Patent Grant
11991078
A portion of the disclosure of this patent document contains material, which is subject to copyright protection. The copyright owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure as it appears in the United States Patent and Trademark Office patent file or records but otherwise reserves all copyright rights whatsoever.
An Application Data Sheet is filed concurrently herewith as part of this patent document. Each patent application that this patent document claims benefit of or priority to as identified in the concurrently filed Application Data Sheet is incorporated by reference herein in its entirety and for all purposes.
This patent document generally relates to access control and ownership transfer of digital content routed over a data network. More specifically, this patent document discloses techniques for access control and ownership transfer of digital content using a decentralized content fabric providing an overlay network situated on top of an internet protocol layer.
Digital content consumption over the Internet is growing explosively. However, the elemental technology of the Internet, which is open and scalable for web data (not large form content), has not evolved to keep up with growing consumer demand. Instead, the “client-server-edge-cache” architecture that emerged on top of the open packet based routing Internet to serve web data (documents) over 20 years ago has been stretched to try to support digital content. It is not difficult to appreciate the incongruence of this design: after all, digital content is typically orders of magnitude larger than web documents and creates massively higher storage and traffic demands on the core of the Internet. With the current trend towards interactive and live streaming content, the resource burden on the Internet core will only increase over time.
Further, Internet architecture has not kept up with the expectations of content publishers (e.g., creators of digital content). From a publisher perspective, the explosion of piecemeal digital rights management (DRM) and a potpourri of device formats means large form content is re-versioned into many end package formats, and in combination with the edge caching requirements, has further multiplied storage and transmission requirements. The increase in the number of content versions and the variety of digital rights that can be attached to such content makes managing rights cumbersome. Additionally, rights management is typically implemented separately from access control. Legacy Internet, including what is known as “Web 2.0,” provides content distribution and management solutions that do not permit content publishers to easily transfer (e.g., sell) their digital content to end users, or end users to own digital content such that owning users can easily participate in onward transfer of the digital content. Instead, legacy Internet systems are generally designed to grant end users access to media licensed from publishers via middle-layer access control systems, via centralized platforms hosted by the middle-layer access control systems. Permission to access content is directly controlled by the provider of the centralized platform, through technology that is inherently separate from the content itself and requires the content owner to give ownership of the content to the middle platform, ceding ownership of the content. Further, users have no general purpose ability to transfer ownership of content to one another.
Some examples of systems, apparatus, devices, computer program products, and methods implementing aspects of a decentralized content fabric are provided. In some implementations, a decentralized content-centric system includes one or more memory devices and one or more processors in communication with the one or more memory devices. The one or more processors are configured to execute software to provide a plurality of fabric nodes of an overlay network. The plurality of fabric nodes includes one or more fabric nodes configured to: (i) receive, from a client, a request to access digital content on the overlay network, the request including an authorization token that is digitally signed by or on behalf of a user of the client, (ii) extract, from the authorization token, an identifier (ID) associated with the user, (iii) determine that one or more rules maintained on the overlay network and associated with the content are satisfied, where the one or more rules condition access to the digital content upon the ID associated with the user matching an ID associated with an owner of a digital instrument, and where the digital instrument is stored in a blockchain ledger as a unique representation of or unique reference to the digital content, and (iv) provide the client with access to the digital content in response to determining that the one or more rules are satisfied.
In some implementations, the digital instrument is a non-fungible token having a single owner. Further, in some implementations, the ID associated with the user can be an address of a cryptocurrency wallet.
Optionally, the request may reference a content hash generated through a one-way hash operation on the digital content. The overlay network can be configured to communicate the content hash to the client in response to receiving an address of the digital instrument from the client.
In some implementations, the authorization token is generated by an authority service based on verification of an identity credential supplied by the client. The identity credential can be in the form of a digital ticket or sign-on token that is exchanged for the authorization token. In some implementations, the authorization token may contain a message signed with a private key allowing the authorization token to be associated with a blockchain address and cryptocurrency wallet. The association between the authorization token and the blockchain address/cryptocurrency wallet can be performed as part of generating the authorization token, for example, such that the blockchain address can be extracted cryptographically from the authorization token as the ID associated with the user (e.g., the owner of the cryptocurrency wallet).
Access to the digital content may involve transferring ownership of the digital content to a second user. To transfer ownership to the second user, the overlay network can be configured to associate an ID of the second user with the digital instrument and/or verify ownership of a separate digital instrument by the second user. Additionally or alternatively, access may sometimes involve creating a second digital instrument as a unique representation of a derivative of the digital content. Additionally or alternatively, providing the client with access may include providing the client with the capability to decrypt the digital content, which can be stored encrypted on the content fabric. In some implementations, the encrypted content is re-encrypted by the content fabric in connection with access by the client, for example, through proxy re-encryption.
In the above-described decentralized content-centric system, the one or more processors can be configured to process the request through calling a blockchain smart contract associated with the digital content. The blockchain smart contract is sometimes referred to herein as a “digital contract” and can include code that implements the one or more rules. Accordingly, in some implementations, this blockchain smart contract (a first blockchain smart contract) is executed to evaluate the one or more rules. Further, the ID associated with the owner of the digital instrument can, in some instances, be indicated by a second blockchain smart contract that is referenced by the first blockchain smart contract. In some implementations, the second blockchain smart contract is a contract associated with one or more non-fungible tokens.
In some implementations, the functionality provided by the one or more processors of the above-described decentralized content-centric system is realized through program code stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium. The program code includes instructions configured to cause the one or more processors to provide the plurality of fabric nodes.
The included drawings are for illustrative purposes and serve only to provide examples of possible structures and operations for the disclosed systems, apparatus, methods and computer program products. These drawings in no way limit any changes in form and detail that may be made by one skilled in the art without departing from the spirit and scope of the disclosed implementations.
In the drawings, Figures (FIGS.) 1-37 illustrate examples of some systems, apparatus, methods and computer program products of aspects of a decentralized content fabric according to some implementations.
Examples of systems, apparatus, methods and computer program products according to the disclosed implementations are described in this section. These examples are being provided solely to add context and aid in the understanding of the disclosed implementations. It will thus be apparent to one skilled in the art that implementations may be practiced without some or all of these specific details. In other instances, certain operations have not been described in detail to avoid unnecessarily obscuring implementations. Other applications are possible, such that the following examples should not be taken as definitive or limiting either in scope or setting.
In the following detailed description, references are made to the accompanying drawings, which form a part of the description and in which are shown, by way of illustration, specific implementations. Although these implementations are described in sufficient detail to enable one skilled in the art to practice the disclosed implementations, it is understood that these examples are not limiting, such that other implementations may be used and changes may be made without departing from their spirit and scope. For example, the operations of methods shown and described herein are not necessarily performed in the order indicated. It should also be understood that the methods may include more or fewer operations than are indicated. In some implementations, operations described herein as separate operations may be combined. Conversely, what may be described herein as a single operation may be implemented in multiple operations.
Described herein are examples of systems, apparatus, methods and computer program products implementing infrastructure, techniques and other aspects of a decentralized content fabric. In some implementations, some aspects of the content fabric are configured for granting access to digital content and/or delegating ownership of digital content. Some implementations provide mechanisms for an owner of media or other types of digital content published into the content fabric to set up access to the digital content by a user. The owner may provide the user with access in return for payment or a transfer of value. In some implementations, access does not involve payment, but is instead based on one or more non-payment based criteria, for example, winning a game or being granted an entitlement such as a ticket or token. In some instances, access may be granted free of any conditions or obligations on the part of the receiving user. Also or alternatively, an owner can sell or otherwise transfer ownership of the digital content to a further owner.
Aspects of the present disclosure relate to techniques for using a decentralized content fabric that includes a blockchain as well as a dynamic trustless content storage and distribution platform to enable direct transfer of ownership of content and/or its derivatives (such as streaming, download, viewing, or other digital rendering versions of content) from an original owner to a user, and from a user to another user, using digital instruments or certificates that are stored on the blockchain. The content fabric leverages the ability of such certificates to support proof of ownership for end users. In some implementations, the certificate is a non-fungible token. Ownership of content on the blockchain, once proven, can be used to directly authorize access to, or transfer of ownership of, content or its derivatives, e.g., from a content publisher to an end user. In the case of streaming access, various aspects of the content fabric may be configured to provide for presentation of content with high quality of service. Ownership transfer may involve a direct sale of the content and/or its derivatives from a publisher to a user, as well as re-sale or onwards transfer from user-to-user. Transfers of ownership can be recorded in the blockchain of the content fabric, and the content fabric may permit transfers to occur at scale in order to meet any volume of transfer activity. Unlike a system that attempts to use a token on a blockchain to unlock access to content stored on and rendered from a separate system, the content fabric can take advantage of its native coupling between (i) owner-controlled content storage and (ii) distribution and blockchain access control, in order to authorize access to content and its derivatives based on blockchain ownership of the content and to provide a trustless (no middle party, tamper-proof) direct transfer of ownership from owner to user, and user to user. The techniques described herein can be applied to provide access to and transfer of numerous forms of content, including audio, video, e-books or other electronic documents, multimedia presentations, and the like.
In some implementations, the transferred ownership is in the form of proxy ownership, in which two or more entities co-own the content and are bound by one or more co-ownership rules, as described in greater detail herein. Ownership, as used herein, generally refers to blockchain ownership of digital content maintained as a content object in the content fabric by an owner who has a key set that includes a public/private key pair. In general, each entity within or interacting with the content fabric is identified by a unique address and owns a set of keys including a public/private key pair. The set of keys can be used to perform various actions such as digital signing, encryption, and decryption. Accordingly, in some implementations, a content object can be encrypted using the key set of an original owner (e.g., a publisher or creator) of the content so that an entity (e.g., a fabric node) storing data of the content object does not have access to the plain-text or unencrypted form of the data. Further, in some implementations, the content fabric may support proxy re-encryption using a key set of the current owner, who may not necessarily be the original owner. Using some aspects of the content fabric, the provisioning of content access and/or transfer of content ownership can be carried out with blockchain-based digital assets.
In some implementations, content access and/or transfer of content ownership can be carried out using a digital ticket or other type of credential issued to a user. For instance, a digital ticket can be obtained by buying the digital ticket from a digital payment system or winning an electronic auction. A client can interact with aspects of the content fabric to exchange the digital ticket for an authorization token, in some implementations. The authorization token provides a generalized mechanism for initiating an access request to consume digital content generated using content objects of the content fabric, for instance, by streaming, viewing, downloading, etc. The authorization token can be signed with a private key of the user and may be usable for extracting a user identifier (ID) such as a public blockchain address owned by the user. The access request is processed by the content fabric, using a blockchain smart contract in the content object and one or more policies of the blockchain smart contract.
In some implementations, the authorization token is generated by an authority service residing in the content fabric. For instance, the authority service may correspond to a fabric node that is managed by an operator of the content fabric. Alternatively, the authority service can be a decentralized entity such as a third-party service that provides authorization functionality on behalf of a tenant (e.g., a content publisher) of the content fabric. As described in detail below, the content fabric can be implemented to run in a “trustless” environment to prevent unintentional or intentional unauthorized access to content. The use of an authority service is consistent with this trustless approach because the content fabric may support one or more verification mechanisms for checking whether a user presenting the authorization token has permission to access a content object. An example of such a verification mechanism is the policy-based evaluation of information associated with a digital instrument, described below.
