Protecting Website Contents

[Dusty]

hi,

I've been designing sites for a while, but one of my clients is insisting
that the contents of his site be protected from copying and "illegal use",
etc.

I am of the mind that, once it's on a website, and therefore reproduceable
on someone's browser window, that the same browser now has it on their
computer and will likely find some way to copy or keep it, despite and
"right-click disables" and other (pretty useless) gimmicks, such as
converting text to images.

I also heard that there were sites somewhere that archive pretty much
everything that's on the net, so, establishing any kind of "protection" over
articles currently or formerly on the 'net seems a moot and futile point.

The only other suggestion is to convert research articles, etc, to Ebook
format and offer them for sale.

any comments on the possibility of "protecting" site contents, or is this
pretty much passé, been-there, done-that kind of stuff.

thanks for any,

Dusty

 

[P E Schoen]

"Dusty" wrote in message

I've been designing sites for a while, but one of my clients is
insisting that the contents of his site be protected from copying
and "illegal use", etc.

I am of the mind that, once it's on a website, and therefore
reproduceable on someone's browser window, that the same
browser now has it on their computer and will likely find some
way to copy or keep it, despite and "right-click disables" and
other (pretty useless) gimmicks, such as converting text to images.

I also heard that there were sites somewhere that archive pretty
much everything that's on the net, so, establishing any kind of
"protection" over articles currently or formerly on the 'net seems
a moot and futile point.

The only other suggestion is to convert research articles, etc, to
Ebook format and offer them for sale.

any comments on the possibility of "protecting" site contents,
or is this pretty much passé, been-there, done-that kind of stuff.

If the website is written in HTML, then it must be readable by anyone, so
the permissions would normally be 755, which allows reading and execution by
all, but writing only by the website administrator. However, if you change
the document to PHP, and allow only execute privileges, the browser will see
only that which is produced by the PHP section. So you can hide anything
"sensitive" there, and the user will see only the results, and not the
details of how the results were generated. Anything in the HTML section of a
PHP file appears to be simply sent to the browser as-is, like a "heredoc",
so that will not be hidden.

ISTM that anything visible to someone on a browser is by definition already
in his/her possession, and there is nothing that can be done to prevent
copying that. Of course, copyright laws apply, even if you do not explicitly
declare it or register the content.

Most likely the stuff you want to hide would be the active portion such as
Javascript and databases, and if you can embed the JS in the PHP section, or
call on separate execute-only scripts with information exchanged via
non-readable files, that might provide the protection you want.

Paul

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

any comments on the possibility of "protecting" site contents, or is this
pretty much passé, been-there, done-that kind of stuff.

The only REAL way is don't publish it.

In my observation the value of the content is inversely proportional to
the author's effort to protect it.

 

[idle]

hi,

I've been designing sites for a while, but one of my clients is insisting
that the contents of his site be protected from copying and "illegal use",
etc.

I am of the mind that, once it's on a website, and therefore reproduceable
on someone's browser window, that the same browser now has it on their
computer and will likely find some way to copy or keep it, despite and
"right-click disables" and other (pretty useless) gimmicks, such as
converting text to images.

I also heard that there were sites somewhere that archive pretty much
everything that's on the net, so, establishing any kind of "protection" over
articles currently or formerly on the 'net seems a moot and futile point.

The only other suggestion is to convert research articles, etc, to Ebook
format and offer them for sale.

any comments on the possibility of "protecting" site contents, or is this
pretty much passé, been-there, done-that kind of stuff.

thanks for any,

Dusty

It's protected by copyright law.
Same as if he printed a book and sold it.
Any other effort is a waste of time.

 

[cwdjrxyz]

hi,

I've been designing sites for a while, but one of my clients is insisting
that the contents of his site be protected from copying and "illegal use",
etc.

I am of the mind that, once it's on a website, and therefore reproduceable
on someone's browser window, that the same browser now has it on their
computer and will likely find some way to copy or keep it, despite and
"right-click disables" and other (pretty useless) gimmicks, such as
converting text to images.

