Hi Folks,
Can anybody tell me how to modify the following code in order to make
the popup window persistently float above all other windows?
Memories and Messages
Any advice would be much appreciated. Thanks.
Ken
kjk wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> Can anybody tell me how to modify the following code in order to make
> the popup window persistently float above all other windows?
>
why would you want to interfere your website with the client
OS-behaviour? What do you do if I am running lynx on my debian-box in
console mode?
How do you treat the fact, that I use pop-up-blockers on all my UAs?
Just don't try to do such things. Your audience has its reasons why they
don't like pop-ups.
cheers
bernhard
--
www.daszeichen.ch
remove nixspam to reply
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:13:22 GMT
kjk scribed:
> Hi Folks,
>
> Can anybody tell me how to modify the following code in order to make
> the popup window persistently float above all other windows?
>
> Memories and Messages
There used to be some kind of always-on-top option for javascript windows
but I believe it has been superceded by common sense.
Incidentally, MS seems to have a similar basic misconception. If _I_ can't
get _my_ browser to work the way _I_ want it to, I just won't use it. At
the moment, Firefox is the best browser "out there", Opera is second, IE6
is probably third, and IE7 fourth. Yes, this will undoubtedly cause
comment, but it's nonetheless true. All of them have more bugs than they
should have, but I would consider the attitude at mozilla.com regarding the
issue to be the best.
--
Neredbojias
A self-made man who worships his creator
So far here, it seems that those who know, explain, and those who
don't, criticise. I can understand the reasons for the criticisms,
but I still haven't received a useable answer to my query.
Ken
-----------------------
On 16 Jul 2007 21:05:17 GMT, Neredbojias
wrote:
>Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:13:22 GMT
>kjk scribed:
>
>> Hi Folks,
>>
>> Can anybody tell me how to modify the following code in order to make
>> the popup window persistently float above all other windows?
>>
>> Memories and Messages
>
>There used to be some kind of always-on-top option for javascript windows
>but I believe it has been superceded by common sense.
>
>Incidentally, MS seems to have a similar basic misconception. If _I_ can't
>get _my_ browser to work the way _I_ want it to, I just won't use it. At
>the moment, Firefox is the best browser "out there", Opera is second, IE6
>is probably third, and IE7 fourth. Yes, this will undoubtedly cause
>comment, but it's nonetheless true. All of them have more bugs than they
>should have, but I would consider the attitude at mozilla.com regarding the
>issue to be the best.
kjk wrote:
> So far here, it seems that those who know, explain, and those who
> don't, criticise. I can understand the reasons for the criticisms,
> but I still haven't received a useable answer to my query.
Please don't top post. You have essentially received the answer, but
maybe the explanations have been too obtuse. The answer, your really
cannot do it. It was recognized as a security issue back in Netscape 4.x
and the property "alwaysRaised" required a signed script. Popup windows
in general are a bad idea and modern browsers give the user ultimate
control to prevent them. My advice is to rethink your design.
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
kjk wrote:
>
> I still haven't received a useable answer to my query.
FYI, this isn't a help desk, so we are under no obligation to give you
the answer you seek. This is a discussion group, so we discuss things
such as the merits of your query (or lack thereof).
Pop-up windows are generally evil things. We'd rather tell you you're
likely hurting yourself by doing whatever it is you want to do, instead
of giving you instruction on how to shoot yourself in the foot.
Most of us have learned how to disable pop-ups altogether. It does make
the web a nicer place. ;)
And please don't top post.
http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/nquote.html
--
Berg
kjk wrote:
> So far here, it seems that those who know, explain, and those who
> don't, criticise. I can understand the reasons for the criticisms,
> but I still haven't received a useable answer to my query.
I'd say you missed the category "know, criticise". Well, not exactly
"missed", rather "don't want to hear".
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
kjk wrote:
> So far here, it seems that those who know, explain, and those who
> don't, criticise. I can understand the reasons for the criticisms,
> but I still haven't received a useable answer to my query.
http://blinkynet.net/comp/toppost.html
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
On Jul 16, 1:13 pm, kjk
> Hi Folks,
>
> Can anybody tell me how to modify the following code in order to make
> the popup window persistently float above all other windows?
>
> Memories and Messages
>
> Any advice would be much appreciated. Thanks.
>
> Ken
As others have stated, this sort of thing is not as popular now as it
once was. However, if you can turn the window on and off, and those
who have script turned off can still buy your widgets(or see your
important information) without the window, then this becomes a matter
of taste and style. You might go to http://www.dynamicdrive.com/ and
look at the Script Categories list and select Window and Frames. There
are several listed, and usually there is a demo for each one and what
browsers they work on is specified. Most of these scripts have been
brought up to date and work on recent IE, Firefox and often Opera.
Support for Netscape 4's layers has been removed from most, since this
browser seldom is used anymore, and including layers code greatly
complicates the script. In most cases this type of script is designed
just not to show an effect and otherwise work normally if the browser
does not support it, script is turned off, etc. Even so, it is a good
idea to test by turning script off on your browser to be certain
everything works properly other than the window is gone.
