469,366 Members | 2,227 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,366 developers. It's quick & easy.

Prevent IE users from copying or seeing copy toolbar?

me
How do I prevent the save/print/email/mypictures toolbar from popping up
when IE users place their cursor over photos at my website? Thank you in
advance for your help.
Signed,
me
Jul 23 '05
102 6887
"me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
If you can suggest a way to prevent users of
other browsers from stealing my IP I'd like to hear about it.


Don't put it on the WWW.
Retain the services of a good lawyer.
Apply watermarks, etc. to your images.

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
Jul 23 '05 #51
me
"Stan Brown" <th************@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:38*************@individual.net...
"me" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

IMO: "I don't care for the rest"


Folks, I do believe we've been trolled!

--

Stan Brown


You are entitled to your opinion just as I am entitled to prefer not to
concern myself with how users of other browsers will view my site.
Signed,
me
Jul 23 '05 #52
Stan Brown wrote:
"C A Upsdell" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
The argument, therefore, that the meta tag should never be used, is
fundamentally flawed. There are many instances in which the toolbar
will not appear: omitting the meta tag simply ensures that it is IE, and
IE alone, that decides whether it will appear or not.

Your argument seems to be that because users my not immediately be
aware of the criteria by which IS decides hether to display the
toolbar, authors should make it even more arbitrary and less
predictable.

Sorry, that dog won't hunt.


No, my argument is that IE cannot make intelligent decisions about when
to display the toolbar, and that therefore it is appropriate for
designers to apply their intelligence to help IE out. Please re-read
what I said in my previous message.
Jul 23 '05 #53
me wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion. You also have the right to avoid any site
that you find objectionable, just as I have the right to configure my site
however I choose.


Therein lies the problem: You think my browser becomes part of your site
when I visit it. It doesn't. And I don't know before reaching your
site that you plan to muck with my stuff when I get there.
Jul 23 '05 #54
me
"Harlan Messinger" <hm*******************@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:38*************@individual.net...
me wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion. You also have the right to avoid any site that you find objectionable, just as I have the right to configure my site however I choose.


Therein lies the problem: You think my browser becomes part of your site
when I visit it. It doesn't. And I don't know before reaching your
site that you plan to muck with my stuff when I get there.


As a visitor to my site you will be expected to abide by my rules. Disabling
the IE image bar is one consequence of this. Since this condition only lasts
for the duration of your visit you will not suffer any permanent harm.
Signed,
me
Jul 23 '05 #55
"Harlan Messinger" <hm*******************@comcast.net> wrote:
Therein lies the problem: You think my browser becomes part of your site
when I visit it. It doesn't. And I don't know before reaching your
site that you plan to muck with my stuff when I get there.

me <anonymous@_.com> wrote: As a visitor to my site you will be expected to abide by my rules. Disabling
the IE image bar is one consequence of this. Since this condition only lasts
for the duration of your visit you will not suffer any permanent harm.


As a visitor to my browser, your site will be expected to abide by my
rules. Remaining subject to features built into my browser (whatever they
might be) is one consequence of this. Since this condition only lasts for
the duration of your site's visit, you will not suffer any permanent harm.

Welcome to the WWW.

See also http://webtips.dantobias.com/force.html
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"Each snowflake in an avalanche pleads not guilty." - Stanislaw J. Lee
Jul 23 '05 #56
me wrote:

As a visitor to my site you will be expected to abide by my rules. Disabling
the IE image bar is one consequence of this. Since this condition only lasts
for the duration of your visit you will not suffer any permanent harm.
Signed,
me


As someone who presumably *wants* people to visit his site, your
attitude seems counterproductive. If every time friends of yours visited
your home, you confronted them at the door with "As long as you are in
my house you will abide by my rules, and if you don't want to, then you
can leave," and then told them they had to take off their shoes and wash
their hands, how many of them do you think would stick around? Oh, I
see--maybe that's the result you *want*.
Jul 23 '05 #57
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 13:51:35 -0500, Harlan Messinger
<hm*******************@comcast.net> wrote:
me wrote:
As a visitor to my site you will be expected to abide by my rules. Disabling
the IE image bar is one consequence of this. Since this condition only lasts
for the duration of your visit you will not suffer any permanent harm.
Signed,
me


As someone who presumably *wants* people to visit his site, your attitude
seems counterproductive. If every time friends of yours visited your home, you
confronted them at the door with "As long as you are in my house you will
abide by my rules, and if you don't want to, then you can leave," and then
told them they had to take off their shoes and wash their hands, how many of
them do you think would stick around?


I automatically adapt to house rules of people I visit, if I can make them out.
And I do appreciate a notice if I obviously don't understand something that is
valuable for the other person.
With Muslim friends with carpets: away with shoes; when I still smoked - no
ashtray in sight: no smoking in the house. Et cetera. Maybe mostly unnoticably,
you _do_ adapt.

With websites, you do adapt too. In a glance you find the navigation menu, you
find that you have to scroll vertically, you notice you have to scroll even
horizontally. You fill out forms of all sorts. You remember getting a PDF-file
served without warning :-( and are cautious about further clicking links in that
site. You obay to frames. Et cetera.
If the content of the site is what you want or need or both, you adapt to the
site. You stick around.
--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'
Jul 23 '05 #58
In article <opsm2sm8bnx5vgts@zoete_b>, b_********@hotmail.com enlightened us
with...
If the content of the site is what you want or need or both, you adapt to the
site. You stick around.


