B5 Jackets at thestation.com
Jms at B5
>sell copies or send them out on the internet after some OCR work, no?
>
We're talking hours of work in the latter scenario, as opposed to 30 seconds to
download. Thievery always happens, but you want to make it as difficult as
possible.
And photocopying a work into a scanner is a much clearer violation of copyright
for purposes of prosecution than transferring something already in file form.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
Wesley Struebing
>>Almost as easy as it is to buy scripts from thestation, photocopy them and
>>sell copies or send them out on the internet after some OCR work, no?
>>
>We're talking hours of work in the latter scenario, as opposed to 30 seconds to
>download. Thievery always happens, but you want to make it as difficult as
>possible.
>
>And photocopying a work into a scanner is a much clearer violation of copyright
>for purposes of prosecution than transferring something already in file form.
>
>
> jms
>
Joe, I could be wrong about this (it's been known to happen...), but
if you were to put it into pdf format, you can set some switch to
read-only, so it could be viewed, but not printed.
(' course this entails the customer either having Acrobat Reader, or
providing it/selling it with the script...)
Michael J. Hennebry
Wesley Struebing <str...@americanisp.com> wrote:
>Joe, I could be wrong about this (it's been known to happen...), but
>if you were to put it into pdf format, you can set some switch to
>read-only, so it could be viewed, but not printed.
Any copy protection scheme can be beaten by disc (or whatever) copy programs.
'Taint necessary to understand data in order to copy it.
The original copiers, like the current ones, were illiterate.
--
Mike henn...@plains.NoDak.edu
"I'm just an old country doctor." -- Bones
Wesley Struebing
Hennebry) wrote:
>In article <8Xb+N7G8agaEBt...@4ax.com>,
>Wesley Struebing <str...@americanisp.com> wrote:
>>Joe, I could be wrong about this (it's been known to happen...), but
>>if you were to put it into pdf format, you can set some switch to
>>read-only, so it could be viewed, but not printed.
>
>Any copy protection scheme can be beaten by disc (or whatever) copy programs.
>'Taint necessary to understand data in order to copy it.
>The original copiers, like the current ones, were illiterate.
True, but just copying it and printing it wouldn't help making a .pdf
file readable. I don't know if even Quikview will read(and print) a
protected acrobat file...
But, in any case, you are ultimately right. It's just how much effort
one wants to put into it.
Wayne Throop
::: if you were to put it into pdf format, you can set some switch to
::: read-only, so it could be viewed, but not printed.
:: Any copy protection scheme can be beaten by disc (or whatever) copy
:: programs. 'Taint necessary to understand data in order to copy it.
:: The original copiers, like the current ones, were illiterate.
: Wesley Struebing <str...@americanisp.com>
: True, but just copying it and printing it wouldn't help making a .pdf
: file readable. I don't know if even Quikview will read(and print) a
: protected acrobat file...
:
: But, in any case, you are ultimately right. It's just how much effort
: one wants to put into it.
Look. You said you can view it on-screen. You want to print it.
Acrobat schmacrobat: just take a snapshot of the screen as a bitmap
and print the bitmap. The effort put into it is very small.
Now, if you want cleartext back, you can try running the bitmap
through some OCR; but often there isn't enough resolution for
that to be effective.
If worst comes to worst, display it and then use an digital or
"polaroid" camera to "print" the screen.
Long story short, if you can make it tickle receptors on your retina,
you can make it splatter inkjets on paper.
On the other hand, maybe the document that needs printing is many pages
long. Then the effort may grow unweildy. But even so, it's just a
small matter of tedium, and could probably even be automated (what with
Xvfb in XFree86, and the X-event-replay products).
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Rob Perkins
news:8Xb+N7G8agaEBt...@4ax.com...
> Joe, I could be wrong about this (it's been known to happen...), but
> if you were to put it into pdf format, you can set some switch to
> read-only, so it could be viewed, but not printed.
It can be viewed, copied, posted on an FTP server and spread all over the
world, and still not printed.
Also, the more determined thief will simply interpret the raw PDF file,
extract the information, and build a text file to sell/give away.
Restricting it from being printed only prevents printing, not copying.
Rob
Dianne Heins
Heck, variations on cut and paste often work!
Dianne
Wesley Struebing
wrote:
>message posted October 9.
>On <Oct 08 16:05>, Wesley Struebing <str...@americanisp.com> wrote;
>
> WS>Joe, I could be wrong about this (it's been known to happen...),
> WS>but if you were to put it into pdf format, you can set some switch to
> WS>read-only, so it could be viewed, but not printed.
>
> WS>(' course this entails the customer either having Acrobat Reader,
> WS>or providing it/selling it with the script...)
>
>I don't think he's as worried about it being printed out as about it being
>uploaded to the net - can this switch also keep the file from being
>transferred?
Points from all taken. As I said, how effort does one want to put
into it?
And, I don't think so, Kay. So, yeah, it can still be , err,
"distributed". Ve haf vays uf doink many t'ings...<G>
Michael J. Hennebry
Wesley Struebing <str...@americanisp.com> wrote:
>On 12 Oct 1999 09:19:28 -0600, henn...@plains.NoDak.edu (Michael J.
>Hennebry) wrote:
>
>>Wesley Struebing <str...@americanisp.com> wrote:
>>>Joe, I could be wrong about this (it's been known to happen...), but
>>>if you were to put it into pdf format, you can set some switch to
>>
>>'Taint necessary to understand data in order to copy it.
>>The original copiers, like the current ones, were illiterate.
>
>file readable. I don't know if even Quikview will read(and print) a
>protected acrobat file...
Quikview isn't illiterate. Programs that just copy don't need to understand
what they're copying. They wouldn't notice a copy protect bit if it walked
up to them and bit them in the buffer. What makes digital data so good
is that it is possible to make a literally perfect copy. Said property
also drives copyright protectors nuts.