Scripsit Jonathan N. Little:
> kjk wrote:
>> So far here, it seems that those who know, explain, and those who
>> don't, criticise. I can understand the reasons for the criticisms,
>> but I still haven't received a useable answer to my query.
>
> Please don't top post.
Why not? As long as "kjk" wishes to remain completely clueless, top posting
is a useful indicator of this situation.
--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
On Jul 16, 5:05 pm, Neredbojias
> There used to be some kind of always-on-top option for javascript windows
> but I believe it has been superceded by common sense.
No doubt...
> At
> the moment, Firefox is the best browser "out there", Opera is second, IE6
> is probably third, and IE7 fourth. Yes, this will undoubtedly cause
> comment, but it's nonetheless true.
I agree with your list from a technical standpoint. Maybe even a usage
standpoint after someone tries them all, but I would have to put some
version of IE first and FF second in a reality list.
> All of them have more bugs than they
> should have, but I would consider the attitude at mozilla.com regarding the
> issue to be the best.
I completely agree. FF is (can be) more than just a browser with all
of its plugins. As a development tool it is great
On Jul 16, 9:28 pm, kjk
> So far here, it seems that those who know, explain, and those who
> don't, criticise. I can understand the reasons for the criticisms,
> but I still haven't received a useable answer to my query.
Aw for the love of pete why did you have to go and say that? Now you
are going to be told this is not your personal help desk, that all of
the answers were valid answer to your question, and that it is a dumb
thing to do, and this is a discussion and if you get your question
answered (with an answer that is acceptable to you) then you are
lucky.
Now, here is my answer; I don't know if there is code to do this
because I accept the idea that I probably shouldn't (But there is
always google if I change my mind)
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> Scripsit Jonathan N. Little:
>
>> kjk wrote:
>>> So far here, it seems that those who know, explain, and those who
>>> don't, criticise. I can understand the reasons for the criticisms,
>>> but I still haven't received a useable answer to my query.
>>
>> Please don't top post.
>
> Why not? As long as "kjk" wishes to remain completely clueless, top
> posting is a useful indicator of this situation.
>
Ever the optimist I try to give folks the opportunity to "get a clue".
Of course every now and then we get a real dunderhead, but usually the
Germans take care of them and they retreat to Sweden...
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:52:01
GMT Travis Newbury scribed:
>> At
>> the moment, Firefox is the best browser "out there", Opera is second,
>> IE6 is probably third, and IE7 fourth. Yes, this will undoubtedly
>> cause comment, but it's nonetheless true.
>
> I agree with your list from a technical standpoint. Maybe even a usage
> standpoint after someone tries them all, but I would have to put some
> version of IE first and FF second in a reality list.
Not to be argumentative, but I really hate ie7. Sure, some of the styling
issues are fixed and maybe the security is a bit improved, but I think it
lost more than it gained. Where's the native ftp (which is largely why I
use ie6 in the first place), the brisk, snappy response time, and why can't
you customize the moronically-laid-out toolbar? If I died and could only
take 2 browsers with me to geek-purgatory, they'd be Firefox and ie6.
(Opera has some innovative features and some suprisingly perfected styling
features but it just has too many bugs in operation to make me a happy
camper.)
>> All of them have more bugs than they
>> should have, but I would consider the attitude at mozilla.com
>> regarding the issue to be the best.
>
> I completely agree. FF is (can be) more than just a browser with all
> of its plugins. As a development tool it is great
Yep. Just wish they'd hurry up and fix a few more things including but not
limited to inline-block.
--
Neredbojias
A self-made man who worships his creator
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:13:22 GMT, kjk
>Hi Folks,
>
>Can anybody tell me how to modify the following code in order to make
>the popup window persistently float above all other windows?
>
>Memories and Messages
>
>Any advice would be much appreciated. Thanks.
>
>Ken
Finally, some real answers. Thank you Jonathan and cwdjrxyz, and for
the benefit of both of you, I will try to remember not to top post.
There was a time, back in the dinosaur days, when a technical question
on usenet would immediately receive dozens of purely technical
answers. Today, it seems, usenet has gradually moved closer to being
a kiddie chat site.
It is possible that I didn't state my question technically accurately.
The purpose of the above code is as follows:
I maintain a simple family website which includes some audio files of
family musicians, some quite talented. With very limited HTML skills,
I'm trying to put together a music player that will allow family
members to listen to those files while browsing the site, to select
the next audio file that they'd like to hear, using a window that
remains accessible at all times, while not interfering with the page
that they're viewing, while also not allowing them to capture the
audio file, some of which may be commercially viable. It's possible
that this particular use of a persistent window may even be acceptable
to the folks at alt.html.
The above code is the beginning of that process. I have no idea
whether this is technically possible, but I do know that in my early
computer days I learned a whole lot from usenet, so I thought that I'd
ask what I perceived to be an innocent question.
If anybody here can provide any additional helpful technical info, I'd
sure like to hear it. Thanks.