In some implementations, ownership is recorded in association with a user ID (e.g., a blockchain address associated with the user) as part of a digital instrument maintained in a blockchain so that the digital instrument is owned by the user's blockchain address or user ID. The digital instrument represents a content object (or derivative) and itself has a unique ID. The digital instrument can be stored in a smart contract on the blockchain. The contract containing the digital instrument can be separate from a smart contract associated with the content object itself. When a user's application requests access to content, an authorization token can be created to access a corresponding content object (or derivative). The digital instrument may be referred to in the smart contract of the content object to be accessed. When the access request is evaluated, an authorization transaction can execute against the smart contract associated with the content object (or derivative). This execution against the smart contract associated with the content object/derivative can involve verifying the requesting user's ownership of the digital instrument, such as verifying the user's ownership of the digital instrument on the blockchain. In some implementations, the digital instrument can be a non-fungible token (NFT), where a token ID of the NFT is a unique entry in a hash map that links the token ID to the user's address on the blockchain, and where the hash map is part of a smart contract stored in the blockchain. When implemented as an NFT, the digital instrument can have a 1:1 token-to-owner relationship since an NFT is typically associated with a single owner. However, as discussed above, content can be co-owned. Accordingly, ownership of an NFT or other digital instrument does not necessarily imply ownership of the entire content object or ownership of all the access rights associated with the content object. For example, the authorization transaction can potentially verify multiple token addresses owned by the same owner, and/or multiple token addresses owned by multiple owners (permitting multiple owners of the same content) or multi-owner verification for single owner access.
As indicated above, access or ownership transfer may relate to a content object but can also relate to a derivative of the content object. For example, the digital instrument may correspond to a streaming instance or other dynamic representation of the content object that is created specifically for the purpose of providing limited access rights (e.g., viewing permission) to the owner of the digital instrument. Thus, multiple owners can each have their own digital instrument that provides for the same or different access rights (e.g., access to different parts of the object) in accordance with one or more policies of the contract. The one or more policies can be evaluated by the content fabric to determine, based on ownership of the digital instrument, whether to grant access to a user who has presented the above-described authorization token in an access request. Ownership of a digital instrument can therefore be synonymous with possession of a right to perform some action with respect to at least part of the data (or a derivative of such data) stored in association with a content object. The digital instrument serves as proof of that right. Since a digital instrument may be sold or otherwise transferred, the rights tied to the digital instrument, which can extend up to exclusive ownership of the content object, may also be transferred between users.
In some implementations, a cryptocurrency wallet held by a user can be used to accumulate and spend a cryptocurrency such as Ethereum's ERC-20 tokens, which can serve as a proof of payment or be used to purchase a proof of payment, in different implementations. Thus, a cryptocurrency can be used to purchase access to a content object and/or ownership of a content object. Ownership of a digital instrument can be indicated through associating an address of the cryptocurrency wallet with the digital instrument.
The ERC-20 token is one of many examples of blockchain-based digital assets that can be used as a cryptocurrency in various implementations. For instance, a user can pay to purchase some ERC-20 tokens to top up the user's cryptocurrency wallet. Access to digital content implemented as a content object in the content fabric can have a price in ERC-20 token value. Also or alternatively, content ownership can have a price, which can be set by an owner and be reflected in the ERC-20 token value. ERC-20 tokens or alternative items of cryptocurrency value can be managed and transferred in a variety of manners. For instance, a content owner could give ERC-20 tokens to fans of a particular title of digital content or fans of an artist, actor, or some other entity affiliated with the digital content. Fans could also use ERC-20 tokens to purchase a particular title of digital content, or a derivative, such as streaming access and then sell the asset to other fans using ERC-20 tokens in a marketplace. Thus, using some of the disclosed aspects of the content fabric, ERC-20 tokens can have a community-based trading value.
In some implementations, a content object managed in the content fabric can have a price set in the content object's smart contract. The price can be a digital asset value, such as an ERC-20 token value. ERC-20 tokens or other types of digital assets can accumulate in a buyer's cryptocurrency wallet as well as a seller's cryptocurrency wallet. The cryptocurrency wallet tokens can be exchanged for another cryptocurrency or fiat currency.
Some of the disclosed implementations provide an overlay network, which is implemented primarily with application software, as opposed to conventional networks with operations implemented using hardware or low-level system software. The term “overlay” is used to describe examples of the overlay network disclosed herein because aspects and operations are often implemented in an application layer or other type of layer situated on top of a conventional Internet Protocol (IP) layer. Thus, when the overlay network is implemented in the application layer, some of the disclosed techniques provide for routing by content, as opposed to conventional techniques for routing by host. Thus, in some implementations, hardware such as hosts, servers, other types of computing devices, etc. are of little relevance when addressing by content. That is, in the application layer, it generally does not matter which particular computing device stores the content or some part of the content. In some implementations, content-centric routing provides foundational differences between the disclosed content fabric's implementation using an overlay network versus conventional IP-based routing. For instance, a content representation used by the disclosed content fabric can be de-duplicated and served from an original source, in contrast with the duplication of content data accompanying conventional host-centric IP-based routing schemes.
In some implementations, a translation layer is situated between the application layer and a conventional IP network implementing transmission control protocol/internet protocol (TCP/IP), so the translation layer serves as an intermediary. For instance, the translation layer can facilitate determining which computing device stores content, which is being requested at the application layer, and can facilitate reliably transmitting the content over IP.
In the example of
In the example of
In implementations such as that illustrated in
In
In
In some implementations, a blockchain-based versioning protocol is provided for media, as explained in greater detail herein. Such a customization and application of blockchain can facilitate a decentralized store of version histories of the content object parts, since versioning/history can be made part of what blockchain holds. Such versioning techniques are applicable since many content object parts evolve to have different versions. A new version is typically defined by one or more changes, and such a change is often by reference. Versioning can occur with a single content object part and across a number of content object parts.
In some implementations, a content object's data is stored in data containers referred to herein as content object parts. A content object can have a referential object structure to facilitate use in the content fabric. Any media or any large structured or unstructured data in the content fabric like a video stream, a file, a package, a set of files, or a data object, e.g., a software program or game, genomics data, structural or mechanical design object, etc. can be made to have a content object structure using some of the disclosed techniques. A content object structure or structures can be generated as part of ingesting media or any source data.
Different implementations of content routing methods are disclosed herein that facilitate distribution of content object parts as well as finding the content object parts inside a domain and, in some instances, outside of a domain in near real-time. In some examples, an intra-domain routing protocol is provided. In some implementations, intra-domain routing can be integrated with distributed and decentralized hashing. As explained in greater detail herein, in some examples, an inter-domain routing protocol with lightweight routing tables is provided.
In some implementations, machine learning (ML) methods can be used to select best paths among fabric nodes in the content fabric. ML can be used to identify a particular fabric node for communicating with a consumer's computing device, as well as be used to identify upstream fabric nodes to get content object parts from.
Some implementations are applicable to different digital media supply chains, such as over-the-top streaming distribution using single “master” formats, low latency live content distribution, personalized content with dynamic and JIT operations such as watermarking, clipping, validation and automatic metadata tagging, and digital asset marketplaces for scalable value exchange between content owners, viewers, sponsors and licensees.
In some implementations, the content fabric incentivizes participation to drive performance and efficiency, including: for owners and licensees, scalable, transparent capabilities for rights management, audience reporting and content commerce; for users, transparency for providing data for their attention to content; and for infrastructure providers, automatic compensation (payment and cost offset) for contributing bandwidth, computation and storage.
In some implementations, the disclosed content fabric incorporates: blockchain decentralized ledgers for large scale consensus on distributed data, tamper resistant storage, and scalable low cost microtransactions; large scale ML and deep-learning; and scalable compute infrastructure with graphics processing units (GPUs), tensor processing units (TPUs), and other specialized compute platforms. Additionally, blockchain ledgers and smart contracts, crypto-economics, e.g., combining game theory, decentralized ledgers and classic market economics, make it possible to create large scale pricing systems that will incentivize supply, demand, and performance in decentralized systems.
In some implementations of the overlay network, a software stack provides relevant operations, and each fabric node runs the same software stack. A fabric node that runs this stack is also referred to herein as a “content node”. In some implementations, the content fabric enables fabric nodes to communicate with one another to securely store and serve content using a decentralized framework, meaning no state need be shared via any centralized entities such as databases, tables, ledgers, etc.
In some implementations, content and metadata may be stored once, and consumable media is rendered on demand. Internally, the content fabric allows digital content to be stored in an object structure, namely a content object, which can include content object parts, e.g., raw data as well as metadata, and code which operates on the raw data and metadata JIT at serving time to yield consumable media versions. The code, such as build instructions, that operates on the raw data and metadata allows for flexible re-use of media, updates of the code without updating a software stack (for scalability), and sandboxing for security and metering.
In some implementations, the content fabric may be “trustless” in that content is encrypted and re-encrypted for authorized receivers without the software stack or fabric node on which a software stack runs having to access content in plain-text, and without having access to the content's encryption keys.
In some implementations, access to content objects in the content fabric including create, update (write), and view (read) is mediated by transactions on an embedded blockchain ledger that runs within a software stack. An application interface of the content fabric supports a blockchain platform virtual machine, such as the Ethereum virtual machine, and, in turn, blockchain smart contracts. Each operation on a content object can be implemented as a transaction against a smart contract for that object, in turn recording the address of the entity/user that requested the operation, the identifier of the content object and any details of the transaction.
In some implementations, content operations are programmable. For instance, base smart contracts for content objects can have custom insertion points (hooks) that allow for invoking any transaction—credit or debit of an account, event logging, authorization, verification check, etc. —before and after any content operation, providing intrinsic commerce, rights management, and workflow capabilities.
In some implementations, content versions are provable and tamper-resistant. Content objects can have a version proof, such as a Merkle tree calculation of the object's hashes for fast verification of the integrity of the object. The root value of the Merkle proof is recorded in the blockchain transactions for that content object allowing for a tamper-resistant record of the version history of the object (“who changed what when”).
In some implementations of the disclosed content fabric, a content routing system locates content object parts throughout the overlay network using an original distributed hash table (DHT) structure and global, continuous ML to ensure low latency high bandwidth delivery of those content object parts to client devices, also referred to herein as clients. Unlike conventional peer-to-peer networks, some implementations achieve low latency high bandwidth serving even as the system grows in number of fabric nodes and number of content objects to giant scale. By the same token, some implementations of the disclosed systems are incentivized to grow in direct benefit to maintain this high performance.
In a DHT, the fabric nodes in the network can be treated as the buckets in a hash map that spans the entire network. The DHT can be keyed by each fabric node's ID, and the values are any resource associated with or stored by that fabric node, such as file hashes or keywords. In this way, the fabric node ID not only serves as identification of the fabric node, but also as a direct map to a set of values to be located in the network. In some contexts, the crux of the DHT's characteristics is the particular method the DHT uses to search its network to locate the fabric node ID that can return the desired value in response to an application or user request.
In some implementations, each fabric node is identified with a 32-byte node ID, which also is a node address on the embedded blockchain ledger. In some instances, content object part hashes can be shared over the fabric nodes using a partitioning method that, with the routing method, is designed to a) locate content object parts on a fabric node with low latency consistently, even as the number of fabric nodes and number of content objects in the content fabric grows, and b) not require moving around content as new fabric nodes and content are added.
