Secure display of copy protected images

I'm creating an applet that should be able to display the images to a users screen - without enabling him to copy the images in any way (e.g. by doing a screenshot).
I realize this is a difficult (if not impossible) task - as long is the user can view an image, it can be copied.
But if I can reduce the amount of people that will be able to do it, that should be good enough.
This is how I'm thinking of doing it;
1. The images are stored in an area on the server that isn't accessible from web
2. A script will read the image data and hand it to the applet
3. The applet will display the image in a cardlayout (image / blank)
- when keyboard events are received the blank card will be shown
- when mouse events are received the blank card will be shown
- when focus is lost the blank card will be shown
This way the applet (which will fill the browser) will have to be focused (and ready to get input events) for the image to be displayed. If the user tries to do a screenshot using the keys or the mouse the blank card will be shown.
Comments?

It can't be done. What you're proposing is what's known as a "trusted client solution" (google it). Basically you're relying on your applet (which runs on the client's machine) to disallow certain behaviour (i.e. copying of the image). Problem is, once the image has been transferred to the client's machine, all bets are off - there are a billion ways to circumvent any security you come up with on the client side.
How about watermarking the images in question? It won't stop people from stealing them, but it would make it easier to track down infringers by providing you with a mechanism to prove that the images were stolen from you.

Similar Messages

Protect Image from Copying

Can anyone tell me how to protect images on my site from
being copied?
Is there a way to code or something in Dreamweaver I can
implement to prevent a right click copy?
I'm currently using Dreamweaver 8.
Thank you

No, the people here with experience try to give additional
information in an
effort to help someone.
Sharing the fact that disable right click is amateur, doesn't
work and so on
is not a faux rule to be abided by.
It's simply good advice.
Many people like this forum because people with experience
don't just give
the recipe the person is looking for, they add some
real world experience and offer advice to try to HELP the
user avoid some
mistakes or mis-understandings.
Offering someone information he or she may not have
considered is neither
elitist or judgmental of whether someone is a "true" designer
(Who even said
that?).
It's simply kind and responsible.
Take care,
Tim
"GPaul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Yes...the morality of it... you should do it / you
should not do it.
> Sometimes people here are like pipesmokers, flyfisherman
and bowhunters,
> that elite group that practices the only "pure" form of
the art. They
> create faux rules to be abided by to or you are not a
"true" designer.
>
> The OP asked how to protect an image, not the high
browed opinions as to
> whether it should be done or not. He/she asked if there
is a way to stop
> right click copy of an image. If you set a behavior of a
pop up message
> from a right click, it would stop this. There are other
ways to get the
> image if you really want it (print screen/paste...etc),
but that was not
> the question.
>
> And the site I was thinking of is
www.swingslifestyle.com
>
>
>
>
> "Walt F. Schaefer" <[email protected]> wrote
in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>>>I was not addressing the morality of it
>>
>> Huh? Where did John mention morality?
>>
>>>I have seen it done and why it is written that it
cant seems to perplex
>>>me.
>>
>> Show us where you have seen it done.
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Walt
>>
>>
>> "GPaul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Well John, I was not addressing the morality of
it, but the technical
>>> aspect. I have seen it done and why it is
written that it cant seems to
>>> perplex me.
>>>
>>>
>>> "John Waller"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> >I have been to sites that seem to have
the images protected in that
>>>> >you get a message that pops up when you
right click
>>>>
>>>> None work reliably.
>>>>
>>>>>I set a behavior of a pop up message when
the visitor right-clicked,
>>>>>which in essence kept them from saving
the image. There might be away
>>>>>around it, but it would discourage a good
about of people.
>>>>
>>>> It also sends a message to visitors that
they're not to be trusted and
>>>> dissuades them from visiting your site
again. They'll undoubtedly get
>>>> what they want from another website anyway.
What's to be gained by
>>>> turning them away?
>>>>
>>>> Plus, one of the hallmarks of amateur web
design is disabling or
>>>> changing browser functionality. There is
never a need to disable or
>>>> amend browser behaviour. Design around it
instead. Watermark your
>>>> images or just don't upload them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> John Waller
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Changing aspect ratio of copy protected videos?

