War on right clickers, tides have turned!



  • @coder said:

     Just wondering why this has been so "over analyzed" by this forum.

    We're not analysing, we're laughing at how incredibly stupid the author and the entire idea are. 



  • @coder said:

    I came across this forum after looking for solutions for my website and www.rightclickrevenue.com seems to offer a very feasible solution to increase website security while providing a way to increase sales.

    I'm not saying you are wrong but I think the creator knows everything your saying from looking at you posts... he states: "From the beginning I understood that it is virtually impossible to protect 100% of your content from 100% of the people; after all once something is live on the internet it can feel like it is out of your hands. With that knowledge I almost gave up... "

     Just wondering why this has been so "over analyzed" by this forum.

     
    Mark 

    So, let me get this straight, you are defending someone who admits that they are selling a product that won't work? Would you defend someone that would sell you a car that would work only 95% of the time? I could hear the sales pitch already: "95% of your travels are on the highway anyway, so we offer a car that will only work on the highway". That's what this product is like. The only difference is that people won't fall for the 95% car, because they know better: they know they have to drive the local roads first to get to the highway. For online content protection it may not be so obvious that it is not the 95% of non-technical visitors you have to protect your content from, but the 5% of people who are web developers themselves, and thus know how to bypass this "protection" in just two clicks. So you see, the fact that the author knows this does not necessarily speak in his advantage.

    And to understand why it is discussed to such length, you have to understand that most people here are in the software business themselves. People like the author of this site make the business look bad, either by being incompetent, or by willfully abusing the ignorance of his customers (I can't really tell which one this is). So I personally think it is good to criticize and mock this site a little. Hopefully it will persuade a few people like you who are doing their research to spend their money more wisely.



  • @coder said:

    I came across this forum after looking for solutions for my website and www.rightclickrevenue.com seems to offer a very feasable solution to increase website security while providing a way to increase sales.

    I'm not saying you are wrong but I think the creator knows everything your saying from looking at you posts... he states: "From the beginning I understood that it is virtually impossible to protect 100% of your content from 100% of the people; after all once something is live on the internet it can feel like it is out of your hands. With that knowledge I almost gave up... "

     Just wondering why this has been so "over analyzed" by this forum.

     
    Mark

    We're not overanalyzing that site. We're ridiculing it 😉

    BTW, how did you get that quote from the site? You know you just commited copyright infingement, do you? 😮 



  • @coder said:

    I came across this forum after looking for solutions for my website and www.rightclickrevenue.com seems to offer a very feasable solution to increase website security while providing a way to increase sales.

    I'm not saying you are wrong but I think the creator knows everything your saying from looking at you posts... he states: "From the beginning I understood that it is virtually impossible to protect 100% of your content from 100% of the people; after all once something is live on the internet it can feel like it is out of your hands. With that knowledge I almost gave up... "

     Just wondering why this has been so "over analyzed" by this forum.

     
    Mark
     


     


    Dollars to donuts this guy is the author pretending to be a potential customer. Sure. You were juuuust now looking for "solutions" for your website and decided to just pop over here and set us straight.


    Entirely possible. Just slightly less plausible than the alternative.



  • @coder said:

    I came across this forum after looking for solutions for my website and www.rightclickrevenue.com seems to offer a very feasable solution to increase website security while providing a way to increase sales.

    Increase sales... not likley.. pissed off users.. yep.
    Security... How.. how does this in any way improve security?

    seems to offer

     

    seems to...

    @coder said:

     Just wondering why this has been so "over analyzed" by this forum.

    Thats what its here for?

    I suspect that this post may have been from the person running the right click revenue site...



  • @Beowulff said:

    So, let me get this straight, you are defending someone who admits that
    they are selling a product that won't work? Would you defend someone
    that would sell you a car that would work only 95% of the time? I could
    hear the sales pitch already: "95% of your travels are on the highway
    anyway, so we offer a car that will only work on the highway". That's
    what this product is like. The only difference is that people won't
    fall for the 95% car, because they know better: they know they have to
    drive the local roads first to get to the highway. For online content
    protection it may not be so obvious that it is not the 95% of
    non-technical visitors you have to protect your content from, but the
    5% of people who are web developers themselves, and thus know how to
    bypass this "protection" in just two clicks. So you see, the fact that
    the author knows this does not necessarily speak in his advantage.

    I don't understand that statement - what do you mean it doesn't work - seems like it is doing exactly what it is supposed to do.

     As for your 95% statement I say Absolutely and you have a pretty weak argument.  95% is the majority and I doubt that you have anything that works 100%. At&t doesn't say we never drop a call they say they have the least amount of dropped calls - no cell phone service is 100% and yet people still buy cell phones... weird. My web host offers a 99% uptime, but I have been searching for one that offer 100% - hmmmm and since you brought up the most obvious of things a "car'" lets look at car alarms - they don't work 100% of the time infact nothing does - if they did everyone would have this super security device and car insurance would be much cheaper because no one could ever steal a car. But I bet if this was a car theives forum they would be "ridiculing" car security products.. lol

     

    @fennec said:

    Dollars to donuts this guy is the author pretending to be a potential
    customer. Sure. You were juuuust now looking for "solutions" for your
    website and decided to just pop over here and set us straight.


