Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Question on photo file

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
Anonymous
June 27, 2005 1:09:06 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Hi,
Is there a way to protect the photo file on the internet so that it
can't be copied?

Thanks,
Kevin

More about : question photo file

Anonymous
June 27, 2005 1:41:02 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Yes, as others said even though you disable right click for that picture in
the script they can still copy it using print screen. One way to make the
copy task a harder one by putting a copy right symbol on the picture. For
example, www.microsoft.com. If that is placed in a part of picture which
would be difficult for the user to edit using any image editing software you
can achieve the task you are planning.

--
JonyBrv


"Kevin" wrote:

> Hi,
> Is there a way to protect the photo file on the internet so that it
> can't be copied?
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin
June 27, 2005 4:26:47 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

In news:3C9BB341-91AC-48A7-AFEA-589442D3B899@microsoft.com,
Kevin <Kevin@discussions.microsoft.com> had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

> Hi,
> Is there a way to protect the photo file on the internet so that
> it can't be copied?
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin

No. No matter what it can still be copied - they can easily get it from
their temp files if they want it bad enough or use one of the many
applications that enable it or even just turn of scripting and head to the
site that way.

Galen
--

"And that recommendation, with the exaggerated estimate of my ability
with which he prefaced it, was, if you will believe me, Watson, the
very first thing which ever made me feel that a profession might be
made out of what had up to that time been the merest hobby."

Sherlock Holmes
Related resources
Anonymous
June 27, 2005 4:26:48 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Kevin wrote:
> Is there a way to protect the photo file on the internet so that
> it can't be copied?

Galen wrote:
> No. No matter what it can still be copied - they can easily get it
> from their temp files if they want it bad enough or use one of the
> many applications that enable it or even just turn of scripting and
> head to the site that way.

You missed the most obvious..

"Print Screen" and paste it into the application of their choosing.

:) 

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Anonymous
June 27, 2005 4:33:55 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Not really. Most any way to avoid this can be outwitted if the user has the
necessary determiniation. Not worth the effort.

--
George Hester
_______________________________
"Kevin" <Kevin@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3C9BB341-91AC-48A7-AFEA-589442D3B899@microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Is there a way to protect the photo file on the internet so that it
> can't be copied?
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin
Anonymous
June 27, 2005 10:41:51 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

No
Reduce the resolution and size of the photo.
--
Ron Sommer

"Kevin" <Kevin@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3C9BB341-91AC-48A7-AFEA-589442D3B899@microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Is there a way to protect the photo file on the internet so that it
> can't be copied?
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin
Anonymous
June 27, 2005 11:14:02 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Not easy, but possible. You can place the picture on a
webpage with another picture on top of it that is
transparent. When they try to right click on the picture
they will be clicking on a picture that is on top.

I know I have seen webpages that will return an error
message if you try to save or download a picture, so there
are ways to do these things. But there also ways around
such protections.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm



"Ron Sommer" <rsommer@nospam.ktis.net> wrote in message
news:u$by30weFHA.2124@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
| No
| Reduce the resolution and size of the photo.
| --
| Ron Sommer
|
| "Kevin" <Kevin@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
| news:3C9BB341-91AC-48A7-AFEA-589442D3B899@microsoft.com...
| > Hi,
| > Is there a way to protect the photo file on the
internet so that it
| > can't be copied?
| >
| >
Thanks,
| >
Kevin
|
|
Anonymous
June 27, 2005 11:28:35 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Not easy, but possible. You can place the picture on a
> webpage with another picture on top of it that is
> transparent. When they try to right click on the picture
> they will be clicking on a picture that is on top.
>
> I know I have seen webpages that will return an error
> message if you try to save or download a picture, so there
> are ways to do these things. But there also ways around
> such protections.

Then I use a freeware/shareware/pay site grabber and get everything off your
site - including the picture that I cannot see. =)

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Anonymous
June 27, 2005 12:17:32 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

You put a lock on your hand tool box to keep your friends
from using and loosing your hammer and screwdrivers. A
thief just steal the whole box. As I said, "But there also
ways around
such protections."