I also heard that there were sites somewhere that archive pretty much
everything that's on the net, so, establishing any kind of "protection" over
articles currently or formerly on the 'net seems a moot and futile point.

The only other suggestion is to convert research articles, etc, to Ebook
format and offer them for sale.

any comments on the possibility of "protecting" site contents, or is this
pretty much pass , been-there, done-that kind of stuff.

It somewhat depends on what type of contents are desired to be
protected. If they are illustrations, there are many programs that
will grab them, and if worst comes to worst you can always use screen
capture. If you have a site that is trying to sell reproduction
paintings, one trick is to show the whole painting in moderate
resolution and size and show a small area of the painting in very high
resolution to make people want to have the original. This technique
is used by a large Canadian art firm that sells copies of old masters
in oil and that are touched up by hand to show the brushstrokes etc in
relief as often is the case n the original oil painting.

As for text, you are out of luck since you can use screen capture if
necessary. The text will have copyright protection. However you may
have to retain a lawyer that specializes in copyright law to do
anything, and the fees might be very high with no certainty that you
will win. The case likely would have to be decided in a federal court,
might be appealed, and the lawyer fees could be extremely high.

If you mean the html or script code needs to be protected, this also
could be difficult. If you use php to generate the html code, viewers
could not see how you do this, only the final html results. However
someone that knows php well could look at the html code the php is
writing and "back engineer" php code that would do about the same
thing.

You can also require a user name and password to view part of the
contents.These can be changed from time to time. However many viewers
of the page likely will not bother to obtain a password and user name
from you.

Just consider the movie industry. They must have spent many millions
of dollars to prevent digital copies of their movies being made. Blu-
ray protection is much more elaborate than DVD protection. Despite
frequent changes in the protection code, certain hackers usually break
the code within a matter of days and change the copy programs they
sell to overcome the new code.

Thus, as others have indicated, absolute protection usually is not
possible

 

[Captain Paralytic]

hi,

I've been designing sites for a while, but one of my clients is insisting
that the contents of his site be protected from copying and "illegal use",
etc.

I am of the mind that, once it's on a website, and therefore reproduceable
on someone's browser window, that the same browser now has it on their
computer and will likely find some way to copy or keep it, despite and
"right-click disables" and other (pretty useless) gimmicks, such as
converting text to images.

I also heard that there were sites somewhere that archive pretty much
everything that's on the net, so, establishing any kind of "protection" over
articles currently or formerly on the 'net seems a moot and futile point.

The only other suggestion is to convert research articles, etc, to Ebook
format and offer them for sale.

any comments on the possibility of "protecting" site contents, or is this
pretty much pass , been-there, done-that kind of stuff.

thanks for any,

Dusty

The only thing that disabling right clicks manages to do is to stop
people accessing all the useful functions that that are used to using
it for. I point blank refuse to do any work on client sites if they
have disabled right clicks. I do not want anyone thinking that I know
so little about the web that I would think that disabling right clicks
have any good purpose.

You are completely right that anything that is displayed in someone's
browser has already been copied to the person's computer. At that
point you have already missed the boat. Anyone who knows how these
things work and wants to keep copies of them will easily do so. Any
measures you take to try to make it awkward for them to do this will
only make things bad for the people that you want to vist the site and
they will therefore do so as little as possible.

 

[richard]

It's protected by copyright law.
Same as if he printed a book and sold it.
Any other effort is a waste of time.

Oh please. I oculdn't tell you how many times a day I come across
"copyright protected" work that appears on a dozen other websites.
Chances are, none of those sites were the true author to begin with.
I always get a kick out of seeing "copyright" slapped on pages where they
have thousands of readily available icons, smilies, generic buttons and
what not.
One person even tried to claim she had a copyright on the animated gif of
the USA flag.
Another person tried to claim that mere cropping of a photo of Neil
Armstrong on the moon gave them the copyright.

And what ticks me off even more is, copyrighting javascript and PHP. Both
of which are granted to the public as free use. Or, copyrighting HTML code
even though ten thousand others before you have already written the same
code.

