I have a client who is concerned that there are other web sites that are taking his content and placing it within frames on their web site as if it were their own. I know I've seen this happen, and I think I've seen "click here if someone has this site framed" buttons or some such. Does anyone know of a way to prevent the pages from being grabbed in a frame to begin with?
On 3/27/07, Jonathan Hutchins <hutchins@tarcanfel.org> wrote:
I have a client who is concerned that there are other web sites that are taking his content and placing it within frames on their web site as if it were their own. I know I've seen this happen, and I think I've seen "click here if someone has this site framed" buttons or some such. Does anyone know of a way to prevent the pages from being grabbed in a frame to begin with?
I would say that content as in HTML/Plain Text would be impossible to make private. Unless you some how load it dynamically with flash or something that doesn't embed into the HTML code. But either way, content is content someone will find a way to copy. The only thing I would press is copyright and give credit where credit is due.
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 09:38:18AM -0500, Jonathan Hutchins wrote:
I have a client who is concerned that there are other web sites that are taking his content and placing it within frames on their web site as if it were their own. I know I've seen this happen, and I think I've seen "click here if someone has this site framed" buttons or some such. Does anyone know of a way to prevent the pages from being grabbed in a frame to begin with? _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
You should be able to blacklist these types of things based on the referrer information. I found http://kim.biyn.com/Linux/how_to_prevent_hotlinking_images_on_apache_server_... which has a quick example you can probably use. -- Kyle Sexton
On 3/27/07, Jonathan Hutchins <hutchins@tarcanfel.org> wrote:
I have a client who is concerned that there are other web sites that are taking his content and placing it within frames on their web site as if it were their own. I know I've seen this happen, and I think I've seen "click here if someone has this site framed" buttons or some such. Does anyone know of a way to prevent the pages from being grabbed in a frame to begin with?
By content you mean images and such or do you mean like text?
Well, I've heard of one person who was having and image stolen by people just linking to his website. After numerous attempts to stop it he replaced the image by one that was rather obscene. That seemed to do the trick. djgoku <djgoku@gmail.com> wrote: On 3/27/07, Jonathan Hutchins wrote:
I have a client who is concerned that there are other web sites that are taking his content and placing it within frames on their web site as if it were their own. I know I've seen this happen, and I think I've seen "click here if someone has this site framed" buttons or some such. Does anyone know of a way to prevent the pages from being grabbed in a frame to begin with?
By content you mean images and such or do you mean like text? _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
On Tuesday 27 March 2007 01:06:26 pm djgoku wrote:
On 3/27/07, Jonathan Hutchins <hutchins@tarcanfel.org> wrote:
I have a client who is concerned that there are other web sites that are taking his content and placing it within frames on their web site ...
By content you mean images and such or do you mean like text?
He says whole pages, text with graphics.
I've heard about this for years, and will search for some of the solutions I've seen. I'm not dealing with this right now, though. When I did a Google search for "prevent framing", about every other hit was potentially helpful. This one seemed most direct: http://www.cryer.co.uk/resources/javascript/script1.htm The down side of the given script is that you can't put that page in a frame either. I suspect there's a simple fix for that. If this isn't sufficient, let us know. When I worked at Some Big Company, we had tests in our CGI scripts to check that the referrer was one of our servers. Similar concept. --Don Ellis At 9:38 AM -0500 3/27/07, Jonathan Hutchins wrote:
I have a client who is concerned that there are other web sites that are taking his content and placing it within frames on their web site as if it were their own. I know I've seen this happen, and I think I've seen "click here if someone has this site framed" buttons or some such. Does anyone know of a way to prevent the pages from being grabbed in a frame to begin with?
On 3/27/07, Jonathan Hutchins <hutchins@tarcanfel.org> wrote:
I have a client who is concerned that there are other web sites that are taking his content and placing it within frames on their web site as if it were their own. I know I've seen this happen, and I think I've seen "click here if someone has this site framed" buttons or some such. Does anyone know of a way to prevent the pages from being grabbed in a frame to begin with?
That's a matter for simple javascript which you should be able to find at javascript.about.com. -- Fedora Core 6 and proud
Jonathan Hutchins wrote:
I have a client who is concerned that there are other web sites that are taking his content and placing it within frames on their web site as if it were their own. I know I've seen this happen, and I think I've seen "click here if someone has this site framed" buttons or some such. Does anyone know of a way to prevent the pages from being grabbed in a frame to begin with?
