No way to disable it.
Some ways to slow people down in accessing it, but no way to stop it completely.
Maybe your instructor needs to set up separately passworded spaces for students. You might consider taking your concerns to himmer directly....
[Our local uni sets each student up for protected space once they're registered; all uploads for all classes go into that space, and the profs have some sort of admin access for their own classes/students....]
You can use a HTML obfuscator: see this set of posts:
...and a quick Google search finds another program to unscramble the page.
This is one of the ways to slow people down a bit; but is not foolproof by a very long way (and those pages could never be indexed by a search engine either).
Ok I suspected as much, I already applied a pw protection in the form of PHP so only the teacher can determain the actual pathway to the files. Yet I was thinking if I could show fellow students "how its supposed to look", that could be apreciated.
Perhaps, Do some screen shots and post those as small GIF or JPG files, so they can see what it looks like.
Is it Alt-PrtScrn or Cntrl-PrtScrn that copies a window to the clipboard, for pasting into an image editing program?
If you make the HTML source unreadable isn't it unreadable for a search engine spider?
>> If you make the HTML source unreadable isn't it unreadable for a search engine spider? <<
msg#5: ... and those pages could never be indexed by a search engine either.
|Jedi Vampire Coffee|
I know frames are not an ideal solution, but if you use them, all the visitor gets is the frameset code on the view source option - since the frame pages appear as SRC links instead of actual pages. In other words, the visitors cannot see your code...
|I know frames are not an ideal solution, but if you use them, all the visitor gets is the frameset code on the view source option - since the frame pages appear as SRC links instead of actual pages. In other words, the visitors cannot see your code... |
Err...with lots of browsers you can just right-click in the frame whose source you want to see...
|Jedi Vampire Coffee|
damn. never thought of that...
there MUST be a way though...
|there MUST be a way though... |
There is NOT a way to keep someone who is viewing a web page in a web browser on a computer they have control of from viewing the source.
the best "delaying tactic " is put em in a flash file..still get at em ..but it's a bigger PITA to Diss' a flash file just to get at someones HTML ...
1. Before sending the page, insert zillions of trash tags into the text. Browers will ignore them, but it'll slow up humans:
2. Eeplace all text with its named entity or numeric equivalent. Again, browers will ignore, but a source-reading human will have a headache:
3. Replace every space in the text with multiple spaces and/or newlines and/or tabs (up to several hundred in each case). Browsers will collapse the whitespace back, But a text editor won't:
--can't show an example -- WMW would collapse it.
4. Randomly interspere the text with long HTML comments:
<p><!--Hello this is the bit to read--><tabel>h<h19>i</hmtl> </divide>t<!--read this--><fone>h</pp>e<heading>r<!--notes on class assignment--><weak>e<ahref></p>
5. Also add trash attributes to all real and imaginary tags:
<p colour=off-white><!--Hello this is the bit to read--><tabel claus="heading">h<h19 backgrind=transparent>i</hmtl> </divide>t<!--read this--><fone ringtone="annoying">h</pp>e<heading styles="">r<!--notes on class assignment--><weak caller-id="off">e<ahref></p>
6. Ask yourself: is it is really worth it? Anyone with a tint bit of programming knowledge, or a HTML cleaner can reverse this in a moment. And remember: if valid HTML is needed for a course credit, you've just failed.
Sad thing is you find pages coded like this at the top of the serps all the time ...
Reminded me of "frontpage extensions".. ;)
Can you still right click on the frame if there is a no right click script in the html of the page showing in the frame?
I know some people wonder why it is so important to some of us to keep our sources hidden...
I run a postcard site that is pretty popular. I've had problems with others linking to my images and displaying them on their site somehow as their own, no credit to who they were stealing them from. The images are mine and unique to my site and it's no fun having someone take them because they can't make their own or are too lazy to.
I know they can still print screen but eventually I'll have all the images imprinted with my url. I suppose they would find a way to get around that too but I'm not going to make it easy for them.
Well obviously if you've a nrc script in place, the viewer can't right click to see the source. However, it's a VERY simple matter to see the source without the right click action, anyway; AND the easiest way to take your graphics otherwise is to use a screen-capture utility, one of which comes with every graphics program out there.
You don't need to right click to view the page source. In Firefox for instance use the toolbar and "View > Page Source", in IE it would be "View > Source". No right click needed.
People can link to your images by using your URL and filename in their image tag, src="yourdomain.com/yourimage.jpg". When someone views their page it pulls the image from your server. It's called "hotlinking". You can block hotlinking in Apache, I don't know about IIS servers.
>> I've had problems with others linking to my images and displaying them on their site somehow as their own, <<
That is very easy to fix. Either:
- sniff the URL of the referring page, and do not show the image if the referrer is not your own site, or
- look at your log files, and ban access from other sites that are linking to your images (add the IPs to your .htaccess file).
All they have to do is type in get [domain.com...] in command prompt and there is it. I think you need to have perl installed for this. But that is quite easy to do. All you can do is try to keep out the stupid people.
Welcome to WebmasterWorld jeebo....( wheres youse guys manners ;)....
Thats the good part ..
The "bad part"? ..
If the visitor isn't using IE they cant see squat ..
Most visitors back out before they see anything even if they are using IE ( cos you need to preload all your images ..load time is very long ..See "Brett's first rule" about why that is a bad thing...knows a thing or two that Mr Tabke ;).
You've got to hide your image folders and do htaccess stuff anyway to prevent hotlinking..
BUT ..to hide your image folders from the bots ..you got to declare them in "robots.txt"...
and anyone who really knows what they are doing can go into their temporary internet files and copy out the image while they are "live "into your site and use them later ( even if you had the file type renamed while they were "visiting" ...This is how one would "save" "streamed" Flash etc )...
took ronin under 2 minutes to work out how to get around my stuff ( I also had forgotten to do htaccess..but anyway )...
and the only way to block screen capture successfully ..
