I want to put the transparent gif over my images to prevent people right-clicking the images and saving them - however if i set an image as a background to a cell, Firefox doesn't display it (the background image).
I've tried using this 'background' method using html and css, and neither work...
Does anyone have any ideas why it doesn't work in Firefox, and how I can fix it / write the code so that it does work?
Thanks people :)
Also... and i know this should probably go in a new thread but i'm trying to save board space and i'm in a hurry - does anyone know how i can put a fixed-size layer into a fixed (larger) size cell of a table, and allow the layer to scroll automatically?
Again, I've tried it and, when opening in Firefox, the layer seems to move around the screen when re-sizing the window or changing the resolution, as opposed to staying fixed in the cell table (the dimensions are all fixed in pixels, not %age)
NogDog
11-24-2005, 07:41 AM
If your web server supports PHP, take a look at Bokeh's article on image watermarking (http://bokehman.com/watermark).
crisen
11-24-2005, 08:30 AM
Is this a solution for you: disable left click at all?
So when the user left-clicks you'll show a message or do nothing.
If yes, you have to take care of the IE functionality "imagetoolbar" (it shows a toolbar over the image and the user can save it from there).
Take a look at http://www.senchiu.de to see this denial implemented.
If this is what you need or you need more help tell me (best by email, 'cause i don't know when i'm gonna read this forum again).
Hope i can help.
Cristian Senchiu
http//www.senchiu.de
NogDog
11-24-2005, 09:07 AM
Is this a solution for you: disable left click at all?
So when the user left-clicks you'll show a message or do nothing.
If yes, you have to take care of the IE functionality "imagetoolbar" (it shows a toolbar over the image and the user can save it from there).
Take a look at http://www.senchiu.de to see this denial implemented.
...
This will only stop the very internet-ignorant from grabbing your images. See http://www.webdeveloper.com/forum/showthread.php?t=86138 for more info.
Firstly, you can't stop people copying the image as they just need to look in their cache to save it. And don't disable the right-click as you'll just annoy the hell people. However here's something that works in Firefox, lying a blank gif over the image:
Do these techniques stop the mighty Screenshot button on the keyboard?
The real point here is that every time somebody visits your site, they're stealing your images! :eek: That's right! Their browser communicates to your server, which goes behind your back and COPIES YOUR IMAGE without asking you or demanding payment from the user. Then the browser has the AUDACITY to save this image and SAVE IT TO A CACHE so that it's physically possible to save on the string.
In all seriousness, it's not possible. You are sending people the image, all your doing is disabling functionality. If you don't want it stolen, it doesn't belong on the internet. How are you going to stop people from getting a file you've already sent them?
crisen
11-24-2005, 01:17 PM
Hei, i never said it's possible to stop someone to copy your images, if they are on your website! I thought everybody knows it's impossible. If they appear on the site -> they are accessible -> you can open directly their urls for example. And all the "blocking" stuff means nothing because the user, if he doesn't know/make about cache, still can save your page locally.
I was suggesting to make harder for some of the visitors (not those smart enough) to get them. Many of those surfing are not like us. They try "right click and save" or use that imagetoolbar in IE. Could be that they'll quit if that doesn't work.
Cristian
http://www.senchiu.de
MstrBob
11-24-2005, 06:53 PM
Except most all these techniques disable functionality. I use the right-click context menu for things other than Save As.. and when that's "disabled" it just plain irritates people.
pottersdt2k
11-27-2005, 11:38 AM
Guys, thanks for the help, it's much appreciated.
All of my images are going to have a watermark in them anyway, making them (practically) impossible for anyone else to use... I saw the "blank gif over the original image" in a magazine on web design over here in the UK whilst flicking through it in a shop - however I refuse to pay £5 for the magazine when I aren't going to use 99% of it as it's all marketing hosts/designers etc... However, I was curious as to how this "blank gif over original image" works in Firefox, as I've so far not been able to get it to work. (And furthermore, after testing this method on my pc using firefox and IE, I was surprised to see that it only worked in IE, thus showing that this particular magazine leans towards IE rather than suggesting and promoting the other browsers out there that are so much better)
I do NOT want to disable functionality on my web site, and I am aware of the cache-ing of images and codes into the user's pc, however the vast majority of pc users do not actually know how to access this cache - whether it's due to their experience, or because it involves delving into areas of the pc that just scares them (it's amazing how people get scared when they see all of those folders, don't you think?!)