    Entirely possible. Just slightly less plausible than the alternative.

    Nope I just know how to use a search engine - and I'm not trying to straighten anyone out - I asked a question. It appears that Right Click Revenue started a trend as I've seen clone requests and other products that do the same thing with other names.

     



  • @coder said:

    @Beowulff said:
    So, let me get this straight, you are defending someone who admits that
    they are selling a product that won't work? Would you defend someone
    that would sell you a car that would work only 95% of the time? I could
    hear the sales pitch already: "95% of your travels are on the highway
    anyway, so we offer a car that will only work on the highway". That's
    what this product is like. The only difference is that people won't
    fall for the 95% car, because they know better: they know they have to
    drive the local roads first to get to the highway. For online content
    protection it may not be so obvious that it is not the 95% of
    non-technical visitors you have to protect your content from, but the
    5% of people who are web developers themselves, and thus know how to
    bypass this "protection" in just two clicks. So you see, the fact that
    the author knows this does not necessarily speak in his advantage.

    I don't understand that statement - what do you mean it doesn't work - seems like it is doing exactly what it is supposed to do.

     As for your 95% statement I say Absolutely and you have a pretty weak argument.  95% is the majority and I doubt that you have anything that works 100%. At&t doesn't say we never drop a call they say they have the least amount of dropped calls - no cell phone service is 100% and yet people still buy cell phones... weird. My web host offers a 99% uptime, but I have been searching for one that offer 100% - hmmmm and since you brought up the most obvious of things a "car'" lets look at car alarms - they don't work 100% of the time infact nothing does - if they did everyone would have this super security device and car insurance would be much cheaper because no one could ever steal a car. But I bet if this was a car theives forum they would be "ridiculing" car security products.. lol

     

    @fennec said:

    Dollars to donuts this guy is the author pretending to be a potential
    customer. Sure. You were juuuust now looking for "solutions" for your
    website and decided to just pop over here and set us straight.


    Entirely possible. Just slightly less plausible than the alternative.

    Nope I just know how to use a search engine - and I'm not trying to straighten anyone out - I asked a question. It appears that Right Click Revenue started a trend as I've seen clone requests and other products that do the same thing with other names.

     

    actually there have been "products" that "prevent" right clicking on website for many years now.  Unfortunately for you (if you are using one) it doesn't actually increase sales or revenue, it mostly just makes people leave your site in disgust. Have you even tried using the middle mouse to scroll up and down?

    And it's not like this thing work 95% of the time.  Most of the people looking to steal your images would be web developers.  Among the web developer population I would wager that that software would be closer to 95% ineffective!

    The bottom line for products like this:

    They piss of potential customers.  They don't stop people that are making websites from taking the pictures.

     



  • @tster said:

    The bottom line for products like this:

    They piss of potential customers.  They don't stop people that are making websites from taking the pictures.

    And let's not forget: they're fucking retarded.

    @(moron) said:

    95% is the majority and I doubt that you have anything that works 100%.

    I have a nice bridge that you might like to buy 95% of.

     

    (Remember folks, we're not trying to convince the idiot, we're just leaving a trail of derision for people who google the stupid 'product') 



  • coder: I used to be on an image and video-related Internet forum, and one question that would frequently occur was how people could save images or videos from some site. People would want to save videos from sites like YouTube and MySpace, which is only logical as it means you can watch it repeatedly without incurring extra bandwidth downloading it all over again. (For some reason, Firefox refuses to cache just about everything.)

    Any time anyone asked how they could save images or videos from a site, they would get lots of answers from people. There were enough technical folk who knew how to bypass anti-hotlinking restrictions (drag the link to the address bar or tab bar), anti-right-click restrictions (drag to desktop, save etc), and FLV video (just use one of several sites that extract the FLV URL). ctrl-S always works even when site opens a window without a menu bar (something you can't do on the Mac, thank goodness) but either way, I now have a Firefox extension that lets me put extensive restrictions on JavaScript -- I leave it running, but I can stop it doing all sorts of annoying things.



  • @coder said:

    I don't understand that statement - what do you mean it doesn't work - seems like it is doing exactly what it is supposed to do.

     As for your 95% statement I say Absolutely and you have a pretty weak argument.  95% is the majority and I doubt that you have anything that works 100%. At&t doesn't say we never drop a call they say they have the least amount of dropped calls - no cell phone service is 100% and yet people still buy cell phones... weird. My web host offers a 99% uptime, but I have been searching for one that offer 100% - hmmmm and since you brought up the most obvious of things a "car'" lets look at car alarms - they don't work 100% of the time infact nothing does - if they did everyone would have this super security device and car insurance would be much cheaper because no one could ever steal a car. But I bet if this was a car theives forum they would be "ridiculing" car security products.. lol

    Ok, let's compare it to car security systems, that's fine too. I actually do hope my car security system is able to keep a lot more than 95% of all people out of my car, and I expect my car security to at least slow down even the most expert of car thieves - hopefully long enough that they won't risk being caught in the act. I'd definitely ridicule any car security system that could be circumvented within seconds by a 14-year-old with basic knowledge of how a car works. I'd definitely question any person or company who would try to sell such a system as a "Great Security Enhancer for your car".