In some implementations, the partitioning method has global configuration parameters including: 1) a “level,” which defines the number of partitions in the network, 2) a “number of partitions per node” (np), which defines the number of partitions each fabric node stores, and 3) a static configuration of the number of copies of a partition (cp). In some instances, each partition is itself identified by a partition ID (e.g., 4 bits or one hexadecimal number for every position in the partition ID), and content object part hashes are also represented as 32-byte IDs.
Content object parts can be assigned to be stored in a partition by matching a prefix in their part hash to the partition ID, where the length of this prefix is controlled by the current partition level of the network. Similarly, fabric nodes can be assigned to store and serve a set of partitions by matching a prefix in their node ID to all partition IDs that are within (e.g., less than or equal to) an XOR distance calculation that is equal to the configured number of partitions per node, also referred to herein as “numparts.” In some examples, for calculation of the XOR distance, the 32-bytes that make up the node ID, the content object part hash, and the partition ID are expressed as 32 pairs of hexadecimal characters (each hex character representing 4 bits). When content object parts are retrieved from the network, the routing method locates the fabric nodes that can serve the partition to which the content object part belongs, and uses the most favorable fabric node to serve the content object part. In some implementations, as the number of fabric nodes in the overlay network increases to accommodate more content, the network dynamically repartitions with minimal “reshuffling” of existing content object parts.
In some implementations, given a number of partitions in a network=p, a number of partitions per fabric node=np, and a number of copies=nc, the network desirably has (p/np) nc fabric nodes. For example, for a network that has 16 partitions, and maintains 8 partitions per fabric node, and 7 copies of each partition, the network has (16/8)
7=14 fabric nodes. As those partitions start to fill with new content and as the number of fabric nodes in the network increases, some implementations can divide each partition space into 16 smaller partitions, increasing the number of partitions from 16 to 256, for example, with each existing fabric node shedding a portion of the now more specific partition space and new fabric nodes taking on the new partition space. Assuming the part hashes are generally evenly dispersed over the partition space, some implementations can introduce the new partitions and scale up the network while not having to move any content or renumber fabric nodes/content and still maintain the same redundancy of each partition.
In some implementations, each subsequent level uses the next pair of hexadecimal characters to identify the partition, and contained content object parts, and fabric nodes storing the partition. For example, considering the partition ID:
Level 1—uses “0”
Level 2—uses “0f”
Level 3—uses “0f 1”, etc.
In an example, consider a content object part with a hash starting with 0f 1a 66 aa . . . . That is assigned to ‘level 3’ partition ID:
The content object part may stay on this fabric node as the network grows from Level 3 through Level 4 because the XOR distance is 0:
Assuming the numparts configuration of the network is 7 or greater (XOR distance of 0 through 6), the partition may stay on this fabric node.
Finally, at level 6, the partition ID and node ID diverge beyond the XOR distance constraint and the partition is shed from this fabric node and assumed by a new fabric node:
Note that the network grew by 3 orders of magnitude before any changes were made to where this content is located.
In some implementations, eligible content nodes store desired content object parts inside of domains of content nodes that are reachable, for instance, by layer 2 broadcast for intra-domain content routing. In some implementations, inter-domain routing methods can be performed to locate content object parts on fabric nodes outside of the domain. The disclosed approaches can be implemented to integrate with large-scale, continuous ML to select fabric nodes and paths in the overlay network (both within domain and out of domain) that are predicted to serve the requesting client with low latency and high bandwidth, at the client's bottleneck bandwidth capacity.
In some implementations, the content fabric provides to applications (and, in turn, consumers) two primitives for content publishing and retrieval: GET and PUT. Each primitive takes a content object part hash as its primary argument. The content fabric is then responsible to either locate and return the content object part (GET) or to publish the content object part (PUT) to the appropriate fabric nodes based on the partitioning method.
“Private” IP networks such as small office LANs, corporate WANs and public clouds, include host computing devices that can reach one another via layer 2 broadcast. IPv6 multicast is by default available within these private networks without special configuration. The content fabric can be configured to take advantage of this capability to use the native capability of the network to learn what fabric nodes within the domain have a content object part and to retrieve the content object part directly from the selected fabric node, for instance, selected by ML score. Fabric nodes join a set of IPv6 multicast groups where the addresses are directly computed from the partition IDs the fabric node is responsible for, and directly reply to requests for content object parts they are responsible for.
In the example of
In
In
In
In
In
In
If egress node 708 does not find the requested content object part locally, egress node 708 initiates an intra-domain GET at 730, where egress node 708 transmits a GET message to intra-domain nodes 712 using a network address for the calculated partition such as a multicast address, passing the content object part's part ID and, in some instances, identifiers of preferred nodes based on the fabric nodes' ML-predicted performance scores. An example of the GET message is illustrated in box 808 of
In
For instance,
In some implementations, the inter-domain routing converges on average to find a domain outside of egress node 708's domain containing the content object part within well fewer than log(n) steps and within a maximum of log(n) steps (where n is the number of domains in the network), and once the domain is found, the intra-domain lookup is performed in the external domain to return the content object part immediately. In some implementations, the inter-domain routing protocol uses a routing table, such as that illustrated in
If the requested content object part is retrieved in Domain A at 747 of
It should also be noted that in instances when no fabric nodes in Domain A of
In some implementations, PUT-ing a new content object part into the overlay network uses a similar method as GET-ing a content object part. For instance, when a client makes a request to a fabric node, such as an ingress node as described below, to PUT the content object part, the ingress node can multicast the content object part on the multicast groups associated with the ingress node's partition ID, and desirably enough fabric nodes respond to meet a replication requirement for the network. Else the ingress node consults the inter-domain routing tree and publishes the content object part by again finding the most specific matching known fabric node(s), which apply intra-domain routing until a sufficient number of matching target fabric nodes are returned. The new content object part is transmitted to these fabric node(s), and the routing tree is updated with learned node IDs and address details.
In
In
In some implementations, a continuous ML system allows individual clients to learn fabric nodes and paths that yield high performance.
In some implementations, the content fabric provides an overlay network where fabric nodes are equal participants in a full mesh network, and content object parts including raw data, metadata and code are delivered. Thus, it is not required for the overlay network to have direct knowledge of the underlying Internet topology and routing infrastructure. When a client makes a request of the content fabric to GET content, the client is directly served by a fabric node, which is referred to herein as an egress node for the sake of ML. That egress node either has the content object part or searches to find a fabric node that can supply the content object part, as described in greater detail herein. The supplying fabric node is referred to herein as an origin node for the sake of IL.
In some implementations, in terms of delivery quality, it can be desirable to optimize with ML:
Given the overlay network model, in some implementations, two separate dimensions can be independently optimized and in turn “learned”—the selection of an egress node, and the selection of an origin node relative to an egress, which is called an “egress-origin segment.” Additionally some implementations optimize these features for each individual client, meaning that not all clients will prefer the same choices and that some implementations cannot know a priori a good choice for a client except to “learn” from appropriate peers.
Some implementations construct a collaborative filtering system in which individual clients learn the best egress nodes and the best egress-origin segments by learning from “like” clients. Specifically, some implementations train a collaborative filtering model where clients learn from clients in their own regions to select egress nodes and learn from all clients to select egress-origin segments.
Thus, in some implementations, each client request is served by: an origin node with constrained bandwidth and capacity, an egress-origin segment in the overlay comprised of underlying network links that can be congested, an egress node with constrained bandwidth and capacity, and a client-egress segment which may not be controlled by the system.
As client requests are fulfilled, some implementations record the delivery bandwidth and time to first byte attributable to the egress-origin segment and attributable to the egress nodes.
Some implementations use the score of the segments and egress node to train the model. And some implementations use the trained model to identify best segments to route subsequent requests.
In some implementations, a collaborative filtering method simultaneously derives the underlying features and the prediction function and minimizes the cost functions for each in two separate applications of the model: one that maximizes the delivery bandwidth, and a second that minimizes the time to first byte (or time to first segment). Some implementations apply the collaborative filtering method independently to the egress-origin segment measurements and the egress node measurements to predict the future scores for each value (bandwidth and time to first byte), for each client, and the model learns expected scores for new clients.
The training may occur in near real-time to ensure that the content fabric adapts fast to changes in resources, failed fabric nodes etc. In some implementations, a computational matrix to continually train this system can scale with the number of clients and the number of paths between fabric nodes. Modern TPU and parallel processing systems are often equipped to perform fast matrix multiplication on very large scale matrices such as “billion×billion” dimensions and learning.
In the example of
In
In the example of
In some implementations, in addition to selecting the best egress and content routes based on ML, popular content can be opportunistically cached in the available capacity of the fabric nodes. In some implementations, to select the best content to cache, a second continuous learning model can be used to predict most popular content, and can be used in conjunction with JIT rendering of multiple versions of output media through bitcode in the content fabric.
Predicting popular content can be considered a “time series” problem. For time series prediction, a gradient boosting decision tree is applied in some implementations. In some other implementations, sequential models may be used. In some implementations, the gradient boosting decision tree is applied to a screening data set, where features include content request time, content request duration, content title, playout platform, and other content metadata.
In some implementations, there are two ways to split time series data into training, validation, and testing: a side-by-side split and a walk-forward split. In the side-by-side split, which can be used for a mainstream ML model, the data set is split into at least two portions, one used for training and the other used for testing (with the timeframe of both aligned). The walk-forward split, in comparison, is aimed specifically at data sets with a strong correlation with time.
In some implementations, the model includes a number of features such as content categories, streaming type, request day of the week, and request lifetime, as well as a number of statistical features derived from the data set, such as time windows of popularity, global attention statistics and past request aggregation from previous time periods. For aggregation methods, some implementations use mean, median, max, min, days since, and differences of mean values between adjacent time windows.
In some implementations, the content fabric provides a universal (type and size agnostic) distributed storage solution for digital content that is fundamentally different than conventional distributed file systems and cloud storage in a few key ways: 1) the content fabric avoids duplication of storage or network bandwidth transmission as the content is re-purposed for various output versions, 2) the content fabric provides flexible personalization of the media delivered (programmability), and 3) the content fabric includes intrinsic versioning and an ability to prove the validity of a piece of content and its version history.
In some implementations, a content object's data is stored in data containers called content object parts. A content object part is the fundamental unit of storage, network transfer and caching as mentioned above. A content object part is immutable once finalized and identified by a hash value that is calculated across all of the content object part's content. Thanks to the use of a cryptographic hash function, the authenticity of a content object part's data can be verified by recalculating the hash. The hash also serves as criterion for data deduplication.
