NBC Universal Study Shows That It's Hollywood's Own Damn Fault So Much Content Is 'Pirated'
DailyDirt: More Robot Helicopters

FiveFingers Blocks Right Finger -- Just Asking For Middle One

(Mis)Uses of Technology

from the say-what-now? dept

Wed, Feb 2nd 2011 4:02pm — Mike Masnick
Treating fans and customers as if they might be criminals is a really bad idea. But, so many companies seem to do it these days. Mr Klein alerts us to a ridiculous programming decision on the webpage for the famously funky Vibram Five Finger shoes (which are sort of like gloves for your feet):
I was looking into buying a Vibram Five Fingers running shoes. Wanted to open one of the links in their page in a new tab in my browser. Right-clicked and... bam! I get this ridiculous pop-up warning saying
"Sorry, that function is disabled. Contents & Graphics Copyright Vibram ® Our work is not Public Domain, and should not be taken from this site."
I admit I'm not the most patient person when it comes to someone acting stupid, so this just pissed me off big time. I mean - I don't care about those shoes anymore. They're treating me like some kind of a cyber-pirate that is going to steal... Wait... Steal what? What exactly is on that web page that might harm them if copied? What if I was going to write an article about how great their shoes are? Would I really want to continue doing that after this warning? I can imagine they're afraid of counterfeit products being advertised using photos taken from their site, but - come on - if I was going to steal a picture, a simple screenshot would do the trick. So their effort is pathetic and annoying the hell out of customers like me.
Klein's analysis is dead on. I just went and checked myself. First, this a really stupid programming decision -- blocking all right-clicks on a website for all sorts of legitimate purposes (such as opening in a new tab, as I frequently do) seems like tremendous overkill. But, more importantly, as Klein points out, all this does is serve to piss people off while doing absolutely nothing to stop the action they think they're trying to stop. Finally, making a statement about the public domain, just because someone right-clicked is also extreme. None of it makes sense, and all it really serves to do is piss off legitimate users.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, five finger shoes, overreaction, right clicking

93 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 3:46pm

    The right-click-blocker is a script that started in the age of GIF-farmers and over-ornamented Geocities pages, when the proto-4channers would bicker over the "theft" of a four-grame animation of a fist punching through the background. Sadly, every now and then you see it crop up on a modern website, employed by some extremely misguided business owner (and likely perpetrated by a beleaguered web-designing nephew who found himself powerless in the face of impossible demands)

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2011 @ 8:29am

      Re:

      you don't need to right click to open something in a new tab. I click the wheel to open something in a new window. I'm using firefox.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        crade (profile), 3 Feb 2011 @ 11:50am

        Re: Re:

        Your statement should say "I don't need to right click[...]" not "you don't [...]". Other people aren't using the same browser as you, and/or don't have scrollwheel mice.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Marcus Carab (profile), 3 Feb 2011 @ 12:56pm

        Re: Re:

        i didn't say anything about new tabs... mis-reply?

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Rose M. Welch (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 3:56pm

    ...all this does is serve to piss people off while doing absolutely nothing to stop the action they think they're trying to stop.

    Also, it makes the people who want to 'steal' the photos laugh. Hard.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Hephaestus (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 4:12pm

    One word ... "Idiots"

    View
    Source

    Click here for Main page Image

    Products main page image

    Now right click and Download to your hearts content.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ima Fish (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 4:18pm

    Firefox... install prefbar... disable javascript... right click all you want.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Travis Miller (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 4:20pm

      Re:

      I could right-click by default, thanks to NoScript.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Hephaestus (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 4:22pm

        Re: Re:

        Both of you are cheaters ... you have to do this old school :)

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Ron Rezendes (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 4:46pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Open page CTL-SHFT-P then drag yourSnagIt cursor over the picture you wantand release the mouse button!

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Robin Hoover (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 5:24pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            pressing down on the middle scroll wheel behaves as expected: new tab generated from a link.

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              The Groove Tiger (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 10:20pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Open tab: ctrl+click, middle-click, or drag the link to the tab bar.
              Save image: file->save page as (or just ctrl+s)->web page, complete.

              This is way too easy, and useless. Pisses 90% of the people off tho. I think some of these web "designers" also want to prevent you from right-clicking and "copying" text or whatever...

              [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      weneedhelp (profile), 3 Feb 2011 @ 8:30am

      Re:

      Tools> Options> Content tab> Uncheck Enable Javascript.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    sehlat (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 4:18pm

    "Contents and Graphics Copyright..."

