View Full Version : Security/Protection For BV Sites | Copyright, Source, Print, Asset Protection

09-08-2007, 03:27 AM
There has been innumerable discussions and positions taken regarding a simple means of protecting images and links from theft, copying/caching Content, harvesting email addresses, and options to deny viewable Source (there you go Karen and Beth! lol), as well as shut off visitors ability to even print out webpages without the use of some complicated script or annoying "utility" that is only skin-deep effective. This tool actually can actually disable un-encryption tools that attempt to penetrate the protection you have installed!

Put away your rubber "watermark" stamp and regain your peace of mind....this Encryption utility works perfectly with Blue Voda and the CSS/HTML foundation, is super-simple to use, and includes far more options for you to choose from than you could possibly use....and it is less than $30! http://www.vodahost.com/vodatalk/images/icons/icon10.gif

If you think there is a more effective too out there, there is not.
If you think there is a cheaper one out there, of if you can do as good with the free scripts currently available, you can't.
If you have a need, and seek a proven tool that does more than what you imagined, here it is. The next step is up to you! http://www.vodahost.com/vodatalk/images/icons/icon12.gif

Find Your "BV Security" Solution Here (http://www.flashpeak.com/crypthtml/index_enc.htm)

Gee...and to think it took only about a year for the price to drop to be able to be put into the hands of just about anyone....

Karen Mac
09-08-2007, 04:13 AM

LOL>. those things have been around for awhile and while it does scramble the ordinary source code, notice it does NOT encrypt php or asp, and if you tweak your little mouse a lil further down from source in view mode and click the PRIVACY button, it tells you the css file, every picture on there, and enough that if i wanted to figure out your coding. Not only that there are HACKS that undo that scramble and nothing they can do about it as its a script that you run to do that. Im sure if i wanted it bad enough, I could still get it.

Not only THAT but, i saved the source code... slapped it into frontpage, and *******ted that page.. so.. you protected NO images or stylesheets at all, and as far as the rest of it.. i could easily *******te their whole page.

All you do is make sure the SE wont search your page, wont follow your links. LOL thats dated like 2003, this is what.. 2007? Doesnt look to have been even UPDATED since then. Its still a waste of time and you paid 30 bucks for it to boot.


Karen Mac
09-08-2007, 05:42 AM
Oh.. one more thing.. that particular piece of work is whats known as a Javascript "Tumbler" and if you disable javascript in your browser, as some people do, guess what happens?


09-08-2007, 06:17 AM
Ya still cant beat the old copy screen way. LOL


09-08-2007, 12:09 PM
Oh.. one more thing.. that particular piece of work is whats known as a Javascript "Tumbler" and if you disable javascript in your browser, as some people do, guess what happens?

KarenDisabling Java is not the simple "hole in the wall" you think it is in today's rich online enviornment, nor have you proved to provide an alternative to your peers that supercedes this simple solution regarding the constant (nerve-wracking and time consuming) battle for them to maintain any propriety for their works.....

Authored in 2003 (they too, are aware of Copyright!), this one program has been updated continually, and provides the assurance that many seek to thwart the types of threat many (if not all) of Blue Voda users are concerned with. Nothing is hack-proof, but this software is singularly BV-friendly and simple to implement, covering the whole nine yards of issues so often bantered back and forth in VodaTalk.

Karen Mac
09-08-2007, 06:44 PM

You are funny, and I realize you are TRYING, but this isnt the solution. I can disable right click, find a free javascript tumbler that I dont NEED to spend $30 bucks for.

This is NOT a solution for people to use to any benefit, except those who are not internet savvy. Sorry if you are an affiliate and I rained on your parade, but you did ask for an opinion and then complain because you got one. Isnt that the purpose of this room? To discuss pros and cons? Stop taking it as a personal kick in the pants and redirect your efforts for something that really works and Ill help you with your cause. But I wont endorse el toro caca even to keep you from complaining..!!

Id offer you Kleenex, but youd probably want puffs just so you could keep your righteous indignation up! pffffffft!


Karen Mac
09-08-2007, 06:55 PM
Heres a whole list of free ones, and thousands more id gather. Some of them you do online...





Free download


If you insist on using them at least use a free one. Dont pay for it.


09-10-2007, 05:54 PM
I have read this entire rooms comments in regards to protecting ones images or softwares and other types of intellectual property. I have but 2 things to say........

Encryption of a website does not make it full proof from prying eyes... Encryption is only a bandaid for the person creating such a site. Makes one feel that they are safe and secure from anyone attempting to view the src of an image or a software or code.

Most importantly and above all else.
For those who do encrypt websites or anything that requires encryption. If one is trying to hide something from someones eyes, it can't be done. Someone much smarter then myself or who ever is trying to hide anything is bound to become interested in "How did it work" If they are inclind to do all it takes to decrypt a website or any image then why encrypt it? Would it not be better to just leave the code as is and then have a hard copy of the right to use or show or even prove the files are yours?

The key issue is: Is anything really copyrighted to the point that no one can ever use it no matter what laws are involved to keep it safe from those who will attempt to exploit the code or use it without your own knowledge?