While you can make it slightly more difficult to borrow content, you can't really stop it on a public-facing server. Every solution you put in place can be circumvented with a relative amount of ease. Even securely authenticated sites are often ripped off one way or another. However, framing is more annoying in that it eats up your bandwidth for someone else's benefit. The prevention measures available to your *are* effective at reducing bandwidth munchers. Generally a combination of simple referrer checks and javascript checks are sufficient. The easiest way to make your content difficult to plagiarize is to weave references to yourself or your organization all throughout the content. This way, the thief has to take the time to clean up the references before using your stuff. If your content updates frequently, the clean up is usually more trouble than it's worth. ~Bradley
I have been following this a bit and it seems to have ethical breakpoints and several logistical issues at minimum. The most basic being the ethics of blatant theft. Both bandwidth and content theft combined in an example of kleptomania seeking proper reward. OUR ethics then become not so much if we arrange proper credit to thieves but how gracious we are or are not in doing so. That refers to the "poison images" option mentioned earlier. Angelfire had a trick where hot linking to their pages "overlaid" an almost moire pattern of their logo rendering the images quite useless to the thieves. I cannot comment on the how- but the result made it quite clear that the cretin claiming an Angelfire user's stuff as being owned differently was an incompetent thief. WE also are not talking Bill Gate's J-Dollars costing of "stolen software" This is more about the claims of ownership and reputation at stake. The real dollar costs of Bandwidth etc are almost bordering on civil criminality if it's profiting an infringing bad actor. Thus, if no one disputes the difference between "fair use" and frank outright theft we are seeing this get a bit more on solid moral ground. Those claiming that "cost" is not a factor would change their tune if it were their bill for per hit costs going way up. Or their images being used in ways they would rather not. That is in many cases *WAY* afield of the aforementioned fair use. To border on oxymoronic to dispute what is or not fair. IF it's questionable maybe we should default to asking the content owner before WE link stuff for a customer! In that last thought lies my ethics pitch. While there are those who have the skills to steal both content and bandwidth, relabeling both as if another were the rightful owner- I suspect the majority of such theft is done |"for hire" As in "White or Black hat web developers hitting the dark side. Both by active filching and passive failure to lock down items NOT intended to be "shared" Creative Commons or Conventional Copyright assignments sort of both break if our ethics do not support a rule of law. SO we have the ethics of theft being not only wrong in itself- but arguably making us -the technical class, passive accomplices. For failing to make it duly rewarded as the crime it is. And furthermore- it's an opening for the Open Source world to PROVE that we are better at real security than the closed models ever can be.
Before we get too far of track here, let me say that as far as I know, this is simply a matter of framing our site in a small frame from another site. While I'm only speculating on this, I believe the reason to do this is to take credit for ad clicks or views, or otherwise claim the traffic. I have been to a few sites that will refer you to other sites and trap you in their frame; not having any patience with it I killed it and didn't look further. I believe some of the domain-camping "search" sites do this kind of thing as well; if they can get you to bookmark their page instead of the page you actually want, they get traffic credit. They aren't stealing anything by using the content. The credits and site titles all appear. This is no different commercially than you selling me a book, which I then put in a gift box and resell at a profit. If they are claiming our ad revenue, that's theft.
If you just want to stop somebody from loading your pages in a frame, this line at the top of your php pages should do it: <? if(strstr("/$_SERVER[HTTP_REFERER]/",'hijackingdomain.com')) exit; ?> Regards, -Don
On 3/28/07, Jonathan Hutchins <hutchins@tarcanfel.org> wrote:
Before we get too far of track here, let me say that as far as I know, this is simply a matter of framing our site in a small frame from another site.
While I'm only speculating on this, I believe the reason to do this is to take credit for ad clicks or views, or otherwise claim the traffic. I have been to a few sites that will refer you to other sites and trap you in their frame; not having any patience with it I killed it and didn't look further. I believe some of the domain-camping "search" sites do this kind of thing as well; if they can get you to bookmark their page instead of the page you actually want, they get traffic credit.
They aren't stealing anything by using the content. The credits and site titles all appear. This is no different commercially than you selling me a book, which I then put in a gift box and resell at a profit. If they are claiming our ad revenue, that's theft.
