I can see your point, yeah. I think it's legitimate that a security measure could be associated with a certain firm but you have to make a fair number of assumptions-- say, for example, that it's assumed to be able to READ the clips, you have to be online, because the security firm wrote the copy protection that's used to validate the clips to require online access. And the security firm did that because they earn money by licensing their protection to the publishers who use said media format.

Just *random* watermarks though, I would have significant doubts about the makers being able to identify who'd viewed the clips unless the media players were processing them somehow.