I am attempting to watch a widescreen TV show I purchased through the iTunes store on my LG plasma screen. My usual setup is a digital video out and into the plasma using VGA. The screen in this mode only gives me two aspect ratios to choose from: 16:9 or 4:3. In 16:9 mode the image appears streched and in 4:3 mode I have black margins an boths sides of the screen. When I watch a widescreen video in 16:9 it is streched with margins at the top and botton and in 4:3 mode I have now margins left and right and top and botton. I therefore usually change the aspect ratio in Quicktime so that it displays correctly in 16:9 format on the plasma. Unfortunately the new TV shows in the store are not just copy protected but I now cannot even change the aspect ratio of a video anymore under "movie properties". So the only option I have is to use the S-video output of my old Powerbook and connect to the composite input of the plasma. While this gives me many more aspect ratio options (intrinsic to the design of the plasma) the picture quality is poor. So how can I solve this? I do not want to purchase Apple TV. I have everything hardwired and do not want to change that. I understand that the files need to be copy protected. However, Apple should enable me to change the aspect ratio of a video to be able to view movies at high resolution and without a distorted picture. Any idea how to solve this?

Hi Sameer,
Thanks for your note, but the issue a bit different. Clicking the "fit page" and "fit width" allows you to change the zoom on the document, but the viewing area within the pod remains at a fixed ratio. So the document (unless the pod size is set at the same ratio) never fills the entire pod. Is this clear? I've added some screen shots to show what I mean more clearly.
As you can see, no matter what the zoom level is on the PDF (or if it's to fit width as the above screen shot), it's constrained proportionally (as I mentioned, I think it's at 4:3). Ideally, I'd like to get the PDF so it can fill the entire pod and zoom in and out. Is this possible with Connect?
Thanks! Appreciate your help.
Jonathan
Message was edited by: GABAAD

Protect images / content in PDF...

Hi,
How can I set up securities to protect copying of images / general content of a PDF? I went through the settings in Acrobat, but could not find what the name of this feature is.
Thanks!

OK, when you mention password security, I am wondering at what point would the file prompt for a password? Only if trying to open in an application other than Acrobat?
When?
Thanks. As the other person mentioned, it's probably not worth doing this seeing as it can be cracked with a little effort.

COPY/PASTE Images on canvas

I can import images onto my canvas from a file and they display just fine. However, when I try to copy an image/graphic from another form, the image does not display on the canvas. The graphic object name appears in the object navigator though. What am I doing wrong? TIA.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dow Robert ([email protected]):
I can import images onto my canvas from a file and they display just fine. However, when I try to copy an image/graphic from another form, the image does not display on the canvas. The graphic object name appears in the object navigator though. What am I doing wrong? TIA.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hi There -
I think you need to see the physical properties of the image which you copied from another form, generally they differ and that cause problem.
Cheers
null

Basic copy protection?

How can I add some basic copy protection to my published
captivate files?
I don't really know what techniques are available for this.
Can I have the flash file prevent itself from playing if not
downloaded from or connected to the website? Can I have it check a
cookie? Is there some basic way of putting flash on the html page
that prevents users from being able to link to it directly or copy
it? Is there a way to prevent caching?
Are there any down-sides to this?
Thanks in advance,
Ari

