115, where l ∈ [N] and N represents the number of copies provided to the licensee 115. It should be understood that OT evidence is generated based on data transmitted using the OT protocol; specific details regarding the OT protocol will not be elaborated upon here.

[0101] Accordingly, appeal request 150 can be represented as a triple (Sig * (R), r, l), where Sig * (R) represents an OT evidence signed using the private keys of the content owner 105 and the licensee 115 respectively.

[0102] At 404, if the OT evidence matches the random number and the local index and the local index is different from the index indicated by the tracking information in the report, the pirated copy tracking device 140 can mark the licensee 115 as a third state, where the third state indicates that the licensee is not related to the pirated copy 125.

[0103] Specifically, the pirated copy tracking device 140 can determine whether formula (9) holds true:

[0104] P l-r ·G=R (9)

[0105] If formula (9) holds true, the pirated copy tracking device 140 can further compare l with l. x , where l x Indicates the index indicated by the tracking information. If l ≠ l x If the pirated copy tracking device 140 determines that the licensee 115 has successfully appealed, it can then mark the licensee 115 as unrelated to the pirated copy 125.

[0106] Conversely, if formula (9) does not hold, or l = l x If the pirated copy tracking device 140 determines that the licensee 115's appeal was unsuccessful, then the pirated copy tracking device 140 can confirm that the pirated copy tracking device 115 was unsuccessful.

[0107] In some implementations, if licensee 115 is marked as a first state within a predetermined time after receiving report 135, the piracy tracking device 140 can mark licensee 115 as a second state, wherein the second state indicates that the pirated copy 125 was leaked by licensee 115.

[0108] Based on this approach, unlike traditional OT-based appeal processes, the implementation of this disclosure does not require the transmission of the transmission vector (e.g., {E1, ..., E2}) associated with the N candidate copies provided to the licensee during the appeal process. N Instead of requiring the triples mentioned above, only the triples are needed. Therefore, the complexity of the appeal is reduced from O(N) to O(1), which greatly reduces the network and computational overhead required for the appeal.

[0109] Example device

[0110] FIG. 5 A schematic block diagram of an example device 500 that can be used to implement embodiments of the present disclosure is shown. Device 500 can be used to implement... FIG. 1 140 pirated copy tracking devices. It should be understood that... FIG. 5 The device 500 shown is merely exemplary and should not constitute any limitation on the functionality and scope of the implementation described in this disclosure. FIG. 1As shown, the components of the device 500 can include, but are not limited to, one or more processors or processing units 510, a memory 520, a storage device 530, one or more communication units 540, one or more input devices 550, and one or more output devices 560.

[0111] In some implementations, the device 500 can be implemented as various user terminals or service terminals. A service terminal can be a server, a large computing device, etc. provided by various service providers. A user terminal such as any type of mobile terminal, fixed terminal, or portable terminal including a mobile handset, a multimedia computer, a multimedia tablet, an Internet node, a communicator, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a notebook computer, a netbook computer, a tablet computer, a personal communication system (PCS) device, a personal navigation device, a personal digital assistant (PDA), an audio / video player, a digital camera / camcorder, a positioning device, a television receiver, a radio broadcast receiver, an electronic book device, a game device, or any combinations thereof, including accessories and peripherals of such devices, or any combinations thereof. It is also contemplated that the device 500 can support any type of interface to the user (such as "wearable" circuitry, etc.).

[0112] The processing unit(s) 510 can be real or virtual processors and capable of performing various processing according to programs stored in the memory 520. In a multiprocessor system, multiple processing units execute computer-executable instructions in parallel to improve the processing power of the device 500. The processing unit(s) 510 can also be referred to as central processing units (CPUs), microprocessors, controllers, or microcontrollers.

