Deactivate browser's print function

I hear it is possible to disable the web browsers print function, does
anyone know how to do that?

Cartoper <cartoper (AT) gmail (DOT) com> writes:

I hear it is possible to disable the web browsers print function

You heard wrong.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

On Jul 28, 9:25 am, Sherm Pendley <spamt... (AT) dot-app (DOT) org> wrote:

Cartoper <carto... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> writes:
I hear it is possible to disable the web browsers print function

You heard wrong.

Bummer, what I heard, well read, exactly is:

Selecting the "Print only blank pages" option will prevent visitors
from printing your pages. Any time someone uses the print function,
either the browser will refuse to print (Internet Explorer 4.0 or
higher) or only a blank page will be output (Netscape Navigator 6.0 or
higher and Opera 4.0 or higher).

This function works with almost every CSS 2.0-enabled browser. Be
aware that no warning is given, so users in this scenario may suspect
a faulty printer or defective software.

source: http://www.aw-soft.com/htmlguard-security.html

"Cartoper" <cartoper (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

On Jul 28, 9:25 am, Sherm Pendley <spamt... (AT) dot-app (DOT) org> wrote:
Cartoper <carto... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> writes:
I hear it is possible to disable the web browsers print function

You heard wrong.

Bummer, what I heard, well read, exactly is:

Selecting the "Print only blank pages" option will prevent visitors
from printing your pages. Any time someone uses the print function,
either the browser will refuse to print (Internet Explorer 4.0 or
higher) or only a blank page will be output (Netscape Navigator 6.0 or
higher and Opera 4.0 or higher).

This function works with almost every CSS 2.0-enabled browser. Be
aware that no warning is given, so users in this scenario may suspect
a faulty printer or defective software.

source: http://www.aw-soft.com/htmlguard-security.html

Har har.

<oil src='snake'>

To refute the claims made on the abovementioned page:

1. Type some simple javascript into the address bar and the "source" is
immediately visible. The real disadvantage of this approach is that those
with javascript unavailable (estimated to be 10 to 15%) will never see the
page. This is just like turning your server off for the month of December.

2. Tidy (google for it). Tidies things up nicely.

3. Stupid. Never seen a scroll bar?

4. With one mouse click I can disable javascript. Then "no right click"
scripts are disabled. Anyway I don't use my right mouse button to steal
images. I left click/drag/drop them into my image editor. Going to disable
my left mouse button as well?

5. What "block text selection" option. a) Use another browser b)
view:http://url.

6. Most modern browsers dont allow clipboard disablement anyway.

7. Har Har. Disable print? Use another browser or type view:http://url into
your address bar. And what are you going to do once you have printed the
page? Type it into an editor? You don't need a hardcopy for that, just two
windows open.

8. PHP3? Har har. Nothing done server side will stop me from saving your
images. Nothing. Ever heard of Print Screen?

It should be noted that most of the snake oil promulgated by this site
assumes IE. People who would *want* to steal code are the least likely ones
to be using IE.

And those who *can* bypass the trivial barriers and steal the code and use
it would be the very ones who could write it from scratch and do a far
better job.

Finallly:
The desire to hide the HTML behind a page is inversly proportional to the
value of that HTML to anybody else.

</oil>

"rf" <rf (AT) invalid (DOT) com> writes:

"Cartoper" <cartoper (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:1185630224.358246.180630 (AT) z24g2000prh (DOT) googlegroups.com...

source: http://www.aw-soft.com/htmlguard-security.html

Har har.

oil src='snake'

To refute the claims made on the abovementioned page:

....

/oil

I completely agree. In my opinion, such products aren't far short of out-
right fraud - they're making claims about capabilities which they simply
cannot deliver. Their business model is based on the fact that most people
do not realize this, and believe the claims.

Sadly, there's a sucker born every minute, so these frauds manage to stay
in business.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

On Jul 28, 10:45 am, Sherm Pendley <spamt... (AT) dot-app (DOT) org> wrote:

I completely agree. In my opinion, such products aren't far short of out-
right fraud - they're making claims about capabilities which they simply
cannot deliver. Their business model is based on the fact that most people
do not realize this, and believe the claims.

Sadly, there's a sucker born every minute, so these frauds manage to stay
in business.

First off, I don't disagree that all these types of things are easy to
get around, IF YOU KNOW HOW. Being a professional software developer
I understand that it isn't a matter of if your code is stolen, but
when is it stolen.