OK, now I have this working AFAIK.
Can anyone see a way for users to get around this?
I'll paste the code below if anyone wants to implement this
in their own projects.
jbradley88 was right about the _root reference being needed.
quote:
You might try appending _root. to all references and see if
that helps (as in _root._url and _root.getURL and
_root.unloadMovie)
He was also right about the need for using
unloadmovie instead of geturl. It I use geturl, a user can download
the swf file and play it back locally b/c they can ignore the
security warning. If I use _root.unloadmovie() then the movie
unloads even if downloaded and played back locally.
Also, I was using "FALSE" and "TRUE" as boolean values for
variables before and it didn't work. Seems flash wants them in
lowercase instead.
I just replaced the actionscript in the preloader that
shipped with Captivate with this code:
//Check to see that it is playing from mywebsite.com domain
//just set the url to your domain
//The localURL's are for allowing the movie to be previewed
on the local machine it was made on
//just set the variables to reflect your folder structure
okToPlay = false;
siteURL = "
http://www.mywebsite.com";
siteURL2 = "https://www.mywebsite.com";
localURL1 = "D:\\captivate working folder\\Published";
localURL2 = "file:///D:/captivate working folder/Published";
localURL3 =
"file:///D:/captivate%20working%20folder/Published";
if ((_root._url.substr(0,siteURL.length) == siteURL) ||
(_root._url.substr(0,siteURL2.length) == siteURL2) ||
(_root._url.substr(0,localURL1.length) == localURL1) ||
(_root._url.substr(0,localURL2.length) == localURL2) ||
(_root._url.substr(0,localURL3.length) == localURL3))
okToPlay = true;
if (okToPlay == false)
_root.unloadMovie();
//Called when the preloader displays, useful if you need the
size of the movie
function initialize(movieWidth:Number, movieHeight:Number)
function onProgress(loadedBytes:Number,totalBytes:Number){
var percentDone:Number = Math.round((loadedBytes /
totalBytes) * 100);
//Load 20% before starting movie.
if(percentDone > 20)
this.done = true;
percent_txt = percentDone+"%";}
function isDone():Boolean{
//by default the preloader will show until all frames are
loaded
//this function can override this bahavior
if(this.done)
return true;
else
return false;}
Now, AFAIK, when I publish Captivate files using this
preloader they'll only run from my domain or from the local machine
they were edited on (for previewing).
Thanks for the help,
Ari

Copy-protected apps and databases

How can I unlock copy-protected databases (eg calendar) in my Tungsten E2?
Post relates to: Tungsten E2

Do you have private records enabled?
If you do, you will need to unlock those records.
Open Security:
a.Go to Applications, and then select Prefs .
b. Select Security.
2Select the display option for private entries:
a. Select the Private Records pick list.
b. Select one of these options, and then select Done.
Show
Display private entries.
Mask
Cover entries with a gray mask; you can see the mask onscreen, but you
can't see the content of the entry.
Hide
Make private entries invisible.
You can also set the levelof privacy from within
certain applications. Open the Options menu,
select Security, and then select the level of privacy from the Privacy pick list.
See if that may help.
For reference purposes, click on the following link for the support page for your device on the kb.hpwebos.com webpage.
http://kb.hpwebos.com/wps/portal/kb/na/tungsten/e2/unlocked/learn/page_en.html
There are links on the page to the user guide, troubleshooting, how to's, downloads, etc.

Copy protect using .htaccess

Hi,
I read somewhere that I can copy protect pictures on my
website using .htaccess
How do I do this?
\Robert

On 30 Jan 2007 in macromedia.dreamweaver, the full monty
wrote:
> I read somewhere that I can copy protect pictures on my
website
> using .htaccess
>
> How do I do this?
If you mean, how do I prevent somebody from downloading my
pictures, the
short answer is, you don't.
If you want to prevent hotlinking (a site other than your own
calling the
image and displaying it as if it were from that site), you
can do this:
RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^
http://www.example.com [NC]
RewriteRule [^/]+.(gif|jpg)$ - [F]
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.net/
Email:
http://makowiec.net/email.php

Apex 3.1 upgrade on 11g - Where do I copy the images to?