[0113] The device 500 typically includes a plurality of computer storage media. Such media can be any available media that is accessible by the device 500 and includes both volatile and non-volatile media, removable and non-removable media. The memory 520 can be volatile (such as register, cache, and random access memory (RAM)), non-volatile (such as read-only memory (ROM), electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), flash memory), or some combination thereof. The memory 520 can include one or more program melody generation modules 522 configured to perform the functions of various implementations described herein. The melody generation modules 522 can be accessed and run by the processing unit(s) 510 to implement the corresponding functions. The storage device 530 can be a removable or non-removable media and can include machine readable media that is capable of storing information and / or data and that can be accessed by the device 500.

[0114] The functionality of the components of device 500 can be implemented in a single computing cluster or a plurality of computer machines that are capable of communicating with each other through a communication connection. Thus, device 500 can operate in a networked environment using logical connections to one or more other servers, personal computers (PCs), or another generally networked node. Device 500 can also communicate with one or more external devices (not shown) such as a database 570, other storage devices, servers, display devices, etc., through communication unit 540, as needed, with one or more devices that enable a user to interact with device 500, or any devices (e.g., network cards, modems, etc.) that enable device 500 to communicate with one or more other computing devices. Such communication can be carried out via an input / output (I / O) interface (not shown).

[0115] Input device 550 can be one or more various input devices such as a mouse, a keyboard, a trackball, a voice input device, a camera, etc. Output device 560 can be one or more output devices such as a display, a speaker, a printer, etc.

[0116] Device 500 includes a pirated copy tracking module 522 configured to receive, from a third party, a report of a pirated copy of digital content, the report including first secret information, the first secret information being used to characterize a first identity, time information, and tracking information of the pirated copy, the time information indicating a creation time of the first secret information, the pirated copy being a leaked version of an authorized copy of the digital content that is authorized by a content owner to a licensee; receive a request to verify the report, the request including a second identity of the third party and second secret information, the second secret information being used to characterize the tracking information and the time information; determine, based on the first secret information, the second secret information, and the second identity, whether the report is valid; and if the report is determined to be valid, mark the licensee associated with the report to a first state, the first state indicating that the pirated copy is likely leaked by the licensee.

[0117] Example implementations

[0118] Some example implementations of the present disclosure are listed below.

[0119] In a first aspect, the present disclosure provides a computer-implemented method. The method comprises: receiving, from a third party, a report for a pirated copy of digital content, the report comprising first secret information, the first secret information being used to characterize a first identity, time information, and tracking information of the pirated copy, the time information indicating a creation time of the first secret information, the pirated copy being a leaked version of an authorized copy of the digital content that is authorized by a content owner to a licensee; receiving a request to verify the report, the request comprising a second identity of the third party and second secret information, the second secret information being used to characterize the tracking information and the time information; determining, according to the first secret information, the second secret information, and the second identity, whether the report is valid; and if the report is determined to be valid, marking the licensee associated with the report to a first state, the first state indicating that the pirated copy is likely leaked by the licensee.

[0120] In some implementations, the first secret information is a second hash value determined based on the first identity and a first hash value, the first hash value being determined based on the tracking information and the time information.

[0121] In some implementations, determining, according to the first secret information, the second secret information, and the second identity, whether the report is valid comprises: generating, according to the second secret information and the second identity, a third secret information; and if the first secret information matches the third secret information, determining that the report is valid.

[0122] In some implementations, the method further comprises: if no complaint request regarding the report is received from the licensee within a predetermined time after the report is received, marking the licensee to a second state, the second state indicating that the pirated copy is leaked by the licensee.

[0123] In some implementations, wherein the authorized copy is sent to the licensee by the content owner via an oblivious transfer (OT) protocol, the method further comprises: receiving, from the licensee, a complaint request regarding the report, the complaint request comprising an OT evidence co-signed by the content owner and the licensee, a local random number maintained by the licensee for determining the OT evidence, and a local index of the authorized copy maintained by the licensee; and if the OT evidence matches the local random number and the local index is different from an index indicated by the tracking information in the report, marking the licensee to a third state, the third state indicating that the licensee is not related to the pirated copy.

