> Protware's product will not "protect" your > images. It will just make it barely harder to get to them.
At least my comment was good for a laugh.
It's too bad you didn't have more faith in your own opinions. I bought their Enterprise version and I am quite impressed what the program can do. Obviously, trying to control web content is a monumental task so noone should expect perfection or absolute results. But deterrence is valuable, and forcing visitors to contact you to get content is a good thing in my books. The statement above was one of several that simply were *not true*. Criticising the efforts of others is a cheap thrill. Given the difficulties of the task, Protware does a fine job. On images, there is almost no way to get a usable copy of an image unless you copy the screen (if that's worth doing) so at least those who might want to harvest large numbers of images will have to really work at it. The program also protects design code, text copying, bandwidth theft, site duplicating, and several other forms of inappropriate access to your website. It also optimizes code.
--- In STOCKPH...@yahoogroups.com, "Ed Verkaik" <verkaik@...> wrote:
> 2. Posted by: "Brian Yarvin" brian@... byarvin > > Protware's product will not "protect" your > > images. It will just make it barely harder to get to them.
> At least my comment was good for a laugh.
> The statement above was one of several that simply were *not true*. > Criticising the efforts of others is a cheap thrill.
I made the statement above and I stand by what I said.
Please post a link to a Protware-protected image on your site. Feel free to use as many of Protware's "encryption" features you wish.
> 2. Posted by: "Brian Yarvin" brian@... byarvin > > Protware's product will not "protect" your > > images. It will just make it barely harder to get to them.
> At least my comment was good for a laugh.
> It's too bad you didn't have more faith in your own opinions. I bought their > Enterprise version and I am quite impressed what the program can do. > Obviously, trying to control web content is a monumental task so noone > should expect perfection or absolute results. But deterrence is valuable, > and forcing visitors to contact you to get content is a good thing in my > books. The statement above was one of several that simply were *not true*. > Criticising the efforts of others is a cheap thrill. Given the difficulties > of the task, Protware does a fine job. On images, there is almost no way to > get a usable copy of an image unless you copy the screen (if that's worth > doing) so at least those who might want to harvest large numbers of images > will have to really work at it. The program also protects design code, text > copying, bandwidth theft, site duplicating, and several other forms of > inappropriate access to your website. It also optimizes code.
> Ed Verkaik
You'd need to actually post your site to the forum, so we can see if it actually works.
> > It will just make it barely harder to get to them. > I made the statement above and I stand by what I said. > Please post a link to a Protware-protected image on your site.
You used the expression "barely harder" which is not true. It will make it much harder for the vast majority of regular web users who want to steal the server image. Yes, it will not stop a determined person from getting a screen capture but all the other, easier methods-- including snatching images from the cache-- will be disabled. A screen capture will likely have poorer quality than the file it displays.
Internet security is not a matter of absolutes, but of degrees. If I can stop 98% of casual theft and force the odd diehard to *really* work at it, then I have succeeded in reducing the spread of my imagery without my control. It's not perfect but is a whole lot better than doing nothing. It is time for you to acknowledge small victories instead of jumping all over them. We all know the weaknesses but in my book, the risk of remaining unprotected is far too high now.
The largest advertising market of the future will be the web. Even a thumbnail can be stolen and reused on a website, representing lost income. Copyright lawyers will not help (they are too expensive... no justice unless you're rich) so the only solution is to control access. For those that say "It's the web, we need to take that risk..." I would say you will find your imagery everywhere in time, without recourse. The day (coming soon) when optimizing software can recreate a small jpeg and make it suitable for large ads is coming too. We either give up on the idea of IP rights or we shut the door on access, as best we can.
Ed Verkaik wrote: > A screen capture will likely have > poorer quality than the file it displays.
Ed:
What documentation do you have to support this claim?
If you are posting an image that is 400 x 600 pixels and having the browser render it to 200 x 300 I would agree that a screen capture would be lower quality, only because the browser is not displaying the full resolution of the file.
However if I make a screen capture and save as a TIFF, then that image will be the exact same quality as I see on screen. If I'm going to post that image on my website and resave it as a Jpeg, then it's possible that the second round of compression caused by my saving it as a jpeg might lower the quality, but only if I'm not paying attention when I set the compression level.
Posted by: "Rubens Abboud" rubens_abb...@hotmail.com r_a_p_i_1 What's the logic behind spending $70 on a lock for your side door if no product yet exists to lock your front door?
If you use Protware your images will still be unprotected. This is not a "small victory"
Thanks for the clarification on screen grabs.
I had already mentioned that we use watermarks anyway, so the Protware approach (of disabling the most convenient techniques plus chopping up images in cache) is an improvement over just freely allowing others to take what they want. To use your analogy, if all the doors and windows are locked but one, then most casual thiefs may give up and move on. I am trying to *discourage* copying, and make it less straightforward. I am also making it harder to copy our text and code. Protware does a range of things (like block bandwidth theft, applying referrer checks, optimizing code etc.) and I think you are far too critical and dismissive. I'm not paranoid, just trying not to be a fool. We do what we can in an imperfect world.
--- In STOCKPH...@yahoogroups.com, "Ed Verkaik" <verkaik@...> wrote:
>Protware does a range of things (like > block bandwidth theft, applying referrer checks, optimizing code etc.) and I > think you are far too critical and dismissive.
I think the only way you'll understand why I am critical and dismissive of Protware's "technology" is when you've had the opportunity to implement Protware on your site and have had practical experience with the results.
In the meantime, here are some tips:
- referrer checks are not effective or even practical. The referrer string is sent by the user's browser and not all browsers send it. If you limit access to only certain referrers, you are likely blocking a lot of legitimate access to your site. Google: "blank referrer" if you want proof.
- if you write your site in PHP, you are much better off using a dedicated optimizer like the one from Zend, or even some of the better free ones. You'll get performance improvements orders of magnitude than Protware is capable of delivering. Google: PHP optimizer
|