As I said, I was wondering how to get this "blank gif over original image" thing to work in Firefox, as an extra 'protection' - although I probably won't use the method on my site, because as I said, the images will be watermarked anyway.
Thanks for the link to Bokeh's watermarking page - as I don't know that much about php, I aren't going to use this technology on my site - it's something that I want to learn about more before building a site around it. But many thanks for the info - and it looks very interesting.
Does anybody have any comments to make re: the layer problems I'm having?
Also... and i know this should probably go in a new thread but i'm trying to save board space and i'm in a hurry - does anyone know how i can put a fixed-size layer into a fixed (larger) size cell of a table, and allow the layer to scroll automatically?
Again, I've tried it and, when opening in Firefox, the layer seems to move around the screen when re-sizing the window or changing the resolution, as opposed to staying fixed in the cell table (the dimensions are all fixed in pixels, not %age)
zingmatter
11-27-2005, 12:20 PM
Have you tried the method I gave above? I found it worked on FireFox.
MstrBob
11-27-2005, 12:43 PM
Even people who don't go messing around with the cache use the screenshot button on the keyboard. I've got friends who know nothing about how computers work, but they use the Print Screen button a lot.
I've seen many methods to try to stop people, but watermarks are by far the most effective. People won't steal images and pass them off as their own, because they can't. If you have someone who would even with it, well, there's nothing you can do to stop them. The blank GIF method is rather pointless. But to each his own, I guess.
felgall
11-27-2005, 01:19 PM
The blank gif overlay method is more effective than trying to disable the right click menu to prevent people using that to save a copy of the image since the transparent image works in all browsers while some browsers don't allow the menu to be disabled. It also doesn't interfere with legitimate use of the menu. It is therefore a method of providing some protection for images - from those who only know how to steal via the right click menu - without interfering with anyone else. It is therefore a 100000% better solution than using a no right click script even though it doesn't stop most people from stealing the image since at least it has no side effects.
Bubble #5
11-28-2005, 06:02 PM
Last year I read about some company that had a service that you subscribed to which allowed your images to appear only on your site, but it was very pricey as I remember it was only for someone like a professional photographer. They accomplished this with special code that you use with your images and also on your server. If the code didn't appear, or didn't match up the image would be broken, and yes it even prevented using the screenshot button. You could probably do a google on it, but don't fall over in your chair when you see what their service costs :p The easiest and best way to get around the right click issue is to just embed your image in flash, but they can still use the print screen button. Maybe you should use a combination of things to accomplish what you're tring to do, like flash and overlay, in which case all you'd need would be flash to do both :)
MstrBob
11-28-2005, 06:12 PM
If I remember, there was a member of this forum (can't find the thread now) who created a very secure way of stopping image capture but it was foiled by Screenshots. There's no way around it, if the browser gets it, so can the user save it. All you can do is make it more difficult. But if you have a determined person they certainly can do it.
Bubble #5
11-28-2005, 06:28 PM
Hey pottersdt2k check THIS (http://www.regnow.com/softsell/nph-softsell.cgi?item=8527-2&affiliate=55364) out! It disables Clipboard and Print Screen, has an option to disable right clicking, disables Adobe Acrobat web capture and view source, offline viewing and even password protects if you want it to :D It also protects images on your page by adding text-base or image-based watermarks! Best of all it's really cheap :p They have a free trial HERE (http://www.regnow.com/trialware/download/Download_htmlprotector.exe?item=8527-2&affiliate=55364) so you've got nothing to lose by trying it out.
Hope it helps :)
.
pathfinder74
11-28-2005, 06:42 PM
watermarks are by far the most effective.