In some implementations, when file data is ingested into the content fabric, the file data is automatically partitioned into content object parts to desirably have a consistent part size. Large file data can be split up and stored in multiple content object parts. Multiple small files can be aggregated into a single content object part. User-provided metadata can also be stored in the content object parts, as described above with reference to
In
In this example, QREF 1404 has sub-components including a QSTRUCT hash 1404a, a QMD hash 1404b, a QMD2 hash 1404c, and a content type hash labeled QTYPEHASH 1404d. In this example, QSTRUCT hash 1404a is a hash of QSTRUCT 1408, which is also CBOR-encoded in this example. QSTRUCT 1408 includes hashes of opaque data parts 1420, 1424 and 1428 as well as associated proofs. In QREF 1404, QMD hash 1404b is a hash of QMD 1412, which is CBOR-encoded structured data stored in an encryption key space 1. By the same token, QMD2 hash 1404c of QREF 1404 is a hash of QMD21416, which is also CBOR-encoded structured data and stored in encryption key space 2, as shown in
In some implementations, using a hierarchical reference structure, content objects scale from small to very large. In some implementations, none of the employed structures impose a limit on size, neither for binary data nor for metadata. The reference structure also provides efficient and fast versioning of content. In some implementations, creating a new version of content includes copying the reference structure, pointing back at the previous version's data, and then creating new structures and data for the pieces that change in the new version. For example, adding a new file to an existing content object results in a new (set of) data, a modified subset of metadata, and updated internal structures. Existing file data (represented as existing content object parts) and the unchanged metadata subset are not duplicated in some implementations.
In the example of
In some implementations, re-use of the same content in creation of output variants, and consequent benefits to distribution efficiency and personalization, are facilitated in the content fabric through use of JIT compilation capabilities that allow multiple front end compilers to leverage the optimization of compilation to machine code (backend compilation) for multiple source code languages. In some implementations, the system compiles the source code to an intermediate representation language, e.g., abstract syntax tree (AST), and allows for development of maximally optimized compilation of AST to machine code.
In some implementations, this method decouples “front end” compilation from source code, and “back end” compilation from source to machine code, via AST, and many beneficial side effects, one of which is the ability to support JIT compilation of source code to machine code via AST. Also, the system may use cross-platform compilation (static and dynamic). In some implementations, the content fabric benefits by providing a purpose-built “sandbox” for deploying code that modifies content objects. The sandbox can be part of the content fabric and can be extended to clients using application programming interfaces (APIs) via web assembly machine code (WASM).
In some implementations, bitcode can be written in any supported language, e.g., C++, Go and Javascript for WASM, but different languages may be used. Some implementations define an interface between the content fabric and modules loaded JIT that allows for a content fabric method to call into the module, and the module to call back into the content fabric method. This calling context can facilitate reading/writing content and metadata to/from the content fabric, and can facilitate a security sandbox for both authorizing code operations and metering their use of system resources (e.g., for compensation and charging).
In
In
In some implementations, new output variants can be introduced without having to create additional copies of a mezzanine source (language versions, territory versions, repairs, new playout device formats, etc.) and can be updated or extended without changing or taking down the content fabric. In some implementations, bitcode stored in content object parts in the content fabric can be versioned and updated without having to change other parts of the pipeline.
When new content is published to the content fabric, such as an interoperable master format (IMF) package, an ingest content type template can be selected by the user or client of the API. That content type implements bitcode that the content fabric invokes to write the content in the package to the content fabric.
In some implementations, when a user requests to stream a DASH or HLS version of a content object in its target language version, the bitcode module reads the appropriate metadata and the metadata pointing at the constituent video and audio content object parts, reads the content of these parts, and generates a manifest file, which is then served to the client and the stream, which is served. The manifest and the segments can be built on-the-fly by the bitcode. In this case, the bitcode drives audio/video processing modules to perform the scaling and bitrate transcoding to generate only the segments the client requests as the requests are made. For instance, in
In some implementations, the bitcode environment in the content fabric can accommodate code that operates on the parts such as raw data and metadata of a content object in the content fabric for personalizing or customizing output such as consumable media. Some implementations use bitcode to, for example, apply custom watermarks, as described below with reference to
In some implementations, the content fabric has capacity to store metadata classifying the content, and, with the programmability of the bitcode sandbox, to use this metadata to create customized or personalized media output or to offer personalized, JIT searching and interest matching of content in the fabric. A video classification machine using a deep learning pipeline can be incorporated, in some implementations.
In some implementations, video tagging is performed to iterate video frame by frame, e.g., using OpenCV, FFMPEG, or the content fabric AV pipe, followed by applying a per-frame encoding procedure using a convolutional neural network, resulting in an n-dimensional vector per frame expressing the frame-level video features. The frame-level features are then aggregated to form a video-level feature vector, which is then input to a video-level classifier to predict the video labels.
In some implementations of the content fabric video tagging pipeline, some videos are encoded into one-frame-per-second frames. Raw frames are fed into an inception network, and the ReLu activation of the last hidden layer is fetched to form frame-level features. These frame-level features are aggregated. In some implementations, context gating, a learnable non-linear unit, is applied to the aggregated video-level features, followed by a video classifier—a mix of neural network expert systems—to perform final tagging. Some implementations aggregate spatial representation in recognition of ‘places.’
In some implementations of the video tagging architecture, context gating is performed, which generally refers to training a non-linear gating unit such that relevant aspects of a video are enhanced, and off-topic features are suppressed. Some implementations use a method called “mix of neural network experts,” which is based on the original mixture of expert methods in which one trains multiple simple ‘expert’ networks, to optimize their ‘expert’ domain, followed by a convolution with a gating distribution, effectively learning both the parameters of the individual expert networks and the parameters of the gating function. Such an approach effectively forms an ensemble for the final prediction, where the bias and variance can be appropriately balanced, thereby overcoming overfitting effects in individual expert models.
The paradigm of engineering sufficiently “trustworthy” systems is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain successfully as more and more content flows over the Internet to ever more variations of rights management, ever more points of vulnerability exist in the increasingly complex technological supply chain, and the value of digital content incentivizes theft.
In some implementations, the content fabric backs content access control operations to create, update, or access content—with blockchain transactions executed through a native ledger embedded in a content fabric software stack. The system ensures that parties are authentic, and its consensus ensures that only valid (authorized) transactions on the content can be carried out. The content fabric can intrinsically couple control over the content's modification and access to the blockchain, while maintaining scalable storage and distribution outside of the blockchain.
In some implementations, the content fabric allows content access control and authorization to take advantage of blockchain ledgers for “programmable” transactions between parties. For instance, each transaction on the blockchain can execute a small piece of code that represents the terms of access for each content object. This small piece of code is referred to as a smart contract. In some implementations, the content fabric may implement a blockchain that is compatible with the Ethereum protocol and exposes an Ethereum Virtual Machine interface for applications, although other protocols/blockchains may be used.
In some implementations, the ‘ledger’ is charged with at least three operations: 1) providing the authoritative ‘directory’ of content including the only trusted reference to the list of versions of each content object and the final verification ‘hash’ (the ground truth) for each of these versions, 2) execution of the ‘access control’ logic allowing users to read and write content as well as contract terms enforcement and commercial terms reconciliation (payments and credits), and 3) recording access operations on content in the content fabric (the ‘ledger’ operation).
In some implementations, the blockchain provides an ordered list of transactions. Each transaction is performed by a blockchain participant and could have side effects: a state change in a particular account or contract, a transfer of value, or one or more blockchain ‘events’. Transactions are identified by a ‘transaction ID.’ The content of a transaction as well as the ‘transaction receipt’ are available to blockchain participants. In some implementations, because the ledger is public, transactions can store ‘proofs’ of the activities they are recording, for example in the content fabric, the final ‘checksum’ of a new content after an update. The way in which transactions can offer public verification of a particular action without revealing the details of the action belongs to a class of cryptography referred to as zero-knowledge proofs.
In some implementations, participants in the blockchain fall into two categories: account owners and contracts. Account owners are primarily people in control of their actions against the blockchain, for example, creation or update of content, accessing or viewing content, etc. Applications operated by people or automated processes also can be account owners. These applications are often trusted by the people who run them to do what they were constructed to do, and they are trusted to operate the blockchain accounts they have been given access to. On the other hand, contracts are generally autonomous participants—they operate based on their ‘code’. For example, a contract written to pay 2 credits to each user who supplies a particular record signed by a signature accepted by this contract will behave the same way and pay the 2 credits when the signature is matched, and decline to pay otherwise. An account owner generally is identified by its ‘address’ on the blockchain and owns a public/private key pair that it uses to sign its transactions against the blockchain.
In some implementations, a contract is identified by its ‘address’. The contract will have an address if it has been successfully deployed by its creator. The creator is generally known because the creation of the contract is done in a ‘transaction’ where the ‘from’ address is the contract creator.
In some implementations, a content space is configurable to set base policies controlling access to associated content objects. The content space can be represented by the smart contract and, in such instances, is referred to as a content space contract. In some implementations, the content fabric operates as a single, global content space. In some other implementations, additional content spaces can be created for special purpose use.
In some implementations, a content node has a blockchain account, represented by its public/private key pair. By the same token, a user of the content fabric can have a blockchain account represented by its public/private key pair.
In some implementations, a library is implemented as a repository of content, setting policies for how the library's content objects work. The library can be created inside a content space and can be represented by a smart contract, referred to herein as a library smart contract, which is determined by the containing content space. The library can have a user as an owner.
In some implementations, content is a representation of a digital asset and is created in a library. The content can be represented by a smart contract, referred to herein as a content smart contract, which is determined by the containing Library. In some implementations, each content object has an instance of the content smart contract.
Users can have various roles, in some implementations. For instance, a library owner can dictate the behavior of content objects inside the library, for example, who can create content, who owns the content once created, how content is accessed or commercialized, etc. Another role of a user is content owner. This owner of a content object can control reading and writing access to the content. A content object can have multiple owners, and these owners can have slightly different privileges, for example, modifying or updating the content object versus publishing the content object for consumer access and determining commercial terms. In some implementations, a degree of control over the content is set by the library. Another role is consumer, referring to a user who does not own content and can access content based on the content object's contract terms, including commercial terms such as access or viewing charge.
indicating that the operation is authorized
to make an authorized API call on the content fabric. Specifically, a client 2404 of the content fabric API securely obtains his/her public/private keys, for instance, by retrieving keys from a personal store or creating new keys at 2408. At 2412, client 2404 creates a blockchain transaction signed with the private key, and the transaction is recorded in a blockchain 2416 of content fabric 2420. At 2412, a specific contract and associated method may be invoked. On successful completion of the transaction (which can perform authorization logic), at 2424, client 2404 creates an authorization token including the transaction ID, and passes this token in a corresponding content fabric API 2428. Optionally, content fabric API 2428 may prompt client 2404 to call a finalization method on the contract in order to complete the API transaction at 2432.
In some implementations, publishing a content object into the content fabric assumes a content library has been created, and that library exists within a content space. The content library is created within the content space and, as such, often is based on the content space giving a user permission to do so. For example, a global content space can allow users to create libraries for a fee. In some implementations, the content space is created by the originator of the content fabric, but additional content spaces can also be created by participants in the content fabric for special use, such as for private or semi-private subsets of the content fabric with dedicated private fabric nodes.
In some implementations, because of their genesis roles, content spaces are trusted by fabric nodes, and fabric nodes are configured to trust content spaces by their maintainers. A new content space is created by deploying the content space contract and configuring fabric nodes to recognize the new space.