..actually kills all the visitors "clipboard" and right click facility for the remainder of their session ..requiring them to reboot to get it back ..This does not make you "flavour of the month" ...
And I think the latest IE blocked the "hole" I used ..course they left lots too ..but honestly there are more interesting things to do than to hack visitors boxes via IE ...
All of which is a RPITA ...and you actually get more ROI without all this ...
You really want to do it?
( self edited .."speeling" )
Actually no, I don't want to go thru all of that trouble. I don't have the time to spend keeping everyone out, I just want to give them an obstacle course to get thru if they are persistant about taking what doesn't belong to them. And it's only just a few, 99.9% of my visitors are the best and very appreciative of the service I offer. So, I've disabled the right click, the toolbar in IE, used .htaccess to prevent hotlinking and set the image directory to open as my site's index page just in case they found their way there. I know this is not all fool-proof and the ones who really want to get around it all will. But it's just a message to them that I know what they're doing and am not liking it (which I'm sure is just feeding their need to find ways to get in anyway just to prove that they can).
Thanks guys for your input. I guess I'll just learn to live with the few bad mannered thieves who don't know how to behave themselves when visiting a successful and well made site they feel is good enough to steal from.
|taking what doesn't belong to them. And it's only just a few, 99.9% of my visitors are the best and very appreciative of the service I offer. So, I've disabled the right click, |
There's some strangely one-sided logic here.
You are taking something that doesn't belong to you: namely my right click.
That's a form of denial of service attack on my hardware.
You should aspire to be a be welcome guest in my browser window, not a vandal.
I have many other uses for a right click.
Should I ever visit your website, I'd expect to see a large warning notice on the landing page for what you intend to do, so I can agree and continue, or exit to find a more welcoming site to browse.
It was never my intention to offend anyone and I'm truly sorry to have offended even one. My site is supposed to be all about friendship, peace and love and I guess when you look at it from your point of view all of those attributes are getting lost to some, aren't they? It certainly gives me a new aspect to think about and I will consider that. Thanks for the input.
I often use the right click for backword and forward. You are also shooting yourself in the foot. Some people use it to "bookmark this page". I think you will offend more people than you will shut out.
Yes, but you can also use the browser to bookmark the page, at least with Netscape and IE. As far as shutting people out, that of course, was not my intention. You're right, that would defeat my purpose because my site was conceived to hopefully become a success which it has.
But, on the other hand... I got to thinking after my last post and it occurred to me - this is my livelihood. It is a source of income for me. It is my business. It's not just a hobby, although I do enjoy and get a lot of pleasure of providing the service. If this were a regular business conducted from an office, would I expose all of my secrets of my success to the general public? Would I give out the combination of my office safe or all of my banking info to anyone who walked through the door? Is there something wrong with wanting to keep my images mine and not having them scattered all over the web to be claimed by anyone who wanted them for their own?
It has been a tedious job to make the site user-friendly, to work well with as few obstacles as possible, to encourage the return of all who have come to appreciate my efforts. If something I have done to protect my work has interfered in any way with the site being productive I have always found a way to fix the problem or remove it altogether. I think after everything I've invested to achieve the popularity that my site has accomplished I might be entitled to a little bit of privacy. And like I said, there's not many that have stolen, just a few.
Maybe I should have just kept quiet and not brought up the subject. I didn't realize it would anger anyone to want to know how to protect my files.
I can't make everyone happy but I'll keep trying.
jeebo (welcome to WebmasterWorld, btw!), your last post has many laudable statements in it. Those of us who use the net as a "place of doing business" pretty much feel the same about the same things.
Unfortunately, it's been made perfectly clear to some of us over time that BECAUSE of the "free and open" situation as regards the internet, some of our vaunted privacies are simply not viable options any more. No matter what one's art, whether graphics, music, video, fiction, technical writing, news stories - or just plain the "art" of html and CSS - there is truly only one way to keep it from being at some point used in a way one doesn't want (ripped off in toto, improperly credited or not credited at all, used on sites which promote all the things you've specifically disallowed etc. etc. ad infinitum ad nauseam), and that singular way of keeping it safe is to simply NOT put it on the web.
For many of us, for many reasons, that's not an acceptable choice. So we do our level best to limit the potential misuses by accessing Copyscape; by copyrighting (and registering the copyrights); by watermarking; by keeping multitudes of backups, revision after revision, with dates all over them. None of this is perfect. All of it will help, but one still finds one's work in places one never gave permission for use. At that point one sends out emails, uses DMCA, hires an attorney - whatever it takes....
While the "ripping off" is probably inescapable, is the alternative better if that alternative is to NOT have the free and open web?
All I was saying is that you have choesen to limit the experience of your visitors. As you said you can't stop it all you are doing is annoying people. Why do you want to annoy somebody that is going to do it anyway when at the same time you are annoying people that don't want to steal from you. This really is a silly argument. The ammount of people that right click on a site for any reason is so small it does not matter.
You are up against a tough audience here Jeebo, giving you a lot of strong, and possibly unwanted advice.
Ultimately, it is your website so you do what you like with it (though subject to accessibility and other laws in your locality).
But a site that can be "stolen" by copying the surface appearance is not making full use of what makes the web a success: Copy Google's HTML and you don't have a search engine
Copy Amazon's and you don't have a comodity-selling website
Copy eBay's and you don't have an auction community.
You get the idea. Your CGI scripts give you depth that cannot easily be copied. A site without such depth is very shallow, and easy to replicate.
So look in that direction for a solidity and uncopyable uniqueness to your web efforts. That way lies real success.
| This 33 message thread spans 2 pages: 33 (  2 ) > > |