Reviewers Recommend Working Girls 3 (Reality Junkies) - review by Captain Jack Director: Mike Quasar Starring: Danny Mountain, Derrick Pierce, Anissa Kate, Codey Steele, Adira Allure, Elizabeth Skylar, Taylor Wild, Jay Romero. Read review
I can disable the right click function in galleries but I still have yet to be able to figure out how to prevent that little block that shows up in windows in the top right corner from allowing you to save the picture.
Anyone know a line of script that will disable that function?
I have bad news for you. Modern browsers do not allow scripts to disable part of the user interface, including right click. Moreover, with one click of a button, the may be disabled if there is any other kind of harmful script present on a website. It takes only one second.
There is no way you can prevent images from being downloaded, or saved on user disk. If all else fails, there is always the cache.
If I see an image on a webpage, I have full control over it, and so does everyone else who uses non-Microsoft software.
It is also a very nasty thing to do to your visitors - to try to disable part of their user interface. Would you like me to disable your "back" button, for instance? Or your refresh button? It is practices like these that led to the development of user-friendly browser software that does not allow webmasters to manipulate it.
With all due respect, of course.
Em
p.s. If you are talking of the small image toolbar that Internet Explorer provides for images, you can disable it by using a tag in the head of the document: <meta name="imagetoolbar" content="no">
Yes I believe I am talking about the small image toolbar.
Now as to it being "a very nasty thing" to do. Is it very nice for people to download someone elses work and then sell it as their own. As is the case on e-bay all the time.
It is not your average person I worry about. They are just people saving images to their computer because they like them and that is okay. And as you said pretty much impossible to prevent.
But there are way to many people out there who steal things every day for profit and then complain when someone makes it more difficult for them to do so.
As far as manipulating your browser. I am not redirecting you anywhere or preventing you from leaving so I fail to see how making it a little more difficult for you to take images off my site to use somewhere else is nasty or rude.
That is like saying the little tags they put in DVD's at stores that set off alarms when you try to exit with them active is rude and nasty because it makes it more difficult to steal them.
The code I gave you will disable it. Internet Explorer users have to endure all sorts of stuff being done to them, so what's one more obstacle to them. It's actually innocent, given that they are exploited in every possible way, have their browser hijacked, and get spyware silently autoinstalled :)It is a nasty thing to do, because you cannot prevent thieves, but you harrass regular, innocent users. Thieves do not point and click for images. They use command-line tools, or spider offline downloaders that download all images for them anyway.
Hence, you hurt the small guy, but do nothing to prevent theft. Besides, right-click disabling script simply doesn't work as advertised. Trust me.
Sure. Yet as I said, you affect only people who use MSIE to browse, and not even all of them. I'd rather invest effort in a server-side bot prevention, rather than nonworking client-side scripts. Are you on Apache? We can talk via email, if you like.I completely understand the for-profit motivations of thieves. I also understand that derivative work of art, or personal use is fine with you. Yet there are more fruitful methods than right-click. One - image watermarks. Two - server-side blocking scripts, but that are not dependent on action, or GUI features, but on the type of request, or true user agent, or IP address.I've pretty much said all there is to say above. To reiterate, since client-side scripts do not work, and are harmful, not to mention that they give you a bad rep, I'd rather suggest other methods, as outlined above. As for things being harmful: any action that prevents a legitimate use of their browser is harmful, as are browser-sniffing scripts that detect (most often wrongly) the browser type, and try to deny access to a website for a legitimate user of legitimate software who has legitimate motivations - simply enter and see what the website has to offer.But you are not putting little tags. You would, if you included watermarks. The paralell is not accurate, however. What you are doing is putting my legs in iron when I enter your store, and then tie one of my hands behind my back, so that it is more difficult for me to steal something. Me, well, you do it to everyone who tries to enter your DVD store, don't you? And all this when at the same time the thieves are sucking your DVD inventory using an underground channel access to your server, oops - store.
Don't hurt the small guy! Reserve the bazooka for the real culprit... :)
I think you assumed that I was asking this question but still knew about things such as "server-side blocking scripts". Which I do not but now that you mentioned it I will look into them.
While I said that in general I have no real heartache with someone who just wants to save a copy of an image they like that doesn't necessarily make it any less wrong.
I look at that issue the way I look at all the illegal music downloads. Just because you can do something doesn't make it right. And just because everyone else does it as well doesn't make it right either.
I do not provide my own server so my ability to change the server is non-existent. So I am looking at things I can incorporate into the site design to help increase security as well as the methods my service provider is using to make the site more secure.
You analogy is correct in that the methods I am using don't really effect the big rings that steal images but do effect the little guy. I however, do not, buy into your image of me tying one hand behind your back and chaining your legs when you try to view the site. After all if the site is clearly marked as copy righted material then any effort to copy images from it without permission is someone knowingly breaking the law. To do something to make that action a little more difficult is hardly any less inappropriate then the action of trying to take the image in the first place.
