That said I can just about find the base jpg or mov used in most panoramas often to see what size file they used to get that level of quality which is always interesting, flash often seems more opaque, I just end up reloading and counting the loading time under my breath. Looking at peoples source codes and seeing how things are done on the web and put together is probably a healthy thing to be encouraged too all in all I think.
But no doubt your right and it keeps casual lookers out of the way, or fools them into thinking your using some incredibly sophisticated code system. Maybe you should add a comment saying something like "begin machine code here" or something and really wind people up.
Strictly speaking I think this thread started for hiding what was being used not for stopping people stealing the images. But impressive use of panotools encrptor or whatever you used all the same.
In the end I can't help thing those panographers who seem most successfull/skillfull often seem to be the ones whose philosophy is to share and swap their methods and ideas, that said I'm not writing this from my palace and perhaps there are ruthless lurkers out there coining it in. I reckon after an afternoon of research googling virtual tour software anyone can probably be able to recognise most systems about 75% of the time anyway. I know from starting out six months ago trying demos of all the software is easy, its working out what all the hardware does thats hard. Ok that and the discovery that all the software has its limitations that you have to compromise around.
I rarely encrypt anything. (clearly obvious on my site) I did this to add to the thread and the learning of others the possibility of what I know of and what is offered on the market.
I seem to remember a thread where someone had "stolen" by virtue of being given the contents of a Tourweaver tour for display on their website after payment. Only to have the recipient modify their Tourweaver Skin without permission.
Now this is a clear case of hosting and protecting your tours on you "own" servers.
Given in real estate that a home might be either listed by multiple real estate agents OR the seller may change agents. If you make it easy the second or third real estate could steal the tour to continue offering the Tourweaver tour on a website/agent it was never intended for or ever paid for.
I feel there are valid reasons to protect your copyright in these instances.
If you want perfect security then you need a perfect platform. The Internet is far from perfect as we all know.
You have lost me, when you say "sometimes" what browser are you using and what settings. Remember if you lock down a URL, the same address http://www.smooth360.com is not the same as http://smooth360.com you must specify what you want the address to be. It must be exact!
Also we are referring to HTML Protector and not HTML Encrypt. These are different programs.
I'm talking about encrypt html pro.
I'm not talking about a domain url. I'm talking about specifically the tourviewer file. Sometimes the encrypted file works and sometimes it doesn't. Still the same location, still the same filename but encrypted. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Not quite sure why. :(
Results are browser independent (ff, ie, netscape ... ).
Again, I'm only talking about the tourviewer file.
Less than scrupulous Realors and FSBO's could also hijack your vtour after cancelling your listing.
Example, I go into a FSBO (for sale by owner) home listing presentation showing how I'm going to present their home on the internet via a virtual tour hosted on a website specifically for that home. They sign up on a 6 month listing agreement and I start my advertising for their home. A week later, they cancel the listing agreement and decide to go with a "MLS only" service, but include my URL in their advertising since I have the website reserved for a year and I am going to cross-link it with my other home sites to boost the search results.
If I am not me, would I have my MLS configured for cancelled listings in my area? Possibly not, and I've got no way to see if they have my website and tour in their listings in the 4 billion real estate websites out there.
Cancelled listings can also go to another Realtor who may pull the images from an existing tour to put on their own tour and save the cash of having another photography session for the same home. Someone here in San Antonio had that happen to them last year and got their license suspended because of it. Again, they got caught because Realtor #1 was watching the address of the home to come up on the new listing and supposedly saw the "new" tour with the reflection of Realtor #1 in the window of Realtor #2's new tour.
Point of all of this is that not being able to copy the images helps tremendously for those looking to take the easy route. A lot of the Realtors I work with couldn't spell HTML nor could they tell you what the abbreviation meant if their life depended on it. On the other hand, if your crafty enough to be loading your own panos to a website you made, your probably crafty enough to lift any of the code you need as well, as long as there aren't tedious safeguards to overcome.
Ain't nothing friendlier in the world than a muddy wet dog.
Here is a link to one of the tours that I want to protect.
It would appear this lax hole appears only when using other browsers than Internet Explorer. Because of the way these alternative browsers read the code. Either you choose the option to not allow these browser to read the file or think about another way to deal with the security. The page I showed does not use the easypano applet. It is PTViewer and the images are protected with PTViewer security on top of the HTML Protector.
I do have some other idea's that I'm willing to share with you that may be of assistance. Contact me via private message for more info.
If you encrypt the whole page, then it doesn't matter whether they can see the "codes" or not offline. They won't be able to make sense of it anyway. It's all gobbledygook. :)
You can also turn on the feature to prevent open and view the file offline via a browser for extra measure.
Hi smooth, there must have been a glitch that day. The problem I was having with it seems to have evaporated.