[0124] In some implementations, the method further comprises: maintaining the first secret information and the OT evidence on a blockchain, such that the first secret information and the OT evidence are accessible via the blockchain.

[0125] In some implementations, in which the time window for receiving the report of the pirated copy is divided into a plurality of time periods, the request to receive the verification report includes a second time period adjacent to a first time period in which the report was received among the plurality of time periods.

[0126] In some implementations, the method further includes: if the report is determined to be valid, providing a first incentive corresponding to the report to the third party in the second time period, the first incentive determined based on a number of valid reports for the pirated copy prior to the report; and after expiration of the time window, providing a second incentive corresponding to the report to the third party, the second incentive determined based on a number of valid reports for the pirated copy within the time window.

[0127] In a second aspect, the disclosure provides a device. The device includes: a processing unit; and a memory coupled to the processing unit and containing instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processing unit, cause the device to perform the following actions: receive, from a third party, a report of a pirated copy of digital content, the report including first secret information, the first secret information used to characterize a first identity, time information, and tracking information of the pirated copy, the time information indicating a creation time of the first secret information, the pirated copy being a leaked version of an authorized copy of the digital content authorized by a content owner to a licensee; receive a request to verify the report, the request including a second identity of the third party and second secret information, the second secret information used to characterize the tracking information and the time information; determine, from the first secret information, the second secret information, and the second identity, whether the report is valid; and if the report is determined to be valid, mark the licensee associated with the report to a first state, the first state indicating that the pirated copy is likely leaked by the licensee.

[0128] In some implementations, the first secret information is a second hash value determined based on the first identity and a first hash value, the first hash value determined based on the tracking information and the time information.

[0129] In some implementations, determining, from the first secret information, the second secret information, and the second identity, whether the report is valid includes: generating a third secret information from the second secret information and the second identity; and if the first secret information matches the third secret information, determining that the report is valid.

[0130] In some implementations, the actions further include: if a complaint request regarding the report is not received from the licensee within a predetermined time after the report is received, marking the licensee to a second state, the second state indicating that the pirated copy is leaked by the licensee.

[0131] In some implementations, the authorized copy is sent by the content owner to the licensee via an oblivious transfer (OT) protocol, and the actions further include: receiving a complaint request from the licensee regarding the report, the complaint request including an OT proof co-signed by the content owner and the licensee, a local nonce maintained by the licensee for determining the OT proof, and a local index of the authorized copy maintained by the licensee; and if the OT proof matches the nonce and the local index and the local index is different from an index indicated by tracking information in the report, marking the licensee as a third state, the third state indicating that the licensee is not associated with the pirate copy.

[0132] In some implementations, the actions further include: maintaining the first secret information and the OT proof on a blockchain, such that the first secret information and the OT proof are accessible via the blockchain.

[0133] In some implementations, the time window for receiving the report of the pirate copy is divided into a plurality of time periods, and receiving the request to verify the report includes: receiving the request to verify the report in a second time period of the plurality of time periods adjacent to a first time period in which the report is received.

[0134] In some implementations, the actions further include: if the report is determined to be valid, providing a first incentive corresponding to the report to the third party in the second time period, the first incentive determined based on a number of valid reports for the pirate copy prior to the report; and after the time window expires, providing a second incentive corresponding to the report to the third party, the second incentive determined based on a number of valid reports for the pirate copy within the time window.

[0135] In a third aspect, the present disclosure provides a computer program product. The computer program product is tangibly stored in a non-transitory computer storage medium and includes machine executable instructions that, when executed by a device, cause the device to perform actions, the actions comprising: receiving, from a third party, a report of a pirate copy of digital content, the report including first secret information, the first secret information used to characterize a first identity, time information, and tracking information of the pirate copy, the time information indicating a time of creation of the first secret information, the pirate copy being a leaked version of an authorized copy of the digital content authorized by a content owner to a licensee; receiving a request to verify the report, the request including a second identity of the third party and second secret information, the second secret information used to characterize the tracking information and the time information; determining, from the first secret information, the second secret information, and the second identity, whether the report is valid; and if the report is determined to be valid, marking a licensee associated with the report as a first state, the first state indicating that the pirate copy is likely leaked by the licensee.