--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm



"Shenan Stanley" <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:udsIcOxeFHA.1456@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > Not easy, but possible. You can place the picture on a
| > webpage with another picture on top of it that is
| > transparent. When they try to right click on the
picture
| > they will be clicking on a picture that is on top.
| >
| > I know I have seen webpages that will return an error
| > message if you try to save or download a picture, so
there
| > are ways to do these things. But there also ways around
| > such protections.
|
| Then I use a freeware/shareware/pay site grabber and get
everything off your
| site - including the picture that I cannot see. =)
|
| --
| Shenan Stanley
| MS-MVP
| --
| How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
| http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
|
|
Anonymous
June 27, 2005 2:18:47 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Kevin wrote:
> Hi,
> Is there a way to protect the photo file on the internet so that
> it can't be copied?

As long it is being displayed it can be copied. What you'd what to do,
is place a copy of the photo on the net that is viewable at screen
resolution, but not at a printable resolution.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
June 27, 2005 9:20:39 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

In news:umnVdEteFHA.1040@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl,
Shenan Stanley <newshelper@gmail.com> had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

> Kevin wrote:
>> Is there a way to protect the photo file on the internet so that
>> it can't be copied?
>
> Galen wrote:
>> No. No matter what it can still be copied - they can easily get it
>> from their temp files if they want it bad enough or use one of the
>> many applications that enable it or even just turn of scripting and
>> head to the site that way.
>
> You missed the most obvious..
>
> "Print Screen" and paste it into the application of their choosing.
>
> :) 
>
> --
> Shenan Stanley
> MS-MVP

LOL Yeah but most people I hope aren't that lazy. They'd also have to edit
out the browser image/boarder itself and the likes ;)  Cropping sure is a
pain when you're as graphics retarded as I am. I can't make, edit, or crop
anything to save my soul. Well, maybe a little, but it takes a few tries.
<g> It would seem to me that the future likely holds some sort of answer
for this where the image will not be cached, the print screen will not work,
and this will be functional in online uploaded files. Of course that will
likely be defeated within 24 hours after being announced and older systems
will still bypass it. The idea is interesting though... I was recently
reading a bunch of material on quantum cyptography (all of which was either
dumbed down to a level where I could grasp the basics or above my head) and
there may indeed be something in there - way in the future - that would be
of use in a project such as this. I imaging that it could handle the
permissions based on the requested user's authentication (guest or above for
instance) and then be able to control the PC in some regards though the idea
as a browser would have to be altered I should think. Something that
automatically closed the "browser" if someone tried to print the screen or
use an application like XNView to grab a screen shot? Something that
functions a lot like today's browsers but with more advanced features. To
think, it'd be the privacy zealots who went off on something like that
probably when in fact it would be just people who were wanting to protect
assets. (Not that I don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy but I
fail to see why someone would want to completely abolish cookies when they
do potentially serve a useful function and are, by themselves, benign. It is
people and sites who share data that make third party cookies potentially
capable of tracking and recording your activity, they cookie by itself is
really pretty harmless and killing them all would prevent people from
remaining logged into useful sites or prevent legitimate tracking to better
optimize sites or sales on a single site. But I digress...)

Anyhow a bit of food for thought and an idea of what may eventually be
plausible in the future for a short while until it's been defeated. People
not respecting IP (Intellectual Property) are sure to want a way to violate
it. It's sad that you can't just put an image online and expect that people
will request permission to use it. Somehow the impression that if it's
uploaded it's free to do with as you please has become a rampant idea and
yet these same people probably wouldn't think that just because they can
window shop they're entitled to enter the store and take any item for free
and keep it. These same people probably wouldn't plagerize a book nor would
they take an unknown artist's work and foist it on other people as their
own. Somewhere the impression that if it's online it's usable (sometimes in
the name of fair use) by them in any way they want has become acceptable. Is
that a statement of society or a statement of the internet culture? Makes me
wonder... I really does...