Ken
kjk wrote:
> ..I'm trying to put together a music player that will allow family
> members to listen to those files while browsing the site, to select
> the next audio file that they'd like to hear, using a window that
> remains accessible at all times,
Why not give them an instruction/advice to "right-click this link and
choose 'Open in new window' so you can listen to the music while you
browse the rest of the site" ?
Most people should be smart enough to understand that, I think. Mebbe.
--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:47:52 GMT, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
>kjk wrote:
>
>> ..I'm trying to put together a music player that will allow family
>> members to listen to those files while browsing the site, to select
>> the next audio file that they'd like to hear, using a window that
>> remains accessible at all times,
>
>Why not give them an instruction/advice to "right-click this link and
>choose 'Open in new window' so you can listen to the music while you
>browse the rest of the site" ?
>
>Most people should be smart enough to understand that, I think. Mebbe.
----------------------
You're right, there are many different ways that it can be done. I've
found, however, that the way I learn the most about how to get
something to work is by insistently trying to make it work EXACTLY the
way I'd like it to work. Thanks.
Ken
kjk wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:13:22 GMT, kjk
>
>> Hi Folks,
>>
>> Can anybody tell me how to modify the following code in order to make
>> the popup window persistently float above all other windows?
>>
>> Memories and Messages
>>
>> Any advice would be much appreciated. Thanks.
>>
>> Ken
>
> Finally, some real answers. Thank you Jonathan and cwdjrxyz, and for
> the benefit of both of you, I will try to remember not to top post.
> There was a time, back in the dinosaur days, when a technical question
> on usenet would immediately receive dozens of purely technical
> answers. Today, it seems, usenet has gradually moved closer to being
> a kiddie chat site.
>
> It is possible that I didn't state my question technically accurately.
> The purpose of the above code is as follows:
>
> I maintain a simple family website which includes some audio files of
> family musicians, some quite talented. With very limited HTML skills,
> I'm trying to put together a music player that will allow family
> members to listen to those files while browsing the site, to select
> the next audio file that they'd like to hear, using a window that
> remains accessible at all times, while not interfering with the page
> that they're viewing, while also not allowing them to capture the
> audio file, some of which may be commercially viable. It's possible
> that this particular use of a persistent window may even be acceptable
> to the folks at alt.html.
>
> The above code is the beginning of that process. I have no idea
> whether this is technically possible, but I do know that in my early
> computer days I learned a whole lot from usenet, so I thought that I'd
> ask what I perceived to be an innocent question.
>
> If anybody here can provide any additional helpful technical info, I'd
> sure like to hear it. Thanks.
>
> Ken
>
>
I have a variety of .mp3 files on my site. If someone wants to listen
to them while browsing other pages (or other sites) they just open the
music page in a new tab, click the songs, and browse elsewhere in
another tab. Or, just download all the .mp3 files to their own hard
drive and setup their own play list in their favorite music player.
I think you're probably trying to make the solution far more complex
than it needs to be. But, hey, if you're having fun ...! ;-)
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
"kjk"
news:pkpp9316pjhtfklp4opb5u79fkrt47v0mk@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:47:52 GMT, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
>
>
> >kjk wrote:
> >
> >> ..I'm trying to put together a music player that will allow family
> >> members to listen to those files while browsing the site, to select
> >> the next audio file that they'd like to hear, using a window that
> >> remains accessible at all times,
> >
> >Why not give them an instruction/advice to "right-click this link and
> >choose 'Open in new window' so you can listen to the music while you
> >browse the rest of the site" ?
> >
> >Most people should be smart enough to understand that, I think. Mebbe.
>
> ----------------------
>
> You're right, there are many different ways that it can be done. I've
> found, however, that the way I learn the most about how to get
> something to work is by insistently trying to make it work EXACTLY the
> way I'd like it to work. Thanks.
>
just link to a m3u file (this contains full url of audio file) that points
to the audio file and then plays music in users audio player. or soemthing
like that.
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 12:27:53 -0400, Ed Mullen
>kjk wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:13:22 GMT, kjk
>>
>>> Hi Folks,
>>>
>>> Can anybody tell me how to modify the following code in order to make
>>> the popup window persistently float above all other windows?
>>>
>>> Memories and Messages
>>>
>>> Any advice would be much appreciated. Thanks.
>>>
>>> Ken
>>
>> Finally, some real answers. Thank you Jonathan and cwdjrxyz, and for
>> the benefit of both of you, I will try to remember not to top post.
>> There was a time, back in the dinosaur days, when a technical question
>> on usenet would immediately receive dozens of purely technical
>> answers. Today, it seems, usenet has gradually moved closer to being
>> a kiddie chat site.
>>
>> It is possible that I didn't state my question technically accurately.
>> The purpose of the above code is as follows:
>>
>> I maintain a simple family website which includes some audio files of
>> family musicians, some quite talented. With very limited HTML skills,
>> I'm trying to put together a music player that will allow family
>> members to listen to those files while browsing the site, to select
>> the next audio file that they'd like to hear, using a window that
>> remains accessible at all times, while not interfering with the page
>> that they're viewing, while also not allowing them to capture the
>> audio file, some of which may be commercially viable. It's possible
>> that this particular use of a persistent window may even be acceptable
>> to the folks at alt.html.