Yah, I have no idea why people got so gun ho about this. http://grizzlyweb.com/webmaster/javascripts/framesbuster.asp -- Fedora Core 6 and proud
Oren Beck wrote:
SO we have the ethics of theft being not only wrong in itself- but arguably making us -the technical class, passive accomplices. For failing to make it duly rewarded as the crime it is.
And furthermore- it's an opening for the Open Source world to PROVE that we are better at real security than the closed models ever can be.
You know, not everybody agrees with the traditional paradigm of so-called "intellectual property." Some of us outright oppose the very idea of "intellectual property." And the Internet community has rapidly been moving towards our position, what with file-sharing and free/open software. The Web is based on openness. If you don't like people hotlinking to an image on your server, put up some porn. Framing? This may be annoying, but it shows that your site has content so good that others would highlight it. I also wouldn't totally condemn framing. In some contexts, this would actually boost traffic to your website. Chuck -------------------------- Bread and Roses Web Design serving small businesses, non-profits, artists and activists http://www.breadandrosesweb.com/
On 3/29/07, Chuck <chuck@mutualaid.org> wrote:
Oren Beck wrote:
SO we have the ethics of theft being not only wrong in itself- but arguably making us -the technical class, passive accomplices. For failing to make it duly rewarded as the crime it is.
And furthermore- it's an opening for the Open Source world to PROVE that we are better at real security than the closed models ever can be.
You know, not everybody agrees with the traditional paradigm of so-called "intellectual property." Some of us outright oppose the very idea of "intellectual property." And the Internet community has rapidly been moving towards our position, what with file-sharing and free/open software.
The Web is based on openness. If you don't like people hotlinking to an image on your server, put up some porn. Framing? This may be annoying, but it shows that your site has content so good that others would highlight it. I also wouldn't totally condemn framing. In some contexts, this would actually boost traffic to your website.
Chuck
-------------------------- Bread and Roses Web Design serving small businesses, non-profits, artists and activists http://www.breadandrosesweb.com/
While I totally agree on the unsettled nature of what "IP" rules should or not be - My post was my attempt to direct consensus in a "least harm and greatest good" path. It's NOT the petty concern about the odd fool who link pests some Icon on LiveUrinal; It IS about the ownership of what a person creates. *YOU* being in the design world should grok the concept. As in the degree of freedom one trades for security. Or the reverse. Ethics to render DRM a moot point perhaps? We can dream eh? To be pretty Blunt about it- the AUTHOR should have some retention of control beyond the already accepted exceptions. Denial of author's rights will stifle open exchange out of self defense in many cases. But does it have to be so? More on that in what I call the Garcia Vs Brooks logic sets. Garcia: Ok folks-start your recorders this is the first time we're playing this tune. Brooks: Whinges to Congress about sales of used cd's dooming his kids to public school. Where we the Tech class come in is to direct a world order that allows and CHERISHES the Garcia model while not spitefully ripping Brooks off by blatant immoral THEFT. Example one-Sell a used cd- yes.. Just like selling a book. Tell Garth to grow up. Example two -Host a torrent for "Author Authorised" music yes, A tribute to Jerry it is. Buy a new cd only 3 hours old- post on server- For shame you bad karma thief! Do please tell me how you justify the last example or demonise the first 2? It's close to the same in web content, MY point was directed more to the following crimes. "False claim of Authorship" You claim YOU wrote it when you know you did not. "Theft of service that costs real money." Some hosting services CHARGE per transfer Gb. We can from this point either degenerate to bickering -or seek consensus on what's ethical or not. Choose Wisely.
Hey Indy, I'll have the Diet Coke. ;) Oren Beck <orenbeck@gmail.com> wrote: Choose Wisely. _______________________________________________
Oren Beck wrote:
While I totally agree on the unsettled nature of what "IP" rules should or not be - My post was my attempt to direct consensus in a "least harm and greatest good" path.
It's NOT the petty concern about the odd fool who link pests some Icon on LiveUrinal; It IS about the ownership of what a person creates. *YOU* being in the design world should grok the concept. As in the degree of freedom one trades for security. Or the reverse. Ethics to render DRM a moot point perhaps? We can dream eh?
To be pretty Blunt about it- the AUTHOR should have some retention of control beyond the already accepted exceptions. Denial of author's rights will stifle open exchange out of self defense in many cases. But does it have to be so? More on that in what I call the Garcia Vs Brooks logic sets.
Garcia: Ok folks-start your recorders this is the first time we're playing this tune.