Depends how much the watermark dominates the image and how much the person wants the image. If they're willing to put the time in with Photoshop and use the hell out of their healing brush the watermark becomes rather ineffective too... not that I'm speaking from experience... ;)
MstrBob
11-28-2005, 07:59 PM
Depends how much the watermark dominates the image and how much the person wants the image. If they're willing to put the time in with Photoshop and use the hell out of their healing brush the watermark becomes rather ineffective too... not that I'm speaking from experience... ;)
But as I said, there is no way to stop someone that determined. All you can do is make it more difficult to get the image, not impossible.
Bubble #5 - No. I've seen countless software like that, and they've all failed. Why waste your money on something like that? It's not going to stop anyone, but it does hamper the usability of your website. Whenever I see these things, I go to the demo, copy the source and email the source, unencrypted and everything, back to the people. This one doesn't even offer a demo.
No faith in their product?
Bubble #5
11-28-2005, 09:26 PM
No. I've seen countless software like that, and they've all failed. Why waste your money on something like that? It's not going to stop anyone
Well I'll tell you what, HERE'S ( http://www.antssoft.com/htmlprotector/protected_sample.htm) a page protected by that program. How about you posting a screenshot of that page for us here :p
This program was highlighted on CNN and the guy there said that this new program uses new technology and it works pretty good. Guess we'll find out when you either post that screenshot or not :D
MstrBob
11-28-2005, 09:57 PM
Are you serious? I did nothing more than open the page and press the Printscreen button on my keyboard.
Plus, for good measure, here's the Markup.
Bubble #5
11-28-2005, 10:10 PM
I did nothing more than open the page and press the Printscreen button on my keyboard.
Then why isn't printscreen working on that page on our keyboard. Maybe it's because we're on IE and you weren't. We weren't even able to copy the link from their page. As for viewing the source it was still encrypted so they do get points for that :p I'll contact them and see what they say about why your browser wasn't effected, should be interesting.
MstrBob
11-28-2005, 10:18 PM
Then why isn't printscreen working on that page on our keyboard. Maybe it's because we're on IE and you weren't. We weren't even able to copy the link from their page. As for viewing the source it was still encrypted so they do get points for that :p I'll contact them and see what they say about why your browser wasn't effected, should be interesting.
Well, actually, I copied the unencrypted source. Scrolldown and you'll see. They just have a large number of "encryption" javascript at the top.
Yes, though, IE allows it to be disabled. But IE is a buggy browser, which is why I generally (and most people I know now) use either Firefox or Opera. I can tell you though, that your page being reliant on Javascript means that 10% of users can't access the page at all, plus you'll never get indexed by a search engine. Search engines access your page and index the content. You have no content (search engines don't support javascript). So all you're doing is screwing over yourself, your legit users, and really only slowing down someone determined to get your content/code/images.
Bubble #5
11-29-2005, 02:10 AM
I can tell you though, that your page being reliant on Javascript means that 10% of users can't access the page at all
I don't think it's reliant on javascript because I turned it off and could still view the page. They might be doing something different with it.
plus you'll never get indexed by a search engine.
We're using links at the bottom of every page and a good ol' fashioned HTML site map for that :D
zingmatter
11-29-2005, 03:50 AM
Actually, you could use Real Media. Yes it is a movie format so I don't know how it would work for a still but you can't screen grab. Just a thought anyway. I must admit, if you don't want an image stolen then just don't put it on public display. Book publishers can't stop you from photocopying the pages of a book, it just an occupational hazzard.
MstrBob
11-29-2005, 02:26 PM
I don't think it's reliant on javascript because I turned it off and could still view the page. They might be doing something different with it.
We're using links at the bottom of every page and a good ol' fashioned HTML site map for that :D
If you attempt to access the page with Javascript already turned off, you can't get at the content. You've "encrypted" your content and need JS to "unencrypt" it.
Plus, it doesn't matter how many links you have available. Search engines index based on content. If you haven't any content, you'll never be assosciated with a search, and might even be labeled a link farm. Getting a site that was labeled a link farm back on the maps can be quite difficult.