On the other hand I think it is foolish not to put basic measures in
place to "keep the honest people honest". I am putting together my
photography studio web site and I want to at least let folks know that
I don't want them taking my images. In the end I will leave it to
their congest (how do you spell this work? I spend 10 minutes trying
to figure it out and I cannot, please enlighten this poor fool that
cannot smell!) as to go around my basic measures or not

Cartoper

Cartoper <cartoper (AT) gmail (DOT) com> writes:

On the other hand I think it is foolish not to put basic measures in
place to "keep the honest people honest".

You're wasting your time. Honest people don't need such measures, and if
you think they'll stop the dishonest ones you're just kidding yourself.
Everybody and their dog knows how to disable JavaScript these days.

I am putting together my
photography studio web site and I want to at least let folks know that
I don't want them taking my images.

Then put a watermark on them. Just add a text layer in Photoshop that says
"SAMPLE" and make that layer 85-90% (or so) transparent.

It's simple, free, and (unlike a "solution" that only works if the user
allows it to) is actually quite effective at preventing your online samples
from being misused.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

On 2007-07-28, Sherm Pendley <spamtrap (AT) dot-app (DOT) org> wrote:

"rf" <rf (AT) invalid (DOT) com> writes:

"Cartoper" <cartoper (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:1185630224.358246.180630 (AT) z24g2000prh (DOT) googlegroups.com...

source: http://www.aw-soft.com/htmlguard-security.html

Har har.

oil src='snake'

To refute the claims made on the abovementioned page:

...

/oil

I completely agree. In my opinion, such products aren't far short of out-
right fraud - they're making claims about capabilities which they simply
cannot deliver. Their business model is based on the fact that most people
do not realize this, and believe the claims.

The website was quite honest about it in this case though, explaining
what it does and why it doesn't really work.

When I saw aw-soft I thought is this Albert Wiersch again, but it seems
to be "Andreas Wulf Software".

On Jul 28, 6:16 pm, Cartoper <carto... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

On the other hand I think it is foolish not to put basic measures in
place to "keep the honest people honest".

Like the unskippable reminder that I shouldn't buy pirate DVDs that
appears before the main content on rather a large proportion of my
(bought and paid for) DVD collection?

Or the DRM on downloaded music that I have to strip off before I can
burn it to CD to listen to in the car?

I am putting together my photography studio web site and I want to at least let folks know that
I don't want them taking my images.

What do you lose if someone hits print to get a hard copy of a webpage
displaying your photo?

Surely it is going to be a low resolution version and have the
standard browser header/footer containing date stamps, URLs and the
like? Its not going to be much use for anything beyond "Hey boss, this
looks like a good picture for our thingy, shall we buy it?".

Ben C <spamspam (AT) spam (DOT) eggs> writes:

On 2007-07-28, Sherm Pendley <spamtrap (AT) dot-app (DOT) org> wrote:
"rf" <rf (AT) invalid (DOT) com> writes:

"Cartoper" <cartoper (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:1185630224.358246.180630 (AT) z24g2000prh (DOT) googlegroups.com...

source: http://www.aw-soft.com/htmlguard-security.html

Har har.

oil src='snake'

To refute the claims made on the abovementioned page:

...

/oil

I completely agree. In my opinion, such products aren't far short of out-
right fraud - they're making claims about capabilities which they simply
cannot deliver. Their business model is based on the fact that most people
do not realize this, and believe the claims.

The website was quite honest about it in this case though, explaining
what it does and why it doesn't really work.

I don't call this "quite honest":

"The combination of different methods used, activates a protection that
cannot be bypassed in the twinkling of an eye."

"There is always a way to reach the source code and elements of a page,
but how many people do you know that are good enough at JavaScript
programming to bypass the source code protection?"

The message they're sending is crystal clear - they're claiming that their
so-called "protection" takes a lot of time and skills to bypass, when in
fact it takes neither. They are grossly overstating the effectiveness of
their snake-oil.

There's also this gem at the bottom of the page:

"In many Internet and Usenet forums the question about protection
possibilties of HTML pages is a "Frequently Forbidden Question" (FFQ)
that is answered unwillingly, if at all, and rarely without a cynical
comment. The reason for this is that HTML is an open principle and
almost every webmaster has gained experience by studying the source
code of others. However, protecting text, images or scripts should
not be considered as moral abjectly because this is the custom in
other fields"

They're grossly misrepresenting the attitudes of professionals who know why
their software doesn't do what it claims to do. Pointing out the technical
limitations of such software is realism, not cynicism.

Nor is it some sort of moral crusade - why is it that so many people choose
to hear "it's wrong to want that" when what's actually being said is "that
won't work no matter how badly you want it to"?

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net