It better be DAMN good if the person thinks I'm going to use that piece of
utter and complete garbage they call Internet Explorer. ;)

/me goes back to lurking

--
--
~kaeli~
In democracy your vote counts. In feudalism your count votes.
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

Jul 23 '05 #59
Barbara de Zoete wrote:
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 13:51:35 -0500, Harlan Messinger
<hm*******************@comcast.net> wrote:
me wrote:
As a visitor to my site you will be expected to abide by my rules.
Disabling
the IE image bar is one consequence of this. Since this condition
only lasts
for the duration of your visit you will not suffer any permanent harm.
Signed,
me

As someone who presumably *wants* people to visit his site, your
attitude seems counterproductive. If every time friends of yours
visited your home, you confronted them at the door with "As long as
you are in my house you will abide by my rules, and if you don't want
to, then you can leave," and then told them they had to take off
their shoes and wash their hands, how many of them do you think would
stick around?

I automatically adapt to house rules of people I visit, if I can make
them out.


So do I. It doesn't follow from that, that I would continue to be
friends with someone who feels that it's appropriate to treat *his*
friends as I described above.

And I do appreciate a notice if I obviously don't understand something that is valuable for the other person.
With Muslim friends with carpets: away with shoes; when I still smoked -
no ashtray in sight: no smoking in the house. Et cetera. Maybe mostly
unnoticably, you _do_ adapt.


There is the occasional person who has one or two special requirements.
Such a person says, apologetically, "I hope you don't mind, but my
carpetting gets soiled easily and is really hard to clean. Would you
mind taking off your shoes before coming inside?" Which is very
different from the attitude expressed by "me".
Jul 23 '05 #60
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 14:32:35 -0500, Harlan Messinger
<hm*******************@comcast.net> wrote:
Barbara de Zoete wrote:
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 13:51:35 -0500, Harlan Messinger
<hm*******************@comcast.net> wrote:
me wrote:

As a visitor to my site you will be expected to abide by my rules.
As someone who presumably *wants* people to visit his site, your attitude
seems counterproductive. If every time friends of yours visited your home,
you confronted them at the door with "As long as you are in my house you
will abide by my rules, and if you don't want to, then you can leave," and
then told them they had to take off their shoes and wash their hands, how
many of them do you think would stick around?


I automatically adapt to house rules of people I visit, if I can make them
out.


So do I. It doesn't follow from that, that I would continue to be friends with
someone who feels that it's appropriate to treat *his* friends as I described
above.


Well s/he has te be a very very good friend for me to be able to cope with an
attitude like that :-) But even if not made explicite, are house rules not very
strict sometimes? If only I take a couple of friends with kids in mind, and see
how it changed house rules. As a visitor you are expected to abide, even if you
didn't take part in the evolution of the new set of rules, but just drop in
every odd few months or so.
Other rules are very implicite but never the less very strict too: you can look
all you want, but never take with you (books, CD's, pictures, paintings,
silverware, the master bedroom furniture for all I care :-) There are places you
don't go without your hosts, like the bedrooms, the kitchen (initially; if a
closer relationship evolves you can start going there on your own).

Just saying that a lot of rules are very very strict and you do abide by them
and never mock them, or only on a rare occation. You probably have lots of them
too, applicable to your home (which just happens to be your castle). And
wouldn't the joke be on you if someone came by and walked off with a book of
yours or with your blue jeans and underpants. :-)

There is this general understanding that you don't take what is not yours to
have. I recon this counts for pictures on the internet. It annoys me too that
some code monkey at Microsoft thought of this toolbar, that makes it very easy
to copy any picture on my site. It is almost an invitation to copy. I don't
think copying should or even can be prevented, but a blunt invitation goes too
far IMO.

So I too hid that darn toolbar using the peace of code that is fully understood
by IE. Appearently Microsoft doesn't really mind me doing that.

<hides/>
There is the occasional person who has one or two special requirements. Such a
person says, apologetically, "I hope you don't mind, but my carpetting gets
soiled easily and is really hard to clean. Would you mind taking off your
shoes before coming inside?"
Wow, you have polite friends :-)
Which is very different from the attitude expressed by "me".


Well, that bit I agree with fully. Attitude of this 'me' person is not very
friendly.

--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'
Jul 23 '05 #61
Barbara de Zoete wrote:
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 14:32:35 -0500, Harlan Messinger
<hm*******************@comcast.net> wrote:
Barbara de Zoete wrote:

I automatically adapt to house rules of people I visit, if I can make
them out.
So do I. It doesn't follow from that, that I would continue to be
friends with someone who feels that it's appropriate to treat *his*
friends as I described above.


Well s/he has te be a very very good friend for me to be able to cope
with an attitude like that :-) But even if not made explicite, are
house rules not very strict sometimes? If only I take a couple of
friends with kids in mind, and see how it changed house rules. As a
visitor you are expected to abide, even if you didn't take part in the
evolution of the new set of rules, but just drop in every odd few
months or so.


I just noticed that we're failing to make the distinction between rules
about how the visitor behaves in the host's home and what the host
expects to do to the visitor. It's one thing to ask me to put my glass
on a coaster or stay off the phone. It's another thing for my host to
spray me with deodorant, to bind my hands to keep me from touching his
belongings, or bathe the room in a magnetic field that disrupts my
watch. The latter actions are more comparable to what we were discussing
with respect to visiting a web site.

[snip]
There is the occasional person who has one or two special
requirements. Such a person says, apologetically, "I hope you don't
mind, but my carpetting gets soiled easily and is really hard to
clean. Would you mind taking off your shoes before coming inside?"