You can't have it both ways. Either have your content and markup out there and accessible like it should be, or don't put it on the web. Using realmedia, flash, or javascript "encryption" is trying to have it both ways. That doesn't work. This is a world wide web, if you don't want it on the world wide web, don't put it up!
pathfinder74
11-29-2005, 07:52 PM
Well you could always have a sweet site with lots of pretty pictures and never give anyone the link... ;)
Robert Wellock
11-30-2005, 07:48 AM
What a load of cr*p that product is and Firefox Easily gets past ALL the security settings!
Please take a look on what HTMLProtector can do for you!
Yes, make your site inaccessible rather than the source code or images it says it protects. :p
felgall
11-30-2005, 02:39 PM
If you properly optimize your images for the web then their resolution will not be high enough for them to be used anywhere else. If you then watermark them you identify their owner. The further loss of resolution if anyone removes the watermark will make them such a low resolution as to be unsuitable for use anywhere.
Bubble #5
11-30-2005, 03:05 PM
What a load of cr*p that product is and Firefox Easily gets past ALL the security settings!
Well it works as advertised with IE, and as the majority of people still use IE that's good enough for me :D I mean it's not like someone is going to think "gee it doesn't work for firefox so I'll just let all the IE users see the code too" :p
Felgall that's a great idea :) If someone is going to steal your images at least make them work hard for it ;)
MstrBob
11-30-2005, 05:08 PM
Well it works as advertised with IE, and as the majority of people still use IE that's good enough for me :D I mean it's not like someone is going to think "gee it doesn't work for firefox so I'll just let all the IE users see the code too" :p
You're right. People should definitely use that and stop search engines and people without Javascript from being able to even see their website. I mean, they don't hava JS, so it's entirely their fault? Why should they get to freely access webpages like everyone else even though their browsers are unable to support JS. If they're blind and using an audio browser, that's their problem! And search engine listing is for wimps. :rolleyes:
Bubble #5
11-30-2005, 05:58 PM
I mean, they don't hava JS, so it's entirely their fault?
They HAVE JS, they just CHOOSE not to use it. That's their decision to live with. Some people still use IE 4.0. We're not concerned with them either :p It all comes down to what your objectives are. If you are trying to reach as many people as possible and freely allow everyone to steal all of your hard work, then no, you probably wouldn’t want this product. However, if your main objective is to protect your hard work from people who steal it via their mouse and/or keyboard, then this program will take a big chunk out of your worries. Is it perfect? No. Will it greatly help? Yes. If your main objective is to PROTECT your site from thieves, then you do what you can, whenever you can, and not worry about giving those thieves a hard time. If someone broke into your house would you help them and make it easy for them to load all of your stuff into their car? I think not. I look at this the same way :) It all depends on what your goals are.
And search engine listing is for wimps.
Can we quote you on that? :D This program doesn't target search engines like typical encryption programs do. However we are currently looking into the matter with several professional SEO’s just to make sure, but preliminary findings show that search engines aren’t effected as you would first suspect.
MstrBob
11-30-2005, 06:25 PM
They HAVE JS, they just CHOOSE not to use it.
No, they don't. Not all browsers are IE. There are a number of different browser types, from textual, to audio, to embedded that don't have Javascript support.
That's their decision to live with. Some people still use IE 4.0. We're not concerned with them either :p It all comes down to what your objectives are. If you are trying to reach as many people as possible and freely allow everyone to steal all of your hard work, then no, you probably wouldn’t want this product. However, if your main objective is to protect your hard work from people who steal it via their mouse and/or keyboard, then this program will take a big chunk out of your worries. Is it perfect? No. Will it greatly help? Yes. If your main objective is to PROTECT your site from thieves, then you do what you can, whenever you can, and not worry about giving those thieves a hard time. If someone broke into your house would you help them and make it easy for them to load all of your stuff into their car? I think not. I look at this the same way :) It all depends on what your goals are.