BTW, this post is now copyrighted protected. You may not read it.

 

[richard]

hi,

I've been designing sites for a while, but one of my clients is insisting
that the contents of his site be protected from copying and "illegal use",
etc.

I am of the mind that, once it's on a website, and therefore reproduceable
on someone's browser window, that the same browser now has it on their
computer and will likely find some way to copy or keep it, despite and
"right-click disables" and other (pretty useless) gimmicks, such as
converting text to images.

I also heard that there were sites somewhere that archive pretty much
everything that's on the net, so, establishing any kind of "protection" over
articles currently or formerly on the 'net seems a moot and futile point.

The only other suggestion is to convert research articles, etc, to Ebook
format and offer them for sale.

any comments on the possibility of "protecting" site contents, or is this
pretty much passé, been-there, done-that kind of stuff.

thanks for any,

Dusty

How about watermarking?
Embed into the code a small "div" that uses 1pt or 1px text.
Pictures and charts can also be marked this way easily. Check out google
maps. They do it. Zoom in on any item to the largest scale they have and
you will see the watermarking, but barely.

You must keep in mind though, if it is meant to be seen, then it has to be
made available to the world.

As for an ebook, yeah you could, but then the subject matter might not make
it worth the while or effort.

 

[Doug Miller]

And what ticks me off even more is, copyrighting javascript and PHP. Both
of which are granted to the public as free use. [/QUOTE]

You don't understand at all, do you? That makes just as much sense as being
ticked off that someone copyrights a book, because, after all, the English
language is public domain.

Even though PHP is distributed free, programs written *using* it are certainly
copyrightable.

Or, copyrighting HTML code
even though ten thousand others before you have already written the same
code.

Same argument applies here.

BTW, this post is now copyrighted protected. You may not read it.

LMAO! You don't have the first clue. Copyright protection prohibits *copying*,
not reading.

 

[richard]

And what ticks me off even more is, copyrighting javascript and PHP. Both
of which are granted to the public as free use.

You don't understand at all, do you? That makes just as much sense as being
ticked off that someone copyrights a book, because, after all, the English
language is public domain.

Even though PHP is distributed free, programs written *using* it are certainly
copyrightable.

Or, copyrighting HTML code
even though ten thousand others before you have already written the same
code.

Same argument applies here.

BTW, this post is now copyrighted protected. You may not read it.

LMAO! You don't have the first clue. Copyright protection prohibits *copying*,
not reading.[/QUOTE]

Precisely. It is what I do with that copyrighted work that makes it illegal
or not.

In regards to works authored in the various scripts, YOU can not claim
copyright on the coding itself, because YOU did not write the original
code. Whereas you can charge for the time involved in writing the script,
you can not legally copyright the work.

I own a book which is copyrighted. Can I not use the words written in it
elsewhere? Of course, I can. What I can not do is publish that material
under a different name and claim it as my work. Thats known as plagerism.

If I take your website, and duplicate the contents, not just the coding,
then I have violated copyright law. If, copyright law applies to your work.

As I said, when it comes to coding, if you wrote it today, ten thousand
have already written it so you can't legally claim copyright.

 

[Doug Miller]

In regards to works authored in the various scripts, YOU can not claim
copyright on the coding itself, because YOU did not write the original
code. Whereas you can charge for the time involved in writing the script,
you can not legally copyright the work.

Wrong. Code written in any language is copyrightable.
[...]

As I said, when it comes to coding, if you wrote it today, ten thousand
have already written it so you can't legally claim copyright.

That simply isn't true. Here, educate yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_copyright

 

[Doug Miller]

And if they drew and animated the flag, what makes you think they
can't copyright it?


It's obvious you don't understand what COPYright means.

When I first subscribed to this newsgroup, I thought the other subscribers
were being mean and cruel when they referred to him as "richard the st00pid".

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

When I first subscribed to this newsgroup, I thought the other
subscribers were being mean and cruel when they referred to him as
"richard the st00pid".

There is a loooooong history regarding RtS. The nick is well-earned, and
reinforced with nearly every post he makes.

