I've seen a fair number of mails to mailing lists in the past few days from people wanting to publish stuff on the 'net, but not let people copy it - both text and images. This is driving me spare; some of these people are working on the 'net for five, six years, and it's plain that they just don't get it.

If I see something on the 'net - anywhere, the web, usenet, email, wherever - my machine has already made a copy of it. It is there, on my screen, on my machine. The internet is not some magic portal through which one can look but not touch - it works, all the time, by making copies. Once it is on my machine, you can't take it back. You can make it difficult for me to keep it, but you can't make it impossible, and it's fairly likely that you'll only piss me off by trying. Indeed, there's a fair argument that showing it to other people at all causes them to make a copy of it in their own heads - this isn't so clear for images or long text, but if you've written a short poem, I defy you to show it to people and not have them memorise it if they want to.

If you do not want people to have copies of your work, you can not place it on the internet - in fact, you're better off not showing it to anyone, ever. Keep it secret. Keep it safe.

From: [identity profile] socmot.livejournal.com


Are you sure the people writing to mailing lists weren't talking about copyright?

I know information wants to be free, but speaking as someone who has a website (www.dublinstories.org) dedicated to digital storytelling, I'd be mightily pissed if someone copied a story off the site, whether it be a copy of it, or someone stealing the story and putting in their name. It's mean for Dublinstories, not anywhere else...unless they ask me first.

I really must get a Creative Commons licence on the site or something like that.

Speaking of Dublinstores, didya read my last weblog posting? Eep!
ext_34769: (beast)

From: [identity profile] gothwalk.livejournal.com


No, they're definitely talking about preventing people from copying the information. Physically, as it were. Copyright is a legal protection; it's completely different, and besides, it's automatic - you don't have to do anything to hold copyright.

Besides, the desire to receive credit for the creation of something is a different matter to preventing people from making a copy - I'm fairly sure you don't mind someone printing out something from Dublinstories and hanging it on their wall, for instance.

From: [identity profile] luis-mw.livejournal.com


Perhaps it is a desire to enforce the copyright at source. After all, if you can't copy the image to your hard disk, you can't edit it, change the name and try to pass it off as your own work. Or at least, preventing the most obvious means of copying makes it more difficult for somebody to do so. Maybe people reason that this is easier than trying to enforce copyright after the "theft" because then, you don't have to worry about discovering the copyright infringement (if somebody took one of your photos, messed a little in Photoshop and then sold the picture to an online magazine, how would you know about it?), and even if you did discover, what can you do?

Personally, I don't see the point - after all, if the image is on your screen, then it is almost certainly in your cache, so even if they have disabled "right-click, save picture as", you can probably find the .jpg in your cache and if you are really desparate to copy, there is always Shift-Print Screen (or equivalent on non-Windows PCs). I know - when I was creating the training courses for Hong Kong, the only images I had of some products were in PDF files that couldn't be hacked, so the only way I could get an image into PowerPoint was to do a screen capture, edit and clean up in Photoshop and save as a JPEG.

From: [identity profile] straif.livejournal.com


You know what I've noticed? Most of the pictures protected by the JavaScript right-click disable trick really suck. These are pictures that I never would have even thought about downloading, except for all the warnings and threats and taunts of "you can't download this 'cause I know JavaScript." Ten seconds of looking at the source and the picture is mine. Then I'm left with the feeling that I was somehow suckered into saving the picture.

What scares me isn't the rank (and I mean that in a few senses of the word) amateurs trying dumb tricks. It is the big companies that try to copy protect CDs, and then sue people for letting the world know that holding down the shift key when you put the CD in will bypass the copy protection.

From: [identity profile] mr-wombat.livejournal.com


re: dublinstories - I've always felt that a lot of good could be done in this country with some judiciously granted flamethrowers.

From: [identity profile] mr-wombat.livejournal.com


Bear in mind that not everyone is as technically savvy as the folks on your lists or even here - most of the measures described would fox our parents for example and an awful lot of people I know would be stopped by the anti right click thing, they might have some notion that the image or file is on their PC but wouldn't know where to begin looking.

It's like home security, if someone REALLY wants in they'll get in and you won't be able to stop someone truly dedicated to nicking your stuff but the average joe won't have a chance.

From: [identity profile] crimmycat.livejournal.com


True, but the more annoying you make your copy protection, the more people will learn to get around it.

I do not need to be very technically savvy - whenever my computer is especially annoying, or I want something that's hard to get, I just find someone who's a better geek than me and bribe them with dinner/laundry/clean house. Sometimes the bribe isn't even necessary, just asking politely. This weekend I virus-checked, customized, and defragged a computer in return for help making garb.

From: [identity profile] shiftercat.livejournal.com


Just copying is no biggie. Using other people's work on a webpage or T-shirt or something, without permission or credit, is something else.

From: [identity profile] sismith42.livejournal.com

Preach on, brother!


Yes, people should get money for their creations, their thoughts, their work. But the way copyright works goes a bit too far, in my opinion. Read this (retyped from the IIL form): "I am applying for this document under the terms of British Library's Library Privilege Photocopy services:
a)I have not previously been supplied with a copy of the same material by you or any other librarian; [so if you loose it or where you kept it burns down, you're SOL]
b)I will not use this copy except for research for a non-commercial purpose or private study and will not supply a copy of it to any other person; [so you can share it amongst your research associates/supervisor]
c)To the best of my knowledge no other person with whom I work or study has made or intends to make, at about the same time as this request, a request for substantially the same material for substantially the same purpose [so you can't share really cool articles amongst your department]"

Just plain stupid and goes too far. the first half of b) is ok, and I can stretch & see how they might not want lots of daughter copies running around... but that doesn't mean I have to like it.
.