I don't mean to be offensive, really I don't. But you have totally the wrong attitude for the internet. Javascript and CSS are ancillary. The document is the important bit, the markup, the content is why anybody bothers with your site at all. Would you buy a book without any words, jus because it had a cool looking cover? No. Website is about content - that's the focus. Sure, CSS and Javascript can help enrich the way that people see the content. But unless you've got tutorials on the subject or a demo of what you can do, they are not the content. I've got to tell you, many users could give a damn about your design as long as it's not inherently ugly or hard to use.
I've said it many times before, but I'll just have to keep saying it apparently. If. You. Don't. Want. It. Stolen. Don't. Put. It. Online. If it is really valuable, it doesn't belong in public domain! I've got news, most people could give a damn about your markup. Yes people may use it to learn. Someone learning might see some interesting affect and want to see how you did. Is it a state secret? I've done this, and most everyone does this. I've no problem with people seeing my source code, because the source is a means to an end. The design is the end. If they steal my design, I'll be upset. But they don't need to see a drop of source code to steal my design. Is it easier for them to steal my design? Probably. You know, broadcasting TV shows makes it pretty easy for people to copy them and sell them. TV shows should stop openly broadcasting them so that people can't do it. It's just insane. You're cutting off your nose to spite your face!
Can we quote you on that? :D This program doesn't target search engines like typical encryption programs do. However we are currently looking into the matter with several professional SEO’s just to make sure, but preliminary findings show that search engines aren’t effected as you would first suspect.
Are you using some sort of server side scripting to give search engines unencrypted markup? Because if you're not doing something like that, then they'll get exactly what I get. An "encrypted" mess. If I can't read your source than neither can the search engines. If the search engines can, than so can I. That's what it comes down to. You are using an open protocol on an open network. That's the nature of this Web. If you want to protect images, your best bet is a watermark. Something like Ebay, if you're bidding on pictures, all the ones I've seen have SAMPLE watermarked over it. So if you're a photographer or selling posters, you might want to do that, if the pictures are so important. But this Javascript "encryption" is ridiculous.
Bubble #5
12-03-2005, 01:18 AM
Not all JavaScript menus are created equal. Some rollovers are search-engine-friendly, and some aren't; it all depends on the code used to create them. There are many rollover scripts that are "crawler-friendly" and can easily be followed by the search engine spiders. Usually, if you view the source code and see that there are <a href> -type links in your code, the links can probably be followed :)
Regardless of the type of navigational menu used, it never hurts to put the same links at the bottom of the page. Here are two other alternatives that work;
* Put the links from rollover navigation into a <noscript> tag in the HTML code.
* Create a site map page that is accessible from all pages of the site via a text or image link which lists all the pages of your site. Redundancy never hurts in this type of situation! That said, the program listed above is search engine friendly UNLESS you use the “Protect Entire Page” feature. Other than that it will not effect the ranking of the page. This has been confirmed by 3 different independent SEO’s who have looked at the program. Again, not all JavaScript menus are created equal :)
MstrBob
12-03-2005, 10:05 AM
That said, the program listed above is search engine friendly UNLESS you use the “Protect Entire Page” feature.
Ah, that's the part you left out. The demo has the whole page "encrypted". If you're not "encrypting" everything then yes, it is more Search Engine friendly. But then, what is the point of it if you're not using it to "protect" your code?
I think it's pretty much clear that all these types of programs are B.S. They give it a good marketing try and polish, but it doesn't hide the fact that these types of programs are fundamentally flawed.
felgall
12-03-2005, 03:52 PM
Encryption techniques fall into two groups.
1. Ones that can be decrypted with either Javascript or JScript. A decrypted copy of any page that uses this method can be easily obtained using Netscape 7.0 and selecting Save As from the File menu.
2. Ones that can only be decrypted with JScript. These "web" pages only display in Internet Explorer and anyone using a different browser will only see a blank page. Unless the page uses frames or has disabled popups it can be easily decrypted using a View Source bookmarklet.
pottersdt2k
12-04-2005, 06:42 PM
I'm intrigued by the massive number of views this post has received, and likewise the number of replies.