Wow, you have polite friends :-)


Generally I do, yes.
Jul 23 '05 #62
Harlan Messinger wrote:
me wrote:

As a visitor to my site you will be expected to abide by my rules.


If every time friends of yours visited your home...


This might be an OK analogy if it's a personal web site, but not if it's
a business site.

In that case, it would be like a customer going to someone's office or
brick-and-morter store. There, the visitor is more likely to be
kow-towed to rather than the other way around.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Jul 23 '05 #63
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 09:46:26 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:

[...]
As a visitor to my site you will be expected to abide by my rules.
You have got this all backwards.

One of the original ideas for defining what was to become the www was
that it is the www authors "creation" that gets invited to visit a
clients home and browser.

Analogous; if you get invited to visit some ones home you are supposed
to show up with a polite behavior. You are not expected to start telling
your host that s/he needs to repaint the interior, change carpets on the
floor, replace their choice of artwork etc.

The www works the same, after all it is based on client server
technology i.e. the client rules, not the server.
Disabling the IE image bar is one consequence of this.
Nothing ever presented on the www, with an authors argument that it
needs to be protected, is worth protecting in the first place.
Since this condition only lasts for the duration of your visit...


Beep! Error! YM "for the duration of /your visit/" in someone else's
domain.

--
Rex
Jul 23 '05 #64
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 21:29:36 +0100, Jan Roland Eriksson <jr****@newsguy.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 09:46:26 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:


[ nice arguments about who is visiting who ]
Disabling the IE image bar is one consequence of this.


Nothing ever presented on the www, with an authors argument that it
needs to be protected, is worth protecting in the first place.


By disabling the toolbar, the image is not copy protected at all. If someone
feels a need to copy, they can do.
IMO disabling that image toolbar is not about protection. It is about deleting
an invitation to do something I don't like. Even if I'm in someones home, I
don't like them browsing my purse or picking my pockets. This darn toolbar tells
them it is technically very simple to do so.
--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'
Jul 23 '05 #65
me
"Darin McGrew" <mc****@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
news:d0**********@blue.rahul.net...
"Harlan Messinger" <hm*******************@comcast.net> wrote:
Therein lies the problem: You think my browser becomes part of your site when I visit it. It doesn't. And I don't know before reaching your
site that you plan to muck with my stuff when I get there.
me <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
As a visitor to my site you will be expected to abide by my rules.
Disabling the IE image bar is one consequence of this. Since this condition only lasts for the duration of your visit you will not suffer any permanent harm.


As a visitor to my browser, your site will be expected to abide by my
rules. Remaining subject to features built into my browser (whatever they
might be) is one consequence of this. Since this condition only lasts for
the duration of your site's visit, you will not suffer any permanent harm.
Welcome to the WWW.


Humorous but missguided since I pay the hosting fee, create/provide the
content and you are a visitor.
See also http://webtips.dantobias.com/force.html


It is possible to "force" some of that with IE and as long as it's not done
in a malicious manner I see nothing wrong with that. As a professional
designer (yes I do get paid occasionally) I want to control the look of my
site as much as possible. If I can also take some non invasive steps to
protect my IP such as using a script that alerts the user that they must pay
for my photos then I see no harm in that eithier. IMO any browser that
prevents these simple measures is broken but YMMV and it obviously does..

Disabling the image toolbar or respecting my copyright by not stealing my IP
are piddling things to ask of any visitor. I don't install cookies or
anything else nor do I violate my visitors privacy like many (most?) sites
do. I fail to see why there is so much whining about such inconsequential
matters.
Signed,
me
Jul 23 '05 #66
In article <opsm2x0hnfx5vgts@zoete_b>, b_********@hotmail.com enlightened us
with...
By disabling the toolbar, the image is not copy protected at all. If someone
feels a need to copy, they can do.
IMO disabling that image toolbar is not about protection. It is about deleting
an invitation to do something I don't like. Even if I'm in someones home, I
don't like them browsing my purse or picking my pockets. This darn toolbar tells
them it is technically very simple to do so.


why don't you just use MSIE code to do it then?

You can make your page not display the image toolbar on an image-by-image
basis by adding GALLERYIMG="no" to the <IMG> tag, as shown in the following
code example:

<IMG SRC="mypicture.jpg" HEIGHT="100px" WIDTH="100px" GALLERYIMG="no">

--
--
~kaeli~
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable
from magic.
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

Jul 23 '05 #67
In article <11*************@corp.supernews.com>, anonymous@_.com enlightened
us with...
How do I prevent the save/print/email/mypictures toolbar from popping up
when IE users place their cursor over photos at my website? Thank you in
advance for your help.
Signed,
me


Try

[quote src="http://blogs.msdn.com/lisawoll/archive/2004/11/09/254733.aspx"]
You can make your page not display the image toolbar on an image-by-image
basis by adding GALLERYIMG="no" to the <IMG> tag, as shown in the following
code example:

<IMG SRC="mypicture.jpg" HEIGHT="100px" WIDTH="100px" GALLERYIMG="no">
[/quote]

--
--
~kaeli~
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable
from magic.
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

Jul 23 '05 #68
me wrote:
{snipped]
It is possible to "force" some of that with IE and as long as it's not done
in a malicious manner I see nothing wrong with that. As a professional
designer (yes I do get paid occasionally) I want to control the look of my
site as much as possible.