    So while I don't know how useful the "revenue generating" part of this application is, and so I won't comment on it, I do know, as people here have pointed out at length, the "content protection" part of it is next to useless. All the work-arounds that have been suggested so far take little to no skills and little to no time to execute. We just can't point out enough how easy it is, not so people can steal content, but so that content-providers know. Does this answer your question?



  • Hmmm.. actually coder may be onto something. Although the sales pitch on the site is laughable and the technology used is not very good at what it's advertising(see Safedisc), the idea to protect the content from copying is a lofty and admirable goal.

    So, after about 10 secs of not very hard thinking i have a solution that i will sell which is probably 90% more effective than Right Click Revenue. In fact, i will release it under the Creative Commons License for all to share, unless of course it's prior art, or obvious.

    My solution to the right click issue is to make the entire site out of flash, the first example i can think of that pops into my head is http://www.supremecommander.com/ .

    Now, because the mouse is captured you can't right click, and if you do you can present whatever menu you want, you can't select text, you have complete control over the user's actions. Heh. maybe even write a flash based browser that will render a page for you.

    Of course there are still the problems with someone screenshotting your page or someone downloading the .swf file and ripping the text out..

    Hmm.. actually perhaps that isn't a good idea at all. 

     
    Look coder, you can't protect the content on the page, it's impossible, you can research all you want. Look at all the copy protection schemes out there like SafeDisc, Fair play, CSS, Macrovision, AACS  are not an effective technique to protect your work. Do your research and you'll see none of them work. By implementing these schemes, you'll piss off your web clients, and if anyone really wants to copy your work, it will be hacked and broken within seconds.

     
     



  • @coder said:

    I came across this forum after looking for solutions for my website and www.rightclickrevenue.com seems to offer a very feasable solution to increase website security while providing a way to increase sales.

    I'm not saying you are wrong but I think the creator knows everything your saying from looking at you posts... he states: "From the beginning I understood that it is virtually impossible to protect 100% of your content from 100% of the people; after all once something is live on the internet it can feel like it is out of your hands. With that knowledge I almost gave up... "

     Just wondering why this has been so "over analyzed" by this forum.

     
    Mark

    We all, including him, acknowledge that 100% protection is impossible.

    We argue that any form of protection is a waste of time because you cannot approach this 100%. You cannot approach it by 90%, or even 80%.

    Perhaps 10% is a reasonable figure.

    The sheer ease with which any protection can be circumvented really tips the scales of cost/benefit heavily towards the side of cost.



  • @coder said:

    95% is the majority and I doubt that you have anything that works 100%. At&t doesn't say we never drop a call they say they have the least amount of dropped calls - no cell phone service is 100% and yet people still buy cell phones... weird.

    The best part of the "solution" really is that it clearly doesn't work "95%" of the time. In fact, it works about 5% of the time tops, doesn't work at all in some browsers or with some trivial extensions installed, doesn't work if you change some easy-to-access settings in e.g. Firefox, doesn't work against wget or other stuff like that, doesn't work against firebug,...

    This thing is a fraud, it doesn't work and the very concept/premises are flawed.



  • Post deleted



  • @dhromed said:

    We argue that any form of protection is a waste of time because you cannot approach this 100%. You cannot approach it by 90%, or even 80%.
    Perhaps 10% is a reasonable figure.
    The sheer ease with which any protection can be circumvented really tips the scales of cost/benefit heavily towards the side of cost.

    I don't argue any such thing.  For example, every public key encryption (and just about every other type) can be broken eventually.  However, by using a system that is complex enough to break, you accomplish a reasonable level of security.

    But that's not what this stupid product is about.  All it does is break the convention of how the browser works.  I really don't understand how it can be expected to increase revenue.  The customer is already on the site, how does capturing their right clicks sell more? 



  • So everyone agrees that you can't protect your website content and doesn't matter what you do. I can't say that I entirely agree with that statement but I would venture to guess that a website in this communities hands falls in the that category (un-protectable)  having said that i'd guess that this community doesn't represent the majority of the people on the internet... none-the-less security aside, I'm curious as to this pisses off users part.. why would a normal user (remember normal = the standard) get pissed off visiting a site that has this installed?

    As mentioned before if you click your middle button (to scroll) it would be annoying - wonder how many people do this instead of just scrolling with the wheel, anyway other then that I don't see why it would annoy a visitor. When I visit a site I don't right click unless I want to open a link in a new window - I'm not in the habit of right clicking every image or in random spots on the page. So chances are I wouldn't even know this was installed. Maybe there are a bunch of rogue right clickers that travel the internet but I'm not really sure (if they did exists) then I bet this would piss them off.



  • @coder said:

    So everyone agrees that you can't protect your website content and doesn't matter what you do. I can't say that I entirely agree with that statement but I would venture to guess that a website in this communities hands falls in the that category (un-protectable)  having said that i'd guess that this community doesn't represent the majority of the people on the internet...

    No, this community is one of coders and web developers - precisely the ones that would want to copy your images in the first place.

    @coder said:

    none-the-less security aside, I'm curious as to this pisses off users part.. why would a normal user (remember normal = the standard) get pissed off visiting a site that has this installed?