As a novice web designer/developer (depending on what you like them to be called), I like to navigate around sites, and look at the source code for things that I like the look of - if a web site looks good (layout etc) to me, then I look at the code to see how they've done it, perhaps even including some of that code into my code (yes I know it's stealing of sorts - but I edit it to suit my requirements, rather than changing my whole design to suit the 'copied' code)
Because this is how I've learnt (and I've learnt a lot, very quickly), I want to enable my source code to be viewed by all, just in case someone who visits my site likes something I've done. I also want to make sure that my site is accessible to ALL 'surfers' - or at least the vast majority of them. I try to make sure that my site is valid xhtml, uses valid css and is easily navigable by all surfers - regardless of their computer experience or Internet experience.
I test my web sites on my Grand-dad, as he's only just beginning to learn about computers, and his computer isn't top of the range, so i can see what his PC displays my work like.
For these reasons, I don't want to disable right clicking, I want to make sure my site is listed on as many search engines as possible, and i want to help fellow 'developing web developers', like myself, learn different design techniques and code, so that the Internet will *hopefully* one day be accessible to all, and a much better place...
/rant over/
btw, thanks to all who have offered advice on this topic (protecting images), it's much appreciated by all who have read this thread, i'm sure, and especially appreciated by myself
Bubble #5
12-04-2005, 07:06 PM
I want to enable my source code to be viewed by all, just in case someone who visits my site likes something I've done.
That's fine for the ordinary web site, but if you had a site with unique code or other valuables, you'd want to protect them just like you protect any other valuable in your life, and rightly so ;)
I also want to make sure that my site is accessible to ALL 'surfers' - or at least the vast majority of them.
Using the program that's listed above does not make your site inaccessible to anyone who visits your site, it only stops those who want to steal from you. It will not effect the search engines UNLESS you tell it to, otherwise they (the search engines) won't even know you've done anything different.
I don't want to disable right clicking
See above... ;)
I want to make sure my site is listed on as many search engines as possible
See above... ;)
MstrBob
12-04-2005, 07:13 PM
Bubble, you've yet to answer my question. Does this package include any server side scripting? If not, how does it determine what is a search engine and what isn't? If it doesn't, then it's sending undecipherable gibberish to search engines.
One shouldn't believe everything they read.
pottersdt2k
12-04-2005, 07:21 PM
Bubble, purely out of interest, where did u learn u're web developing skills from?
From right-clicking/viewing other sites, or by sitting in a lecture theatre and studying it?
Or were you born with u're skills naturally?
Do you not think that all users of the Internet should be able to view the source code if they wish?
And i know this topic was originally about images, but it wouldn't be difficult to steal the text from that page - if you can't C+P it, you could always type it out yourself and pass it off as your own....
Bubble #5
12-04-2005, 07:33 PM
Does this package include any server side scripting? If not, how does it determine what is a search engine and what isn't?
You'll have to contact either the manufacture or CNN Bob. When they had it on their new tech show the guy (from CNN) was rather amazed by it and was saying stuff like "Before this new technology came along..." and then he'd repeat pretty much what you and some others from here have said. He also said it was a step in the right direction, and I agree :)
Bubble #5
12-04-2005, 07:45 PM
From right-clicking/viewing other sites, or by sitting in a lecture theatre and studying it?
Some was obtained from formal school settings but most of it was from spending countless hours reading at my favorite place - the library. Don't believe me? Check out THIS (http://www.webdeveloper.com/forum/showthread.php?t=87173) thread. I love reading and learning, hence my title :D
Do you not think that all users of the Internet should be able to view the source code if they wish?
Do you not think that people should be able to walk up to you, and be able to take money out of your wallet if they wish? ;)
Also, as mentioned above, learning from the 'common' web site, and stealing from a site that has something valuable on it, are two totally different things ;)
pottersdt2k
12-04-2005, 07:53 PM
i too enjoy reading
however i prefer to learn by seeing whats around online - at least that way, i get to interact with the final product before including it on my site
that sounds like i just steal stuff randomly, which isn't the case... i do enjoy reading and following tutorials etc, in fact that's what i'm doing right now except i can't get this blasted asp to work
MstrBob
12-04-2005, 08:01 PM
This is the same attitude that pro-software-patent people have. You want to copyright your design, go right ahead. But you can't protect what you used to make it. Because HTML and programming are languages.