Did you ever read this article?:
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/dao/

If you'd care to read it, I'd like to know your views about the subject;
it's about "Controlling Web Pages"

Rob
Jul 23 '05 #69
Els
kaeli wrote:
In article <opsm2x0hnfx5vgts@zoete_b>,
b_********@hotmail.com enlightened us with...
By disabling the toolbar, the image is not copy protected
at all. If someone feels a need to copy, they can do.
IMO disabling that image toolbar is not about protection.
It is about deleting an invitation to do something I
don't like. Even if I'm in someones home, I don't like
them browsing my purse or picking my pockets. This darn
toolbar tells them it is technically very simple to do
so.


why don't you just use MSIE code to do it then?

> You can make your page not display the image toolbar on an
image-by-image basis by adding GALLERYIMG="no" to the <IMG>
tag, as shown in the following code example:

<IMG SRC="mypicture.jpg" HEIGHT="100px" WIDTH="100px"
GALLERYIMG="no">



That's a lot of extra code if you have 20 images on a page.
Why not just
<meta http-equiv="imagetoolbar" content="no"> ?
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vo. O resto imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: Deep Purple - Pictures Of Home
Jul 23 '05 #70
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 15:23:04 -0600, kaeli <ti******@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote:
In article <opsm2x0hnfx5vgts@zoete_b>, b_********@hotmail.com enlightened us
with...
By disabling the toolbar, the image is not copy protected at all. If someone
feels a need to copy, they can do.
IMO disabling that image toolbar is not about protection. It is about deleting
an invitation to do something I don't like. Even if I'm in someones home, I
don't like them browsing my purse or picking my pockets. This darn toolbar
tells
them it is technically very simple to do so.


why don't you just use MSIE code to do it then?


<snip example>

I might, but then again I can easily forget. The <meta> is standard in the head
element of my pages, I cannot forget.
Besides, I like to keep the use of attributes to a bare minimum. Only use
attributes that are really needes to get the content across. Clutter in the head
element seems less of a mess than clutter on element tag level.
--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'
Jul 23 '05 #71
me
"Jan Roland Eriksson" <jr****@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:u8********************************@4ax.com...
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 09:46:26 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:

[...]
As a visitor to my site you will be expected to abide by my rules.
You have got this all backwards.

One of the original ideas for defining what was to become the www was
that it is the www authors "creation" that gets invited to visit a
clients home and browser.


Thats funny, I thought visitors must first enter a URL in the address bar of
their browser and then press a button before they can visit a website. Does
this mean that those TOS notices I see at many (all?) sites are null?

[snip]
The www works the same, after all it is based on client server
technology i.e. the client rules, not the server.


You are forgetting CGI, server permissions etc. I guess you wouldn't mind
then if I visit your server and do as I please?
Disabling the IE image bar is one consequence of this.


Nothing ever presented on the www, with an authors argument that it
needs to be protected, is worth protecting in the first place.


In your opinion. IMO I suspect you may feel that way because you might be
unable to create anything of value. ;-)
Since this condition only lasts for the duration of your visit...


Beep! Error! YM "for the duration of /your visit/" in someone else's
domain.


A browser has a domain! WOW! Please tell me how I can get my site to visit a
users browser? Would that be push technology? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Signed,
me
Jul 23 '05 #72
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 16:00:48 -0600, me <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
"Jan Roland Eriksson" <jr****@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:u8********************************@4ax.com...
Beep! Error! YM "for the duration of /your visit/" in someone else's
domain.


A browser has a domain! WOW! Please tell me how I can get my site to visit a
users browser? Would that be push technology? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Signed,
me


Man, does your attitude suck, as does your reading capability. Luser *plonk*
--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'
Jul 23 '05 #73
"me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
"Jan Roland Eriksson" <jr****@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:u8********************************@4ax.com.. .
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 09:46:26 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
One of the original ideas for defining what was to become the www was
that it is the www authors "creation" that gets invited to visit a
clients home and browser.
Thats funny, I thought visitors must first enter a URL in the address bar of
their browser and then press a button before they can visit a website.


Yes. When the button is pressed the browser send out the invitation
mentioned above. If it accepts that invitation then the server sends
out the web page to the browser. The web page arrives in the user's
browser and is displayed there.
Does
this mean that those TOS notices I see at many (all?) sites are null?
By and large yes. Thanks to search engines, links from other sites,
links in e-mails, etc. a user can arrive at any page of a site. There
is virtually nor reliable way of making a user agree to a site TOS
before they view a web page.
The www works the same, after all it is based on client server
technology i.e. the client rules, not the server.


You are forgetting CGI, server permissions etc. I guess you wouldn't mind
then if I visit your server and do as I please?


How do you compare hacking a server to viewing a web page in your own
browser?
>Disabling the IE image bar is one consequence of this.


Nothing ever presented on the www, with an authors argument that it
needs to be protected, is worth protecting in the first place.


In your opinion. IMO I suspect you may feel that way because you might be
unable to create anything of value. ;-)


And are you willing to put your work where your mouth is?
>Since this condition only lasts for the duration of your visit...


Beep! Error! YM "for the duration of /your visit/" in someone else's
domain.


A browser has a domain! WOW! Please tell me how I can get my site to visit a
users browser?


He was using domain in the everday use of the word not the technical
use. Which I suspect you knew and hence...
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Ah, the trollishness is coming through. Time for the pills.

Steve

--
"Grab reality by the balls and squeeze." - Tempus Thales

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
Jul 23 '05 #74
me
"Rob_W" <ro************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42***********************@news.xs4all.nl...
me wrote:
{snipped]
It is possible to "force" some of that with IE and as long as it's not done in a malicious manner I see nothing wrong with that. As a professional
designer (yes I do get paid occasionally) I want to control the look of my site as much as possible.


