coder:

 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:

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:

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? :O 

coder:

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
 

 

Entirely possible. Just slightly less plausible than the alternative.

coder:

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:

 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:

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:

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:

Beowulff:

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:

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:

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):

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:

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:

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.

coder:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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

Spikeles:

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:

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.

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

bstorer:

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:

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:

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?