>>
>> The above code is the beginning of that process. I have no idea
>> whether this is technically possible, but I do know that in my early
>> computer days I learned a whole lot from usenet, so I thought that I'd
>> ask what I perceived to be an innocent question.
>>
>> If anybody here can provide any additional helpful technical info, I'd
>> sure like to hear it. Thanks.
>>
>> Ken
>>
>
>I have a variety of .mp3 files on my site. If someone wants to listen
>to them while browsing other pages (or other sites) they just open the
>music page in a new tab, click the songs, and browse elsewhere in
>another tab. Or, just download all the .mp3 files to their own hard
>drive and setup their own play list in their favorite music player.
>
>I think you're probably trying to make the solution far more complex
>than it needs to be. But, hey, if you're having fun ...! ;-)
------------------------------
Security is not about fun. Some of our audio files may be
commercially viable, and I'm trying to do whatever I can to protect
the artist from unauthorized commercial use. I understand that, with
some technical knowledge, nothing is completely foolproof, but I want
to make it as difficult as possible for the MP3 file to be captured to
a casual listeners computer. The website is password protected, the
javascript points to an HTM file, the HTM file points to an M3U file,
the M3U file points to the MP3 file, so the average computer user
would have some difficulty trying to locate and get at the MP3 file.
If the MP3 file is playing in the listeners audio player, it's a
simple process to Save As.
If anybody here can suggest a more secure way to do it, I'd sure like
to hear about it. Thanks.
Ken
kjk wrote:
> Security is not about fun. Some of our audio files may be
> commercially viable, and I'm trying to do whatever I can to protect
> the artist from unauthorized commercial use.
If you want to protect the audio files, then you need to place them in a
location from you only can access the files if you have authorized yourself
before, you can still make it easy and have the files as mp3's as Ed suggested.
> I understand that, with
> some technical knowledge, nothing is completely foolproof, but I want
> to make it as difficult as possible for the MP3 file to be captured to
> a casual listeners computer.
All audio that can be played on a computer, can be easily captured, just
record the audio out and you have a wav file with the same quality audio as
the audio streamed from your site.
> If anybody here can suggest a more secure way to do it, I'd sure like
> to hear about it. Thanks.
As you say you have a password protection on your site and it's only your
family who has access to the page, why make it more difficult for them to
listen to the music?
--
//Aho
On 2007-07-17, kjk wrote:
> Security is not about fun. Some of our audio files may be
> commercially viable, and I'm trying to do whatever I can to protect
> the artist from unauthorized commercial use.
Please read
An excerpt:
"every time we make a few songs available on my website, sales
of all the CDs go up. A lot."
--
Chris F.A. Johnson
============================================================ =======
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 19:20:20 +0200, "J.O. Aho"
wrote:
>kjk wrote:
>
>> Security is not about fun. Some of our audio files may be
>> commercially viable, and I'm trying to do whatever I can to protect
>> the artist from unauthorized commercial use.
>
>If you want to protect the audio files, then you need to place them in a
>location from you only can access the files if you have authorized yourself
>before, you can still make it easy and have the files as mp3's as Ed suggested.
>
>
>
>> I understand that, with
>> some technical knowledge, nothing is completely foolproof, but I want
>> to make it as difficult as possible for the MP3 file to be captured to
>> a casual listeners computer.
>
>All audio that can be played on a computer, can be easily captured, just
>record the audio out and you have a wav file with the same quality audio as
>the audio streamed from your site.
>
>
>
>> If anybody here can suggest a more secure way to do it, I'd sure like
>> to hear about it. Thanks.
>
>As you say you have a password protection on your site and it's only your
>family who has access to the page, why make it more difficult for them to
>listen to the music?
-------------------------
> it's only your family who has access to the page
That's no guarantee. The primary reason for the password is to
protect against those people who are surfing the internet looking for
private information to use for criminal purposes. It's only prudent
to assume that the password will sometimes be given to friends as well
as family members, and from there . . . who knows?
> place them in a location from you only can access the files
The MP3s are within the secure, password protected, area.
> can be easily captured, just record the audio out
I do recognize that, with some technical knowledge, practically
anything can be captured, but I suspect that the average visitor to
our family website wouldn't know how to do that. I do give the artist
the option of having me reduce the sound quality of the file in order
to make it undesireable for unauthorized commercial purposes, but,
understandably, they would much prefer it to be heard in the quality
in which it was intended to be heard. Btw, this music is copyrighted,
but that also doesn't mean very much unless you have lots of money for
legal fees. I'm just trying to provide as many layers of security as
is practical.
Ken
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:31:06 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson"
>On 2007-07-17, kjk wrote:
>
>> Security is not about fun. Some of our audio files may be
>> commercially viable, and I'm trying to do whatever I can to protect
>> the artist from unauthorized commercial use.
>
> Please read
>
> An excerpt:
>
> "every time we make a few songs available on my website, sales
> of all the CDs go up. A lot."
---------------------------
That looks good. I printed it out and I'll have to read it carefully,
along with the followup. Thanks. Maybe I can add a music store to
the website and sell CDs.