    Does that include the ridiculous "noRightClick.js" script?

    They didn't even bother to minimize it.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    codegrunt, 2 Feb 2011 @ 4:21pm

    more importantly. . .

    Wow. These may just be the ugliest shoes that mankind has ever created:

    Five Fingers Bikila

    Definitely one for the The Fashion Police blog.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Dennis S. (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 4:24pm

    Seems to not affect their .com site though.

    http://www.vibramfivefingers.com has no such restriction, laughable as it is.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 4:25pm

    AJ

    I don't really have much to add to the conversation, I just wanted to say the title of this post is pretty Epic.

    Well played, Sir.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    MrWilson, 2 Feb 2011 @ 4:30pm

    How many fingers does it take to plug the analog hole?

    Trick question. You can't.

    Thanks for playing.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Not an electronic Rodent, 3 Feb 2011 @ 1:11am

      Re:

      How many fingers does it take to plug the analog hole?
      I think you have a Surplus To Requirements "og" there and then the answer is that for thinking such as this the head works better :-)

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 4:31pm

    Maybe not.

    They're very concerned about counterfeiters.

    http://www.vibramfivefingers.it/eng/counterfeit/how_to_spot_a_fake.aspx

    Can you patent a shoe design?

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      The Infamous Joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 4:35pm

      Re: Maybe not.

      uh, oh man.

      Can we talk about the fact that that silly script isn't at http://www.vibramfivefingers.com/

      Am I missing something?

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      lukeabbott (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:22pm

      Re: Maybe not.

      I can't believe that the Google pay for click actually takes you to that page rather than a product to buy.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Not an electronic Rodent, 3 Feb 2011 @ 1:07am

      Re: Maybe not.

      Seems you can patent anything but.... Shoes with toes in? Wouldn't you have trouble with "prior art" from Tabi? Or is it a huge leap forward to have all 5 toes split rather than one?

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Jeremy Lyman (profile), 15 Feb 2011 @ 11:45am

      Re: Maybe not.

      I may be biased since I have two pairs myself, but my reaction is more in the "that's kinda silly" range than "I'm outraged and taking my business elsewhere". Especially since the US site doesn't do it.

      I've also read a bit about the counterfeits you can order online; as research before buying. As far as I can tell it's more of a trademark or consumer protection issue since the knockoffs are of inferior quality, with stitching that irritates and falls apart and rubber that wears quickly. That's why they require any retailer who sells VFF's online to have a physical storefront as well. The knockoffs are sold as authentic Vibram products and look surprisingly good. Most consumers would have no idea they're getting ripped off, especially without the genuine article for comparison. So it's a bit different than knock-off Oakley's in my view, where the buyer pretty much knows they're not getting the real thing for $5 at a bus station.

      P.S. Yes, having a pocket for each toe is wildly different than two toed boots would be. The main purpose is to be able to fit and control the shoe against your foot while using as little material as practical. I've got the Bikilas with a little more padding for running and KSOs for hiking, I'd recommend either!

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Nick Dynice (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 4:33pm

    On a Mac you can Command-click to open to a new tab without having this happen. I couldn't get the same to work in Windows.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 4:39pm

    To add weight to the argument of how stupid this is, I don't see this message. Most likely because of no-script. Or because of middle clicking the link. Or ctrl clicking.

    And because I'm running no script I can save images. Or copy text through right clicking. Anti-piracy fail.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 4:46pm

      Response to: Anonymous Coward on Feb 2nd, 2011 @ 4:39pm

      Anti piracy fail.
      Marketing win

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 5:06pm

        Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Feb 2nd, 2011 @ 4:39pm

        Really? A marketing win? I'm looking for a company that makes this type of shoe that spends their time worrying about a better product, not a web page where you aren't allowed to copy images. Turns out their are 2-3 alternatives. I'm going with one of those, even though it's a bit pricier...

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Jay (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 8:13pm

          Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Feb 2nd, 2011 @ 4:39pm

          Links please? I want to get some of these since I'm training for a marathon soon.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Rob Bodine (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 4:45pm

    Drama Queens

    First, for the technologically ignorant, this might not be such a bad prophylactic. Some people can't get around it. More importantly, though, is that if you're right, you're being babies about this. Who cares? If they spend a ton of money putting together a website they want to secure, what's the big deal.