Galen
--

"And that recommendation, with the exaggerated estimate of my ability
with which he prefaced it, was, if you will believe me, Watson, the
very first thing which ever made me feel that a profession might be
made out of what had up to that time been the merest hobby."

Sherlock Holmes
Anonymous
June 27, 2005 10:10:02 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Galen wrote:
> In news:umnVdEteFHA.1040@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl,
> Shenan Stanley <newshelper@gmail.com> had this to say:
>
> My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:
>
>> Kevin wrote:
>>> Is there a way to protect the photo file on the internet so that
>>> it can't be copied?
>>
>> Galen wrote:
>>> No. No matter what it can still be copied - they can easily get it
>>> from their temp files if they want it bad enough or use one of the
>>> many applications that enable it or even just turn of scripting and
>>> head to the site that way.
>>
>> You missed the most obvious..
>>
>> "Print Screen" and paste it into the application of their choosing.
>>
>> :) 
>>
>> --
>> Shenan Stanley
>> MS-MVP
>
> LOL Yeah but most people I hope aren't that lazy. They'd also have to
> edit out the browser image/boarder itself and the likes ;)  Cropping
> sure is a pain when you're as graphics retarded as I am. I can't
> make, edit, or crop anything to save my soul. Well, maybe a little,
> but it takes a few tries. <g> It would seem to me that the future
> likely holds some sort of answer for this where the image will not be
> cached, the print screen will not work, and this will be functional
> in online uploaded files. Of course that will likely be defeated
> within 24 hours after being announced and older systems will still
> bypass it. The idea is interesting though... I was recently reading a
> bunch of material on quantum cyptography (all of which was either
> dumbed down to a level where I could grasp the basics or above my
> head) and there may indeed be something in there - way in the future
> - that would be of use in a project such as this. I imaging that it
> could handle the permissions based on the requested user's
> authentication (guest or above for instance) and then be able to
> control the PC in some regards though the idea as a browser would
> have to be altered I should think. Something that automatically
> closed the "browser" if someone tried to print the screen or use an
> application like XNView to grab a screen shot? Something that
> functions a lot like today's browsers but with more advanced
> features. To think, it'd be the privacy zealots who went off on
> something like that probably when in fact it would be just people who
> were wanting to protect assets. (Not that I don't have a reasonable
> expectation of privacy but I fail to see why someone would want to
> completely abolish cookies when they do potentially serve a useful
> function and are, by themselves, benign. It is people and sites who
> share data that make third party cookies potentially capable of
> tracking and recording your activity, they cookie by itself is really
> pretty harmless and killing them all would prevent people from
> remaining logged into useful sites or prevent legitimate tracking to
> better optimize sites or sales on a single site. But I digress...)
> Anyhow a bit of food for thought and an idea of what may eventually be
> plausible in the future for a short while until it's been defeated.
> People not respecting IP (Intellectual Property) are sure to want a
> way to violate it. It's sad that you can't just put an image online
> and expect that people will request permission to use it. Somehow the
> impression that if it's uploaded it's free to do with as you please
> has become a rampant idea and yet these same people probably wouldn't
> think that just because they can window shop they're entitled to
> enter the store and take any item for free and keep it. These same
> people probably wouldn't plagerize a book nor would they take an
> unknown artist's work and foist it on other people as their own.
> Somewhere the impression that if it's online it's usable (sometimes
> in the name of fair use) by them in any way they want has become
> acceptable. Is that a statement of society or a statement of the
> internet culture? Makes me wonder... I really does...
> Galen

LOL! If you post print quality photos to the internet, then you are
asking people to download and print it.

If you don't want people to do that, then resize the photo for web
quality only.

I've had a couple of non-profit organizations email me that wanted to
use a Appalachian Trail photo of mine in their publications, and I sent
them print quality tifs, and a few private individuals that wanted to
print some photos for their use, and I sent them print quality tifs
also.