Yes there are some things which encryption can be used effectively, but to say that it is a failsafe is like telling us the first time we put a man on the moon happened when in all actuality the first man on the moon was standing on desert ground made to appear like the moon, located in New Mexico. But as soon as mankind found out how to put a man on the moon we sure did eventually.

Basically I say do not encrypt a webpage because if I want to see how the code was created, I will learn all I would need to learn and then decrypt it just to say that I could do it.

Why banter over something that somewhere, someone will be able to undo?

Instead have the sense to know that your attempt may be for your own security, but on the internet there is no such thing as the best mouse trap.

Robert Montgomery

09-10-2007, 07:22 PM
A. The key issue is: Is anything really copyrighted to the point that no one can ever use it no matter what laws are involved to keep it safe from those who will attempt to exploit the code or use it without your own knowledge?

B. Basically I say do not encrypt a webpage because if I want to see how the code was created, I will learn all I would need to learn and then decrypt it just to say that I could do it.

C. Why banter over something that somewhere, someone will be able to undo?Bob,
One of the best things about VodaTalk is the collection of website design options posted by peers, and the ability of using them acording to both our abilities and our unique situations. This (ongoing) topic reflects the very nuances of this truism, yet still tries to present an additional perspective that may be of some value to another.

A. You are mixing two issues here, for which a single answer will not suffice. First, when it comes to encryption that will totally protect "copyright" there is no such animal (i.e. event he Pentagon gets hacked!). And, the other part of your question refers to "enforcement" rather than the methods, doesn't it? Expecting non-professionals to establish an enforcement program, or for an individual to get to the level of internet savvy to be clever enough to surf the web effectively looking for violations is asking too much. You have to remember that these are likely the same types of people who do not know how, or cannot afford to properly register their works as a valid "registerd copyright/trademark" to even begin to have a legitimate starting point of legal enforcement!

B. Again, you represent the minority of people who surf the internet, and this is not what this discussion is all about: it is about the 97%+ of those who merely pluck things from other people's websites because they either do not have the creativity within themselves, or are looking for shortcuts (including plagairistic "piggy-backing"). Simple measures of protecting websites like encryption, watermarking, or even laying over a transparent object usually is enough to thwart the majority of potential offenders. The remainder are more difficult to acceptably deal with, and their ethics and motivations baffle us all.

C. The purpose of the original post was to offer yet another seeming more versatile tool as a solution, one that was BV-compatible, and addressed multiple concerns discussed previously. It was in no way a suggestion of substitution for doing due diligence (properly registering copyright or trademark, formatting elements properly, etc.) or presented as a "solve-all" solution.

As far as the "bantering" back and forth of the main issue? There will always be those who want to reach the stars but can only pay for a bus ticket, just as there will always be the few to spraypaint graffitti on the bus as it stops for the next rider.....

09-10-2007, 10:12 PM
Just my cent:

1. I would never care to see how the code was created, unless i see some interesting Javascript and i want to see the code used. HTML code absolutely does not interest me. Under this point of view, i don't see why one should protect a BV created page, which is pure html.

2. Images cannot be protected. It will be enough to simply copy directly from the screen, using one of the many grabbers, even windows paint. Sites that have some real artworks, and make a livin by selling them, usually have two versions of the images: a low resolution one, just for the web page, and a high resolution one, available to the users through a asp or php script only after (automatic usually) payment verification.

Also, most sites that have interesting content, usually create this content using dynamic scripts that interact with the user, and they also create the page retrieving data from the database. The html code of the page, has NOTHING to do with the real code that created the page (and the html code). Take as example www.windameersfleamarket4u.com (http://www.windameersfleamarket4u.com/) . It is a flea market script that uses php / mysql to dynamically create the pages. If you view the code (the top menu, the side navigation, the booths) you might think that they have been created statically. Instead, they are dynamicaly created making large use of loops and automatically updated each time something is added in the site.

At the very bottom: In my opinion, (and i repeat mine, because others might not share it), hiding the code makes no sense. I have not seen one single site of the major copanies, US or European, that encrypt their site. Why should i ever want to If so, what is the meaning of protecting the code ?protect mine ? As said, images can NOT be in any case protected.

09-10-2007, 11:35 PM
Yiasus, General!

Your technical perspective is valid, and openly responds to the core issue: those who are so worried about protecting anything are usually those who have done little to preserve their rights, and are generally looking for some measure of assurance without first understanding the larger and more important concepts (they have no idea what they are doing online, for if they did, these "issues" would have been properly addressed within a proper Business Plan and would have passed a legal review).

And, you also seemingly agree that the "problem" exists due to the choices of very few, whose motives are nefarious, devious, and questionable (against common reason, as you explained).

>> If people wish to "protect" anything, they should begin by establishing proprietary rights first (pay for Registration), and then calculate their risk to deal with it appropriately!

LOL....the thread was posted to offer a simple to use tool to offer a layer of "protection" for the many using BV, that's all. It will work, and does the job for the majority of visitors, but is not a remedy for ***** planning and a sound awareness!