    People HATE popups. Also, people hate sites that interfere with the normal operation of their browser. A "normal" person would come to the site, see something they like and want to send it to a friend (not like that would happen with any of these sites), or maybe try to use their middle button to scroll through the page. Oops, there's a popup and no auto-scroll... User leaves in disgust.

    @coder said:

    As mentioned before if you click your middle button (to scroll) it would be annoying - wonder how many people do this instead of just scrolling with the wheel,

    I own a laptop, and as such, it does not include a middle wheel. (Look up the Lenovo X41 Tablet if you want to see.) However, I do have a middle button, and I use it frequently.

    @coder said:

    anyway other then that I don't see why it would annoy a visitor. When I visit a site I don't right click unless I want to open a link in a new window -

    Don't forget, many "normal" people are using Firefox and IE7 now. This will also interfere with middle-clicking a link for a new tab. Opening links in new tabs is a rather common behavior for me, as it is for most - otherwise, there wouldn't be such an easy action assigned to it.

    @coder said:

    I'm not in the habit of right clicking every image or in random spots on the page. So chances are I wouldn't even know this was installed. Maybe there are a bunch of rogue right clickers that travel the internet but I'm not really sure (if they did exists) then I bet this would piss them off.

    It would indeed piss them off.

    And also, don't forget - this product is 100% useless. Any "normal" user (we'll assume IE6 here, since that's all it seems to protect against) has, by the time your page has finished loading, downloaded every image on your page to a file on their computer. It's called a "cache". You might wish to learn about them. 



  • @Spikeles said:

    In fact, i will release it under the Creative Commons License for all to share,

    [i]Which[/i] Creative Commons license?  There are about a dozen (ranging from the ultra-restrictive "noncommercial no-derivatives" to the liberal "attribution"), in four versions, with thirty-some national localizations.



  • @Spikeles said:

    My solution to the right click issue is to make the entire site out of flash, the first example i can think of that pops into my head is http://www.supremecommander.com/

     

    Two words: Flash decompiler.

    Flash files may not be as easily readable as HTML, but they still are basically the same type of data: Information structuring a set of resources. Granted, the resources are harder to extract out of a flash movie, but it still is entirely possible.



  • @coder said:

    So everyone agrees that you can't protect your
    website content and doesn't matter what you do. I can't say that I
    entirely agree with that statement but I would venture to guess that a
    website in this communities hands falls in the that category
    (un-protectable)  having said that i'd guess that this community
    doesn't represent the majority of the people on the internet...
    none-the-less security aside, I'm curious as to this pisses off users
    part.. why would a normal user (remember normal = the standard) get
    pissed off visiting a site that has this installed?

    As
    mentioned before if you click your middle button (to scroll) it would
    be annoying - wonder how many people do this instead of just scrolling
    with the wheel, anyway other then that I don't see why it would annoy a
    visitor. When I visit a site I don't right click unless I want to open
    a link in a new window - I'm not in the habit of right clicking every
    image or in random spots on the page. So chances are I wouldn't even
    know this was installed. Maybe there are a bunch of rogue right
    clickers that travel the internet but I'm not really sure (if they did
    exists) then I bet this would piss them off.

    Please
    rethink your attitude. You're making far too many unfounded assumptions
    about your users. You basically just assume that everyone acts like you
    do - and then you call us close-minded.
    Even if your assumptions
    were correct, personal preferences (I don't mean violating IP rights)
    are buisyness of the users, you shouldn't interfere there in any way.



  • While I agree with your statements in principle, I must protest to a few of them. 

    @bstorer said:

    For example, every public key encryption (and just about every other type) can be broken eventually.

    That is patently false. Barring a out-of-left-field revolution in quantum computing or number theory, your 1024-bit public/private keypair is as secure as the unencrypted media the private key resides on during encryption, and would takes years, racks of computing equipment, and millions upon millions of kilowatt-hours of power to otherwise break.

    This does not in any way compare to systems such as this website protection system, or DeCSS, or ACS, or FairPlay, etc. Those systems do not get broken by attacking the public/private keys. They get attacked "sideways", by circumventing the key management infrastructure. The systems are designed to be passive; the end-user never has to type in a password or secret to get at the data. But to accomplish this a hidden key has to be stored somewhere that is used on the user's behalf without their knowledge. By finding out how to get at these keys, the restrictions can be circumvented. (For example the PowerDVD player key exploits that broke BlueRay/HDDVD disks temporarily). Other systems like CSS get broken outright, as the encryption is not only breakable on a key-by-key basis, but the encryption itself is weak against a differential attack and the session keys can be guessed from the material itself with a little bit of processing. The CSS forum should have consulted an expert in cryptography before designing their own shitty algorithm. ACS got that part right, using AES. But the player key extraction hole is still, essentially, unsurmountable.

    @bstorer said:

    However, by using a system that is complex enough to break, you accomplish a reasonable level of security.