Ken
kjk wrote:
>> it's only your family who has access to the page
>
> That's no guarantee. The primary reason for the password is to
> protect against those people who are surfing the internet looking for
> private information to use for criminal purposes. It's only prudent
> to assume that the password will sometimes be given to friends as well
> as family members, and from there . . . who knows?
Then it's your own fault if you give away the password to untrustworthy people
and at this point there aren't anything you can do to protect the audio by
other way than remove them from the net.
>> can be easily captured, just record the audio out
>
> I do recognize that, with some technical knowledge, practically
> anything can be captured, but I suspect that the average visitor to
> our family website wouldn't know how to do that.
I wouldn't make a such assumption, starting a simple recording program is
quite simple, even in a microsoft environment.
> I do give the artist
> the option of having me reduce the sound quality of the file in order
> to make it undesireable for unauthorized commercial purposes, but,
> understandably, they would much prefer it to be heard in the quality
> in which it was intended to be heard. Btw, this music is copyrighted,
> but that also doesn't mean very much unless you have lots of money for
> legal fees. I'm just trying to provide as many layers of security as
> is practical.
In that case, take them off the net, thats the only way to go.
--
//Aho
kjk wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 12:27:53 -0400, Ed Mullen
>
>> kjk wrote:
>>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:13:22 GMT, kjk
>>>
>>>> Hi Folks,
>>>>
>>>> Can anybody tell me how to modify the following code in order to make
>>>> the popup window persistently float above all other windows?
>>>>
>>>> Memories and Messages
>>>>
>>>> Any advice would be much appreciated. Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Ken
>>> Finally, some real answers. Thank you Jonathan and cwdjrxyz, and for
>>> the benefit of both of you, I will try to remember not to top post.
>>> There was a time, back in the dinosaur days, when a technical question
>>> on usenet would immediately receive dozens of purely technical
>>> answers. Today, it seems, usenet has gradually moved closer to being
>>> a kiddie chat site.
>>>
>>> It is possible that I didn't state my question technically accurately.
>>> The purpose of the above code is as follows:
>>>
>>> I maintain a simple family website which includes some audio files of
>>> family musicians, some quite talented. With very limited HTML skills,
>>> I'm trying to put together a music player that will allow family
>>> members to listen to those files while browsing the site, to select
>>> the next audio file that they'd like to hear, using a window that
>>> remains accessible at all times, while not interfering with the page
>>> that they're viewing, while also not allowing them to capture the
>>> audio file, some of which may be commercially viable. It's possible
>>> that this particular use of a persistent window may even be acceptable
>>> to the folks at alt.html.
>>>
>>> The above code is the beginning of that process. I have no idea
>>> whether this is technically possible, but I do know that in my early
>>> computer days I learned a whole lot from usenet, so I thought that I'd
>>> ask what I perceived to be an innocent question.
>>>
>>> If anybody here can provide any additional helpful technical info, I'd
>>> sure like to hear it. Thanks.
>>>
>>> Ken
>>>
>> I have a variety of .mp3 files on my site. If someone wants to listen
>> to them while browsing other pages (or other sites) they just open the
>> music page in a new tab, click the songs, and browse elsewhere in
>> another tab. Or, just download all the .mp3 files to their own hard
>> drive and setup their own play list in their favorite music player.
>>
>> I think you're probably trying to make the solution far more complex
>> than it needs to be. But, hey, if you're having fun ...! ;-)
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Security is not about fun. Some of our audio files may be
> commercially viable, and I'm trying to do whatever I can to protect
> the artist from unauthorized commercial use. I understand that, with
> some technical knowledge, nothing is completely foolproof, but I want
> to make it as difficult as possible for the MP3 file to be captured to
> a casual listeners computer. The website is password protected, the
> javascript points to an HTM file, the HTM file points to an M3U file,
> the M3U file points to the MP3 file, so the average computer user
> would have some difficulty trying to locate and get at the MP3 file.
> If the MP3 file is playing in the listeners audio player, it's a
> simple process to Save As.
I'm sorry, if a link on your site points me to a .m3u file, what makes
you think you can dictate how my system will handle that? Regardless,
if it's playing through my computer's sound system (no matter /what/ the
method) I *can* capture it. And so can anyone else using free software
readily available.
If the site is password protected then you, presumably, trust the people
to whom you give the password, right? I mean, I wouldn't be giving a pw
to someone I thought would possibly steal from me.
Your premise is that going to all this work and jumping through all
these hoops is to protect you from an "average user" making unauthorized
commercial use of the music. I doubt that anyone who would do that
would be an "average user."
Good grief. Slap copyright notices on the music links and be done with
it until you hear a stolen work on the radio: Then start suing everyone
in sight.
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
kjk wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 19:20:20 +0200, "J.O. Aho"
> wrote:
>
>> kjk wrote:
>>
>>> Security is not about fun. Some of our audio files may be
>>> commercially viable, and I'm trying to do whatever I can to protect
>>> the artist from unauthorized commercial use.
>> If you want to protect the audio files, then you need to place them in a
>> location from you only can access the files if you have authorized yourself
>> before, you can still make it easy and have the files as mp3's as Ed suggested.