I know I love have over 600 Hubble and astronomical photos that I've
download from the internet, some of which are very hi-res!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 3:20:42 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

File - Save As or get it from the cache.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/_comment/001075.htm...
=================================================
"Jim Macklin" <p51mustang[threeX12]@xxxhotmail.calm> wrote in message news:%23VjNaqxeFHA.1404@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> You put a lock on your hand tool box to keep your friends
> from using and loosing your hammer and screwdrivers. A
> thief just steal the whole box. As I said, "But there also
> ways around
> such protections."
>
>
>
> --
> The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
> But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
> some support
> http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
>
>
>
> "Shenan Stanley" <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:udsIcOxeFHA.1456@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> | Jim Macklin wrote:
> | > Not easy, but possible. You can place the picture on a
> | > webpage with another picture on top of it that is
> | > transparent. When they try to right click on the
> picture
> | > they will be clicking on a picture that is on top.
> | >
> | > I know I have seen webpages that will return an error
> | > message if you try to save or download a picture, so
> there
> | > are ways to do these things. But there also ways around
> | > such protections.
> |
> | Then I use a freeware/shareware/pay site grabber and get
> everything off your
> | site - including the picture that I cannot see. =)
> |
> | --
> | Shenan Stanley
> | MS-MVP
> | --
> | How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
> | http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
> |
> |
>
>
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 12:29:51 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

You have no problem cropping technical information out of threads so noone can know what the actua;l technical details are so people can't find your mistakes.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/_comment/001075.htm...
=================================================
"Galen" <galennews@gmail.com> wrote in message news:o SDAU41eFHA.416@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> In news:umnVdEteFHA.1040@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl,
> Shenan Stanley <newshelper@gmail.com> had this to say:
>
> My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:
>
>> Kevin wrote:
>>> Is there a way to protect the photo file on the internet so that
>>> it can't be copied?
>>
>> Galen wrote:
>>> No. No matter what it can still be copied - they can easily get it
>>> from their temp files if they want it bad enough or use one of the
>>> many applications that enable it or even just turn of scripting and
>>> head to the site that way.
>>
>> You missed the most obvious..
>>
>> "Print Screen" and paste it into the application of their choosing.
>>
>> :) 
>>
>> --
>> Shenan Stanley
>> MS-MVP
>
> LOL Yeah but most people I hope aren't that lazy. They'd also have to edit
> out the browser image/boarder itself and the likes ;)  Cropping sure is a
> pain when you're as graphics retarded as I am. I can't make, edit, or crop
> anything to save my soul. Well, maybe a little, but it takes a few tries.
> <g> It would seem to me that the future likely holds some sort of answer
> for this where the image will not be cached, the print screen will not work,
> and this will be functional in online uploaded files. Of course that will
> likely be defeated within 24 hours after being announced and older systems
> will still bypass it. The idea is interesting though... I was recently
> reading a bunch of material on quantum cyptography (all of which was either
> dumbed down to a level where I could grasp the basics or above my head) and
> there may indeed be something in there - way in the future - that would be
> of use in a project such as this. I imaging that it could handle the
> permissions based on the requested user's authentication (guest or above for
> instance) and then be able to control the PC in some regards though the idea
> as a browser would have to be altered I should think. Something that
> automatically closed the "browser" if someone tried to print the screen or
> use an application like XNView to grab a screen shot? Something that
> functions a lot like today's browsers but with more advanced features. To
> think, it'd be the privacy zealots who went off on something like that
> probably when in fact it would be just people who were wanting to protect
> assets. (Not that I don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy but I
> fail to see why someone would want to completely abolish cookies when they
> do potentially serve a useful function and are, by themselves, benign. It is
> people and sites who share data that make third party cookies potentially
> capable of tracking and recording your activity, they cookie by itself is
> really pretty harmless and killing them all would prevent people from
> remaining logged into useful sites or prevent legitimate tracking to better
> optimize sites or sales on a single site. But I digress...)
>
> Anyhow a bit of food for thought and an idea of what may eventually be
> plausible in the future for a short while until it's been defeated. People
> not respecting IP (Intellectual Property) are sure to want a way to violate
> it. It's sad that you can't just put an image online and expect that people
> will request permission to use it. Somehow the impression that if it's
> uploaded it's free to do with as you please has become a rampant idea and
> yet these same people probably wouldn't think that just because they can
> window shop they're entitled to enter the store and take any item for free
> and keep it. These same people probably wouldn't plagerize a book nor would
> they take an unknown artist's work and foist it on other people as their
> own. Somewhere the impression that if it's online it's usable (sometimes in
> the name of fair use) by them in any way they want has become acceptable. Is
> that a statement of society or a statement of the internet culture? Makes me
> wonder... I really does...
>
> Galen
> --
>
> "And that recommendation, with the exaggerated estimate of my ability
> with which he prefaced it, was, if you will believe me, Watson, the
> very first thing which ever made me feel that a profession might be
> made out of what had up to that time been the merest hobby."
>
> Sherlock Holmes
>
>
June 28, 2005 2:22:00 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