    This argument is crap, and I'll explain why. When dealing with a digital (anything), if it's in the clear, you are totally and completely screwed. It's as if you never protected it at all. If there's any reason at all to protect whatever it is you are trying to protect, making it "difficult" to get at is not going to stop anybody from trying to get at it. And it only takes one person to succeed before the cat is out of the bag. So either you control access by using a name/password system where you can track individual user access (and maybe watermark things appropriately, to have a chilling effect on re-distribution), or just plain DON'T BOTHER because it really isn't worth the time and development headache worrying about it/deploying it.

    @bstorer said:

    But that's not what this stupid product is about.  All it does is break the convention of how the browser works.  I really don't understand how it can be expected to increase revenue.  The customer is already on the site, how does capturing their right clicks sell more? 

    And that being said, it makes it doubly stupid to do this.

     Point is, you either have to do it right (not convienent), or don't bother. You just create an artificial market for snake oil trying to support the middle ground. This kind of thinking is why we have "copy protected" CDs which I absolutely hate because the screwed-up error correction causes all sorts of nasty skips in the car and it almost begs you to rip and re-burn it using competent software (that which merely ignores the subchannels).

     You see what I mean?
     



  • @coder said:

    My web host offers a 99% uptime

    Your web host is pretty horrible.  99% means your site can be down for 88 hours a year and still meet the requirements.  99.9% or more is legitimate. 



  • @kirchhoff said:

    That is patently false. Barring a out-of-left-field revolution in quantum computing or number theory, your 1024-bit public/private keypair is as secure as the unencrypted media the private key resides on during encryption, and would takes years, racks of computing equipment, and millions upon millions of kilowatt-hours of power to otherwise break.

    Modify that to 2048-bit public keys and it's correct. 1024 bits is not enough any more, it can be broken for less than a million dollars in less than a year. (2048 bits should withstand at least another century of Moore's law). 



  • @asuffield said:

    Modify that to 2048-bit public keys and it's correct. 1024 bits is not enough any more, it can be broken for less than a million dollars in less than a year. (2048 bits should withstand at least another century of Moore's law). 

    Oh. My orders of magnitude are apparently targeting something between 1024 and 2048. Thanks...



  • Because that's what this forum is for!

    It does NOTHING to increase security. Nothing at all. Anyone who is remotely interested in stealing your precious content already knows the many trivial ways round this kind of thing.

    All it does is drive less tech-savvy people away, because it makes your website feel "broken" because it behaves wrongly. Someone who might have visited your site regularly, giving you dozens or even hundreds of ad views, will instead only visit ONCE, giving you ONE ad view, then NEVER COME BACK, because they hated the horrible experience of having an ad shoved in their face when all they did was right-click to try and send a link to your site to a friend.



  • @kirchhoff said:

    While I agree with your statements in principle, I must protest to a few of them. 

    @bstorer said:

    For example, every public key encryption (and just about every other type) can be broken eventually.

    That is patently false. Barring a out-of-left-field revolution in quantum computing or number theory, your 1024-bit public/private keypair is as secure as the unencrypted media the private key resides on during encryption, and would takes years, racks of computing equipment, and millions upon millions of kilowatt-hours of power to otherwise break.

    You call my statement "patently false" and then go on to say that any message encrypted with any given public key scheme can be broken eventually. You're going to need to pick one side or the other there, chief.  We both seem to be in agreement that it can be done, given enough effort.  The goal is simply to make the effort needed so great as to make the attempt unappealing.

    As for content protection, you are correct in so far as this:  If I have access to it, I can steal it.  If I have it and it's protected, I can steal it, but it's harder.  The question is, how much harder do I have to work, and is it worth it?  When you're dealing with something like the CD or HD-DVD encryption, it's probably always going to be worth it to somebody, if only to stick it to the RIAA or MPAA, respectively.  If we're talking about a small website, maybe the incentive to break it isn't there if they use a strong enough system.  Granted, I don't know that such a thing can exist given the way HTTP/browser/computers function, but I guess it depends just how strong you need your system.

    The point is, no security is unbeatable (except a perfect one-time pad, if such a thing can be said to exist).



  • @coder said:

    So everyone agrees that you can't protect your website content and doesn't matter what you do. I can't say that I entirely agree with that statement but I would venture to guess that a website in this communities hands falls in the that category (un-protectable)  having said that i'd guess that this community doesn't represent the majority of the people on the internet... none-the-less security aside, I'm curious as to this pisses off users part.. why would a normal user (remember normal = the standard) get pissed off visiting a site that has this installed?

    As mentioned before if you click your middle button (to scroll) it would be annoying - wonder how many people do this instead of just scrolling with the wheel, anyway other then that I don't see why it would annoy a visitor. When I visit a site I don't right click unless I want to open a link in a new window - I'm not in the habit of right clicking every image or in random spots on the page. So chances are I wouldn't even know this was installed. Maybe there are a bunch of rogue right clickers that travel the internet but I'm not really sure (if they did exists) then I bet this would piss them off.

    To analogize this to a car alarm is dumb.  This is the equivalent to stopping car thieves by making a car with an unusually shaped and hard-to-use key slot - changing the way a standardized action is done by making it harder to do.  It inconveniences people who are trying to use the car legitimately, and it doesn't stop car thieves at all, because they didn't use the key to begin with - just as people actually trying to steal your images generally won't just right-click, they'll just look at the source code.  Even young children know how to do that.