:)You need to have some sort of access to server administration to protect yourself. If you don't at the moment, it might be time to change the webhosting company to one that will allow you to administer such stuff, and configure the server without actually installing it yourself.My analogy is correct, because attempting to prevent behavior A, you do not really prevent it, whilst at the same time you prevent behaviors B,C,D,...,Z which are unrelated to theft. Right-click blocking scripts are a big no-no of web design, and a waste of resources.
I am not questioning your motivations. I am questioning the method of execution .
Basically, it comes down to this: do not distribute free content that has significant commercial value. That means you should use lower-resolution images and watermarks that cannot be removed without reducing the value of the image.
No matter how good a programmer you are, there will be someone a half step ahead of you. Since you have no control over your server, there are plenty of folks that are many steps ahead of you. The problem is, by the time you've found out that some has cracked your method, it's way too late.
If you're going to have half a chance at fending off the bad guys, you will need the ability to block IP addresses -- preferably at the router. Right now it sounds like you do not have that ability; if you don't put a gate on the driveway, there's nothing preventing folks from knocking on your front door.
By all means, try to put some safeguards. The bad guys will go after the lowest-hanging fruit and if your site is a pain to crack, they'll go elsewhere. But don't spend too much time on it; you will quickly reach the point of diminishing returns.
Put up a few high-quality sample images and rotate them frequently (that lets your visitors know that your content is fresh), but you'll lose if you try to engineer a system that protects your entire library of high-quality images.
Words of wisdom. A fight with bots and spiders puts a webmaster one step behind them. Yet, yet , that is not the reason to not use bot prevention methods, especially in light of the fact that they waste bandwidth you pay for, and often are of malicious intent.
A gallery with previews (small watermarked images) and allowance for fair use with a copyright disclaimer forbidding commercial or bulk reuse is of course a good addition, and will deter people who do pay attention to rules.
The best strategy is to use all means available to you, both fair, and brutal.
However, right-click is not any of these. Many users have the browser menus switched off, and installed in their right-click context menu. Block the latter, and you make browsing impossible to them. Not to mention that many modern browsers have navigation and other tools made available in right-click menus. What you see in Internet Explorer's right-click menu is not a good estimator of what people have there, because IE is a previous century browser, and such is its user interface.
From anywhere where the email is ready to be spidered. Even entity-encoded emails are not safe these days. But even if you protect yourself as best you can, it's enough that someone who uses Microsoft mailing software, such as Outlook or Outlook Express, adds your address to his address book. Then you're cooked anyway, given the vulnerability of this software.
There are some who say that Outlook users should be shot on sight :]
So what is a good e-mail program to use. Other than microsoft products the only e-mail program I have played with is Endora and I wasn't very impressed with it.
If you want to avoid using M$ software, then you either pick a Mozilla family line, or Opera, or Konqueror relatives, such as Safari & Omniweb. Are you on a Mac?
Within Mozilla world, you can use Mozilla Thunderbird, if you want your software better than Outlook, but looking and working in a similar way.
Opera 7.5 has an integrated mailer called M2, quite revolutionary, as it is based on an instantly-searchable database model, and not on hand-managed folders. I recommend Opera, because within 3MB download you have a state-of-the-art email and browser software.
Both Opera and Mozilla-related software is available for various platforms.
As far as Mac-specific software is concerned, I know close to nothing, so I can't help.
Apple's own Mail.app is a very competent mail client for Mac OS X (my personal e-mail needs are simple). The built-in junkmail filters work pretty well and you can add third-party filters. It has no problems talking to my SASL-based outgoing SMTP server. You can also add S/MIME and GnuPG encryption support.
I used Mozilla Mail/Thunderbird before, but Mail.app is simply better integrated with other OS X apps (like Address Book) and does what I need it to do.
If the standard Mail.app isn't quite up to snuff, you should check out Mac OS X Hints (for tweaks) and VersionTracker (for hacks) before considering alternative mail clients.
Something I see freeQuently now that doesn't disable the browser functions is
Creating your pictures inside a table. Setting the table background to the image you want to show. But having a transparent Gif as the image in the cell.
When you right click to save the user will be saving the transparent GIF.
But for those that have addins to their browsers will know right away somethings not right.
I have an addin that lets me zoom in on pictures on webpages. This requires a right click and when I can't right click it drives me crazy sometimes. Especially if I want to open a link on that page in a new window. I'd have to rick click open it.
One can open new windows without right click. Shift+left click or wheel-click does the job for me. I could also use the gesture if I wanted.
Images in tables are a bad idea, because you burden your documents with lots of useless cruft'n'crap, whilst you cannot prevent anyone from accessing the images if they wish so.
It's enough to disable tables, for instance, to "kill" that effect. I do that with one click of a mouse.
As I said, this is a road to nowhere, and the only recipient of the harm is the regular user.
