<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<tt>Nobody is disagree that it is possible to make access "more
controllable" but original requirements described in email that start
this thread is state:<br>
"... prevent getting the content out of the site in any way. He wants
to disable copy/paste, printing, screenshots, etc.".<br>
<br>
And that requirement is "silly".<br>
As it was explained before in this thread, it is possible with
combination to restrict access to content and make it hard to retrieve
"through some of back doors":<br>
</tt>
<ul>
<li><tt>it is possible to disable copy/paste right from web page but
not from source code of the page; <br>
</tt></li>
<li><tt>it is also possible to make content to be visible only in
real browser and make it not retrievable for web site mirroring
software; <br>
</tt></li>
<li><tt>it is possible to make browser do not use disk cache and
therefore make it impossible to retrieve content from browser cache
folder; <br>
</tt></li>
<li><tt>may be even in some browsers it is possible to disable
printing right from that web page.<br>
</tt></li>
</ul>
<tt>But without violating/hacking into user computer it is impossible
to disable operating system ability to take a screenshot.<br>
So, point is that statement like "prevent getting the content out of
the site in any way" make an original requirements "silly".<br>
Of course, it should be explain to client in most polite way.<br>
Problem is that some times some of the clients firmly believes that
they are know what they talking about. And in this case it is not easy
situation when you'll try to point them out to they own mistake.<br>
<br>
<br>
</tt>Sami Khan wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:1255309530.16108.14.camel@nexus" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Sun, 2009-10-11 at 20:59 -0400, Jeff Greenberg wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">As far as I can see, the original copyrighted material, print matter,
is
still available in print matter, and people can still run to a copy
machine and make a copy of it, beyond fair use, if they want to.
There
is no way to completely prevent any copyright infringement other than
(a) don't make the material available, or (b) police it.
It's like not wanting dings on your car. That's fine. It's your car.
You
worked hard for it. No one should have the right to ding it. So you
can
post armed guards around it at the supermarket, not drive it, or
accept
that if you put it out there, it might get dinged.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I agree with that sentiment, that they can, the point that I was trying
to make is that it is too make it harder to do. If you have to look at
the source code of a document, then take a json string and convert it to
text, you might be less inclined to copy it and pass it on to a friend
that has not paid the dues, then if you can just print it to a PDF and
e-mail it. The same with photocopying, I have a number of books that I
may lend to a friend, but I have yet to photocopy an entire book and
pass it on. Though I do know it happens, but it does not happen often
enough that the profits are overly affected, else the publishers
wouldn't be making the sort of profits to stay in business.
Regards,
Sami
_______________________________________________
consulting mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:consulting@drupal.org">consulting@drupal.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting">http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>