  • @coder said:

    I came across this forum after looking for solutions for my website and www.rightclickrevenue.com seems to offer a very feasable solution to increase website security while providing a way to increase sales.

    I'm not saying you are wrong but I think the creator knows everything your saying from looking at you posts... he states: "From the beginning I understood that it is virtually impossible to protect 100% of your content from 100% of the people; after all once something is live on the internet it can feel like it is out of your hands. With that knowledge I almost gave up... "

     Just wondering why this has been so "over analyzed" by this forum.

     
    Mark
     


     

    How is it "feasable" if your--- I mean his product has been shown to fail with any reasonable browser safety settings, as indicated in this thread? This is not some case of "not 100%" so much as it's a case of "anyone who isn't an idiot". Unless your content is at risk of being copied primarily by idiots, I really don't see how this is effective.



  • The point is: This guy is trying to make money out of people who just don't know.

    And he's not even doing it very good. 



  • @luketheduke said:

    And he's not even doing it very good. 

    *very well 

     

    runs 



  • My english teacher always throws her dictionary at me for that (well, figuratively speaking). And damn, I have english as major test subject o.O ("Leistungskurs" if that rings any bells)



  • @wonkoTheSane said:

    MU,HAHAHA

     Im going to copy that page, the whole thing, and put it up on a free hosting account somewhere and them email him the URL... Im going to change that popup as well so that when you right click it explains to him that once a client has viewed a page all of the content is on their PC, and theres nothing he can do... its how the internet works...

     

    No, don't send it to him, send it to his 'clients' (they include their webpages in the testimonials page).  Show them they've bought a fraudulent product and let the lawsuits sort it out.



  • Reading those testimonials almost makes me want to cry:

    Jason,

    I have to say that your Right Click Revenue was Right on time! I just finished a new graphic product but was a a loss as to how I would protect the images on my sales page from theft.

    The traditional scripts and watermarks didn't work for me and I thought I was dead in the water until you sent me an advanced copy of Right Click Revenue. With it, I was able to put my sales page up with confidence knowing that my images were safe. And now, you made it a revenue generator too!

    This is the next best thing since sliced bread and I can't wait to put it to work.

    Sincerely,
    Eric "Rico" Reed
    www.AffordableGraphicsandBanners.com

     


    WOW! WOW! WOW!

    This is an incredible IDEA! I have had a ton of graphics STOLEN from me over the years and I think this is the most AWESOME way of having the last laugh at those who try to RIGHT CLICK and steal your content and/or graphics!

    When I found your link last night I instantly emailed everyone on my list! Anyone who hasn't tried it should immediately BUY IT! Your product gets my Vote for Best New Product of 2007!

    Alisha Wright


    Right Click Revenue is AWESOME and so is Jason

    - Talk about an Attention Grabber.
    - I put videos in mine and what a difference, people LOOK and ACT!
    - This really does help for sign-ups.
    - If I could set this up, anyone can.

    I must say I had a small glitch but I contacted Jason and he promptly replied, checked out my code and immediately wrote back with the solution. If everyone who sold a product online would help out in this way, it would be a much easier environment.

    Thanks again Jason for this AWESOME SOFTWARE and your QUICK HELP.

    Paul McGregor
    www.pmcgregor.com



  • - I put videos in mine

    twitch 



  • Aww, it's not one of those HTML encryption engines? (Google for examples.) At least those can stop leet kiddies who don't know their ass from their elbow, if not anyone who can understand javascript, whereas this can't actually keep anyone out at all. Note how many people could right click without doing anything else. That's why people ridicule it, it's just a feel-good marketing scam, and coder is either the creator in disguise or an easy mark. The best part is that the site is practically a scam template, so many ebooks purporting to "get girls tonight", "raise your stamina", or "talk your way out of any ticket" are sold in the exact same format.

    How to protect images: Watermarks and low quality. Watermarks have the added benefit that when they inevitably do get stolen and posted somewhere, people will get a link back to your site. Consider it a viral marketing opportunity. (At least until the mark gets shopped out.) Put online what you don't really need to protect, keep the rest safe behind the firewall. Google occasionally for any text plagiarism, keep a lawyer around that can send out threatening-sounding letters if you can't.



  • @foxyshadis said:

    Aww, it's not one of those HTML encryption engines? (Google for examples.)

    Google's stuff isn't encrypted, it's compiled. They've got some magic that compiles into html/javascript goop. Obfuscation is an unintended side-effect of most compilers.



  • @foxyshadis said:

    Aww, it's not one of those HTML encryption engines? (Google for examples.) At least those can stop leet kiddies who don't know their ass from their elbow, if not anyone who can understand javascript, whereas this can't actually keep anyone out at all. Note how many people could right click without doing anything else. That's why people ridicule it, it's just a feel-good marketing scam, and coder is either the creator in disguise or an easy mark. The best part is that the site is practically a scam template, so many ebooks purporting to "get girls tonight", "raise your stamina", or "talk your way out of any ticket" are sold in the exact same format.