 

[richard]

And if they drew and animated the flag, what makes you think they
can't copyright it?


It's obvious you don't understand what COPYright means.

I swear Evan, you are one ignorant cuss.
Try reading the copyright law. Then report back and state what it says on
copyrighting the US flag, or any other flag for that matter.
NO ONE has the right to copyright the flag, period.

How about claiming a copyright on a yardstick or ruler?
Or even a calendar.
How about copyrighting your name.

 

[idle]

When I first subscribed to this newsgroup, I thought the other subscribers
were being mean and cruel when they referred to him as "richard the st00pid".

SaaS
Stoopid as a stick.
Not to be confused with software as a service.

 

[richard]

There is a loooooong history regarding RtS. The nick is well-earned, and
reinforced with nearly every post he makes.

Know the old adage? When a lie is told often enough to a mass of people,
that mass of people tend to believe that the lie is the truth.
That is precisely what happened in my case. A few certain chosen people
began that association with me, and eventually, the masses took it to mean
just what it says.

 

[richard]

In regards to works authored in the various scripts, YOU can not claim
copyright on the coding itself, because YOU did not write the original
code. Whereas you can charge for the time involved in writing the script,
you can not legally copyright the work.

Wrong. Code written in any language is copyrightable.
[...]

As I said, when it comes to coding, if you wrote it today, ten thousand
have already written it so you can't legally claim copyright.

That simply isn't true. Here, educate yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_copyright

I was not speaking of programming languages used for software development.
In the case of MS and windows, they are not necessarily claiming a
copyright on the program itself, but rather, the granting of a "license" to
the user.

I do believe though that the creators of HTML, Javascript, PHP and many
other markup languages are among the living. So they still legally own the
copyright to the code. +

I couldn't tell you how many times I've come across simple javascript code
that was 100% identical and each author claimed copyright on it.

Just because you wrote the code, does not mean you are automatically
granted a copyright.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

I swear Evan, you are one ignorant cuss.
Try reading the copyright law. Then report back and state what it says
on copyrighting the US flag, or any other flag for that matter. NO
ONE has the right to copyright the flag, period.

The copyright was not about or for the design of the flag. The copyright
was for the individual's *artwork* used in creating the animated gif.
Your inane statement is simply more proof you have no clue.

"You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full
of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue
mating dance." -Usenet Author Unknown

How about claiming a copyright on a yardstick or ruler?
Or even a calendar.

You will never understand, will you?

How about copyrighting your name.

Now, *you* could do that! Nobody else will ever want to call themselves
"Richard the Sto0pid" so you'd never have to worry about infringement.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

I was not speaking of programming languages used for software
development.

Seemed that way to me...

In the case of MS and windows, they are not necessarily claiming a
copyright on the program itself, but rather, the granting of a
"license" to the user.

In the case of MS and Windows, they *are* copyrighting the program(s)
*and* granting licenses to people who pay.

I do believe though that the creators of HTML, Javascript, PHP and
many other markup languages are among the living. So they still
legally own the copyright to the code. +

...and would for the next many decades, alive or dead.

I couldn't tell you how many times I've come across simple javascript
code that was 100% identical and each author claimed copyright on it.

I see a lot of JavaScript that includes copyright notices *for* the
original author of a script-made-public. If you meant something else,
then the probable answer is that the author of the site where you found
the code knows as little about copyright law as yourself.

Just because you wrote the code, does not mean you are automatically
granted a copyright.

A copyright is *automatically* granted upon first publication of *any*
work, to the author who created it. How that author handles the use of
that work is his/her own decision. Not yours.

 

[Doug Miller]

Know the old adage? When a lie is told often enough to a mass of people,
that mass of people tend to believe that the lie is the truth.
That is precisely what happened in my case. A few certain chosen people
began that association with me, and eventually, the masses took it to mean
just what it says.

When you make statements like the wildly incorrect and uninformed ones that
you've made in this thread regarding copyright protection, you certainly
reinforce the idea that your nickname does, in fact, mean exactly what it
says, and is entirely accurate.