Did you ever read this article?:
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/dao/

If you'd care to read it, I'd like to know your views about the subject;
it's about "Controlling Web Pages"

Rob


I read that article or something similar long ago. I also long ago spent
quite some time consider all the ramifications too. My conclusion is that my
clients want what they want, they don't care about accessibility they want
total control of the look of their sites and since they pay the bill I'm
obliged to satisfy their needs. If that means I have to use tables, fixed
font sizes, flash, CSS or any other bells and whistles you can bet that's
exactly what I'm going to do. If I don't you can be sure there are plenty of
other designers who are more that willing to give them what they want. If
you doubt the popularity of the such design methods just visit any of the
most poplar sites on the web, they're all *controlled*.
Signed,
me
Jul 23 '05 #75
me
"Steve Pugh" <st***@pugh.net> wrote in message
news:g1********************************@4ax.com...
"me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
"Jan Roland Eriksson" <jr****@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:u8********************************@4ax.com.. .
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 09:46:26 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
One of the original ideas for defining what was to become the www was
that it is the www authors "creation" that gets invited to visit a
clients home and browser.


Thats funny, I thought visitors must first enter a URL in the address bar of
their browser and then press a button before they can visit a website.


Yes. When the button is pressed the browser send out the invitation
mentioned above. If it accepts that invitation then the server sends
out the web page to the browser. The web page arrives in the user's
browser and is displayed there.


Fair enough, but the web page is still the IP of the creator and in that
sense the visitor is viewing that content at the pleasure of the site owner.
Does
this mean that those TOS notices I see at many (all?) sites are null?


By and large yes. Thanks to search engines, links from other sites,
links in e-mails, etc. a user can arrive at any page of a site. There
is virtually nor reliable way of making a user agree to a site TOS
before they view a web page.


The concept of automatic agreement to software terms of use has already been
found to be enforceable in court, as such I believe that a TOS on a website
is equally enforceable.
The www works the same, after all it is based on client server
technology i.e. the client rules, not the server.


You are forgetting CGI, server permissions etc. I guess you wouldn't mind
then if I visit your server and do as I please?


How do you compare hacking a server to viewing a web page in your own
browser?
>Disabling the IE image bar is one consequence of this.

Nothing ever presented on the www, with an authors argument that it
needs to be protected, is worth protecting in the first place.


In your opinion. IMO I suspect you may feel that way because you might be
unable to create anything of value. ;-)


And are you willing to put your work where your mouth is?


Sorry, not in a NG.
>Since this condition only lasts for the duration of your visit...

Beep! Error! YM "for the duration of /your visit/" in someone else's
domain.


A browser has a domain! WOW! Please tell me how I can get my site to visit ausers browser?


He was using domain in the everday use of the word not the technical
use. Which I suspect you knew and hence...
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Ah, the trollishness is coming through. Time for the pills.

Steve


I thought you said this thread was OT so who's trolling?
Signed,
me
Jul 23 '05 #76
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 16:00:48 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
"Jan Roland Eriksson" <jr****@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:u8********************************@4ax.com.. .
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 09:46:26 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote: [...] Nothing ever presented on the www, with an authors argument that it
needs to be protected, is worth protecting in the first place.


In your opinion. IMO I suspect you may feel that way because you might be
unable to create anything of value. ;-)


Feel free to do a Google search for the key 'CSS', let's see if you can
find my name as www author any where in a site on the first result page
you get.

How complex search key would I have to use to find you with a similar
Google rating?

--
Rex
Jul 23 '05 #77
Hi C.A.,

"C A Upsdell" <""cupsdellXXX\"@-@-@XXXupsdell.com"> wrote in message
news:Dt********************@rogers.com...
Stan Brown wrote:
"C A Upsdell" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
The argument, therefore, that the meta tag should never be used, is
fundamentally flawed. There are many instances in which the toolbar
will not appear: omitting the meta tag simply ensures that it is IE, and
IE alone, that decides whether it will appear or not.

Your argument seems to be that because users my not immediately be
aware of the criteria by which IS decides hether to display the
toolbar, authors should make it even more arbitrary and less
predictable.

Sorry, that dog won't hunt.


No, my argument is that IE cannot make intelligent decisions about when
to display the toolbar, and that therefore it is appropriate for
designers to apply their intelligence to help IE out. Please re-read
what I said in my previous message.


That dog _does_ hunt for me C.A. I read, and at least in _part_, I agree
with your argument, but there is a sting in the tail.

I think maybe there are 2 questions here (and probably more) the discussiuon
was more about use of the meta version of gelleryimg to disable the image
toolbar for the entire page (I think), but, there is an attribute version
for the img tag (IIRC).

The specific attribute version is the one your argument works for, as if
used "properly" it can be considered as merely providing a hint to the IE
browser on whether a specific image is structural or not (in the sense MS
already disables it for background images and table layouts etc). For a user
it's already confusing why sometimes you get the image toolbar and sometimes
you don't.

I rarely use IE 6 so was initially confused why some images didn't get the
toolbar, and that had nothing to do with the page author.
As you say, MS provide the attribute so page authors _can_ help IE do the
right thing.

As an occasional IE 6 user I'd rather have the page author mark structural
images as "no gallery", but leave it to the browser default for content
images.

The sting in the tail is simply that the page won't validate with the
proprietary attributes and I know authors won't be using it "properly" in
the way it was intended and will just use it to suppress toolbars for
stylistic or "copyright" reasons.

The attribute degrades as far as I know, and doesn't (if used properly)
cause the user any more confusion than there is at the moment AFAIK.