Hi Everyone,
I've just installed Oracle 11g Personal Edition on my laptop, I have successfully configured Apex 3.0 and am now trying to finish off the upgrade to 3.1
(We are unable to upgrade to 3.1.2 yet, however this is scheduled for early in the new year - until this time we must continue to use 3.1)
I have run the install/upgrade to 3.1 successfully and have enabled the network services in 11g.
However I am getting stuck on copying the images over,
the documentation it says to copy into the ORACLE_HTTPSERVER_HOME\ohs\images directory
I cant find where my ORACLE_HTTPSERVER_HOME is set - can anyone please help to point me in the right direction
I have tried to search for the folder ohs on my hard drive, but can only find a folder called ohs_images
(C:\app\oracle\product\11.1.0\db_1\oc4j\j2ee\home\default-web-app\ohs_images)
Thanks in advance for your help.
Kind Regards, Michelle

Hi Varad,
Thanks for your prompt response.
I have run the apsldiimg.sql script to update the images directory - however it still does not seem to want to work for me! :)
When I run the script in SQL*Plus I get the following results
SQL> @apxldimg.sql C:/ApexUpgrade
PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.
old 1: create directory APEX_IMAGES as '&1/apex/images'
new 1: create directory APEX_IMAGES as 'C:/ApexUpgrade/apex/images'
Directory created.
PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.
Commit complete.
timing for: Load Images
Elapsed: 00:02:35.39
Directory dropped.
SQL>
When I go to logon to Apex, either in the Admin or Workspace areas I am unable to login.
The page displays but the normal login images aren't displayed.
Thanks, Michelle

Copy protecting PDF files

I know that complete copy protection of a PDFs is not possible--at least that is what I have read. But can someone tell me why this shouldn't work: I create my document in InDesign. The layer I want to protect (the data I sell) is the bottom layer. I then add a second "invisible" layer that is a "button" and put it on top.
In the trial version I set up, the button-layer, when clicked, takes me to a page I created that tells me that copying is not allowed. Seemed to work. But not being much of a PDF person, I am not sure how effective this is (read: how easy would it be for a person to get to the bottom (data) layer if they really tried.)
The reason for the security is that my document will be sold to subscribers as a PDF. Much of the data in it comes from sources who would not be too happy about their data going any further than the intended reciepent.
If I can get the copy problem solved (to a reasonable degree) I will need to get to work on finding out the best way to prevent (or at least make difficult) further distribution of the document!

I played around with watermarks a few days ago. And I still might incorporate them when the time comes. What my main problem is, is that the companies that provide me with the data that goes in to the final PDF needs to be as copy-proof as possible, otherwise they will stop selling me their data.
So I am trying to come up with a method that would really require subscribers to my magazine to go out of their way to have to copy the data (which are mostly tables made in Excel spreadsheets). My suppliers haven't minded (too much) that up to now I have have been publishing their info in our printed magazine. They know people can scan the data from there. They just don't want it to be made available in a format where it can be easily "stolen" and distribued further electronically. I pay them a lot for their data and I am not their only customer. If it gets too easy for people to take the data from me, they will loose other customers.
I will keep trying different techniques.

How can I copy protect a Labview application?

We have a high value Labview 7.1 application that we want to copy protect. Are there any third party software solutions available that work with Labview and provide hardware locked copy protection? We want to prevent a single license key from being shared to allow installation of our application on multiple machines.
We looked into Software Passport / Armadillo but Software Passport does not support Labview. We would prefer to use a third party solution as opposed to coding something ourselves. We are not experienced with writing software security applications but if third party solutions are not available I guess we'll need to get our feet wet. Thanks.