09-10-2007, 11:47 PM
Hi Eric,

i don't even get in the process of examining each user's measures against piracy. I only want to state, that there is practically NO (technical) way to protect images as they are displayed on the screen and therefore they can be captured, even if this requires some more effort that simply right clicking and selecting Save as.And, i don't see why a whatever user should look at my pages code, since there are thousands of tutorials free on the net as to how you can achieve a particular effect. ALL the code is out there, and i surely did not invent it, so my code will be useless to anyone.

So, strictly speaking from this point of view, i PERSONALLY see no reason why anyone having a website like the ones that usually BV users have, should ever protect any code.

If i want some particular task to be performed (i.e., i have a script that emails me each time ABVFP is downloaded) i simply make it in php which only outputs to the browser what I want and only that, and the code is absolutely invisible to anyone (only the html output created by the php code is visible).

09-10-2007, 11:55 PM
Yup! Tis why I love dynamic pages/sites! Probably explains my preoccupation with Flash too!

Thanks for the nudge toward BV-php.....I am sure we will all have have another reason to progress that direction, and will rely on your excellently detailed "Tutorials"!

09-11-2007, 12:06 AM
Flash sites are not really interactive . They only provide a move / audio effect. The most modern aproach to a really interactive website is a html / php / Ajax site with only (if desired) limited Flash sections. However, it is also true that not all sites need to be interactive, so that is not a solution for all, and Flash in many cases has an impact to site visitors much better than a php site. It all depends on the particular site content and scope.

Karen Mac
09-11-2007, 02:02 AM
Most Importantly, what is being neglected here, is that if you use this codes or programs, you disable the ability of the search engines to index your pages, as they are now run by a java script, and the se dont READ JAVA SCRIPT. So, not only have you wasted the time and effort to try to keep something from being stolen, youve also hindered any possibility of your pages content being properly indexed, even if you do a site map to tell them the page is there! Unless of course its your goal to have a hidden website, copyrights in tact or not, in my opinion you just wasted ALL of your efforts to even have a website and you might as well not have one.


09-11-2007, 02:15 AM
IMHO, besides for the fact that there are always ways around any protection you use, its not possible to ever beat the system.

I say this mainly because the internet is inherently made for the open transfer of information to anyone connected to it. Trying to prevent this is opposes this. I'm not saying that this wrong, or that is a bad thing, just that its a big task, something that isn't possible unless the technology changes to aid in this.

There isn't anything you can do to prevent it, by making people think that this is a "solution" to the problem implies that it’s going to completely prevent it. People want to feel secure, they want reassurance that their work is protected, but the fact is it’s not possible. If people have a rough time sleeping at night because they are so worried about their images being stolen, or someone copying and pasting content need to understand that NOTHING is going to prevent it, that this isn’t a solution, but a deterrent. Its good that people are being made aware of such a tool, so long as they understand what it will accomplish.

If people want to waste time (that’s pretty much what I consider it is when you take your time to implement measures that will only prevent a percentage of people from stealing something from your website). In the end if your website has content that is worth enough to steal it will get stolen no matter what. The percentage of people who don’t have the knowledge to disable their JavaScript while on a website, or don’t know how to use the print screen key is dwindling every day. As time goes on the younger generation of people are taking over a bigger and bigger piece of the pie that makes up the users of the internet. And it’s a pretty safe bet that they will know enough to take a print screen, eventually the majority of computer users will be classified as an advanced user when it comes to using a computer.

Again, its great to make people aware of all the tools there are, so long as they fully understand its not going to prevent, just deter, if they don’t want something stolen it shouldn’t be on the internet (or a computer connected to the internet).

09-17-2007, 10:13 PM

Precisely my point.... If it is possible to steal it many will. But to some there is a simple I do not feel right in grabbing it and using it......

Right now we all are on the honor system and hope that no one uses our ideas..... or images.... But the safest computer on the planet is one that is never taken out of the box..... Therefore all the copyright laws or the preventive measures one adds to their images or intellectual property only makes a person who can grab these want them even more to proove a point.

That point is "This does not stop me from getting this"

If an average surfer I would ever be, saw something I wanted then THERE IS NO program to stop me from getting it.

But since I go beyond a surfer online, I have no need for all that security because I know the only one that works is when I do not even have it placed in view of anyone to see it.

A computer inside a box is as secure as it ever will be but placing it on the internet makes it and all the images or other information available to those with the ability to grab it from a website or your very own computer.

We are getting there but I very much dount that it will be during our life span.....

Very good of you to repeat what has been said over and over thru out this thread........ by many already......

Robert Montgomery

09-26-2007, 04:29 PM
Considering all that has been said,
how about a UK650 Pound solution?

Digital Watermark (http://www.signumtech.com/template3.asp?pageID=4&prodID=7)

09-26-2007, 04:49 PM
You haven't seen my paintings! I would be glad to get a UK650 pence for one. lol

10-01-2007, 11:37 AM
really interesting thread ... thank you

I learnt long ago that if you don't want something borrowed from your website then don't put it there ... my website is copyrighted and the images are as good as useless for anything other than websites ... lol ... I protect myself by owning the originals and backup copies of everything...

I sleep well and do not worry ... and deal with cases of theft when and if ...