IE has an image toolbar for the users to use and innovation is good (even
though I switched the darned feature off at work where I have IE 6 as I
found it really annoying).

How should MS have introduced it? meta tag Vs attribute Vs CSS Vs purely
Browser options and no hints from the web page.

I'd have preferred MS to add something to CSS as, if anything, it's more
presentational in my mind.

To my admittedly simplistic mind, it's no worse than using any other CSS
(*if* MS had implemented via css) where I can choose as the page author to
hint that my headings are blue, or green or red, in font-a or font-b, bold,
italic, underlined or not etc.
In MS mind this is probably along those lines where the author can
categorise images either as presentational or as content and the browser
image toolbar reacts accordingly - on the positive side, at least they
didn't introduce a totally new tag for this feature :)

Cheerio,
ian Laing


Jul 23 '05 #78
Harlan Messinger wrote:
me wrote:
As a visitor to my site you will be expected to abide by my rules.
Disabling the IE image bar is one consequence of this.


If every time friends of yours visited your home, you confronted
them at the door with "As long as you are in my house you will
abide by my rules..." and then told them they had to take off
their shoes and wash their hands


Well, that analogy isn't quite correct. I know some people that don't
like shoes on in the house, since it may make the carpets dirtier (ie.
it affects them in some way). They're not rude about it, but if I'm
going to be staying a while I'm usually happy to comply.

A better analogy would be like a friend calling you up on the phone and
you request that they remove their glasses before you will talk to them.
Whether they do or not will not affect the conversation in any way,
however their removal may make it more difficult for your friend to
perform certain tasks, such as reading or writing notes during the
conversation.

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
http://GetFirefox.com/ Rediscover the Web
http://GetThunderbird.com/ Reclaim your Inbox
Jul 23 '05 #79
In article <opsm2zz7nhx5vgts@zoete_b>, b_********@hotmail.com enlightened us
with...


<snip example>

I might, but then again I can easily forget. The <meta> is standard in the head
element of my pages, I cannot forget.
Besides, I like to keep the use of attributes to a bare minimum. Only use
attributes that are really needes to get the content across. Clutter in the head
element seems less of a mess than clutter on element tag level.


This is true.
But since IE can ignore meta refresh, do you think soon it will have an
option to ignore other meta tags?
--
--
~kaeli~
What if the Hokey Pokey IS what's it's all about?
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

Jul 23 '05 #80
me
"Jan Roland Eriksson" <jr****@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:2s********************************@4ax.com...
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 16:00:48 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
"Jan Roland Eriksson" <jr****@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:u8********************************@4ax.com.. .
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 09:46:26 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote: [...] Nothing ever presented on the www, with an authors argument that it
needs to be protected, is worth protecting in the first place.


In your opinion. IMO I suspect you may feel that way because you might be
unable to create anything of value. ;-)


Feel free to do a Google search for the key 'CSS', let's see if you can
find my name as www author any where in a site on the first result page
you get.

How complex search key would I have to use to find you with a similar
Google rating?
--
Rex


Perhaps I misjudged your comment that "Nothing ever presented on the www,
with an authors argument that it needs to be protected, is worth protecting
in the first place." As a website designer, photographer, artist and author
I found this to be *very* insulting. It's also a blanket statement that can
not be applied to other peoples IP.

I prefer to get along peacefully. I will show respect for your IP if you
will do the same for mine. If I want to protect my IP from thieves I am by
law within my rights to do so. Can we agree on these points?
Signed,
me
Jul 23 '05 #81
me wrote:
I prefer to get along peacefully. I will show respect for your IP if you
will do the same for mine. If I want to protect my IP from thieves I am by
law within my rights to do so. Can we agree on these points?


Sorry, I had decided to bow out, but the "I know my rights under the
law" justification for one's behavior is one that always gets me.

One is allowed by law to be nasty to people, to walk by them and ignore
them if they ask the time, to walk through doors without holding them
open for the person directly behind, to make fun of the poor to their
faces. Are you one of those people who believe that rights under the law
are the sole determinant of acceptable behavior?

And it bares reiterating: in return for changing the functionality of
people's browsers, you *really* aren't "protecting" your IP, you're just
pretending to.
Jul 23 '05 #82
me
"Harlan Messinger" <hm*******************@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:38*************@individual.net...
me wrote:
I prefer to get along peacefully. I will show respect for your IP if you
will do the same for mine. If I want to protect my IP from thieves I am by law within my rights to do so. Can we agree on these points?
Sorry, I had decided to bow out, but the "I know my rights under the
law" justification for one's behavior is one that always gets me.

One is allowed by law to be nasty to people, to walk by them and ignore
them if they ask the time, to walk through doors without holding them
open for the person directly behind, to make fun of the poor to their
faces. Are you one of those people who believe that rights under the law
are the sole determinant of acceptable behavior?


I believe in live and let live, how about you? Do you want to get along
peacefully or would you rather argue?
And it bares reiterating: in return for changing the functionality of
people's browsers, you *really* aren't "protecting" your IP, you're just
pretending to.


I have no problem with your opinion on that point if you have no problem
with mine.
Signed,
me
Jul 23 '05 #83
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 11:13:25 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
"Jan Roland Eriksson" <jr****@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:2s********************************@4ax.com.. .
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 16:00:48 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
>"Jan Roland Eriksson" <jr****@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:u8********************************@4ax.com.. .
>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 09:46:26 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
>> Nothing ever presented on the www, with an authors argument that it
>> needs to be protected, is worth protecting in the first place. >In your opinion. IMO I suspect you may feel that way because you might be
>unable to create anything of value. ;-)
Feel free to do a Google search for the key 'CSS'...

