Protecting Website Contents

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Dusty, Feb 6, 2011.

  1. Dusty

    Dusty Guest

    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
     
    Dusty, Feb 6, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Dusty

    P E Schoen Guest

    "Dusty" wrote in message news:%4n3p.65034$...

    > 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
     
    P E Schoen, Feb 6, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Dusty wrote:

    > 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.

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Feb 6, 2011
    #3
  4. Dusty

    idle Guest

    On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 17:47:48 -0800, Dusty wrote in alt.html:

    > 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.

    --
    idle
    None of us is as good as all of us.
     
    idle, Feb 6, 2011
    #4
  5. Dusty

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    On Feb 5, 7:47 pm, "Dusty" <> wrote:
    > 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
     
    cwdjrxyz, Feb 6, 2011
    #5
  6. On Feb 6, 1:47 am, "Dusty" <> wrote:
    > 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.
     
    Captain Paralytic, Feb 6, 2011
    #6
  7. Dusty

    richard Guest

    On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 08:24:47 -0800, idle wrote:

    > On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 17:47:48 -0800, Dusty wrote in alt.html:
    >
    >> 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.


    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, Feb 7, 2011
    #7
  8. Dusty

    richard Guest

    On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 17:47:48 -0800, Dusty wrote:

    > 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.
     
    richard, Feb 7, 2011
    #8
  9. Dusty

    Doug Miller Guest

    In article <1t7x6r85jrddh$>, richard <> wrote:
    [...]
    >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.
     
    Doug Miller, Feb 7, 2011
    #9
  10. Dusty

    richard Guest

    On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 12:10:39 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:

    > In article <1t7x6r85jrddh$>, richard <> wrote:
    > [...]
    >>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.


    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.
     
    richard, Feb 7, 2011
    #10
  11. Dusty

    Doug Miller Guest

    In article <>, richard <> wrote:
    >On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 12:10:39 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:


    >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, Feb 7, 2011
    #11
  12. Dusty

    Doug Miller Guest

    In article <>, lid wrote:
    >On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 04:42:43 -0700, richard <> wrote:
    >
    >>One person even tried to claim she had a copyright on the animated gif of
    >>the USA flag.

    >
    >And if they drew and animated the flag, what makes you think they
    >can't copyright it?
    >
    >>BTW, this post is now copyrighted protected. You may not read 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".
     
    Doug Miller, Feb 7, 2011
    #12
  13. Doug Miller wrote:

    > 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.

    --
    -bts
    -Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Feb 7, 2011
    #13
  14. Dusty

    richard Guest

    On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 07:15:19 -0800, Evan Platt wrote:

    > On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 04:42:43 -0700, richard <> wrote:
    >
    >>One person even tried to claim she had a copyright on the animated gif of
    >>the USA flag.

    >
    > And if they drew and animated the flag, what makes you think they
    > can't copyright it?
    >
    >>BTW, this post is now copyrighted protected. You may not read 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.
     
    richard, Feb 7, 2011
    #14
  15. Dusty

    idle Guest

    On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 16:19:09 GMT, Doug Miller wrote in alt.html:

    > In article <>, lid wrote:
    >>On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 04:42:43 -0700, richard <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>One person even tried to claim she had a copyright on the animated gif of
    >>>the USA flag.

    >>
    >>And if they drew and animated the flag, what makes you think they
    >>can't copyright it?
    >>
    >>>BTW, this post is now copyrighted protected. You may not read 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".


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

    --
    idle
    A real friend will help you hide the body.
     
    idle, Feb 7, 2011
    #15
  16. Dusty

    richard Guest

    On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 12:04:33 -0500, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

    > Doug Miller wrote:
    >
    >> 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.


    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, Feb 7, 2011
    #16
  17. Dusty

    richard Guest

    On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 16:17:44 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:

    > In article <>, richard <> wrote:
    >>On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 12:10:39 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:

    >
    >>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.
     
    richard, Feb 7, 2011
    #17
  18. richard the sto0pid wrote:

    > Evan Platt wrote:
    >> richard the sto0pid wrote:
    >>> One person even tried to claim she had a copyright on the animated
    >>> gif of the USA flag.

    >>
    >> And if they drew and animated the flag, what makes you think they
    >> can't copyright it?
    >>
    >>> BTW, this post is now copyrighted protected. You may not read 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.


    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.

    --
    -bts
    -In a broadband world, you are just a dialup
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Feb 7, 2011
    #18
  19. richard the sto0pid wrote:

    > 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.

    --
    -bts
    -In a broadband world, you are just a dialup
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Feb 7, 2011
    #19
  20. Dusty

    Doug Miller Guest

    In article <chgn10ztxzv6$>, richard <> wrote:
    >On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 12:04:33 -0500, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >
    >> Doug Miller wrote:
    >>
    >>> 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.

    >
    >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.
     
    Doug Miller, Feb 8, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Don Adams
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    624
    Martin Honnen
    Mar 5, 2004
  2. Ron Gibson
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    142
    Evertjan.
    Dec 22, 2004
  3. Kamarulnizam Rahim
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    246
    Robert Klemme
    Jan 28, 2011
  4. netsurfer
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    124
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    217
Loading...

Share This Page