|
|
Posted by dorayme on 01/24/06 11:54
In article <4YhBf.1421$ur7.159@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>,
Jose <teacherjh@aol.nojunk.com> wrote:
> The PP was comparing protecting images on the net to locking the front
> door (it stops the causal thief). I was pointing out that the casual
> thief does real damage when goods are stolen, but probably does not do
> much damage when a web image is "stolen" (and probably just used for
> desktop wallpaper). The less causal thief (say, a webmaster who wants
> an image for their site) is probably able to circumvent image protection
> anyway.
>
Yes, ok... But you cannot know what some folk might want to
protect against, It might be irksome to someone that any Tom,
Dick or Harry can grab their pics and use them. I am not sure any
real damage happens when webmasters use web pictures they grab
without asking... it is because the damage is more purely
psychological that stopping every ordinary Tom from using them
might be worth doing for someone. If someone comes in a steals
stuff from the house, one might have to replace it and work to do
it. Not so with pics, the aggrieved party still has them and can
use them... The irksomeness is more in folks' minds and you
should not be too sure what irks people, you might be surprised.
Trust me, I have made a study of earthlings...
> > You can guess but you cannot know in advance what contexts there
> > are in which folk might want to make it harder to copy images and
> > so you cannot judge that it might always be clueless.
>
> No, but I can guess the effect. No matter what context there is, images
> are easy to steal.
The effect of what? They are easy to steal? We are going in
circles...
There is no mystery to any of this.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|