[...]
Perhaps I misjudged your comment...
Yes you did; that comment as such is not my invention, I saw it first
some 9 years back but have so far never seen it proved wrong.
As a website designer, photographer, artist and author I found this
to be *very* insulting.
Why? There is supposed to be a global level of "free speech" available
to everyone, you, me and everyone else.

I also like to do works with any one of my cameras, Nikon 501's (several
of them), Hasselblad (just one) and a Nikon D as times call for it.

I give you this one for free...

<http://www.fantasywoman.nu/>

....and if you can find it in your heart to invite any one of my
creations into your home, I can only hope that you like what you see.

As usual on the "net" you are entitled to a full refund of money spent
if you are not satisfied with what you get.
I prefer to get along peacefully.
Yes, let's...
I will show respect for your IP if you will do the same for mine.
No argument there...
If I want to protect my IP from thieves I am by law within my
rights to do so.


Sure; by law, yes. What stifles your attempt is the basic "atmosphere"
that comes as a designed part of the www.

You learn what you need to learn, and to live with that. After you have
done so your life on the www will be so much simpler :-)

--
Rex
Jul 23 '05 #84
me
"Jan Roland Eriksson" <jr****@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:mv********************************@4ax.com...
[big snip]

I respect the IP others and I often find it to be of great value. I do not
steal the IP of others. I appreciate that each person who creates IP and
places it on their website is entitled to expect that it will not be stolen.
I believe that anyone who places IP on a website is entitled to protect it
from theft if they wish too. The concept is very simple, respect other
peoples property. End of sermon.
Signed,
me
Jul 23 '05 #85
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 08:27:27 -0600, kaeli <ti******@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote:
In article <opsm2zz7nhx5vgts@zoete_b>, b_********@hotmail.com enlightened us
with...
>


<snip example>

I might, but then again I can easily forget. The <meta> is standard in the
head element of my pages, I cannot forget.
Besides, I like to keep the use of attributes to a bare minimum. Only use
attributes that are really needes to get the content across. Clutter in the
head element seems less of a mess than clutter on element tag level.


This is true.
But since IE can ignore meta refresh, do you think soon it will have an
option to ignore other meta tags?

Possibliy. We'll know it all if the new IE arrives. And if so, no harm done.
It's not like it will hurt my visitor in any way. Maybe then I'll go with the
attribute for the img element.
--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'
Jul 23 '05 #86
The best way to make you photos undownloadable is to make the page
password protected and the photos are not shown until proper key is
placed.

I know this sucks, but if you want material protected, you cannot put
it online on a public website or anyone can grab it.

By using Macromedia Flash with a watermark, you make it a bit harder
for people to retrieve your "copyrighted" pictures (still can print
easy though).

As far as I know, any media available on public websites can be used by
other people (not legally always).

http://www.SirSeek.com
http://www.MedChecker.com
http://www.MaxSpider.com
http://www.Presearcher.com
http://www.13KG.com
http://www.SeekFreak.com

Jul 23 '05 #87
In article <11**********************@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
ar**********************@gmail.com enlightened us with...
The best way to make you photos undownloadable is to make the page
password protected and the photos are not shown until proper key is
placed.


Not just the PAGE.
You must also place the images themselves in a virtual/password-protected
directory (windows IIS) or in an .htaccess protected directory (apache/*nix)
with directory browsing turned off or I can simply start looking around at
directories and/or load the images myself by typing in addresses (at random
if I have to).

You want to see excellently protected pics? Even _I_ haven't managed to
snurch THESE puppies. ;)

http://www.wireimage.com/

Obviously, were I willing to pay exhorbitant fees to become a member and
could access the large photos, nothing could then prevent me from downloading
them. But they're watermarked pretty well, too.

--
--
~kaeli~
Never argue with an idiot! People may not be able to tell
you apart.
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

Jul 23 '05 #88
THANK YOU!!!

I've been looking for a way to disable that stupid bar that was
standard compliant for several months now!

Sincerely,

Grant Smith

Jul 23 '05 #89
Els
Grant Smith - eNVENT Technologies wrote:
THANK YOU!!!

I've been looking for a way to disable that stupid bar that was
standard compliant for several months now!


Just by your message, the answer could be
<meta http-equiv="imagetoolbar" content="no">

But your subject line says "Prevent IE users from copying", and that's
just not gonna happen :-)

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vo. O resto imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: Guns N' Roses - Perfect Crime
Jul 23 '05 #90
Els wrote:
Just by your message, the answer could be
<meta http-equiv="imagetoolbar" content="no">

But your subject line says "Prevent IE users from copying", and that's just not gonna happen :-)

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vo. O resto imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: Guns N' Roses - Perfect Crime


You have a very good point. The reason my subject is what it is is the
fact that I did a reply and didn't change the subject line from its
default.

I'm sure that we all know that a view source will get them whatever
they want. I just wanted to get rid of that annoying bar. ;-)

Thanks again,

Grant Smith - eNVENT Technologies (www.envent-tech.com)

Jul 23 '05 #91
Previously in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, Grant Smith - eNVENT
Technologies <gr*********@envent-tech.com> said:
I'm sure that we all know that a view source will get them whatever
they want. I just wanted to get rid of that annoying bar. ;-)


You may find it annoying, but how do you know it annoys your users? If
it annoys you, use a real browser, or disable the toolbar in *your* IE
by going to Tools>Internet Options>Advanced and untick "Enable Image
Toolbar (requires restart)" (under Multimedia).