I can imagine that a direct API implementation might be better.
My personal experience of such implemtnations has been that under these circumstances it is critical that: -
The implementation is solid.
Trust and security are correctly established.
It has been my experience that the above are quite difficult to assure. Where it works the EXE approach is probably better although the exposure to an attack by a sotware kit might be greater.
The above are why I indicated my alternate technique, not using a donlge but my own system. It is almost certainly weaker than a commercial implementation in some possibly many ways. But has the advantage that I change the implementation and techniques and whoever wants to access it has to start from zero. There are no kits because there aren't a million copies available.
I guess the right thing to do is to issue a challenge............perhaps with a reward........
But my experience of encryption is that it can always be broken by someone somwhere. The real questions are by who and when.
Message Edited by Conseils on 11-03-2007 12:07 PM

New MacBook containsa form of digital copy protection - TRUE?

I was told that Apple's new MacBook lines includes a form of digital copy protection that will prevent protected media, such as DRM-infused iTunes movies, from playing back on devices that aren't compliant with the new priority protection measures.
The Intel-developed technology is called High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection (HDCP) and aims to prevent copying of digital audio and video content as it travels across a variety of display connectors, even if such copying is not in violation of fair use laws.
Among the connectors supported by the technology are the Mini DisplayPort found on Apple's latest MacBook, MacBook Pro, and MacBook Air, in addition to others such as Digital Visual Interface (DVI), High-Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI), Gigabit Video Interface (GVIF), and Unified Display Interface (UDI).
Apple has apparently acquired a license for the technology and is now using it across its DisplayPort-enabled MacBook lines to to prevent transmission of purchased iTunes content to devices that don't include support for HDCP.
Will this mean that if I purchase legitimate Video/Movies form Apple I will no longer be able to play them on Windows OS, PS3, XBox etc?, I hope not?

ChrisFu672819227364 wrote:
Right you are guys, thank you so much for responding!
I found out today that if HDCP was my problem I would still be able to mirror my desktop onto my TV, ie my samsung LN32A450, but I can not. The adaptor works on many other things as I mentioned above but not my TV.
I have been speaking with Samsung today and they have no information about the issue other then sending a technician to my house to have a look and if it's not the TV's fault then I will be charged for the service.
So summary;
Apple = no advice
Samsung = no advice
MDP-VGA company = apple = no advice
Therefore I must trial and error it.
I checked for updated firmware for the TV, placed the file onto a flash drive and inserted into my TV driver was up to date .: no results also no updates for the macbook.
I went to futureshop and tried running my macbook on a samsung 450 series (same as mine) and a 550 series (next step up) and same thing, no video on the TV.
I then moved to a toshiba and it worked instantly, as well when I checked with tech support on campus they brought me to the campus computer store down the hall and we hooked it up to the toshiba in there and it worked right a way.
macbook +MDP-VGA + PC computer monitor = works
macbook +MDP-VGA + projector = works
macbook +MDP-VGA + toshiba HDTV = works
macbook MDP-VGA LG HDTV= doesn't work
macbook +MDP-VGA + samsung HDTV = doesn't work
I have been trying really hard to figure this out with no resolve and it's been terrible, If you guys can figure out this riddle you are doing better then me, Samsung, and Apple combined.
Any advice or help would be greatly appreciated.
oh and sorry for the comment about waiting for 10.6, I meant it would be brutal to have to wait for the next OS or replace my macbook again just to get this to work.
It might just be your Samsung TV being compliant to HDCP but not DPCP (Display Port Content Protection) which your Toshiba TV might be.
deltatux

Fillable forms question - FrameMaker to PDF - Without losing copy protection options

Hello,
I'm looking for a solution that will allow us to integrate fields in a Chapter Review-style question area where users can comment their answers (instead of using StickyNotes). It must disallow printing/copying etc to meet content protection requirements. I've dug through all of my options and can't seem to find any viable method without allowing the "Edit Content" option which allows users to copy the content.
We're currently using FrameMaker 9 but will be jumping to TCS5 soon.
As an example, we would want something like the following question, which exists in a FrameMaker document, to be commented on:
2. Which DID/DNIS mapping is recommended for mapping a single extension?
Thank you in advance for any assistance with this.

