Many scripts are used to disable right-click to prevent text/ picture copy.

Recently I saw a site with very different approach. The right-click is not diabled, but you cannot click and drag to select the page, thus you cannot copy its content.

Anyone comes across such scripts?
I saw it somewhere, but forget to bookmark it.

Why? There are so many other means to copy a site, why even bother?

Chet

I remember coming across one that did that on www.hotscripts.com

Copy protection is futile. I've known this since owning a commodre 64.

If it's on the internet, consider it up for grabs.

Well, there are thefts everywhere anyway. But does that means you should leave your door open?
Sure there are ways for the hacker, but every steps that can help make it diffcult for non it-savy user or to reduce/ prevent copyright infringement should be considered positive rather than futile.

So basically you want to publicly broadcast data to anyone with a computer, but you don't want it stored on their machine at all in any way whatsoever?

Ever hear of browser cache's?
Ever hear of screen caps?
Ever hear of view source?
Ever hear of Ctrl+C?
Ever hear of wget?

I can list dozens of ways to leech your stuff. The question is, is it really worth leeching?

Originally posted by FSBO
Well, there are thefts everywhere anyway. But does that means you should leave your door open?
Sure there are ways for the hacker, but every steps that can help make it diffcult for non it-savy user or to reduce/ prevent copyright infringement should be considered positive rather than futile. I don't think you are considered a hacker to click View -> Source in IE, or type in the URL in a program that will return the source. THERE IS NO SOURCE PROTECTION!

Originally posted by Acronym BOY
I can list dozens of ways to leech your stuff. The question is, is it really worth leeching?

Funny, the question is anyone has the script Not am I justify to search for the script...
so you guys are making those who use "no-right-click" on their site look stupid?!

Originally posted by FSBO


Funny, the question is anyone has the script Not am I justify to search for the script...
so you guys are making those who use "no-right-click" on their site look stupid?! No, this is a forum, and he is just pointing out to you that putting such a script really makes no sense, because there are a number of ways to bipass them.

For example in a frameset that uses them..

Just hold down shift whilst clicking on the link... opens it in a new window... hey presto... you can view --> source.

No right click only blocks people who know nothing about IE or the web... but then again those are the sorts of people who can't be bothered to learn simple things like HTML or JavaScript.

At least you can't get the complicated server code back without hacking the server (or exploiting one of the many security holes in webservers).

Even worse,

If you run any such scripts, personally i find it appears very irritating, and unprofessional to most people browsing your site. Ever right click to copy and paste an email address? to open a link in a new window, etc? Typically when i get an annoying popup box when attempting to do anything like that, i leave the site right there as its nothing other then a nuisance to your users/customers.

Originally posted by Rich2k

No right click only blocks people who know nothing about IE or the web... but then again those are the sorts of people who can't be bothered to learn simple things like HTML or JavaScript.


I got the point now, thks guys.

use javascript to hide your source code and encrypt it, use cgi like pickeeper.cgi to protect your images.

:homer:

Well, there are thefts everywhere anyway. But does that means you should leave your door open?

Correct. The door should be wide open. I'm not saying give everyone your root password. I'm saying if you placed something on the public internet, expect that people will be able to copy it. Thats the nature of the internet and the tools used in browsing the internet.

Sure there are ways for the hacker, but every steps that can help make it diffcult for non it-savy user or to reduce/ prevent copyright infringement should be considered positive rather than futile.

No, it's not positive at all. Copy protection just annoys legitimate users.

Like disabling right clicks in a browser to "prevent" people from downloading your images you have placed on the public internet. You've removed the expected functionality of my browser. That's annoying, and you've done nothing to protect any images. They are available right on my computer anyways, in my cache. It's how the internet works.

Or how about CD copy protection? Useless, except it reduces the number of players I can play my CD in.

Instead of fighting the consumer, companies should take all of this money spent for futile copy protection methods and lower their prices or add value to their products.

In the case of preventing users from copying images (which is impossible), why not expend the effort into making the site a better experience for your users, instead of removing browser functionality, which will annoy them?

Here is my final question. Please name one copy protection scheme that works. Just one. That is all.

Originally posted by porcupine
Even worse,

If you run any such scripts, personally i find it appears very irritating, and unprofessional to most people browsing your site. Ever right click to copy and paste an email address? to open a link in a new window, etc? Typically when i get an annoying popup box when attempting to do anything like that, i leave the site right there as its nothing other then a nuisance to your users/customers.

yes, that is my biggest gripe. i ALWAYS do right click to get email addresses, then when a little popup comes up and says no no, i usually just close the site, they get no email. tisk tisk :D

Yup. I find it a nuisance to. I use right-click -> Back or Forward. So I find it a nuisance to have to use ctrl - left arrow.

I have to agree. I like to right click to open links in a new window, because I prefer keeping the home page open instead of keep having to go back to the home page.

If they have javascript that prevents me from doing that, I'm like, "Nevermind, this place sucks".

lol

I like driverdave's response about copy protection. He is precisely correct. Nothing can stop copy protection and doing so is a waste of time and money - it is futile.

ALT + LEFT * :D

if you want to make it difficult to copy paste, simply put this in your code: <body onselectstart="return false">

and then google some javascript to disable or change your right click button.

however, everyone here is right. It's mostly a waste of time to bother with this. There are sooooo many ways around these scripts to the truly determined.

I disagree very much to most of these posters. Of course, you can get around anything and everything with the right knowledge and determination. But like one of the posts said, what about the non tech savvy users who would stop after the right click is disabled? If it stops some, then it is worth it. General content on a site should not be protected in this way, but what about subscriptions sites where the content is (should) only be available to paying subscribers? Some action should be taken to discourage content copying.

What about all the web template providers out there? Should they stop reporting illegal uploads of their templates to rapidshare? No.

Don't listen to these negative nancys.

Just do it with care and in the right situation.

I think I saw something like that at gmail.com - I am not a user of gmail (although do have an account), but I remember I've tried to copy in the browser the content and had difficulties.

Regarding the other responses - everybody has their opinion which is very valuable probably for everybody, but if OP is interested - why don't help him/her out?

Regarding protection - if page is highly dynamic and copy protection script exist - the only thing you can do is a screen capture (source won't show up in some cases even via browser menu).

Also, how many youtube type of websites you've seen that you can't download flash from (because of the dynamic names of the multimedia files)?