[0136] In some implementations, the first secret information is a second hash value determined based on the first identity and the first hash value, the first hash value being determined based on the tracking information and the time information.

[0137] In some implementations, determining that the report is valid based on the first secret information, the second secret information, and the second identity includes: generating a third secret information based on the second secret information and the second identity; and determining that the report is valid if the first secret information matches the third secret information.

[0138] In some implementations, the actions further include: if a complaint request regarding the report is not received from the licensee within a predetermined time after receiving the report, marking the licensee as a second state, the second state indicating that the pirated copy is leaked by the licensee.

[0139] In some implementations, the authorized copy is sent to the licensee by the content owner via an oblivious transfer (OT) protocol, the actions further include: receiving a complaint request regarding the report from the licensee, the complaint request including an OT evidence co-signed by the content owner and the licensee, a local random number maintained by the licensee for determining the OT evidence, and a local index of the authorized copy maintained by the licensee; and if the OT evidence matches the random number and the local index and the local index is different from an index indicated by the tracking information in the report, marking the licensee as a third state, the third state indicating that the licensee is not associated with the pirated copy.

[0140] In some implementations, the actions further include: maintaining the first secret information and the OT evidence on a blockchain, such that the first secret information and the OT evidence are accessible via the blockchain.

[0141] In some implementations, the time window for receiving the report of the pirated copy is divided into a plurality of time periods, wherein receiving the request for verifying the report includes: receiving the request for verifying the report in a second time period adjacent to a first time period in which the report is received.

[0142] In some implementations, the actions further include: if the report is determined to be valid, providing a first incentive corresponding to the report to the third party in the second time period, the first incentive being determined based on a number of valid reports for the pirated copy before the report; and after the time window expires, providing a second incentive corresponding to the report to the third party, the second incentive being determined based on a number of valid reports for the pirated copy within the time window.

[0143] The functionality described above in this document can be performed, at least in part, by one or more hardware logic components. For example, and without limitation, non- transitory machine-readable media can include RAM, ROM, programmable ROM (EPROM, EEPROM or flash memory), or any other storage medium that can be used to carry or store desired program code in the form of machine-readable instructions or data structures and that can be accessed by a general purpose or special purpose computer system, or mobile computer, or included in hardware logic components. Also, any connection is properly termed a medium. For example, if the software is transmitted from a website, server, or other remote source using a coaxial cable, fiber optic cable, or twisted pair, then the coaxial cable, fiber optic cable, or twisted pair are medium. Likewise, if the software is transmitted using wireless technologies, e.g., radio frequency, infrared, wireless application protocol, BLUETOOTH, or any other wireless protocol, then the wireless technologies used in the transmission are medium. Combinations of the above should also be included within the scope of machine-readable media.

[0144] Program code to implement methods of the present disclosure can be written in any combination of one or more programming languages. These program codes can be provided to a processor or controller of a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the program code, when executed by the processor or controller, produces the functions / operations specified in the flowcharts and / or block diagrams. The program code can be executed entirely on a machine, partially on a machine, partially on a machine as part of a separate software package, and partially on a remote machine or entirely on a remote machine or server.

[0145] In the context of the present disclosure, a machine-readable medium can be a tangible medium that can contain or store program code for use by or in connection with an instruction execution system, apparatus, or device. The machine-readable medium can be a machine-readable signal medium or a machine-readable storage medium. A machine-readable medium can include, but is not limited to, electronic, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, infrared, or semiconductor system, apparatus, or device, or any suitable combination of the foregoing. More specific examples of the machine-readable storage medium will include one or more lines of a program of instructions in a searchable database, a portable computer diskette, a hard disk, a random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM or Flash memory), an optical fiber, a portable compact disc read-only memory (CD-ROM), an optical storage device, a magnetic storage device, or any suitable combination of the foregoing.