>>
>>
>>
>>> I understand that, with
>>> some technical knowledge, nothing is completely foolproof, but I want
>>> to make it as difficult as possible for the MP3 file to be captured to
>>> a casual listeners computer.
>> All audio that can be played on a computer, can be easily captured, just
>> record the audio out and you have a wav file with the same quality audio as
>> the audio streamed from your site.
>>
>>
>>
>>> If anybody here can suggest a more secure way to do it, I'd sure like
>>> to hear about it. Thanks.
>> As you say you have a password protection on your site and it's only your
>> family who has access to the page, why make it more difficult for them to
>> listen to the music?
>
> -------------------------
>
>> it's only your family who has access to the page
>
> That's no guarantee. The primary reason for the password is to
> protect against those people who are surfing the internet looking for
> private information to use for criminal purposes. It's only prudent
> to assume that the password will sometimes be given to friends as well
> as family members, and from there . . . who knows?
>
>> place them in a location from you only can access the files
>
> The MP3s are within the secure, password protected, area.
>
>> can be easily captured, just record the audio out
>
> I do recognize that, with some technical knowledge, practically
> anything can be captured, but I suspect that the average visitor to
> our family website wouldn't know how to do that. I do give the artist
> the option of having me reduce the sound quality of the file in order
> to make it undesireable for unauthorized commercial purposes, but,
> understandably, they would much prefer it to be heard in the quality
> in which it was intended to be heard. Btw, this music is copyrighted,
> but that also doesn't mean very much unless you have lots of money for
> legal fees. I'm just trying to provide as many layers of security as
> is practical.
>
> Ken
>
Ken, take them off the Internet. Make CDs. Put them in envelopes and
mail them to your family members. Problem solved and not a password,
HTML coding nor a line of javascript required.
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
On Jul 16, 12:13 pm, kjk
> popup window persistently float above all other windows?
you can try something like(focus the new window every 1 millisecond)-
win=open('','_blank','width=500,height=400');
setInterval('win.focus()',1)
or(focus it on blur) :
win=open('','_blank','width=500,height=400');
win.onblur=function(){win.focus()}
On Jul 17, 9:26 am, Neredbojias
> Not to be argumentative, but I really hate ie7. Sure, some of the styling
> issues are fixed and maybe the security is a bit improved, but I think it
> lost more than it gained. Where's the native ftp (which is largely why I
> use ie6 in the first place), the brisk, snappy response time, and why can't
> you customize the moronically-laid-out toolbar? If I died and could only
> take 2 browsers with me to geek-purgatory, they'd be Firefox and ie6.
> (Opera has some innovative features and some suprisingly perfected styling
> features but it just has too many bugs in operation to make me a happy
> camper.)
IE 7 blows, and it will single handedly be the reason everyone flocks
to other browsers.
Ed Mullen wrote:
> kjk wrote:
>> I'm just trying to provide as many layers of security as
>> is practical.
>>
>> Ken
>>
>
> Ken, take them off the Internet. Make CDs. Put them in envelopes and
> mail them to your family members. Problem solved and not a password,
> HTML coding nor a line of javascript required.
>
That's a very practical advise, and I would also suggest something along
those lines. If you assume everybody wants to harm you by stealing your
property (rights), then don't jump into this business. The music
industry is on a downhill slope exactly because of such an attitude.
cheers
bernhard
--
www.daszeichen.ch
remove nixspam to reply
scripts.contact wrote:
> On Jul 16, 12:13 pm, kjk
>> popup window persistently float above all other windows?
>
> you can try something like(focus the new window every 1 millisecond)-
> win=open('','_blank','width=500,height=400');
> setInterval('win.focus()',1)
>
> or(focus it on blur) :
>
> win=open('','_blank','width=500,height=400');
> win.onblur=function(){win.focus()}
>
Wow! I'd click the disable JavaScript button real quick and my second
action will be the back button to never return. I'm pretty sure that
will be the reaction of many visitors or for the less savvy to panic and
click the little "x" button in the title bar...
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 02:02:18 -0700, "scripts.contact"
>On Jul 16, 12:13 pm, kjk
>> popup window persistently float above all other windows?
>
>you can try something like(focus the new window every 1 millisecond)-
>win=open('','_blank','width=500,height=400');
>setInterval('win.focus()',1)
>
>or(focus it on blur) :
>
>win=open('','_blank','width=500,height=400');
>win.onblur=function(){win.focus()}
----------------------------------
THIS may be what I'm looking for (for the legitimate purpose described
in another part ot this thread). The only problem is that I don't
have enough knowledge to be able to implement it. Can you show me how
to edit it into the following script?
Song
Thanks,
Ken
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 18 Jul 2007 09:34:19
GMT Travis Newbury scribed:
> On Jul 17, 9:26 am, Neredbojias
>> Not to be argumentative, but I really hate ie7.
>>...snip
> IE 7 blows, and it will single handedly be the reason everyone flocks
> to other browsers.
