Re: Risks of insufficient concept design

[Andrew Pam <avatar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> I think Mr. Pam did not understand the product fully and has unfairly 
> represented the features of SiteShield.  However, we are making an effort 
> to improve the quality of the information on our site, so perhaps that was 
> the source of the confusion.

I do not claim to understand the product fully, but my contention is
that the entire concept on which it is based runs counter to the
strengths of the online medium.  The product is in my view a retrograde
step because it attempts to enforce unworkable concepts of copyright.

> This, of course, steps into the area of copyright issues.  However, it is 
> our contention, that while previously one could have stolen the image via a 
> simple right-click and save, this method forces a person to make a 
> *conscious* effort to steal the image.  No longer can innocence be claimed, 
> should organizations choose to pursue pirates.  Admittedly, risks may still 
> exist here, although we are examining methods to improve security.

But how do you define "stolen the image"?  Any cache will save the image
to disk, from which a user can equally well copy the (untransformed)
image.  As far as I am aware thre is curently little or no legal
precedent to clarify under what circumstances images have been copied
legally and under what circumstances they have been copied illegally.
Presumably you are not interested in pursuing users who have copied the
images together with the page which transcludes them, but only those who
have copied them with the intention of republishing them in a different
context.  However, if you prevent these users from making a link to your
original content, you immediately lose the ability to track new uses of
your content.  Transcopyright is a far more elegant solution and also in
keeping with the culture of the Net.

> This feature works in conjunction with image protection to provide two 
> parts of a wall that a site may put in place.  We don't claim 100% complete 
> protection, but by placing these two features on a site, an organization 
> can claim that they are at least making a good faith effort to protect 
> their content.  Previous to this, no such claim could be made.

Again, my argument is that putting such a wall in place is undesirable
because it is complicated, a kludge, runs counter to the spirit of the
Net, and reduces visibility and popularity of the site.  Finally, I
did not see a technical explanation of the security measures which would
allow independent scrutiny.  Security by obscurity is of little use.

Cheers,
	*** AVATAR ***
-- 
mailto:xanni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx                     Andrew Pam
http://www.aus.xanadu.com/xanadu/               Coordinator, Xanadu Australia
http://www.glasswings.com.au/GlassWings/        Technical Editor, Glass Wings
http://www.sericyb.com.au/sc/                   Manager, Serious Cybernetics
P.O. Box 409, Canterbury VIC 3126 Australia     Phone +61 3 96511511