[0146] Moreover, while operations can be depicted in a particular, serial order, this should not be understood as requiring or implying that such operations be performed in the particular order shown, or in sequential order, or that all illustrated operations be performed, to achieve desirable results. In certain circumstances, multitasking and parallel processing can be advantageous. Likewise, while specific implementations have been discussed, these should not be understood to imply that all combinations of elements discussed in the specification are required to achieve the advantages of the present disclosure. Certain features that are described in the context of separate implementations can also be implemented in combination in a single implementation. Conversely, various features that are described in the context of a single implementation can also be implemented in subcombination or as separate implementations.

[0147] Although the subject matter has been described in language specific to structural features and / or methodological acts, it is to be understood that the subject matter defined in the appended claims is not necessarily limited to the specific features or acts described above. Rather, the specific features and acts described above are disclosed as example forms of implementing the claims.

Claims

1. A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, from a third party, a report of a pirated copy of a digital content, the report including first secret information, the first secret information being used to characterize a first identity, time information, and tracking information of the pirated copy, the time information indicating a time of creation of the first secret information, the pirated copy being a leaked version of an authorized copy of the digital content that is licensed to a licensee as determined by a first index that is queried by the content owner with a hash value of the tracking information; receiving a request to verify the report, the request including a second identity of the third party and second secret information, the second secret information being used to characterize the tracking information and the time information; determining, with a blockchain, whether the report is valid according to the first secret information, the second secret information, and the second identity; and if the report is determined to be valid, marking a licensee associated with the report as a first state and maintaining relevant information of the report on the blockchain, the first state indicating that the pirated copy is leaked by the licensee.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the first secret information is a second hash value determined based on the first identity and a first hash value, the first hash value being determined based on the tracking information and the time information.

3. The method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the report is valid according to the first secret information, the second secret information, and the second identity comprises: generating a third secret information according to the second secret information and the second identity; and determining that the report is valid if the first secret information matches the third secret information.

4. The method of claim 1, further comprising: if a complaint request regarding the report is not received from the licensee within a predetermined time after the report is received, marking the licensee as a second state, the second state indicating that the pirated copy is leaked by the licensee.

5. The method of claim 1, wherein the authorized copy is sent to the licensee by the content owner via an oblivious transfer (OT) protocol, the method further comprising: receiving, from the licensee, a complaint request regarding the report, the complaint request including an OT evidence that is jointly signed by the content owner and the licensee, a local random number maintained by the licensee for determining the OT evidence, and a local index of the authorized copy maintained by the licensee; and if the OT evidence matches the random number and the local index and the local index is different from an index indicated by the tracking information in the report, marking the licensee as a third state, the third state indicating that the licensee is not associated with the pirated copy.

6. The method of claim 5, further comprising: maintaining the first secret information and the OT evidence on the blockchain such that the first secret information and the OT evidence are accessible through the blockchain. ​ ​ 7. The method of claim 1, wherein a time window for receiving the report of the pirated copy is divided into a plurality of time periods, wherein receiving the request to verify the report comprises: in a second time period of the plurality of time periods adjacent to a first time period in which the report is received, receiving the request to verify the report.

8. The method of claim 7, further comprising: if the report is determined to be valid, providing a first incentive corresponding to the report to the third party in the second time period, the first incentive determined based on a number of third parties that submitted valid reports for the pirated copy prior to the report; and after expiration of the time window, providing a second incentive corresponding to the report to the third party, the second incentive determined based on a number of third parties that submitted valid reports for the pirated copy within the time window.