    How to protect images: Watermarks and low quality. Watermarks have the added benefit that when they inevitably do get stolen and posted somewhere, people will get a link back to your site. Consider it a viral marketing opportunity. (At least until the mark gets shopped out.) Put online what you don't really need to protect, keep the rest safe behind the firewall. Google occasionally for any text plagiarism, keep a lawyer around that can send out threatening-sounding letters if you can't.

    Exactly! Nothing to add.

    @asuffield said:

    @foxyshadis said:

    Aww, it's not one of those HTML encryption engines? (Google for examples.)

    Google's
    stuff isn't encrypted, it's compiled. They've got some magic that
    compiles into html/javascript goop. Obfuscation is an unintended
    side-effect of most compilers.

    Another nice example of how an "unintended side effect" spawned a whole industry...

     



  • @nwbrown said:

    @wonkoTheSane said:

    MU,HAHAHA

     Im going to copy that page, the whole thing, and put it up on a free hosting account somewhere and them email him the URL... Im going to change that popup as well so that when you right click it explains to him that once a client has viewed a page all of the content is on their PC, and theres nothing he can do... its how the internet works...

     

    No, don't send it to him, send it to his 'clients' (they include their webpages in the testimonials page).  Show them they've bought a fraudulent product and let the lawsuits sort it out.

    There is nothing fraudulent about the product and a lawsuit like that would most probably be summarily dismissed. The guy says he makes it [i]harder[/i] to copy stuff from a web page - which is obviously true. He also says that the client may profit from people right-clicking (ok, he says they *will* profit from it, but that's a very common kind of lie in the world of web commerce), by letting them have an ad banner show up when somebody right clicks.

    The product doesn't really work very well, though - i didn't even realise that there was supposed be ads and stuff popping up until I read about it - but that's just because he is a lousy programmer and probably doesn't know much about non-IE browsers. Still, there is hardly any doubt that almost all of his clients' clients will be using IE.

    Please remember before you dismiss a scheme like this, that there are loads of non-technical people buying and selling web design services all over the world. They may have a problem with other non-technical designers being able to easily steal their images and solutions and stuff just by right-clicking, and they just want to make it harder to do. This guy says straight out that actual protection is impossible but offers to make it harder, and he lets them try to make some money at the same time.

    And we all hate banners and ads, don't we? Still, they obviously work, otherwise they wouldn't exist.



  • @Khim said:

    @nwbrown said:
    @wonkoTheSane said:

    MU,HAHAHA

     Im going to copy that page, the whole thing, and put it up on a free hosting account somewhere and them email him the URL... Im going to change that popup as well so that when you right click it explains to him that once a client has viewed a page all of the content is on their PC, and theres nothing he can do... its how the internet works...

     

    No, don't send it to him, send it to his 'clients' (they include their webpages in the testimonials page).  Show them they've bought a fraudulent product and let the lawsuits sort it out.

    There is nothing fraudulent about the product and a lawsuit like that would most probably be summarily dismissed. The guy says he makes it [i]harder[/i] to copy stuff from a web page - which is obviously true. He also says that the client may profit from people right-clicking (ok, he says they *will* profit from it, but that's a very common kind of lie in the world of web commerce), by letting them have an ad banner show up when somebody right clicks.

    The product is entirely worthless. If the seller can be shown to know this (by collecting and examining his email records, for example) then it's fraud, punishable by confiscation of assets and jail. You cannot escape a fraud conviction by carefully wording your advertising, because the courts presume that implicit in all advertising is a claim that the product is worth purchasing. (It's not a crime to be wrong about this; it is a crime to know that it's not true and advertise it anyway)

    The only reason people get away with it is because it's notoriously hard to prove intent, not because it's legal.


    And we all hate banners and ads, don't we? Still, they obviously work, otherwise they wouldn't exist.

    Spam "works".



  • Speaking of this, is it just me, or does snopes.com try to prevent you from highlighting text? When reading a long page, I generally scroll with the arrow keys, which I found impossible. It was really annoying to read any longer snopes.com articles, as a result.

    Then I installed noscript. And life is good. 🙂 



  • @asuffield said:

    @foxyshadis said:

    Aww, it's not one of those HTML encryption engines? (Google for examples.)

    Google's stuff isn't encrypted, it's compiled. They've got some magic that compiles into html/javascript goop. Obfuscation is an unintended side-effect of most compilers.

    I meant 'Google "HTML Encryption" for examples', sorry I wasn't clear on that. Google's js code is so cryptic is may as well be encrypted, but their html is total cleartext.

    Another cool thing it could do if it was remotely useful: Replace the context menu with an ad, and an animation of the jurrasic park guy going "Ah ah ah!" Then have a highly-trained team of raptors smash through your windows. .... brb barring up the windows.



  • Ouch.

    I spotted two, extremely highly obvious .js files (right-click-revenue.js and right-click-revenue-pro.js). Punched in "http://www.rightclickrevenue.com/*.js" in Adblock Plus. Bam.

    Earlier today, I installed AdBlock Plus for a fellow user and taught them how to use it - a completely clean install with no pre-built lists, so I spent good 15 minutes figuring out how the heck to get rid of ads on one .tk site hosted on GeoCities and FreeForumWorld.com. And I've been using AdBlock for ages.