I can't protect words, can I? I can, however, copyright a book. The same should be applied to webdesign. Which would mean than nobody could lift your design, but they are free to see how you achieved an affect. It's open learning.
Be glad. If every developer thought like you do, then you would never have been able to learn HTML. Because no developer would have wanted to spill "trade secrets". That's the attitude a lot of pro-encryption people have, that their code is some sort of secret which should be protected, because if some teenage kid or novice designer sees it, then they will lose thousands of dollars. It plain doesn't work like that. To use this kind of thing is totally missing the point and philosophy of the free and open internet. Doing this is taking advantage of the openness and freeness of everyone who created the web, and then turning around and saying "Screw you all!".
Le sigh.
But I see I'm not making a difference here. Some people are simply solidified in their position by argument.
pottersdt2k
12-04-2005, 08:55 PM
MstrBob...
That's pretty much what I was thinking, I just didn't know how to say it
Bubble #5
12-04-2005, 10:05 PM
I can't protect words, can I?
What do you think a trademark is used for? :rolleyes:
If every developer thought like you do, then you would never have been able to learn HTML.
Not true. Learning a language does not give you or anyone else permission to steal, so how does that prevent anyone from learning the language in the first place? It doesn’t.
steal: (steel) v. stole, (stoal) steal•ing v. tr.
1.To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
2.To commit theft.
This has NOTHING to do with learning a language, and we are not talking about 'normal' sites ;) Also, not everyone who 'copies and pastes' are doing it to "learn". Some people are just to lazy to make their own web page, so they lift the hard work of others, change one or two simple things, and then call it their own web page :eek: Now you might think that that's just peachy, but I disagree. I applaud learning. I detest outright ripping people off :o
Doing this is taking advantage of the openness and freeness of everyone who created the web
And not doing it is taking advantage of everyone else...
MstrBob
12-05-2005, 02:31 PM
What do you think a trademark is used for? :rolleyes:
Trademarking is an entity onto itself. And has a number of constraints. Not everything is trademarkable. Companies can have the same trademark if they are in very different fields. Trademark has more to do with protecting buisnesses from harrassment rather than protecting intellectual property. So it really doesn't apply to this.
Not true. Learning a language does not give you or anyone else permission to steal, so how does that prevent anyone from learning the language in the first place? It doesn’t.
Let us take copyright once again as an example. Excerpts are legal. Stealing the whole work or significant chunks of the work is not. Exact same principle applies here. If someone copies a significant chunk of your design, that's stealing. Looking at your code to see how you achieved an affect is not.
This has NOTHING to do with learning a language, and we are not talking about 'normal' sites ;) Also, not everyone who 'copies and pastes' are doing it to "learn". Some people are just to lazy to make their own web page, so they lift the hard work of others, change one or two simple things, and then call it their own web page :eek: Now you might think that that's just peachy, but I disagree. I applaud learning. I detest outright ripping people off :o
I never said that was okay. I totally agree with you, lifting entirely a desing, or a signficant chunk of it is wrong. But copying part of the source is not. Yes, I can use source code and achieve a totally different look. It is part of the learning process, copying other people's techniques. Your methods are like DRM. A slash and burn method to save your work. Is piracy a problem? Yes. Always will be. Definitely not as a big a problem as you make it out to be. If it is, you should be taking it up with appropriate authorities. Perhaps even take legal action. But, just like DRM, "encryption" methods do not put an end to piracy, hurt you more than you were hurt without them, annoy your visitors (who are your most precious asset, keep in mind), and do nothing to stop those who are determined to pirate your work.
And not doing it is taking advantage of everyone else...[/QUOTE]
thewebman
12-05-2005, 03:23 PM
one more way to prevent people from stealing your images: make them so ugly no one will want to steal them.
webdeveloper.com
Copyright Internet.com Inc., All Rights Reserved.