In some implementations, to create a library, a user or client program makes an API call directly, or via a user interface. The API implementation executes a method on the content space contract, createlibrary, which in turn will create a new instance of the library smart contract for that particular library based on the parameters specified. The calling user becomes the owner of the library contract and as such will be able to further configure the library contract.
is called on the content fabric passing in an authorization token containing the transaction ID obtained above and the content ID, signed by the content creator. This returns from the content fabric a valid write token. At 2528, a content encryption key set is generated: an AES symmetric key and a proxy re-encryption public, private key pair (AFGH) for each security group. Also at 2528, the content encryption key set is encrypted for three parties: the owner, the content fabric's key management service, and any owner delegates, using their respective public keys. Also at 2528, a method setsecuritymetadata
is called to store this data mapped to these three entities.
In is called on the library contract passing in the ‘content hash’, which is a new version of the content, uniquely identified by this hash. Note that each content update API invocation returns the potential ‘content hash’ if a version of the content were to be finalized without further modifications. At 2548, a finalize
method is called on the content fabric passing an authorization token including the transaction ID obtained above and signed by the owner (the creator). At 2552, fabric node 2512 supporting the operation calls a confirm
method on the library contract passing in the final content hash, and signing the transaction with the fabric node's key to prove that this fabric node supported the operation.
In some implementations, updating content in the content fabric skips operations 2516-2540 above and instead includes a call of writeaccessrequest on the content contract to authorize the update, and then OpenWrite on the content fabric using the obtained transaction ID in the authorization ID.
is called on the content object's blockchain contract passing in the encrypted ephemeral key set. At 2632, the contract records the ephemeral key set in the contract's state using a unique key, escrows any value required by the AccessRequest from the consumer's credit, and returns the transaction ID. At 2636, BOB 2604 calls a contentopen
method on the content fabric passing in an authorization token containing the transaction ID obtained above, signed by the consumer. At 2640, fabric node 2612 calls KMS 2616 (the delegate) passing in the authorization token above including the transaction ID and signed by the consumer for the authorized accessrequest
. At 2644, KMS 2616 verifies the request by verifying the transaction ID (consumer's signature and success status) and then generates: the proxy re-encryption key using the AFGH key in the ephemeral key set, and returns the re-encryption key to the fabric node; and an encrypted version of the content AES key, encrypted with the consumer's public key.
In on the content contract recording the re-encryption key and the content key encrypted for the consumer, obtained above. The contract releases the “value” from escrow to the content owner. At 2652, fabric node 2612 uses the re-encryption key to re-encrypt the content from the original AFGH key space into the consumer's ephemeral AFGH key space. At 2656, BOB 2604 reads the re-encryption content delivered by the fabric node and the encrypted key blob recorded by an accessgranted
contract method. BOB 2604 is now able to decrypt the content as follows: extract the AES content decryption key from the encrypted key blob using its private key; first decrypt using its ephemeral AFGH secret key; and then decrypt the result using the AES content decryption key obtained above. Optionally, at 2660, BOB 2604 calls the content contract's accesscomple
method.
In some implementations, the re-encryption of content published by the owner for an authorized consumer occurs without the software stack or host computing device it runs on having access to the plain text content or to the AES content decryption key, allowing for a “trustless” re-encryption of the content. This capability utilizes proxy re-encryption, based on public/private key cryptography, allowing data encrypted with one user's public key to be transformed such that it can be decrypted with another user's private key. The re-encryption transformation is ‘permissioned’ in the sense that it is possible when the original, encrypting user generates a re-encryption key that is based on the encrypting user's private key and the public key of the target user. The re-encryption key itself is protected and does not expose useful information about the original encrypted data. Further, this re-encryption key is used by a third party a proxy
to re-encrypt the data without it becoming unencrypted.
In some implementations, proxy re-encryption provides a useful and powerful service for a secure (trustless) content management system to prevent unintentional or intentional unauthorized access to content; specifically, proxy re-encryption can allow for secure, encrypted data to be easily shared with other users without exposing valuable private keys with any intermediary technology or allowing a malicious end-user to trivially share keys that could be used to decrypt (and steal) other content in the system.
Unlike conventional content management systems, the disclosed content fabric can be implemented to run in a distributed, trustless environment. Security assumptions are different in a trustless environment; in particular, it is not valid to entirely delegate content security to the content nodes themselves.
In some implementations, secure data is encrypted with a set of keys generated and stored by the content publisher. Two distinct sets of keys are generated for each content object part by default: a symmetric key and a public/private key pair for proxy re-encryption. For instance, the symmetric key and method can be AES-256. The content fabric's proxy re-encryption is implemented with pairing-based cryptography so a pairing-friendly elliptic curve can be used. In some implementations, the content fabric uses the curve, BLS12-381.
In some implementations, while each form of cryptography independently provides strong security guarantees, the two distinct key sets are used to implement the trustless model. The symmetric content keys are managed securely in the content fabric. The keys for proxy re-encryption are managed by a separate, independent online system, e.g., a key management service. When a user is granted access to a content object, the symmetric key is transmitted directly to the authorized user. This key by itself can be insufficient to decrypt the data. To perform the proxy re-encryption, the authorized user's computing device generates its own set of BLS12-381 keys. The system creates a re-encryption key based on the original content owner's key and the content-specific key of the end user. This key is then transmitted to one or more fabric nodes in the content fabric. These fabric nodes then proxy the encrypted data, using the provided re-encryption key to transform the data in real-time into the target key of the end user. The end user then decrypts first with their private key and then the symmetric key. This form of two-tier encryption can ensure that the keys the end user controls cannot be used to directly decrypt the original source data that is stored in the content fabric.
In some implementations, key generation, storage and management are performed automatically and transparently on behalf of both the content owner and content consumers. Encryption and decryption can be performed in near real-time while data is stored and retrieved from the content fabric. A scalable library can be used for server-side processing, and the same library is cross-compiled into Web Assembly (WASM) to execute in client software, including modern browsers.
In some implementations, the content fabric's unique architecture and security model allow for creating a blockchain-verifiable (tamper resistant) content versioning system that can both provide integrity verification of content and a traceable history of content version changes. Some implementations use fast proofs of content version integrity and the recording of content version history into the blockchain for traceability.
In some implementations, the content fabric security model provides for authenticity of the parties and privacy of the content. With respect to integrity of the content, the managing of content in the content fabric takes into account that: 1) content can be created and updated by many users, 2) content can live in the content fabric for an extended time, and 3) content can be accessed by many users.
In some implementations, the content fabric uses a fast proof method, a Chunk Merkle Proof, that allows a client reading a content object to verify the hashes of the object's constituent parts in a short time and therefore allows a client to verify the integrity of a content object which the client has read.
An example of the fast proof method is as follows:
Each content object part is broken down in smaller segments—for instance, 1, 2 or 10-20 MB in size
Each segment is ‘hashed’ using, by default, SHA-256 (configurable to include future standards such as SHA-3)
Segment hashes are organized in a tree, such as a Merkle tree or a Patricia tree
This tree has the following properties:
The root of the Merkle is a hash that reflects each change in the content, so a given Merkle tree root fully identifies a particular version of the content
For any given segment, some implementations can calculate what is called the Merkle proof that allows a user in possession of the segment to ascertain that the segment is correct and it resolves to the known root of the Merkle tree. This proof can be a list of hashes of adjacent branches of the tree up to but not including the root hash.
Content object parts are listed in a special metadata store in a format, such as a CBOR format. The user can retrieve the data blob and verify that (a) the root of the Merkle tree for the desired part is present and (b) the hash of the data blob is further resolved correctly toward the content version hash as described below.
Metadata stores are similarly stored in a data blob and can be verified the same as #2 above.
The content object “reference store” can be a data blob containing the hash of the content object parts data blob #2 and metadata #3.
Using this structure, a user in possession of any part of a content object (e.g., data or metadata) can verify that this data is correct and resolves to the known hash of the content object version.
In some implementations, the ‘content object version’ is recorded in the blockchain upon creation of the content object and update of the content object. The content object version can be recorded in the Commit transaction following a write to content. This transaction encodes the address of the account that performed the write operation and, in combination with the object proof, can prove unambiguously the blockchain account, and therefore the actor, responsible for a content operation. Applying this capability across the functioning of the content fabric allows for a transparent, provable chain of record for content as shown in
Another example of a content verification tree in JSON format is as follows:
For instance, given a content object part with the root_hash, “6bfc296a266462eb34c1fbad68d40a7f9805f0d4d6c2b75b0a5664fd5e844da2” and a segment size of 10 MB, the following proof is constructed such that if a user is in possession of any of the 10 MB segments, the hash tree can be calculated up to the ‘root_hash’.
In some implementations, the content fabric provides for scaling and monetizing the management and distribution of media with personalization, intelligence, and high efficiency. The following describes several areas of applications. Other use cases are possible.
In some implementations, the content fabric's JIT distribution capability allows consumer streaming variants differing in packaging format (DASH, HLS), bitrate, scaling and platform (smart TV, mobile, desktop, cable/over the air set top) to be generated from single master, i.e., mezzanine level sources without pre-generation (transcoding, packaging) and storage of the variants, saving time to market, complexity costs, and eliminating significant use of storage and distribution bandwidth.
In some implementations, failed content segments—bad or missing tracks, failed compliance, or other mistakes in quality control—can be corrected by replacing only the repaired portion of the master source, avoiding re-packaging and re-distributing new versions.
In some implementations, because the access to specific output variants is authorized via the fabric smart contracts, specific territorial variants and in theater versus home/retail release window policies (“avails terms”) can be encoded into smart contract policies, allowing a single source to serve global, and time-varying availability contracts and reduce the huge multi-department upstream work to control and implement date and time-specific availability terms.
In some implementations, flexibility and scalability of the smart contract-controlled content access in the content fabric and the programmable content transformation via bitcode allows for powerful new monetization opportunities directly between content owners, content licensees, content consumers and third party sponsors/advertisers. The following highlight a few categories:
In some implementations, users can earn credit via use of the custom pre- and post-hooks in content AccessRequest methods, allowing the content fabric to credit a user for viewing an ad, and the credit can be applied toward the subscription fee for accessing paid for content. Similarly users can choose to watch content with no ads. In some implementations, the content fabric can provide that:
the advertiser can be assured that an entire ad was streamed and be provided with details of the user that has watched the ad (optionally reported through data passed into the smart contract method);
In some implementations, with tagging and in particular the automated video classification and tagging of video via ML in the content fabric, and the flexibility of bitcode to “use” these tags as data to drive bitcode pipelines that generate the output content, advertising can be made specific to the end user and, as described above, fitted with the content in highly integrated ways.
In some implementations, combining this programmability with smart contracts, the content fabric can support giant-scale content marketplaces—where sponsors can bid on the content tags, owners can connect with sponsors universally (without bespoke/pre-existing advertising relationships), and users can even select content and advertising of their specific interest through their indicated preferences. User access to advertising content can be precisely known due to the contract transactions around content delivery, and this proof and settlement between content owners and advertisers can be handled quickly via smart contracts. In some implementations, the content fabric connects smart contracts to external digital payments services, so payment can continue to be done in flat currency avoiding any requirement relying on or influenced by cryptocurrency.
In some implementations, bitcode can be used to allow users to view, select (“clip”) and download preferred content, such as in online archives of news and sports, and the supporting smart contracts can feed back any metadata about the selected content, such as tags, or consented user data. Additionally, the price of content or even parts of the content can be intelligently updated by updating the content access charge in the smart contracts, allowing content owners to have smart, dynamic control to maximize the performance of their online content platforms.