    Yes, Eldred gave copyright owners way too many rights, and yes, that has probably made a bad economic system even worse, but this isn't worth the time that's being spent on it. My purchasing decision isn't affected one bit by this, and the reason is that 1) I'm an adult, that 2) doesn't complain for complaining's sake.

    Move on with your lives, people. The world doesn't owe you nearly as much as you demand from it.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 5:03pm

      Re: Drama Queens

      The point is that the people that want to get around it can (the people who you'd be worrying about 'stealing' the image). And if they spent that much money, they should've paid for someone honest enough to tell them that they were wasting their time doing this.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Marcus Carab (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 5:22pm

      Re: Drama Queens

      you're rather critical for someone so critical of criticism...

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      AW, 2 Feb 2011 @ 6:59pm

      Re: Drama Queens

      Has nothing to do with drama, but thanks for insulting an entire group of people who find tech ignorance amusing on a tech site. You're that guy who goes to movies and tells the people walking in how overrated it was ans the critics blew it way out of proportion aren't you?
      why don't you let us have our fun and you can take your ball and go play at home by yourself.

      You know why people complain? BECAUSE IT WORKS! yes I was screaming at you. You obviously have never heard the common expression the squeaky wheel gets the grease, anything about political parties anywhere in the world, revolutions, etc. People complain because they want something o change and are aggregating with like people because we are social creatures. Stop calling us children when you've got no idea what you're talking.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Trails (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 4:49pm

    And it fails again because

    It doesn't make it any harder to take their images. File > Save As... > Complete Webpage > "pwnd" images.

    So it's not just a fail, it's a pointless fail!!

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    archaeumchaeum, 2 Feb 2011 @ 5:16pm

    sad

    three things:

    1) ctrl+click
    2) prnt scrn >> ctrl+v
    3) use chrome
    4) profit!!

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    G. Steve Arnold, 2 Feb 2011 @ 5:31pm

    Firefox extentions to fix this for yourself.

    Noscript, Greasemonkey or RightToClick -- take your pick.

    http://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/righttoclick/

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 6:51pm

      Re: Firefox extentions to fix this for yourself.

      You don't even need to go that far. Just click File>Save As. You get the Html page with all its images in a subfolder.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Clay, 2 Feb 2011 @ 5:44pm

    Wow, that was easy...

    1.Open Explorer
    2.Click and drag pic to desired directory

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 5:52pm

    The best part is (as others have pointed out) if I wished to "steal" the stuff on the page... I can easily do it with 0 effort since I have no script.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Mike Shore, 2 Feb 2011 @ 6:14pm

    View Source

    In IE8, View -> Source. Oops, did I just circumvented their "DRM"?

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      G Thompson (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 6:52pm

      Re: View Source

      mmmmmmmmm sauce ;)

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2011 @ 6:43am

      Re: View Source

      Remain where you are citizen! The cyber police have backtraced you and will be breaking down your door momentarily for violations of DMCA2.

      Yeah, in 10 years it won't even be parody anymore.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 6:54pm

    Klein's analysis is dead on. I just went and checked myself.

    You must be using that trash operating system called Windows because I just checked it out in Fedora 14 with KDE as the desktop and guess what KDE works very well doing exactly what you say can not be done.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      techflaws.org (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 10:01pm

      Re:

      Good for you.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 3 Feb 2011 @ 2:29am

      Re:

      You must be using that trash operating system called Windows because I just checked it out in Fedora 14 with KDE as the desktop and guess what KDE works very well doing exactly what you say can not be done.

      Might help to read the post first next time. No one said "it can not be done."

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      DS, 3 Feb 2011 @ 3:45am

      Re:

      Odd, because I just checked it out in Win 7 and Opera 10, and it works just well. I didn't have to use that limited support geek-centric, not ready for prime time Fedora 14 with KDE as the desktop.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Aaron Toponce, 3 Feb 2011 @ 5:26am

      Re:

      Way to make the rest of us in the Free and Open Source community look like elitist pricks. Quit giving us a bad name.

      For the record, I'm on Debian GNU/Linux in KDE using Opera, Chromium and Iceweasel, and guess what- if you actually read the post, and click the link, you'll see the JavaScript banner in all three browsers.

      It has nothing to do with your operating system, and everything to do with JavaScript in your browser.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 6:59pm

    I just checked out the site in IE7 with nothing special installed (work PC) and I can right click on anything on the page. Did they change it already or what?

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 7:00pm

      Re:

      Ok, I just realized the link in the story is to the .it site and the .com site does not have any such restrictions.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Bryan Price (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 7:05pm

    A couple of different ways to blow the blocking up

    Using NoScript, everything I could see was right clickable.