    As an exercise to frustrate content plagiarisers, this is not exactly frustrating. Obviously, the alleged years of research don't show. These still don't work, and never have worked, as long as people use web browsers capable of not running JavaScript. Er, web caches. Er, computers equipped with read/write video memory. Er, video signal. Er, pairs of eyes. Uh, just one eye. Whatever.

    This isn't what worries me though - the bad thing is that there's testimonials on the site. Did these people really try this thing out for a long time and really make sure it works right? I suppose not. These testimonials look rather embarrassing once they figure out how easy this is to fool...



  • @foxyshadis said:

    @asuffield said:
    @foxyshadis said:

    Aww, it's not one of those HTML encryption engines? (Google for examples.)

    Google's stuff isn't encrypted, it's compiled. They've got some magic that compiles into html/javascript goop. Obfuscation is an unintended side-effect of most compilers.

    I meant 'Google "HTML Encryption" for examples', sorry I wasn't clear on that.

    Ah, hah. 

     

    Google's js code is so cryptic is may as well be encrypted

    That's the stuff - it's mostly compiled from java by this (some of their stuff supposedly is compiled by an earlier unreleased tool): http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/



  • Hmm, I think nobody has mentioned what must be one of the most lame methods: Edit-> Select All, Copy, and Paste into a Word doc. Ooh, the entire page with all the layout and graphics you can do all you want with, in about 15 seconds and 7 mouse clicks... (only left ones, please).



  • @Cloaked User said:

    ...There is currently no technical way to prevent people from simply saving it and using it as they see fit, but that neither makes it legal nor makes the picture public property...

    The real wtf has been identified.



  • @skztr said:

    @Cloaked User said:
    ...There is currently no technical way to prevent people from simply saving it and using it as they see fit, but that neither makes it legal nor makes the picture public property...

    The real wtf has been identified.

    I fixed the quote to point out the other WTF. Is he suggesting that we can implement a non-technical way? Perhaps by tracing IPs, going to people's houses, and flogging them?



  • @bstorer said:

    The point is, no security is unbeatable (except a perfect one-time pad, if such a thing can be said to exist).

    Well... one time pads have other issues that make them less secure than a properly managed PKI. Humans are typically more fallible than computers so that kinda creates issues.

    Don't misunderstand me. I understand that at a very high level, yes, using state of the art encryption is just a way of delaying the inevitable given a sufficiently motivated individual.

    HOWEVER!

    State of the art encryption (where the only protection is the secrecy of a shared or private key) is not even in the same league as other methods of obfuscation (where the method is secret, not the key).

    A motivated individual who likes puzzles can almost always figure out the latter given enough time, a virtual machine, a debugger, etc. etc.

    But the former? Let's say a hacker wanted to break some PKI encryption on the latest Pixar release a year before it opened in theatres (suppose there was a legal battle keeping it in the can).

    It might be possible to do. He could spend billions of dollars building (or stealing) a farm of equipment that, if he's lucky, could break the encryption. He'd probably have an issue with his power company.

    Although, for that same amount of money, HE COULD BUY PIXAR. AND DISNEY.

    So... that's why I make the distinction between the level of effort between proper encryption and any other type of data obfuscation. If you have to search a keyspace, then you're fighting a losing battle. All someone has to do is double the keylength to put you off for another couple millenia or so. (Each doubling is orders of magnitude worse).

     RC5-64bit took some hundreds of millions of CPU hours to break. To break a RC5-128bit message requires years and lots of special-purpose equipment. A single message encrypted with AES-256 will never be broken before the Sun explodes (not enough energy to harness), without a change in mathematical knowledge (and then it might be done sometime after the earth stops spinning due to lunar tidal forces).

    These are the kind of requirements (PER MESSAGE) that make it much easier to find, kidnap, and "extract" the information from the original person encoding the message than it is to secretly break it. 



  • @Spikeles said:

    Look coder, you can't protect the content on the page, it's impossible, you can research all you want. Look at all the copy protection schemes out there like SafeDisc, Fair play, CSS, Macrovision, AACS  are not an effective technique to protect your work. Do your research and you'll see none of them work. By implementing these schemes, you'll piss off your web clients, and if anyone really wants to copy your work, it will be hacked and broken within seconds.

    I have a solution that I am willing to sell to interested website owners. With WT* technology, your site is immune to right-clicking, CTRL-A, and other sneaky methods of theft!

     * Wooden Table
     



  • Mmh, so this guy graduated in Iowa (http://www.hum.aau.dk/ics/ask/usa/index.html).

    What can we learn from this?

     

    /ducks 



  • @kirchhoff said:

    It might be possible to do. He could spend billions of dollars building (or stealing) a farm of equipment that, if he's lucky, could break the encryption. He'd probably have an issue with his power company.

    Or, he could write a distributed processing app to do the same thing, and put it on the web. If it's like the SETI@Home thing, then plenty of people would install it to burn up their excess processing power. You just have to lie to them about what it's actually computing.

    So, no worries about the electricity bills (apart from the server where the clients 'call home' or whatever it is they do) and if he's clever enough, no worries about getting caught.(almost)

     I mean, it'll probably take just as long (if not longer), but it's more interesting. Until the clients find out what you are actually using their spare CPU time for.


     


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.