Similarly, contributors of the content such as affiliate stations, partners, or content licensees can be directly paid based on the specific content performance by crediting their accounts through a smart contract transaction, avoiding delays, intermediate accounting and creating an efficient incentive for performance.
In some implementations, the content fabric can increase the possibility of direct performance-based payment through the following features: content licensees can accept contract terms quickly and digitally implementing a state recorded in a smart contract, and upload content according to a template that is dynamically rendered from the content type, and automatically request approval from the content owner. The approval can automatically update the state of the content object's smart contract and in turn credit the account of the licensee. Similarly, audience performance data recorded into the content object's contract can be used to compute and credit additional royalty payments. Both content owners and licensees benefit from the efficiency, scale, and performance incentives.
In some implementations, end users can be incentivized to review and report quality problems in content with credit via the backing smart contracts supplementing top-down content quality control with efficient crowd-sourced efforts.
In some implementations, as described with respect to ML for video classification, the content fabric's scalable metadata storage with content allows for creating giant scale search engines in which users can search for content matching preferences or even matching existing content samples. The “like this” content to be matched will itself be tagged and content with “similar tags” located and scored.
In some implementations, the content fabric can be used to build new media networks, platforms and channels that are based on traceable, provable content. In some implementations, the content fabric makes it possible to prevent this exploitation from the ground up by certifying the version and origin of any content it serves, and opens the possibility for a new class of provable media platforms.
In the example of
In
Client 3010 can be a computing device running a player application. In some implementations, the player application is executed within a Web browser. However, the player application can also be a standalone application or embedded within some other type of program. The manner in which content is accessed by the client 3010 depends on the media format of the content and can include, for example, audio played over a speaker/headset and video or static images rendered on a display screen. In some implementations, the content may be presented within an augmented, mixed, or virtual reality environment. For instance, the content can be a livestreamed concert held virtually, in which case the player application can be presented through a virtual reality headset.
Client 3010 can acquire the digital ticket 3004 and/or other credentials in various ways. For instance, the user can purchase the digital ticket 3004 from a digital payment system or win an electronic auction for the digital ticket. However, acquisition of the digital ticket 3004 is not necessarily conditioned upon payment or an exchange of value. In some implementations, the functionality in 3104 involves a sign-on process in which the identity of the user is verified through the user supplying their credentials (e.g., a username and password), either directly to the authority service or via a separate identity service provider. For instance, instead of a digital ticket, the client 3010 may present a single sign-on (SSO) token obtained from an O Auth service.
Presenting the digital ticket 3004 serves as a request to exchange the digital ticket for the authorization token 3006. In the example of
At 3108, the authority service redeems the digital ticket 3004, for instance, by sending an authorization request through an API call to the content fabric to execute the tenant contract 3022, which can reside within the fabric node of the authority service or on another node in the content fabric. The redemption can be recorded as a transaction (TX) in the blockchain ledger. The redemption process can involve the authority service (or some other entity executing the tenant contract 3022) checking whether one or more criteria associated with generating the authorization token 3006 are met. The one or more criteria can be specified as terms in the tenant contract 3022 and can include time windows within which the digital ticket 3004 is valid, restrictions for different classes of tickets, restrictions on the number of times the digital ticket can be redeemed for an authorization token, and/or the like. It should be noted that the criteria applied during the redemption process are not necessarily the same as the criteria by which the content fabric decides whether to grant the client access to content. For example, as discussed below, the criteria applied by the content fabric for determining access can be based on ownership of a digital instrument such as a non-fungible token (NFT). By way of analogy, the digital ticket and/or other user credentials can be viewed as a general admission ticket to a public venue, with the authority service serving as a gatekeeper. In order to access a specific service within the venue, the user needs to demonstrate that they own the right to do so, for example, by acquiring a separate ticket for the specific service. In some implementations, this separate ticket is a digital instrument that can be recorded in the content fabric any time prior to the decision whether to grant access to the content item being requested.
At 3106, upon successful redemption of the digital ticket, the authority service returns the authorization token 3006 to the client. In some implementations, the client may sign the authorization token upon receiving it, using a private key of the user 3002. Alternatively, the authorization token 3006 can be digitally signed on behalf of the user 3002 by the authority service using the private key of the user. In this manner, the authorization token 3006 may, in some instances, be considered a “self-signed” token that is presentable as proof of the right of the presenter to act in the capacity of the user 3002 or, more specifically, in the capacity of a user ID associated with the user. As discussed below, the user ID can be the user's blockchain address, which in some instances is an address of the user's cryptocurrency wallet.
At 3120 the user can then use the authorization token to browse a website 3030. The website 3030 is configured to manage and display links to titles of content objects such as video or audio streams, video or audio downloads, static digital images, etc. as well as a search index. The user 3002 can view content offerings (e.g., titles) through the website 3030 by submitting the authorization token 3006, using client 3010. For instance, website 3030 can prompt the user 3002 to submit the authorization token 3006 or a reference to the authorization token in an input field of a web page. In some implementations, the website 3030 operates as a portal to a content marketplace. The website 3030 may provide a digital catalog or search engine through which the user can obtain links to content that has been indexed. The specific offerings that are available to the user through the website 3030 may depend on the user's access rights. For instance, the website 3030 may limit the titles that are visible to the client 3010 based on the contents of the authorization token.
In some implementations, the website 3030 is a fabric node in the content fabric and can forward the authorization token 3006 to the content fabric for evaluation against a policy in a contract associated with the website 3030 to determine what content should be made visible to the client 3010. This evaluation process can be performed in a similar manner to the authorization token based evaluation described below for determining whether to grant the user access to content. However, in this case, the access rights pertain to the right to discover content rather than access the underlying content. Content that is discoverable can be rendered visible using metadata, images, and/or other media representing the content, for example, the name of a title, cover art of a music album, a thumbnail or preview image, a teaser video, etc. Accordingly, when navigating the digital catalog or performing searches on the website, the user 3002 may only be able to see images and links for content that are deemed discoverable for the user.
In some implementations, the user 3002 can indicate which item of digital content the user wants to access by selecting a corresponding link on the website 3030. Accordingly, at 3124, the website 3030 can return a content hash 3008 that identifies a content object 3050 associated with the selected link. The content hash 3008 may correspond to QHASH in
At 3128, the client can then request, from the content fabric, access to the content object 3050 identified by the content hash 3008. However, as described below, there are other ways for the content fabric to determine which digital content the user wants to access, such as linking to a digital instrument (e.g., an NFT) that is stored in association with the content object 3050. The access request at 3128 includes the authorization token 3006.
Upon receiving the authorization token, the content fabric verifies the authorization token against terms in the contract 3029. The terms of the contract 3029 include a policy 3040 defined by rules 3042 and data 3044. For example, the smart contract can query the policy rules at 3132 to determine a yes or no response. As described above, smart contracts can be implemented as executable code. Accordingly, in some implementations, the querying of the policy rules at 3132 can be performed using a function call to program code that evaluates the policy rules 3042. The policy rules 3042 can include at least one rule that specifies one or more conditions for determining whether to grant or deny access. The one or more conditions can include a condition relating to the data 3044. For instance, the data 3044 may include a list of NFTs associated with the content object 3050 or, more specifically in this example, a mezzanine version. Further, the policy rules 3042 may include one or more rules that condition access to the mezzanine version upon ownership of an NFT in the list of NFTs. The one or more rules can be in the form of logical expressions (e.g., regular expressions) that are configured to evaluate whether a listed NFT is owned by one or more user IDs/addresses. Thus, smart contract terms can be used to grant or deny access to content by the client 3010. Also or alternatively, smart contract terms can be used to grant or deny transfers of ownership to a user, for instance, to add the user 3002 as a co-owner of the content object 3050 or to transfer ownership to another user, from a cryptographic perspective.
The querying of the policy rules 3132 can be performed by a fabric node storing the contract 3029, which is not necessarily the same as the node receiving the access request or the node storing content being accessed. It will be understood from the disclosure in connection with
As shown in
In the case of the user 3002, the policy rules 3042 may provide for access to data 3024 of the mezzanine version but not the master format. For instance, the data 3024 of the mezzanine version can include version-specific artwork or video clips that can be viewed through the website 3030 when browsing or searching for the title of the mezzanine version. The mezzanine version can also include offerings (as described above in reference to
Further, the policy 3040 can be customizable to configure various extensible terms restricting access and/or ownership to particular roles or categories of users, particular timeframes, geographic regions (e.g., based on client IP address), etc. Such rules and data of the policy 3040 are linked with the contract 3029 and are highly configurable to set various limitations such as the number of times the user 3002 can stream the content (e.g., the mezzanine version), the number of times the user can download the content, etc. The policy's rules and data can be applied to control access to any static content or dynamic offering that is created via a transaction on the contract 3029. Also or alternatively, the policy 3040 can control whether a proxy owner can add additional owners of the content object, how many additional owners can be added, etc. Thus, onward transfer of content ownership can be limited, for instance, to increase or otherwise regulate commercial value of the content via the content fabric. A policy for access to content and/or for content ownership can include an ERC-20 token price, for instance, enforced by a smart contract.
Proxy transfer of ownership in the context of the content fabric is available is illustrated by an example in which an original owner A decides to sell or otherwise grant ownership of content associated with a content object to another user, referred to as owner B in this example. The ownership in this example is implemented as proxy ownership in that co-owners A and B are required to consent to any further transfer of ownership. So owner A has to consent if owner B wants to add another owner, owner C, in this example. Encryption mechanisms of the content fabric support such an implementation. For instance, owner B's keys can be added to owner A's keys in the content fabric's encryption scheme to provide two or more owners of the same content (e.g., another owner of the mezzanine version besides the user 3002).
Access to the content associated with the contract 3029 can involve any one of various access operations with respect to the content. For instance, the client may read the content, e.g., via file download or streaming. The client may also modify the content or generate derivatives of the content such as variations on a song or video. In some instances, access involves adding another owner or transferring ownership of the content to another user. Each of these access operations may result in the execution of a transaction recorded in a blockchain ledger. Access can be performed according to the methods described above. For example, through just-in-time transcoding as described in reference to
Another difference from the example in
An NFT template can be a collection of content object parts that are used to create or “mint” a new NFT and therefore a new instance of digital content. For example, the mezzanine version associated with the contract 3029 can be an NFT template from which variations of the mezzanine version can be created. In this manner, a single content object (e.g., content object 3050) can serve as a source of data from which numerous representations of an original content item (e.g., a master format) and/or representations of a derivative of the original content item (e.g., a mezzanine version) can be created in conjunction with recording ownership of such representations.
In the example of
Minting pursuant to the NFT contract 3210 can be performed by an NFT minter 3220 on behalf of a content owner. The content owner does not necessarily need exclusive ownership over the content object 3050 in order to mint an NFT using the content object 3050. For example, the content owner can be a sole or co-owner of the mezzanine version but not an owner of the master format. The minter 3220 can have its own tenant contract 3222. When NFTs are initially created for a content object (e.g., prior to any downstream minting by subsequent owners), the minting is typically performed at the request of a content creator or publisher. Accordingly, in some instances, the tenant contract 3222 of the minter may be the same as the tenant contract that governs whether an authorization token can be generated for the user (e.g., tenant contract 3022). Additionally, in some implementations, the content fabric may be in communication with one or more external blockchains, and NFTs minted on those external blockchains can be recorded in association with the content object 3050, as part of the NFT contract 3210.