> It must disallow printing/copying etc to meet content protection requirements.
ebook format copy protection is largely an illusion. Leaving aside the availability of euphemistically named "password recovery" software, the widespread availability of low-cost (often bundled free) OCR software means: If you can see it, you can recover the text, unless it's heavily CAPTCHA'd.
Even if the user is blocked from reading the computer's frame buffer (i.e., prevented from using the PrintScreen key on Windows), most cell phones now have cameras with more than sufficient resolution for full text recovery. Some users even know how to turn off the flash .
If the supposedly eyes-only document is available on the web, I would not be the least bit surprised to learn that one or more search engines has already OCR'd and indexed every word in it (you can be sure that the NSA's has).
Managers asking for copy protection need to realize that they are making the authoring task much harder for little benefit, and often creating pointless annoyance for end users. Copy protection might briefly deter casual copiers, but is no obstacle at all to anyone the least bit tech savvy.
If copy prevention really matters, each copy of the document needs to be computer-generated for the specific licensed end user, with user-customized, easily traced content.
All that aside, and assuming management can't be dissuaded on the copy protection issue, does TimeSavers support insertion of form fields while preserving security settings?

Your disk copy of image was changed since last opened or saved (Mac OS)

I am occasionally getting a message that "the disk copy of image was changed since the file was last opened or saved". The OS is 10.6.6 and I am using CS5. It happens on no specific file. All of my files are pretty big. The current one that this is happening on is a psb that is 3.26 G unflattened. I have from ignorance always ignored the message and saved anyway. I have never detected any damage or discernible changes to the files after ignoring the warning, but after searching Adobe forum and reading a thread about this happening in CS4, I guess I should be more cautious and do a save as and change the file name. I started this thread because no one has reported the issue happening in CS5.
The files were all given to me by ftp as either psd, tiff or camera raw files. I work on duplicates of the originals in no other program but photoshop and opened and closed the files a few times before getting the message about the disk copy being changed. All of my files are saved to an internal harddrive and backed up on a time capsule device. I am on a network, but am the sole user of the network. The files are worked on and saved to an internal hard drive on the same computer. They are never opened on another computer which is usually turned off. I am running no virus protection software except what ever is native to the OS. The only other applications I am running when getting this message are safari, mail and sometimes bridge.
Why am I getting this message and what is causing changes (that I can't detect) to the disk copy?

Really, damn
I wonder what it can be. I'm 100% sure its nothing running in the background changing the files in my workflow.
I checked everything and its funny because it is the same on 3 Mac Pro here ???
So it must be a bug some where in Adobe's files/apps/etc
Some combination of files, setup or what ever making the error come up.
I never had it before i upgraded to 10.6.x Before all Mac Pro was running 10.5.8 with PS CS4 and it worked alright.
Then i upgraded all our Mac's to the latest to get the 64bit feature and PS CS5 and even the newer CS5.5
And then it started and its also with the newest PS from CS5.5
First i thought i found the problem because i saw a post at Extensis forum about the Suitcase FM core and Fontsense
extension for Photoshop and i deleted the extension from photoshop plugin folder and i was happy at first but then again.
It came back after a wile.. Sucks. Not that.
I wonder if its really because PS thinks the image was changed. I know it suppose to be that way but in our situation it is
something else. A bug ofcause and i have been trying to figure this out the last 3 days and even yesterday i used 7 hours
in a row to find a solution but i never found it.
I really hope we can find a way other than reinstalling Mac OS X and Photoshop. I do think if we formatted the drive and
started all over it would help but i don't want to do that because it will take me for ever to set up from scratch, yarggg
What do you think ? Do you have any idea whats so ever what could course this ? any ideas