Another thing, after MS made the well-announced push to come out with a
"standards-compliant" browser and gave us ie7, I didn't hear much about the
"thereafter" as in updates, corrections, etc. Ya think they'll wait
another 6 or 7 years in petulant silence before we get ie8? Tell ya what I
think - I think they don't have that much time to waste anymore.
Furthermore, they may never make up the time they've already wasted.
--
Neredbojias
A self-made man who worships his creator
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 18 Jul 2007 13:13:53 GMT
Jonathan N. Little scribed:
> scripts.contact wrote:
>> On Jul 16, 12:13 pm, kjk
>>> popup window persistently float above all other windows?
>>
>> you can try something like(focus the new window every 1 millisecond)-
>> win=open('','_blank','width=500,height=400');
>> setInterval('win.focus()',1)
>>
>> or(focus it on blur) :
>>
>> win=open('','_blank','width=500,height=400');
>> win.onblur=function(){win.focus()}
>>
> Wow! I'd click the disable JavaScript button real quick and my second
> action will be the back button to never return. I'm pretty sure that
> will be the reaction of many visitors or for the less savvy to panic and
> click the little "x" button in the title bar...
It's a case of the blind leading the blind. Oh, I will say that from past
posts scripts.contact seems to know javascript pretty well (-although I'm
not 100% sure his latest method will work all that well generally), but
however implimented, it's still a '90s technique. And, of course, kjk is
obviously clueless to most anything.
--
Neredbojias
A self-made man who worships his creator
Neredbojias wrote:
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 18 Jul 2007 13:13:53 GMT
> Jonathan N. Little scribed:
>
>> scripts.contact wrote:
>>> On Jul 16, 12:13 pm, kjk
>>>> popup window persistently float above all other windows?
>>> you can try something like(focus the new window every 1 millisecond)-
>>> win=open('','_blank','width=500,height=400');
>>> setInterval('win.focus()',1)
>>>
>>> or(focus it on blur) :
>>>
>>> win=open('','_blank','width=500,height=400');
>>> win.onblur=function(){win.focus()}
>>>
>> Wow! I'd click the disable JavaScript button real quick and my second
>> action will be the back button to never return. I'm pretty sure that
>> will be the reaction of many visitors or for the less savvy to panic and
>> click the little "x" button in the title bar...
>
> It's a case of the blind leading the blind. Oh, I will say that from past
> posts scripts.contact seems to know javascript pretty well (-although I'm
> not 100% sure his latest method will work all that well generally), but
> however implimented, it's still a '90s technique. And, of course, kjk is
> obviously clueless to most anything.
>
I agree. But I will try one more time for reason to OP. This
"onblur->focus()" was|is a standard porn site ploy as the ol'
"onunload->load". Plus it will *not* do what you desire, your visitors
will not be able to navigate your site because your music "popup" window
will always be stealing the focus every time they try to do anything on
the parent window. Listen to reason and what Jukka's oft given advice
"Stop wanting it".
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
On Jul 17, 12:47 pm, kjk
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:31:06 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson"
>
>
> >On 2007-07-17, kjk wrote:
>
> >> Security is not about fun. Some of our audio files may be
> >> commercially viable, and I'm trying to do whatever I can to protect
> >> the artist from unauthorized commercial use.
>
> > Please read
>
> > An excerpt:
>
> > "every time we make a few songs available on my website, sales
> > of all the CDs go up. A lot."
>
> ---------------------------
>
> That looks good. I printed it out and I'll have to read it carefully,
> along with the followup. Thanks. Maybe I can add a music store to
> the website and sell CDs.
If you were to add music sales, of course you will need secure pages
before anyone will submit payment information to your site. If you use
secure pages such as banks and credit card companies use, there is yet
another layer of protection you can use. The computer for which the
person having a secure id and password can be detected. Even if
someone gets the password information, they will not be connected on
any other computer unless they apply on the new computer for use on
it, get an access number by email, and enter it on the new computer.
Then they may be asked for some additional information such as the
mother's maiden name, etc before being allowed to use the new
computer. A major credit card company in the US is now doing this.
Often you can avoid problems with computers with script turned off by
saying something of the sort that script must be on to download music.
If script is on, then it is used to switch this statement to hidden.
If script is off, the statement remains on, but other portions of the
site can be used. In some cases you can avoid the script off problem
by using server side script such as php.
As mentioned by others, one way to reduce unauthorized commericial use
is to reduce the sound quality which is easy to do with a mp3 using a
low sampling rate. Another way is to allow playing only a few sample
songs if you are trying to sell a CD. Another way is to allow playing
just a short bit of a song. These technique are being used by Amazon
and Google for sales of audio and video.
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:31:06 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson"
>On 2007-07-17, kjk wrote:
>
>> Security is not about fun. Some of our audio files may be
>> commercially viable, and I'm trying to do whatever I can to protect
>> the artist from unauthorized commercial use.
>
> Please read
>
> An excerpt:
>
> "every time we make a few songs available on my website, sales
> of all the CDs go up. A lot."
------------------------------
Chris,
That article is excellent. I sent that link to our artists. They
found it fascinating and were impressed with her candor about the
situation. Thanks.