In some implementations, the website 3030 or the authority service 3020 is configured to make a call into the NFT contract 3210 in order to determine which NFT template links are viewable for the client. The call may invoke a transaction that returns a list of all NFTs owned by the user ID or blockchain address of the user 3002. The call into the NFT contract 3210 can be performed after the authority service 3020 generates the authorization token 3006. Alternatively, in some implementations, the call into the NFT contract 3210 can be performed as part of generating the authorization token 3006, for example, so that the list of NFTs owned by the user 3002 is included in the authorization token 3006 and/or communicated to the website 3030 prior to the client representing the authorization token to the website 3030.
When the user 3002 selects a link to an NFT template, the website 3030 returns an NFT template hash 3208, which can be implemented using QHASH as described earlier. The NFT template hash 3208 functions similarly to the content hash 3008 in
As shown in
Upon receiving the authorization token, the content fabric verifies the authorization token against terms in the contract 3029, in particular the policy 3040. In
An NFT can be identified by a token ID, which in ERC-721 is a unique ID in the form an unsigned 256-bit integer that represents a single asset. The token ID is mapped to an owner ID that is a blockchain address. Thus, the owner of the NFT, and therefore the owner of the digital content represented by the NFT, can be looked up based on a function call using the token ID as an input parameter. Transfers of ownership can be recorded using a “from” address of the transferring owner and a “to” address of the new owner. ERC-721 supports an optional metadata extension that permits an ERC-721 contract to return, based on input of a uniform resource identifier (URI), NFT metadata such as the name of the digital content, a description of the digital content, or a thumbnail image representing the digital content. The token URI can be a location-based address such as an HTTP address. In some implementations, the token URI is an InterPlanetary File System (IPFS) content identifier (CID). The CID is a cryptographic hash of the content it identifies (e.g., NFT metadata) and therefore provides for content-based addressing, which is generally more permanent than location-based addressing. An IPFS can be used to optionally store NFT metadata off-chain, external to the blockchain of the content fabric.
Evaluation of the policy rules 3042 to determine whether to grant or deny access to the user 3002 can be performed in a similar manner to the evaluation described in reference to
After the user ID is extracted, the policy rules 3042 can be evaluated to determine whether the user ID corresponds to an owner of one of the NFTs listed in the policy data 3044. Evaluation of the rules 3042 may involve calling into the NFT contract 3210 to check whether the extracted user ID matches any of the owner addresses for a listed NFT. For example, the extracted user ID can be compared to the owner of the NFT address 3046 to determine whether the user 3002 owns the NFT identified by the NFT address 3046. If the owner of the NFT address 3046 and the user ID match, access to the content associated with the contract 3029 (e.g., the mezzanine version) is granted assuming that other conditions, if any, defined in the policy rules 3042 are also satisfied. As described above in connection with the example of
The authorization token 3006 in
At 3304, the crypto wallet 3330 sends a request to a KMS 3350 for security keys, e.g., the public/private key pair of the crypto wallet 3330. Depending on implementation, the security keys can also be stored locally within the crypto wallet 3330. Further, in some implementations, the KMS 3350 may support proxy re-encryption as described above with respect to the KMS 2616 in
At 3306, the crypto wallet 3330 provides the client 3010 with a list of NFTs that the user 3002 owns, i.e., NFTs identified by the NFT addresses owned by the crypto wallet's address. The user can then select the NFT representing the content that the user wants to access, so that an address 3338 of the selected NFT is returned to the client 3010. In some implementations, the address 3338 is a combination of the token ID described above in reference to
At 3308, the client sends a request for NFT metadata to the content fabric, using an API call to the fabric API layer 3250 to pass in the NFT address 3338.
At 3310, the content fabric returns metadata of the NFT identified by the NFT address 3308. The metadata returned at 3310 includes the NFT template hash 3208 described above in reference to
At 3312, the client sends an access request including the authorization token 3006 and referencing the NFT template hash 3208. The access request in 3312 can therefore be processed in the same manner as in
The flow of operations in
At 3416, in response to user selection of a link to an NFT template, the website 3410 returns an identifier of the NFT template, e.g., NFT template hash 3208, as shown.
At 3418, the client sends a mint request via an API call to the fabric API layer 3250. The mint request references the NFT template hash 3208 and includes the authorization token 3406. The mint request may further include mint metadata 3442 and/or NFT metadata 3444. Upon successful execution of the mint transaction, the mint metadata 3442 can be stored in association with the contract 3029 and describes the digital content (e.g., a variation of the content object 3050) that is represented by the NFT being created. Similar to the metadata for an IMF package, the mint metadata 3442 can define content play lists or offering playlists and, in some implementations, may implement logic for creating an output variant as a new offering, e.g., using a JSON object or a Makefile. Thus, the user 3002 can be a content consumer as well as a content publisher.
At 3420, the contract 3029 is executed to evaluate the policy 3040 for permission to mint an NFT. If one or more policy rules 3042 governing minting are satisfied, the NFT contract 3210 is executed on behalf of the user 3002, e.g., by calling into the NFT contract 3210 using the hash 3208, at 3422.
Execution of the NFT contract 3210 can be performed in response to a request from an authorized minter such as the NFT minter 3220. The NFT minter 3220 can be part of the content fabric and may, at 3424, obtain its security keys from a KMS 3450 to generate a signed mint transaction (TX2), which can be recorded in the blockchain of the content fabric. Alternatively, the minting can be performed on another blockchain. Irrespective of which blockchain the NFT is minted on, an identifier of the NFT's owner can be recorded as part of the NFT contract 3210. Unless a different owner is specified as part of the mint request in 3418, the resulting NFT may default to the user 3002 as being the owner. Thus, the resulting NFT may be linked to the address of the crypto wallet 3330 or to the address of some other user.
At 3502, the client presents an identity credential. The identity credential can take many forms and may, for example, be the digital ticket 3004, the OAuth token 3204, or some other sign-on token that can be evaluated to verify the identity of the user of the client. Additionally, the identity credential may include or be associated with a claim of access rights. For instance, the authority service may be configured to recognize that the identity credential is being presented in connection with an access request directed to the content fabric.
At 3504, the authority service validates the identity credential to generate an authorization token (e.g., authorization token 3006 or 3406) that is digitally signed using the user's private key. The authority service determines whether one or more conditions for issuing the authorization are satisfied. The one or more conditions can be specified as terms in a tenant contract (e.g., tenant contract 3022). Alternatively or additionally, generation of the authorization token can be conditioned upon successful return of one or more NFT addresses through a call to the content fabric, as discussed above in reference to
At 3506, the authority service returns the authorization token to the client.
At 3508, the client uses the authorization token to obtain information identifying content to be accessed or information identifying a digital instrument associated with such content. For instance, the client may obtain content hash 3008 or NFT template hash 3208 through selecting a corresponding link on a website. The website may be configured to present the links based on evaluation of the authorization token 3406, which can be performed locally or through an API call to the content fabric. In the example of
At 3510, the client generates an access request including the authorization token, which has now been signed on behalf of the user. The access request references the information obtained in 3508 (e.g., a QHASH), thereby enabling the content fabric to locate the digital contract (e.g., contract 3029) for the content identified by this information.
At 3512, the client sends the access request to the content fabric, which validates the authorization token at 3514. The validation performed by the content fabric may involve verifying the authenticity of the authorization token based on the digital signature of the user.
Additionally, at 3514, the content fabric extracts a user ID from the authorization token. In some implementations, the user ID is extracted cryptographically as a function of the user's digital signature.
At 3516, the content fabric determines, based on a policy in the digital contract that one or more rules governing access are satisfied. The rule(s) may condition access to the content at least upon the user ID matching an ID of an owner of the digital instrument associated with the content. In this manner, ownership of the digital instrument may be a prerequisite for access to be granted. The one or more rules can impose addition conditions, including, for example, restrictions on the types of access rights that the owner of the digital instrument has (read, write, mint, ownership transfer, etc.). The digital instrument can be an NFT. More generally, the digital instrument can be any unit of data that is stored on a blockchain ledger as a unique representation of the digital content. In this context, uniqueness means that the digital instrument is itself unique and the only digital instrument that the content fabric considers to be a valid representation of the digital content. However, other digital instruments (e.g., additional NFTs) may be created to represent separate instances of the same content. The relationship between the digital instrument and its owner can be reflected in a hash table entry (e.g., a hash table in the NFT contract 3210) that maps an ID of the digital instrument to a user ID (e.g., the blockchain address of the user or the user's crypto wallet).
At 3518, the content fabric provides the client with access to the content in accordance with the terms of the policy. Depending on the nature of the access request, the content fabric can perform any of various access operations as part of providing access to the content, such as delivering the content to the client, recording a transfer of ownership, or publishing a variation of the content.
At 3604, the authority service verifies that the identity credential is valid, for example, that the username and password match a stored username and password. If the identity credential is a sign-on token (e.g., the OAuth token 3204), the authority service may verify a digital signature of the sign-on token, e.g., using a public key of the entity that created the sign-on token.
At 3606, the authority service determines that one or more authorization conditions are satisfied. The determination in 3606 can be based on information included in the identity credential, information included in the request for the authorization token and/or information about the client. Such information can indicate what type of access the client is requesting as well as the content that the client is requesting. The specificity of this information can vary. For instance, the information may indicate that the client is requesting streaming access to content from a library of a particular publisher but without specifying which content item in the library the client wants to access. The one or more authorization conditions can implement time based or other restrictions. For example, the identity credential may only be usable for obtaining access during certain time periods or may only be valid for certain types of content. The authorization conditions can also include quality of service conditions. For instance, a video resolution of streaming content can vary depending on the class of digital ticket or on the type of subscription associated with a user profile. In some instances, the authorization conditions may limit the number of times a digital ticket or sign-on token can be used to request an authorization token. For example, the digital ticket or the user identified by the sign-on token may be limited to a certain number of views or downloads. The one or more authorization conditions are typically specified by a content publisher to control access to their content and can be defined programmatically. In some implementations, the authorization conditions are specified as terms in a tenant contract associated with the authority service.
The determination in 3606 serves as a preliminary check on whether the client can proceed with requesting access to content managed by the content fabric. As described above, whether or not the client will be able to access content that is the subject of the access request depends on the terms of a digital contract associated with the content, e.g., the contract 3029.
At 3608, the authority service generates an authorization token in response to the determination in 3606 that the one or more authorization conditions are satisfied. The authorization token may be digitally signed by the authority service on behalf of the user. As such, the authorization token is usable for extracting the identity of the user for whom the authorization token is generated. In some implementations, the authorization token also indicates the access permissions that the presenter of the authorization token purportedly has, for example, read permission, permission to obtain a certain quality of service level, permission to transfer ownership of content, and/or the like.
At 3610, the authority service returns the authorization token to the client so that the client can present the authorization token in connection with an access request.
At 3704, the website generates a content inquiry and sends the inquiry to the content fabric. The inquiry includes the authorization token received from the client.
