toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Magazines are not photos. I have issues of MRH (a FREE online
publication with photos)
that are 300 Megabytes each in size, and they are PDF files.
Kalmbach could EASILY insert new advertising material into old
issues of magazines if
they were really worried about copying and sharing PDF files.
Advertisers pay for eyeballs,
so they'd be more than happy if people cheated, and probably
spend enough to more than
cover the scanning and distribution costs - Just as they do for
MRH and others.
ALL methods of digital copy protection can ALL be defeated.
After all, software engineers
understand how it works, and them who create these methods will
know how to get around them.
The days of selling paper copies of the same image over and over
and over are drawing to a
close. Besides which, inks and paper are bad for the
On 12/27/2019 1:01 PM, Bob Webber wrote:
This is an issue with digital images - people *WILL*
share and post on the internet. They have since the inception
(which is one reason Microsoft's process is so convoluted and
now). They will also copy & share things that were
and explicitly forbidden by the license they signed (same).
You may disagree with the concept, then you shouldn't sign the
(which is a whole issue unto itself with EULAs being printed in
script and running on for chapters).
What is going to happen is that institutions selling photos,
other things digitally will have to increasingly turn to
blocks attempts to download, copy, and other wise use
Which will drive up costs and cut down on usability,
flexibility, and customer satisfaction. When some knowingly
disregard promises they made, it hurts every body.
You may wish for better copies in PDF form (which isn't the best
and be able to ...well...make it portable (as the name implies)
own purposes. That is and likely will be fine. It's the
people who post such images on the internet (and or pass copies
friends and manufacturers as their own) that kill offerings and
I'd love to hear "solutions" (off-line or at Cocoa) as we have
had to stop supplying some materials until some of this is
resolved. It *WILL* make images harder to view, it *WILL* make
images harder to come by, it *WILL* result in "policing" -
people insist that anything on the Internet must be free, and
material feeding it must be too. They also insist that anything
"own" is theirs to do with as they please. That will
kill more than you know.
People have said $6 is too much to pay for an 8x10 print. I'd
dearly love to see how they propose to store stock and to visit
less. It can not happen. Smithsonian charges $50 - or
more. Others do as well, mainly due to "pirates", but
also to sensibly defray costs. Feeling that it is the sellers
problem (to pay for acquisition, maintenance, repair, and
simply uninformed or deliberately and willfully ignorant - and
many things available in the past & today will not be
archives - you'll have to visit them in order to look, and
phones will not be allowed.
At 10:44 AM 12/27/2019, Tim O'Connor wrote:
My issue with
Kalmbach is their
proprietary images - If the images were good quality in
a PDF format, I would get the entire MR/Trains/Classic/etc and
onto my hard drive.