In news:uLmZ6T2eFHA.3848@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl,
kurttrail <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

> LOL! If you post print quality photos to the internet, then you are
> asking people to download and print it.
>
> If you don't want people to do that, then resize the photo for web
> quality only.
>
> I've had a couple of non-profit organizations email me that wanted to
> use a Appalachian Trail photo of mine in their publications, and I
> sent them print quality tifs, and a few private individuals that
> wanted to print some photos for their use, and I sent them print
> quality tifs also.
>
> I know I love have over 600 Hubble and astronomical photos that I've
> download from the internet, some of which are very hi-res!

It's nice/good that you actually had people ask. Respect for your IP isn't
always the norm any more. My graphic works are only slightly worse than my
real-life stick figure prowess so personally it's all well and good if
people want them. The idea of posting them in lower resolutions is probably
about the best idea around at this point. While people may still save them
to their drives they're unlikely to print them. They may post them and copy
them to another site but a watermark would keep the lazy people away from
that though I've seen (of course never used because, well, my afore
mentioned graphics abilities are akin to a toddler with a single stubby
crayon) applications designed specifically for removal of watermarks. My
understanding is that the watermark is actually on a separate layer most of
the time and that's how they remove it. Dunno really...

Galen
--

"And that recommendation, with the exaggerated estimate of my ability
with which he prefaced it, was, if you will believe me, Watson, the
very first thing which ever made me feel that a profession might be
made out of what had up to that time been the merest hobby."

Sherlock Holmes
Anonymous
June 28, 2005 2:38:54 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Galen wrote:
> In news:uLmZ6T2eFHA.3848@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl,
> kurttrail <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> had this to say:
>
> My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:
>
>> LOL! If you post print quality photos to the internet, then you are
>> asking people to download and print it.
>>
>> If you don't want people to do that, then resize the photo for web
>> quality only.
>>
>> I've had a couple of non-profit organizations email me that wanted to
>> use a Appalachian Trail photo of mine in their publications, and I
>> sent them print quality tifs, and a few private individuals that
>> wanted to print some photos for their use, and I sent them print
>> quality tifs also.
>>
>> I know I love have over 600 Hubble and astronomical photos that I've
>> download from the internet, some of which are very hi-res!
>
> It's nice/good that you actually had people ask. Respect for your IP
> isn't always the norm any more.

Had little to do with it. Web resolution is not good enough for print
media.

> My graphic works are only slightly
> worse than my real-life stick figure prowess so personally it's all
> well and good if people want them. The idea of posting them in lower
> resolutions is probably about the best idea around at this point.
> While people may still save them to their drives they're unlikely to
> print them.

If you put it on a web page, it gets saved in your internet cache on
your drive anyway. As a photo copyright owner, you have basically given
permission for people to save your web photo on viewer's computers.