At 3706, the content fabric validates the authorization token to extract a user ID from the authorization token. The extracted user ID may, for example, be a blockchain address of the user's crypto wallet. The validation in 3706 can be performed in a similar manner as in block 3514 of
At 3708, the content fabric obtains, based on the user ID, a list of discoverable content. In some implementations, the discoverable content is enumerated in a contract associated with the website. The website contract may, for example, include a list of user IDs and, for each user ID, a list of content that is discoverable for that user ID. Alternatively, the discoverable content can be identified based on an NFT contract. In the case of an NFT contract, invoking the NFT contract may return a list of NFTs owned by the user ID to indicate that the content represented by the listed NFTs is discoverable for the user. Content that is publicly discoverable need not be explicitly associated with any particular user ID. However, content that is discoverable only to select users can be specified in the website or NFT contract through associating such content with one or more user IDs that are permitted to discover such content.
At 3710, the content fabric communicates the list of discoverable content to the website.
At 3712, the website makes the content in the list of discoverable content visible to the client. The website can render the content visible using text and/or graphics, based on content metadata, NFT metadata, and/or other data available to the website. For instance, the website can present the names of content (e.g., titles), content descriptions, and/or thumbnail images representing content. In some implementations, the content metadata is communicated to the website from the content fabric prior to presentation of the authorization token in 3702. Alternatively or additionally, the content metadata can be communicated on a per inquiry basis so that only metadata associated with content discoverable for the user ID extracted from the authorization token is communicated to the website.
At 3714, the client selects one of the discoverable content, for example, by activating a corresponding hyperlink. In some instances, the selected content corresponds to an NFT template.
At 3716, the website returns an address of the selected content to the client. The address can be in the form of a QHASH. The client can then generate an access request to the content fabric and referencing the address.
It should be noted that, despite references to particular computing paradigms and software tools herein, computing device program instructions on which various implementations are based may correspond to any of a wide variety of programming languages, software tools and data formats, and be stored in any type of non-transitory computer-readable storage media or memory device(s), and may be executed according to a variety of computing models including, for example, a client/server model, a peer-to-peer model, on a stand-alone computing device, or according to a distributed computing model in which various functionalities may be effected or employed at different locations. In addition, references to particular protocols herein are merely by way of example. Suitable alternatives known to those of skill in the art may be employed.
Any of the computing devices described herein have components including one or more processors, memory devices, input/output systems, etc. electrically coupled to each other, either directly or indirectly, and in communication with each other, either directly or indirectly, for operative couplings. Such computing devices include clients as well as servers. For instance, computer code can be run using a processor in the form of a central processing unit such as an Intel processor or the like. Data and code can be stored locally on the computing device on computer-readable media, examples of which are described in greater detail herein. In some alternatives, portions of data and code can be stored on other computing devices in a network. A computing device can be implemented to have a processor system with a combination of processors. An input system of the computing device may be any combination of input devices, such as one or more keyboards, mice, trackballs, scanners, cameras, and/or interfaces to networks. An output system of the computing device may be any combination of output devices, such as one or more monitors, printers, and/or interfaces to networks.
Any of the modules, models, engines and operations described herein may be implemented at least in part as software code to be executed by a processor using any suitable computer language such as but not limited to C, Go, Java, and C++, by way of example only. The software code may be stored as a series of instructions or commands on a computer-readable medium for storage and/or transmission. Suitable computer-readable media include random access memory (RAM), read only memory (ROM), a magnetic medium such as a hard-drive or a floppy disk, an optical medium such as a compact disk (CD) or DVD (digital versatile disk), flash memory, and the like. The computer-readable medium may be any combination of such storage or transmission devices. Computer-readable media encoded with the software/program code may be packaged with a compatible computing device such as a client or a server as described above or provided separately from other devices. Any such computer-readable medium may reside on or within a single computing device or an entire computer system, and may be among other computer-readable media within a system or network. A computing device such as the clients described above may include a monitor, printer, or other suitable display for providing any of the results mentioned herein to a user.
While the subject matter of this application has been particularly shown and described with reference to specific implementations thereof, it will be understood by those skilled in the art that changes in the form and details of the disclosed implementations may be made without departing from the spirit or scope of this disclosure. Examples of some of these implementations are illustrated in the accompanying drawings, and specific details are set forth in order to provide a thorough understanding thereof. It should be noted that implementations may be practiced without some or all of these specific details. In addition, well known features may not have been described in detail to promote clarity. Finally, although various advantages have been discussed herein with reference to various implementations, it will be understood that the scope should not be limited by reference to such advantages. Rather, the scope should be determined with reference to the appended claims.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8832816 | Wright | Sep 2014 | B2 |
| 8868915 | Counterman | Oct 2014 | B2 |
| 9270660 | Smith et al. | Feb 2016 | B2 |
| 9379895 | Kailash et al. | Jun 2016 | B2 |
| 10355869 | Bisti | Jul 2019 | B2 |
| 10797994 | Munson et al. | Oct 2020 | B1 |
| 10805084 | Munson et al. | Oct 2020 | B1 |
| 10827416 | Lou et al. | Nov 2020 | B2 |
| 10873587 | Kuperman et al. | Dec 2020 | B2 |
| 10880200 | Munson et al. | Dec 2020 | B1 |
| 10917332 | Munson et al. | Feb 2021 | B1 |
| 10938791 | Munson et al. | Mar 2021 | B1 |
| 10970411 | Judka | Apr 2021 | B2 |
| 11063864 | Munson et al. | Jul 2021 | B2 |
| 11063865 | Munson et al. | Jul 2021 | B2 |
| 11140077 | Munson et al. | Oct 2021 | B2 |
| 11218409 | Munson et al. | Jan 2022 | B2 |
| 11233734 | Munson et al. | Jan 2022 | B2 |
| 11494761 | Goeringer | Nov 2022 | B2 |
| 11606291 | Simu et al. | Mar 2023 | B2 |
| 20130238903 | Mizunuma | Sep 2013 | A1 |
| 20130283362 | Kress et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
| 20150006902 | Chang et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
| 20150269559 | Inotay et al. | Sep 2015 | A1 |
| 20160028547 | Yao et al. | Jan 2016 | A1 |
| 20170134161 | Goeringer | May 2017 | A1 |
| 20170221029 | Lund et al. | Aug 2017 | A1 |
| 20180083971 | Brown et al. | Mar 2018 | A1 |
| 20180089651 | Lund | Mar 2018 | A9 |
| 20190149550 | Brakeville et al. | May 2019 | A1 |
| 20190238327 | Li et al. | Aug 2019 | A1 |
| 20210092059 | Munson et al. | Mar 2021 | A1 |
| 20210092060 | Munson et al. | Mar 2021 | A1 |
| 20220210061 | Simu et al. | Jun 2022 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 6710401 | Jun 2020 | JP |
| Entry |
|---|
| Abu-El-Haija, et al., “YouTube-8M: A Large-Scale Video Classification Benchmark” arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.08675, 2016. |
| Arandjelovic, et al., “NetVLAD: CNN architecture for weakly supervised place recognition” Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2016. |
| Bestavros, Azer: Comprehensive List of Publications, Department of Computer Science, Boston University, Jul. 18, 2018. |
| “CBOR” Wikipedia article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBOR, 2020. |
| Chen, et al., “XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System” Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, ACM, pp. 785-794, 2016. |
| “DPP leads the way at IBC on IMF adoption” Digital Production Partnership, Sep. 2018. |
| “General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)” Intersoft Consulting Table of Contents: https://gdpr-info.eu, 2020. |
| Herbaut, N. et al., “A Model for Collaborative Blockchain-Based Video Delivery Relying on Advanced Network Services Chains”, Advances in Network Services Chain, IEEE Communications Magazine, Sep. 2017, pp. 70-76. |
| International Preliminary Report on Patentability dated Sep. 28, 2023, in Application No. PCT/US2022/020826. |
| International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Jun. 24, 2022, in PCT Application No. PCT/US2022/020826. |
| Jacobson, et al., “Networking Named Content” Commun. ACM 55, 2009. |
| Jordan, et al. “Hierarchical mixtures of experts and the EM algorithm” Neural Computation, vol. 6, Issue 2, Mar. 1994. |
| Ke, et al., “LightGBM: A Highly Efficient Gradient Boosting Decision Tree” 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), 2017. |
| Little, Amy, “Named Data Networking—YouTube.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4dPKFDLCP4, Dec. 10, 2014. |
| Maymounkov, et al., “Kademlia: A Peer-to-peer Information System Based on the XOR Metric” MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) Parallel & Distributed Operating Systems Group (PDOS), Oct. 2002. |
| McKinnon, John D., “Big Tech Companies to Appear Before Senate to Discuss Privacy” The Wall Street Journal, Sep. 12, 2018. |
| “Merkle Tree” Wikipedia article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkle_tree, 2020. |
| Miech, et al., “Learnable pooling with Context Gating for video classification” arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.06905, 2017. |
| “OV 2067-0:2018—SMPTE Overview Document—Interoperable Master Format” IEEE Xplore, Jun. 25, 2018. |
| Ramezan, G. et al., “A Survey of Secure Routing Protocols in Multi-Hop Cellular Networks”, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 2018, vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 3510-3541. |
| Robertson, et al., “New Evidence of Hacked Supermicro Hardware Found in U.S. Telecom” Bloomberg, Oct. 9, 2018. |
| Robertson, et al., “The Big Hack: How China Used a Tiny Chip to Infiltrate US Companies” Bloomberg Businessweek, Oct. 4, 2018. |
| Rowstron, et al., “Pastry: Scalable, decentralized object location and routing for large-scale peer-to-peer systems” IFIP/ACM International Conference on Distributed Systems Platforms (Middleware), Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 329-350, Nov. 2001. |
| Singer, Natasha, “Just Don't Call It Privacy” The New York Times, Sep. 22, 2018. |
| Stoica, et al., “Chord: A Scalable Peer-to-peer Lookup Protocol for Internet Applications” MIT CSAIL PDOS, Feb. 2003. |
| Sutskever, et al., “Seq+B50uence to Sequence Learning with Neural Networks” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2014. |
| “The LLVM Compiler Infrastructure” LLVM project: http://llvm.org/, 2020. |
| “The Zettabyte Era: Trends and Analysis—Cisco” Cisco Visual Networking Index, Jun. 2017. |
| Tufekci, Zeynep, “How social media took us from Tahrir Square to Donald Trump” MIT Technology Review, Aug. 14, 2018. |
| U.S. Notice of Allowance dated Nov. 9, 2022 in U.S. Appl. No. 17/655,355. |
| U.S. Final Rejection dated Oct. 14, 2022, in U.S. Appl. No. 17/655,355. |
| U.S. Non-Final Office Action dated Jun. 24, 2022, in U.S. Appl. No. 17/655,355. |
| Wang, C. et al., “Integration of Networking, Caching, and Computing in Wireless Systems: A Survey, Some Research Issues, and Challenges” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 2018, vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 7-38. |
| Xu, Q. et al., “Blockchain-based Decentralized Content Trust for Docker Images”, Multimedia Tools and Applications, Jul. 2018, vol. 77, pp. 18223-18248. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20230318972 A1 | Oct 2023 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 63162447 | Mar 2021 | US | |
| 62746475 | Oct 2018 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 17655355 | Mar 2022 | US |
| Child | 18165810 | US | |
| Parent | 16840092 | Apr 2020 | US |
| Child | 16948194 | US | |
| Parent | 16655033 | Oct 2019 | US |
| Child | 16840092 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 16948194 | Sep 2020 | US |
| Child | 17655355 | US |