    Using RightToClick (Firefox extension), after the warning popup, I could freely right click.

    I'm reminded of a site that had images, and using transparent gifs (stretched out the same dimensions as the picture) while the actual picture was made the background of the frame. You couldn't quite do a right click, save as, you had to do a view background, right click, save as.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 7:18pm

    Apparently this is limited to the site in Italy, and not to its US counterpart. Looking at the Italian home page, it looks as if the company has been burned several times by counterfeiters. I can understand its concern, but of course it is clear that their chosen method should be replaced with some other approach.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:42pm

    In defense of programmers I must say that those decisions are not made by them. All the good ones know that it is impossible.

    I get tired of people asking what to do when a client asks to disable the ability to copy something from a webpage, my answer is always "tell them that it is impossible at the moment with the current technology and probably well into the foreseeability future, webpages where not designed for private viewing but to reach others and show something to them, it goes to others and what others do is difficult to control", the reply is always the same "I already did" to which I reply "then you did everything you could, give them what you can, but make it clear it can't stop anything".

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Rekrul, 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:44pm

    You don't even need a Firefox extension to get past this. Just go into the prefs, click on the Content tab and then click the Advanced button to the right of the Javascript option and uncheck the option to allow it to disable or replace context menus. You still get the warning, but the menu appears after you dismiss the warning. Or just disable javascript and you never even see the warning. Actually, I unchecked all the Advanced JS options.

    Another way to save images from sites which employ tricks to stop you (like placing a transparent GIF over the image so that you can't click on the actual image) is to go to FF's Tools menu, select Page Info and then click the Media tab. Every graphic on the page will be listed there.

    Also, middle-clicking on a link will usually open it in a new tab. At least it does for me, but that may be because I have Tab Mix Plus installed.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2011 @ 9:22am

      Re:

      For those with mouse with scroll wheels, the scroll wheel is usually harder to click (it needs more pressure than the other buttons) than right-click followed by the menu item.

      And for those using a laptop, they often do not have a physical middle button ("chording" the left and right buttons, when available, is harder).

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:53pm

    It Works Anyway

    I tried right-clicking on a link on that site in Firefox/Iceweasel (Linux). I get the message that that function is �disabled�, but after dismissing that the usual right-click popup menu appears anyway, and I can still access the usual functions to open the link in a new tab or whatever.

    I�m not running any special Firefox/Iceweasel extensions.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:55pm

    Firefox Scrapbook is a really good addon. It has one good thing about it, it lets you delete elements in a page just by hovering the mouse over it to select what stays on the page, so if you get those tutorials and don't want the adds you can clean the page and it creates a database so you can search them.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Pete Austin, 3 Feb 2011 @ 1:35am

    Article is Wrong. I just tried the site. Can open all links in new tabs

    Both these methods work, so I had trouble recreating the issue...
    (1) Use NoScript and leave this site disabled (which is what most people do for new sites, right?).
    (2) Or use *MIDDLE CLICK", if you want to open the links in a new window (which is also what most people do).

    http://www.vibramfivefingers.it/eng/produtcs.aspx

    The script is at the following URL. There's no copyright statement, which can't be an accident given its content, so maybe the programmer wasn't too keen on writing it.

    http://www.vibramfivefingers.it/eng/include/noRightClick.js

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      crade (profile), 3 Feb 2011 @ 12:01pm

      Re: Article is Wrong. I just tried the site. Can open all links in new tabs

      You are a pathetic tester if you can't reproduce the issue given the instructions provided.

      You have listed two workarrounds, neither of which were in the instructions to reproduce the issue.

      The article never said it is impossible to work around the issue of opening new tabs. Middle click is browser specific though (not to mention you need a wheelmouse)

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Aaron Toponce, 3 Feb 2011 @ 5:22am

    .it, not .com and Snopes

    For those who didn't click the link in the post, but instead tried searching for Vibram FiveFingers in Google, and got sent to the .com page, it doesn't work there. The script is only installed on the .it, or Italian site.

    This reminds me of the scripts that are installed on Snopes. They won't let you select text or right click. They want the ad revenue of people going to their site, rather than you just emailing the results to your friends. Of course, disable JavaScript, use NoScript, view source, Save Page As..., many, many ways to get around it. Of course, with all the chain email, it makes you wonder who the real source is...