9. An apparatus comprising: a processing unit; and a memory coupled to the processing unit and containing instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processing unit, cause the apparatus to perform acts comprising: receiving, from a third party, a report of a pirated copy of digital content, the report including first secret information, the first secret information to characterize a first identity, time information, and tracking information of a pirated copy, the time information to indicate a time of creation of the first secret information, the pirated copy being a leaked version of an authorized copy of the digital content that was authorized by a licensee determined by a first index queried by a content owner with a hash value of the tracking information; receiving a request to verify the report, the request including a second identity of the third party and second secret information, the second secret information to characterize the tracking information and the time information; determining, with a blockchain, whether the report is valid based on the first secret information, the second secret information, and the second identity; and if the report is determined to be valid, marking a licensee associated with the report to a first state and maintaining information of the report on the blockchain, the first state to indicate that the pirated copy was leaked by the licensee.

10. The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the first secret information is a second hash value determined based on the first identity and a first hash value, the first hash value determined based on the tracking information and the time information.

11. The apparatus of claim 9, wherein determining whether the report is valid based on the first secret information, the second secret information, and the second identity comprises: generating a third secret information based on the second secret information and the second identity; and if the first secret information matches the third secret information, determining that the report is valid.

12. The apparatus of claim 9, the acts further comprising: if a complaint request regarding the report is not received from the licensee within a predetermined time after the report is received, marking the licensee to a second state, the second state to indicate that the pirated copy was leaked by the licensee. ​ ​ 13. The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the authorized copy is sent by the content owner to the licensee via an oblivious transfer (OT) protocol, the actions further comprising: receiving a complaint request from the licensee regarding the report, the complaint request including an OT proof co-signed by the content owner and the licensee, a local nonce maintained by the licensee for determining the OT proof, and a local index of the authorized copy maintained by the licensee; and if the OT proof matches the nonce and the local index and the local index is different from an index indicated by the tracking information in the report, marking the licensee as a third state, the third state indicating that the licensee is not associated with the pirate copy.

14. The apparatus of claim 13, the actions further comprising: maintaining the first secret information and the OT proof on the blockchain such that the first secret information and the OT proof are accessible through the blockchain.

15. The apparatus of claim 9, wherein a time window for receiving a report of a pirate copy is divided into a plurality of time periods, wherein receiving a request to verify the report comprises: in a second time period of the plurality of time periods adjacent to a first time period in which the report is received, receiving a request to verify the report.

16. The apparatus of claim 15, the actions further comprising: if the report is determined to be valid, providing a first incentive corresponding to the report to the third party in the second time period, the first incentive determined based on a number of third parties that submitted valid reports for the pirate copy prior to the report; and after the time window expires, providing a second incentive corresponding to the report to the third party, the second incentive determined based on a number of third parties that submitted valid reports for the pirate copy within the time window.

17. A computer program product tangibly stored in a non-transitory computer storage medium and comprising machine executable instructions that, when executed by an apparatus, cause the apparatus to perform actions comprising: receiving a report of a pirate copy of digital content from a third party, the report including first secret information, the first secret information being used to characterize a first identity, time information, and tracking information of a pirate copy, the time information indicating a time of creation of the first secret information, the pirate copy being a leaked version of an authorized copy of the digital content authorized by a content owner to a licensee determined by a first index queried with a hash value of the tracking information; receiving a request to verify the report, the request including a second identity of the third party and second secret information, the second secret information being used to characterize the tracking information and the time information; determining, using a blockchain, whether the report is valid based on the first secret information, the second secret information, and the second identity; and If the report is determined to be valid, a licensee associated with the report is flagged to a first state and relevant information of the report is maintained on the blockchain, the first state indicating that the pirated copy was leaked by the licensee.

18. The computer program product of claim 17, wherein the first secret information is a second hash value determined based on the first identity and a first hash value determined based on the tracking information and the time information.

19. The computer program product of claim 17, wherein determining whether the report is valid based on the first secret information, the second secret information, and the second identity comprises: generating a third secret information based on the second secret information and the second identity; and determining that the report is valid if the first secret information matches the third secret information.

20. The computer program product of claim 17, the acts further comprising: if a complaint request regarding the report is not received from the licensee within a predetermined time after receiving the report, flagging the licensee to a second state, the second state indicating that the pirated copy was leaked by the licensee.

Images