ArtistScope Forum

We are finding that our lessons are being copied and sold by others, and we cannot stop it. We reported the plagiarism to Google and they came back with some nonsense about the copy cats being the owner of that content. So we are thinking about copy protection, but have some doubts:

• Users want to use their own web browser - users will see it as an inconvenience to have to download a new web browser.

• Copy protection has bad reputation - info sites like Wikipedia and Stack Exchange claim that copy protection is an invasive experience that is a waste of time because nothing works.

Some on our team are concerned that using copy protection could be a bad move. What to do?

amaket wrote: Fri Sep 12, 2025 10:57 pm Users want to use their own web browser

There is no way around this. For desktop reading the user needs to download an app specially designed to copy protect what it displays. Likewise with online reading, normal web browsers are incapable of copy protecting web pages, so a web browser specially designed to copy protect web pages is required.

amaket wrote: Fri Sep 12, 2025 10:57 pm Copy protection has bad reputation

Any bad reputation associated with copy protection is a result of two (2) main factors...

• there are many inferior solutions that do not cover all avenues of exploit, and

• those in favor of copy theft (as opposed to copyright) greatly outnumber those who have intellectual property by a million to one.

amaket wrote: Fri Sep 12, 2025 10:57 pm Some on our team are concerned that using copy protection could be a bad move. What to do?

Educate them. All clients providing online courses have reported profitability as opposed to running at a loss.

amaket wrote: Fri Sep 12, 2025 10:57 pm Wikipedia and Stack Exchange claim that copy protection is an invasive waste of time

While these two sites rank highly for search results on most things, they are not authoritative for everything. For example:

Wikipedia is a collection of info provided by volunteers who are governed by strict rules about promoting commercial solutions. Their page on copy protection includes a snippet about its history and the various areas to which it applies, but it is a far cry from painting a true picture. A lot of third party reviews have been added as reference over the years, most are recent fabrications by so called experts claiming to be professors, but the selection of what has been referenced still comes down to the Wikipedia editors (who can be anyone prepared to follow their rules - including yourself) and now what does stand out, especially to anyone considering copy protection, is the opinion of people who have little to no respect for intellectual property. After all, what is Wikipedia if not a collection of everyone else's intellectual property?

Stack Exchange is just another hotspot for ad revenue. It provides a question and answer solution that has been a useful resource for programming tips for many years. Most programmers cannot remember every solution, even their own, so search can be used to find their own answer that may have been published years ago. But Stack Exchange's recent drive for more profit has had an effect on the value of their answers because more often than not, the answers either do not work, are outdated, or not answering the question that was asked in the first place.

As for Stack Exchange references for copy protection, the one ranked most highly should have been removed many years ago. The article became so toxic that the topic was closed, leaving remnants mainly about how copy protection is offensive, unnecessary and useless. As to why these comments were posted is understandable considering the mindset of the site's contributors, ie: most answers are plagiarized from other web sites. But how desperate are they for content that their moderators allow such nonsense?

Support wrote: Fri Sep 12, 2025 11:19 pm There is no way around this. For desktop reading the user needs to download an app specially designed to copy protect what it displays. Likewise with online reading, normal web browsers are incapable of copy protecting web pages, so a web browser specially designed to copy protect web pages is required.

I see. But now have to convince our teachers.

I also see that the Artisbrowser is available for all computers and mobile --- that is excellent.

amaket wrote: Fri Sep 12, 2025 10:57 pm Wikipedia and Stack Exchange claim that copy protection is an invasive experience that is a waste of time because nothing works.

The main problem with both of these sites is that their rules prevent mentioning commercial solutions, even if when the only solution that works is a commercial one.

Consequently the only solutions that Stack Exchange mention are those available as open-source and that is a dead end because no end of CSS and JavaScript tricks can stop copy.

But yes, the mindset of Stack Exchange contributors leaves a lot to be desired. I once made the mistake of hiring one them... that turned into an ugly mess when he realised that we were providing commercial software. It seems that too many developers, while they like being paid by software companies, they have no respect for their intellectual property rights or the the sales that pay for their salary.

WilliamK wrote: Sat Sep 13, 2025 12:54 am Stack Exchange

Most developers that I know use Stack Exchange hoping for a solution while they focus on other areas of development. But their experiences have been far from pleasant. In most cases their questions have been marked down claiming that it was either a duplicate of another question or badly worded.

Personally I have seen this happen far too often, and the only reasons that could have happened are:

• that person didn't read the question properly because there was no way they were the same problem.

• that person was disappointed in not finding a quick answer from Google search.

• that person's skim reading skills are useless.

From what I hear, no-one wants to post there again.

PeterM wrote: Sat Sep 13, 2025 1:23 am From what I hear, no-one wants to post there again.

Same here. One of the devs on our team was banned and another severely abused, accusing him of using "sock puppets" to manipulate reputation.

"Reputation" is gained by points awarded for accepted answers that can also be upvoted. But reputation was not the motivation for posting and what was uncovered is the extent that Stack Exchange will go to protect the real sock puppets.

If in doubt, look up any contributor who has 20,000 points or more, and try to find how they earned them.

Looks like this topic has changed from "copy protection" to "reputation".

Keeping in mind that opposition to copy protection is a million to one (see above) then public opinion should have no weight at all when it comes to protecting one's livelihood.

That puts all social media platforms behind enemy lines.