    Anyway, this sort of JavaScript crap is annoying at best, and all it does is piss off the honest. Well played Vibram, well played.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Rex Karz (profile), 3 Feb 2011 @ 8:09am

    context menu overrides easily defeated

    In Mozilla Firefox (on Linux):

    Edit -> Preferences
    Select "Content"
    Turn off "Disable or replace context menus"

    There! FTFY

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Aaron Toponce, 3 Feb 2011 @ 12:08pm

    Sent an email to Vibram

    I just sent an email off to Vibram to see if they would remove the JavaScript. I doubt anything will come of it, but it's worth the try. I also gave them the link to this post.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Ajgajg1134, 3 Feb 2011 @ 7:21pm

    Wow...

    Terrible decision on their part, but you could just click down with the middle mouse button. It opens that link in a new tab, saves me tons of time on chrome.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    slander (profile), 4 Feb 2011 @ 6:44am

    There's always a way...

    1. Fire up WireShark.
    2. Start viewing the data stream.
    3. Open up a command prompt.
    3. Type copy con URL.txt.
    4. Begin refreshing the browser, watching for the direct URL for the image.
    5. Repeat step 4 until you have the URL memorized.
    6. Type the URL into the command prompt.
    7. Hit F6
    8. Open URL.txt on your favorite text viewer.
    9. Copy the contents (by hand) into the browser's address bar.
    10. View image in all its raw, untampered-with glory.
    11. Save image
    12. ???
    13 Profit

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Rekrul, 4 Feb 2011 @ 2:56pm

      Re: There's always a way...

      1. Fire up WireShark.
      ...

      Congratulations! You get the prize for most convoluted and complicated solution to a simple problem.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Feb 2011 @ 12:33pm

    Why are you all wasting so much time talking about this? You clearly know how to bypass it anyhow and Vibram is just trying to take a stab at slowing down Chinese counterfeiters that keep trying to use their graphics on their own sites. Why not grab a pair and get off your asses instead of wasting time here?

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Not an electronic Rodent, 6 Feb 2011 @ 9:39am

      Re:

      Why are you all wasting so much time talking about this? You clearly know how to bypass it anyhow and Vibram is just trying to take a stab at slowing down Chinese counterfeiters that keep trying to use their graphics on their own sites. Why not grab a pair and get off your asses instead of wasting time here?
      I can't speak for anyone else, but for me the point is that since there are so many ways round it, it is 100% pointless as an attempt to stop "piracy" or "counterfeiting" or whatever other vicious nasty thing they are frightened of. On the other hand is is likely to be minimally effective in annoying customers who want to legitimately use the sight and possibly be a factor in driving them elsewhere - people are often not too patient when it comes to web shopping.
      The story then is about risking driving off paying customers due to fear of something that the change has no effect on. That's not a good business model and worth a mention on a blog that often talks about how fear of piracy can have worse effects than piracy itself.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Jeremy Lyman (profile), 15 Feb 2011 @ 12:00pm

        Re: Re:

        I'm not going to argue that this is an effective countermeasure, but I would think a customer ordering an inferior product by accident and assuming that all your products are crappy would be much worse than some potential customers being soured on website design.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    iveseenitall (profile), 6 Feb 2011 @ 8:24am

    This article appears to usher in a new standard of sensitivity.
    Anyone able to conjure up anger over something as insignificant as this more than likely have too much time on their hands.
    Save the finger pointing for those who deserve it.

    ....................../��/)
    ....................,/�../
    .................../..../
    ............./��/'...'/���`��
    ........../'/.../..../......./��\
    ........('(...�...�.... �~/'...')
    .........\.................'...../
    ..........''...\.......... _.��
    ............\..............(
    ..............\.............\...

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Jeremy Lyman (profile), 15 Feb 2011 @ 12:06pm

    Links

    Hey Mike,
    What's up with the shortened link to Klein's analysis? I thought this was a big-boy website.
    OXOX
    ~j

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    GHB (profile), 15 Dec 2019 @ 1:40pm

    Its a store that forbids people wearing clothing having pockets.

    Here is one: Lets stop shoplifting by forcing all customers to wear pocket-less shirts and pants, and also purses because those acts as concealment to bypass our security RF detectors.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]


NBC Universal Study Shows That It's Hollywood's Own Damn Fault So Much Content Is 'Pirated'
DailyDirt: More Robot Helicopters
Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

Friday

19:39 Important Announcement: Techdirt Is Migrating To A New Platform (0)
More arrow

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.