BEWARE OF ADOBES NEW COPY PROTECTION SOFTWARE IT CAN SERIOUSLY HARM YOUR COMPUTER

Beware of Adobes new copy protection software it can seriously harm your computer!
The FlexNet licensing software that is installed on your computer along with CS3 and CS4, and possibly other, products has the capacity to seriously harm your system. It seems that it relies on some sort of insidious rootkit technology, which hides files on your hard drive. The trouble is that it is not robust and, if it gets broken, has the capacity to render your computer unusable by any product that uses this technology unless and until the hard drive is completely reformatted and everything properly reinstalled. Given that we all pay good money to prevent this doomsday scenario occurring in our computers, this should be unacceptable.
In particular, anyone who thinks that they can rely on disk imaging technology as a means of backing up or migrating system drives containing installations of Adobe CS3/4 should think again. Adobes new software and activation technology does not support disk cloning, and the result of using it is likely to render your computer permanently unusable, at least by Adobe products.
I know this because it has happened to me. My computer completely freezes suddenly anytime during or after running CS3. After spending some time investigating the problem, Adobe came up with the following astonishing response:
]"We have gone through all the material and logs once again, and came to the conclusion, the problem was in fact caused by cloning your hard drive. What happened is, that the FlexNet service, the service responsible for the activation and licensing of the product, has been damaged. Cloning our products is not supported by our products, and was therefore not tested either. The problem is, there are leftovers of the last Photoshop. installation's FlexNet files present in your system. To make matters worse, these files are well hidden, to protect our programs from piracy. Therefore, they can't be removed. Since a deactivation and reinstallation were already done to no avail, the only thing that's left to do, is a complete reformatting of your harddrive. We are very sorry to have to tell you this, but it really is the only option left.
Kind regards,
Adobe Technical Support"
Needless to say I am hopping mad! The implication that the problem is somehow my fault for daring to clone my hard drives is absurd! Disk imaging is a perfectly legitimate way of backing up and restoring or migrating hard drives and what they seem to be saying is that disk imaging as a backup & restore solution does not work with Adobe and Macromedia products. If this is so, a warning to this effect should be writ large on all of them.
To top it all, Adobes abdication of responsibility shows a blatant disregard for their paying customers. They have rolled out a technology that, by their own admission, has not been fully tested and which has the potential to inflict irrevocable harm on their customers computer systems as a result. (Even Microsoft would not dare to try to get away with such a thing!) They have done this to protect their software from piracy and thus to protect their revenue stream. Fine, but they should do this at their own expense, not at the expense of their loyal paying customers, and, when things do go wrong, they should be willing and able to provide a fix. If Adobe lose these paying customers, the piracy issue becomes irrelevant! (If you ask me, a far more elegant solution to the piracy problem would be to lower the price of the software, which is absurdly over-priced, certainly here in the UK.)
As a loyal customer and user of Photoshop virtually from day one, I do expect better than this. For the first time since I took up digital photography, I am looking for a different photo editing solution. I certainly do not think that any more of my hard earned cash will be heading in Adobes direction, at least until this is sorted out.

It is possible that cloning will work for some, maybe, for example, if done between identical disks. Adobe are saying that they do not guarantee that it will; and sometimes it won't.
However that is beside the point. Microsoft, bless their socks, have gone to great lengths to produce an operating system, which, for all its faults, is robust. If something gets broken, it will, 9 times out of 10 repair itself, and what remains is always fixable, once the problem is identified. It is amazing just how much abuse XP can take and still function.
Now Adobe has come along and done something that negates all of that. They have introduced a technology, that, once broken, cannot be fixed. That goes against the principles that everyone else has been working towards.
At the moment, few people may be affected (maybe more than Adobe care to admit to, and perhaps some who do not yet know that they are) but software users need to be wary of the thin end of the wedge. If all software vendors did similar things and played fast and loose with the basic fabric of the operating and file systems, all computers would soon be reduced to piles of junk.
That is why it is wrong.
Until Microsoft themselves support 3rd party product licensing and activation within the operating system, Adobe should hold off on this.

Secure display of copy protected images

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for