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
Jul 23 '05 #92
Mark Parnell wrote:

You may find it annoying, but how do you know it annoys your users? If it annoys you, use a real browser, or disable the toolbar in *your* IE by going to Tools>Internet Options>Advanced and untick "Enable Image
Toolbar (requires restart)" (under Multimedia).

First off, I do use a 'real' browser: Mozilla Firefox.

Secondly, my users shouldn't wish to steal my images in the first
place, so they shouldn't care whether or not that bar is there.

Any more questions?

Thanks,

Grant Smith - eNVENT Technologies (www.envent-tech.com)

Jul 23 '05 #93
Previously in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, Grant Smith - eNVENT
Technologies <gr*********@envent-tech.com> said:
First off, I do use a 'real' browser: Mozilla Firefox.
Then you don't see that "annoying" toolbar. Problem solved.
Secondly, my users shouldn't wish to steal my images in the first
place,
Agreed.
so they shouldn't care whether or not that bar is there.
Compiler error: line 13; Conclusion based on flimsy assumptions instead
of facts.
Any more questions?


Yes - what makes you think that the only reason a user would want the
image toolbar there is to steal your images? What makes you think that
disabling the image toolbar is going to discourage anyone from taking
your images, since there are numerous other ways of them achieving that?
What makes you think that screwing around with the expected behaviour of
your visitor's browser is a good way to get them to come back?

If you want to stop anyone from stealing your images, you're going to
have to do a lot better than disabling a toolbar.

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
Jul 23 '05 #94
See my 'Reply to Els'.

And by the way, if someone isn't out to save images from my website,
why would the care that the toolbar is there? All it does is allow for
quick save or print of the image in question. It isn't an assumption,
it is a fact.

By the way, maybe you should spend less time on meaningless arguments
and more time on your site.

Thank you,

Grant Smith - eNVENT Technologies (www.envent-tech.com)

Jul 23 '05 #95
Grant Smith - eNVENT Technologies wrote:
Els wrote:

Just by your message, the answer could be
<meta http-equiv="imagetoolbar" content="no">

But your subject line says "Prevent IE users from copying", and


that's
just not gonna happen :-)

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vo. O resto imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: Guns N' Roses - Perfect Crime

You have a very good point. The reason my subject is what it is is the
fact that I did a reply and didn't change the subject line from its
default.

I'm sure that we all know that a view source will get them whatever
they want. I just wanted to get rid of that annoying bar. ;-)


So will a leisurely stroll through their cache, which makes any scheme
to stop people from stealing your images fraught with difficulties.
Jul 23 '05 #96
me
"Peter1968" <es****@nonsensebigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:p1****************@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Grant Smith - eNVENT Technologies wrote:
Els wrote:

Just by your message, the answer could be
<meta http-equiv="imagetoolbar" content="no">

But your subject line says "Prevent IE users from copying", and


that's
just not gonna happen :-)

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vo. O resto imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: Guns N' Roses - Perfect Crime

You have a very good point. The reason my subject is what it is is the
fact that I did a reply and didn't change the subject line from its
default.

I'm sure that we all know that a view source will get them whatever
they want. I just wanted to get rid of that annoying bar. ;-)


So will a leisurely stroll through their cache, which makes any scheme
to stop people from stealing your images fraught with difficulties.


Possibly, but IMO most users (especially novice thieves) don't think of the
cache as a place to copy images from, in addition Windows displays a warning
when this is attempted. The cache may well contain thousands of files and
the thief (we are talking about punishable criminal behavior here in case
anyone forgot) wishes to steal may have a non-obvious cryptic name. If the
designer used JS to open the image in a chromeless window the user won't
know the name of the file. I don't say any of this will prevent a determined
thief from committing a crime but IMO that's no reason to capitulate. As a
final solution place the following in the head of your document to prevent
caching of image(s):
Signed,
me

<meta name="cache-control" content="no-cache">
Jul 23 '05 #97
me
"Grant Smith - eNVENT Technologies" <gr*********@envent-tech.com> wrote in
message news:11**********************@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
See my 'Reply to Els'.

And by the way, if someone isn't out to save images from my website,
why would the care that the toolbar is there? All it does is allow for
quick save or print of the image in question. It isn't an assumption,
it is a fact.

By the way, maybe you should spend less time on meaningless arguments
and more time on your site.

Thank you,

Grant Smith - eNVENT Technologies (www.envent-tech.com)


My name is *me* and I officially endorse Mr. Grant's message.
Signed,
me
Jul 23 '05 #98
me wrote:
Possibly, but IMO most users (especially novice thieves) don't think of the
cache as a place to copy images from, in addition Windows displays a warning
when this is attempted. The cache may well contain thousands of files and
the thief (we are talking about punishable criminal behavior here in case
anyone forgot)


In which countries is the intention to infringe copyright a criminal act?

--
Michael
m r o z a t u k g a t e w a y d o t n e t
Jul 23 '05 #99
me
"Michael Rozdoba" <mr**@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:42**********************@news.zen.co.uk...
me wrote:
Possibly, but IMO most users (especially novice thieves) don't think of the cache as a place to copy images from, in addition Windows displays a warning when this is attempted. The cache may well contain thousands of files and the thief (we are talking about punishable criminal behavior here in case anyone forgot)


In which countries is the intention to infringe copyright a criminal act?

--
Michael


The act of copying is a violation in the US as evidenced by the recent spate
of lawsuits by the record industry against people who download music files.
Signed,
me
Jul 23 '05 #100

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.