Ken
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:14:03 -0700, cwdjrxyz
wrote:
>On Jul 17, 12:47 pm, kjk
>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:31:06 -0400, "Chris F.A. Johnson"
>>
>>
>> >On 2007-07-17, kjk wrote:
>>
>> >> Security is not about fun. Some of our audio files may be
>> >> commercially viable, and I'm trying to do whatever I can to protect
>> >> the artist from unauthorized commercial use.
>>
>> > Please read
>>
>> > An excerpt:
>>
>> > "every time we make a few songs available on my website, sales
>> > of all the CDs go up. A lot."
>>
>> ---------------------------
>>
>> That looks good. I printed it out and I'll have to read it carefully,
>> along with the followup. Thanks. Maybe I can add a music store to
>> the website and sell CDs.
>
>
>If you were to add music sales, of course you will need secure pages
>before anyone will submit payment information to your site. If you use
>secure pages such as banks and credit card companies use, there is yet
>another layer of protection you can use. The computer for which the
>person having a secure id and password can be detected. Even if
>someone gets the password information, they will not be connected on
>any other computer unless they apply on the new computer for use on
>it, get an access number by email, and enter it on the new computer.
>Then they may be asked for some additional information such as the
>mother's maiden name, etc before being allowed to use the new
>computer. A major credit card company in the US is now doing this.
>Often you can avoid problems with computers with script turned off by
>saying something of the sort that script must be on to download music.
>If script is on, then it is used to switch this statement to hidden.
>If script is off, the statement remains on, but other portions of the
>site can be used. In some cases you can avoid the script off problem
>by using server side script such as php.
>As mentioned by others, one way to reduce unauthorized commericial use
>is to reduce the sound quality which is easy to do with a mp3 using a
>low sampling rate. Another way is to allow playing only a few sample
>songs if you are trying to sell a CD. Another way is to allow playing
>just a short bit of a song. These technique are being used by Amazon
>and Google for sales of audio and video.
----------------------------
Thanks for the info, and also for your previous link to
http://www.dynamicdrive.com/
I may be clueless, as previously stated by Neredbojias, but that's
exactly why I ask for help on usenet. If the questioner is seriously
trying to learn something, there are no stupid questions here . . .
only some stupid answers.
Ken
kjk wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:14:03 -0700, cwdjrxyz
> wrote:
> Thanks for the info, and also for your previous link to
>
> http://www.dynamicdrive.com/
>
> I may be clueless, as previously stated by Neredbojias, but that's
> exactly why I ask for help on usenet. If the questioner is seriously
> trying to learn something, there are no stupid questions here . . .
> only some stupid answers.
True. But but true state of 'cluelessness' is persistence in a direction
that has been adequately explained as wrong. Hopefully you understand
that desiring a persistent pop-up window is the wrong approach.
BTW note that most of the scripts at www.dynamicdrive.com are woefully
out of date and even the "updated" one are many times quite flawed.
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:49:45 -0400, "Jonathan N. Little"
>kjk wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:14:03 -0700, cwdjrxyz
>> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the info, and also for your previous link to
>>
>> http://www.dynamicdrive.com/
>>
>> I may be clueless, as previously stated by Neredbojias, but that's
>> exactly why I ask for help on usenet. If the questioner is seriously
>> trying to learn something, there are no stupid questions here . . .
>> only some stupid answers.
>
>True. But but true state of 'cluelessness' is persistence in a direction
>that has been adequately explained as wrong. Hopefully you understand
>that desiring a persistent pop-up window is the wrong approach.
>
>BTW note that most of the scripts at www.dynamicdrive.com are woefully
>out of date and even the "updated" one are many times quite flawed.
-------------------------
So, in patient deference to a obviously clueless questioner who's
seriously attempting to learn something that may be completely beyond
his capabilities, please now give me the remaining, yet unstated,
positive, technically helpful part . . . Where might I find a better
website from which to learn some scripting?
Ken
kjk wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:49:45 -0400, "Jonathan N. Little"
>
>
>> kjk wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:14:03 -0700, cwdjrxyz
>>> wrote:
>>> Thanks for the info, and also for your previous link to
>>>
>>> http://www.dynamicdrive.com/
>>>
>>> I may be clueless, as previously stated by Neredbojias, but that's
>>> exactly why I ask for help on usenet. If the questioner is seriously
>>> trying to learn something, there are no stupid questions here . . .
>>> only some stupid answers.
>> True. But but true state of 'cluelessness' is persistence in a direction
>> that has been adequately explained as wrong. Hopefully you understand
>> that desiring a persistent pop-up window is the wrong approach.
>>
>> BTW note that most of the scripts at www.dynamicdrive.com are woefully
>> out of date and even the "updated" one are many times quite flawed.
>
> -------------------------
>
> So, in patient deference to a obviously clueless questioner who's
> seriously attempting to learn something that may be completely beyond
> his capabilities, please now give me the remaining, yet unstated,
> positive, technically helpful part . . . Where might I find a better
> website from which to learn some scripting?
The point was the persistent *always on top* popup window is the wrong
goal to pursue.
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com