> They may post them and copy them to another site but a
> watermark would keep the lazy people away from that though I've seen
> (of course never used because, well, my afore mentioned graphics
> abilities are akin to a toddler with a single stubby crayon)
> applications designed specifically for removal of watermarks. My
> understanding is that the watermark is actually on a separate layer
> most of the time and that's how they remove it. Dunno really...


My feeling is, if you put something out on the net freely accessible and
viewable by anyone on the net, then you have tacitly given permission to
let someone use it for non-commercial use, at the very least, and
probably some commercial uses.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
June 28, 2005 7:21:04 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

In news:%23KEnv8%23eFHA.3184@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl,
kurttrail <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> had this to say:

> My feeling is, if you put something out on the net freely accessible
> and viewable by anyone on the net, then you have tacitly given
> permission to let someone use it for non-commercial use, at the very
> least, and probably some commercial uses.

I can only say to that I want agree wholeheartedly and sharing was an ideal
behind the 'net in the first place. Unfortunately copyright laws and the
'net having become a viable marketing venue have altered that and while I
don't like or agree with that I'm afraid that's the case. There are people
who feel that copyright laws, as archaic and undesigned for the 'net we have
today, should still apply in full force. I do see both sides of the
arguement.

Hypothetical situation's aren't always good so bear with me on this one.

You decide to write down everything you know about computers, turn it into a
CHM, and sell it. People can buy it for a horrificially low price of a mere
donation of any amount they want. People can crawl your site and make the
CHM themselves if they wanted. You have no complaints if they do so nor do
you really care what they pay so long as they pay something for your efforts
and after they've donated the return page from the payment processer will
lead them to the download link. Or you can charge a static amount and be
done with it if you'd rather though the point is that that one specific
piece of work you feel that you should be rewarded for.

Along comes some person, let's call him Joe, and he wants to buy a copy so
he does. He gets the link. He gets the book. He then takes and makes an
exact replica of your site all the way down to even including the book and
changes your name to his throughout all of it. He uploads the whole thing to
his site and maybe posts a couple of ads and does some search engine
optimization. Perhaps he gives the book away? Perhaps he has shared it with
people. Perhaps he lets people download it on P2P servers. Perhaps he's
printed it with the name changed in print media and is selling it at trade
shows. While that's a risk in anything uploaded it's still not justified
behavior and is an example of someone stealing from you.

Anyhow that's about the best that I could think of at the moment. It's not
really that good but it will hopefully show the opposing side.

Not knowing you other than from your postings and a couple of trips around
your site I can honestly figure that you'd likely be pretty irked by this
and, if your past actions are any clue, you are going to seek retribution in
one form or another. Sure being copied is a sign of flattery but you (nor I)
would appreciate that value at that point. Personally? My thoughts are that
if I have uploaded it then it's free for the taking but more so because I've
made it a point to include a set of rules that I expect people to follow.
The law, such as it is, in the country I reside in said that it wasn't free
for the taking by default (even if I don't agree with it, it's still the
law) so it was up to me to make notice that it was. In my case the rules are
pretty simple, they include doing most anything you want with it, not
needing to give credit, and basically limit the number of print copies they
can make and asking that they seek permission to use for commercial gain.
Oh, and if they're going to spider it then let me know because if it becomes
too big I'll just compress it for them every month and they can download it
or I'll email it to them if they'd rather. Other than that I really don't
care, I uploaded things, typed things out and sometimes I can make a decent
screenshot, and the like JUST for the sole reason of sharing - for giving.

Those are my views and I guess I respect the rights of other people to have
their views on the subject because, after all, that's their IP and not mine.
Whilst I don't agree with all of the copyright law and think that it's
antiquated it's all we have that's really enforcable. It's painfully obvious
with the current state of affairs that the 'net isn't going to do a good job
at governing itself. I haven't any solutions and adding governement
involvement isn't going to fix anything either. "Don't ask me, I don't
know." - Ozzy... I really haven't got a rational solution in mind only an
awareness of the problem.

Galen
--

"But there are always some lunatics about. It would be a dull world
without them."

Sherlock Holmes
!