Brooks: Whinges to Congress about sales of used cd's dooming his kids to public school.
Where we the Tech class come in is to direct a world order that allows and CHERISHES the Garcia model while not spitefully ripping Brooks off by blatant immoral THEFT.
Example one-Sell a used cd- yes.. Just like selling a book. Tell Garth to grow up.
Example two -Host a torrent for "Author Authorised" music yes, A tribute to Jerry it is.
Buy a new cd only 3 hours old- post on server- For shame you bad karma thief!
Do please tell me how you justify the last example or demonise the first 2?
It's close to the same in web content, MY point was directed more to the following crimes.
"False claim of Authorship" You claim YOU wrote it when you know you did not.
"Theft of service that costs real money." Some hosting services CHARGE per transfer Gb.
We can from this point either degenerate to bickering -or seek consensus on what's ethical or not.
The ethics part of this is a two way street. And this is, as I see it, where most of the problem comes from. All we ever hear about is the college kids that are using P2P to rip off the "artist's" intellectual property. While the consumer has a responsibility to acquire and use content in a legal and legitimate manner, the content creator has a responsibility to the consumer. I have no problem paying an author/artist a fair fee for their creation or performance. I do have a problem with that author/artist expecting to rake in ridiculous royalties for the next 70 years based on the 6 months it took to produce something, and on every single copy created even when the consumer is footing the bill for reproduction. It's the same thing with software. I have no problem paying someone an hourly wage to code a project for me. I have no problem paying them more money to come out and spend time fixing code or adding a new feature for me. I do have a problem with paying a company a yearly license fee to have the right to continue using software which I (and millions of others) have already paid for 3 or 4 times. Copyright and IP laws in the US have developed into an absurd mess of legal bullshit that is hurting our intellectual growth. So if you are going to dive into the ethics of this stuff, make sure you consider both angles: Ethical responsibility of consumers to content creators. Ethical responsibility of content creators to the general public. You can't have one without the other, else you create an unsustainable system. ~Bradley
On 3/29/07, Bradley Hook <bhook@kssb.net> wrote:
While the consumer has a responsibility to acquire and use content in a legal and legitimate manner, the content creator has a responsibility to the consumer. I have no problem paying an author/artist a fair fee for their creation or performance. I do have a problem with that author/artist expecting to rake in ridiculous royalties for the next 70 years based on the 6 months it took to produce something, and on every single copy created even when the consumer is footing the bill for reproduction.
It's the same thing with software. I have no problem paying someone an hourly wage to code a project for me. I have no problem paying them more money to come out and spend time fixing code or adding a new feature for me. I do have a problem with paying a company a yearly license fee to have the right to continue using software which I (and millions of others) have already paid for 3 or 4 times.
Copyright and IP laws in the US have developed into an absurd mess of legal bullshit that is hurting our intellectual growth. So if you are going to dive into the ethics of this stuff, make sure you consider both angles:
Ethical responsibility of consumers to content creators. Ethical responsibility of content creators to the general public.
You can't have one without the other, else you create an unsustainable system.
~Bradley _______________________________________________
VERY good points! And just the sort of constructive comments this issue demands. I hold with the "reasonable time" concept of ROYALTY payment
Did everyone see this Slashdot that is perfectly on this topic? http://politics.slashdot.org/politics/07/03/28/0236232.shtml John McCain's MySpace Page "Pranked" Several readers let us know about a little problem with presidential hopeful John McCain's MySpace page <http://www.myspace.com/johnmccain>. Looks as though some staffer didn't read the fine print of the "credit" clause when selecting a template for the page. The template author and CEO of Newsvine <http://www.newsvine.com/>, Mike Davidson, noticed this and didn't care too much. But the McCain page was pulling an image from Davidson's site, costing him bandwidth every time someone visited the candidate's MySpace page. So Davidson changed the image in question to read: "Today I announce that I have reversed my position and come out in full support of gay marriage... particularly marriage between two passionate females." Here is Davidson's account of the "immaculate hack" <http://mike.newsvine.com/_news/2007/03/26/633799-hacking-john-mccain>.
participants (12)
-
Arthur Pemberton -
Bradley Hook -
Chuck -
djgoku -
Don Ellis -
Don Erickson -
James Sissel -
Jim Herrmann -
Jonathan Hutchins -
Kyle Sexton -
Monty J. Harder -
Oren Beck