> I think you should re-read the original post. Quote "is there some way to[color=blue]
> prevent (at least for not so advanced users) ..."
>
> He's been advised that 1. he cannot stop people copying images and 2. that
> there are ways to make it more difficult (which there are - at least for
> "not so advanced users"). Which bit of advice are you saying is useless?[/color]
I was looking past the partial solution he proposed, to the problem that it
was supposed to address. The problem could be stated as such: "How do I
prevent theft of images from my web application?" His partial solution was
to somehow prevent the copying of images by a limited number of people. This
solution, however, is in itself, seriously flawed. I believe I addressed the
reasons for coming to this conclusion. Therefore, any advice which
encourages this useless solution is useless.
People come here looking for help because they do not know something. They
are looking for someone to help them by telling them what they do not know.
I looked past the fact that this person was asking for something to the
reason that he was asking for it. That reason is what I am addressing. If he
had cancer, and he thought that smoking a pack of cigarettes would cure it,
would you just give him a pack of cigarettes, or would you tell him that the
cigarettes would not only not cure his cancer, but likely kill him quicker?
Therefore, the best advice that someone can give to anyone who has the
misguided notion that they can obtain any sort of protection against such
theft is:
(1) Tell them the truth, and discourage them from deceiving themselves. Any
offer of a non-solution simply reinforces the deception.
(2) Offer solutions that are realistic, such as watermarking, which does not
prevent theft, but make the tracking-down process easier.
(4) Be realistic about the value of those things which they cannot protect.
If those things are indeed valuable, and one will incur real loss, do not
make them publicly available. Otherwise, accept the inevitable.
(3) Encourage them to consider the expenditure of resources necessary to
implement a non-solution, and to concentrate instead on those things which
are possible and desirable.
Anyone asking such a question is not well-educated regarding these things.
There are literally dozens of millions of computers connected to the
Internet, including search bots like Google Images, which download content
from web sites continually. Many people new to the WWW are not aware of
this. Within a few days of publishing, one's content is already spread far
and wide. If images are desirable, they *will* be copied, and they *will* be
used. If they are not desirable, they *will* be copied, and they *may* even
be used.
--
HTH,
Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
..Net Developer
Who is Mighty Abbott?
A twin turret scalawag.
"Brian Cryer" <brianc@127.0.0.1.activesol.co.uk> wrote in message
news:%239zJNbdIGHA.604@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> "Kevin Spencer" <kevin@DIESPAMMERSDIEtakempis.com> wrote in message
> news:eYfF2zcIGHA.1676@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Don't forget if you want to have any legal redress (in the USA) aside
>>> from being able to order them to take your content off their site, you
>>> have to register the trademark with the US Patent and Trademark office.
>>> Can't sue for money unless it's registered.[/color]
>>
>> Copyright and Trademark are 2 entirely different things, and fall under 2
>> entirely different bodies of law. In fact, copyright is is governed by
>> international law in many countries, and is automatic in most. See
>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright.
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Agreed, but in all fairness, he was talking about the avg user, not
>>> someone technically savvy... When you get to the "View Source" stage,
>>> you've lost at least 90% of the users out there...[/color]
>>
>> Computers are excellent a a few things. One of them is copying digital
>> data. Another is sending digital data to other computers. What does this
>> say about the protection against (by your estimate) "90% of users out
>> there"? Well, let's talk about viruses, worms, and trojan horses. These
>> are digital data that nobody even wants. How are they spread? One
>> computer copies the data and sends it to several others. Each of these
>> sends it to several others. And so on.
>>
>> Once something is copied, it can be distributed. So, protection from "90%
>> of users" isn't protection at all. In fact, if something is attractive
>> enough to warrant copying and re-using, it is highly likely to be both
>> copied *and* distributed.
>>
>> You will also note that among the (few) methods I enumerated (there are
>> many others), only *one* of them involved viewing the source code. What
>> percentage of users doesn't know how to use the "File|Save As..." menu
>> item present in most applications, including browsers?
>>
>> Again, if images and any other published material could not be copied,
>> there would be no need of copyright laws. Copyright laws exist to provide
>> redress for people *when* their material is copied. It is not
>> preventative.
>>
>> Why people seem to understand and accept that an image in a book can be
>> easily copied using a copier machine, but for some reason an image on a
>> computer, which *is* a copying machine cannot, is beyond me.
>>
>> But I do know that advising someone to do something that is useless is to
>> give useless advice. For example, to advise someone that they will not
>> get HIV if they don't have sex with prostitutes has a damaging effect,
>> because it encourages them to have sex with anyone that is *not* a
>> prostitute. It also doesn't inform them of the various other ways which
>> they might contract HIV.[/color]
>
> Kevin,
>
> I think you should re-read the original post. Quote "is there some way to
> prevent (at least for not so advanced users) ..."
>
> He's been advised that 1. he cannot stop people copying images and 2. that
> there are ways to make it more difficult (which there are - at least for
> "not so advanced users"). Which bit of advice are you saying is useless?
> --
> Brian Cryer
>
www.cryer.co.uk/brian
>
>[/color]
