«

"Allistar" <> wrote in message news:...
> impossible wrote:
>
>
> If the viewer has access to the text to be able to render it using
> the
> specified font, then it can put that text in the clipboard. The only
> way
> this would not work is if the "text" is actually embedded as a
> graphic -
> which I highly doubt as I've not heard of restricted PDF files being
> any
> larger in size.
>

Maybe so -- this is not something I have expertise in. But if it's as
easy as you suggest to bypass copy/edit/print protection, then you'd
have to wonder why this "protection" would have any credibility at
all. Everything I've ever seen to "break" a protected pdf file either
decrypts it (if encrypted) or cracks the security password.

impossible wrote:

> "Allistar" <> wrote in message news:...
>> impossible wrote:
>>
>>
>> If the viewer has access to the text to be able to render it using
>> the
>> specified font, then it can put that text in the clipboard. The only
>> way
>> this would not work is if the "text" is actually embedded as a
>> graphic -
>> which I highly doubt as I've not heard of restricted PDF files being
>> any
>> larger in size.
>>
>
> Maybe so -- this is not something I have expertise in. But if it's as
> easy as you suggest to bypass copy/edit/print protection, then you'd
> have to wonder why this "protection" would have any credibility at
> all. Everything I've ever seen to "break" a protected pdf file either
> decrypts it (if encrypted) or cracks the security password.

From what I know, preventing the file from being printed or cut and pasted
is not related to encrypting it and requiring a password to open it.

I'd be surprised if no PDF viewer ignores the "you can't print" or "you
can't cut and paste" flags in PDF files.

Allistar.

"Enkidu" <> wrote in message
news:44230d0a$...
> Dave Taylor wrote:
>> Gordon <> wrote in
>> news:
>>>This is an interesting thread.
>>>
>>>PDF is good because readers are available for all platforms. The
>>>idea
>>>of making tamper proof, if desired, is also good as it will stop
>>>people altering the meaning of your document/ideas.
>>>
>>>However, when it is a document which is really a RFC (it asks for
>>>submissions) then surely the ability to cut and paste from the
>>>document is a good thing.
>>
>> Very logical IMHO. I agree.
>>
> No, it's rubbish. If you want me to read your document, I expect to
> be able to read it the way *I* want. Without any of the fancy
> eye-candy that you feel makes it look 'good' and I think makes it
> look 'trashy'. I want to read it in a font I choose, especially if
> I've got bad eyesight or you choose to use a 'paper' type heavily
> seriffed font. And I want to be able to see the whole page without
> scrolling sideways or up and down multiple columns. I don't want to
> have it skip down the screen because I scrolled over a page break!
>
> I especially don't want to have to print it out to read it properly!
> I received a price list by email the otherday, which had multiple
> columns, small font. Unreadable unless printed.
>
> Fixing the format of an online document is sheer vanity, nothing
> else.
>
> I exclude from this purely technical documents which *sometimes*
> justify fixing the format of the document.
>

Your own "vanity" may be getting in the way here. PDF is secure (in
the sense that it doesn't run the risk of being infected with a macro
virus, the way Word docs do), portable across any operating system,
and capable of accomodating a variety of content -- that makes it
ideal for circulating documents to a wide audience with diverse
opinions about what looks good and reads well.

To personally get more control over the formatting of pdfs you
download, let me suggest that you get yourself a copy of the full
version of Adobe Acrobat. Then you can do almost anything you want.

"Allistar" <> wrote in message news:...
> impossible wrote:
>
>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message news:...
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> If the viewer has access to the text to be able to render it using
>>> the
>>> specified font, then it can put that text in the clipboard. The
>>> only
>>> way
>>> this would not work is if the "text" is actually embedded as a
>>> graphic -
>>> which I highly doubt as I've not heard of restricted PDF files
>>> being
>>> any
>>> larger in size.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe so -- this is not something I have expertise in. But if it's
>> as
>> easy as you suggest to bypass copy/edit/print protection, then
>> you'd
>> have to wonder why this "protection" would have any credibility at
>> all. Everything I've ever seen to "break" a protected pdf file
>> either
>> decrypts it (if encrypted) or cracks the security password.
>
> From what I know, preventing the file from being printed or cut and
> pasted
> is not related to encrypting it and requiring a password to open it.

If you set security permissions in Adobe Acrobat with a password, then
someone will definitely need a password to change those permissions.

>
> I'd be surprised if no PDF viewer ignores the "you can't print" or
> "you
> can't cut and paste" flags in PDF files.
>

I can't speak for all pdfs produced by any program -- but I do know
that security permissions in Adobe Acrobat are more than simply
"flags" that can be reset at will.

impossible wrote:

> "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
> news:44230d0a$...
>> Dave Taylor wrote:
>>> Gordon <> wrote in
>>> news:
>>>>This is an interesting thread.
>>>>
>>>>PDF is good because readers are available for all platforms. The
>>>>idea
>>>>of making tamper proof, if desired, is also good as it will stop
>>>>people altering the meaning of your document/ideas.
>>>>
>>>>However, when it is a document which is really a RFC (it asks for
>>>>submissions) then surely the ability to cut and paste from the
>>>>document is a good thing.
>>>
>>> Very logical IMHO. I agree.
>>>
>> No, it's rubbish. If you want me to read your document, I expect to
>> be able to read it the way *I* want. Without any of the fancy
>> eye-candy that you feel makes it look 'good' and I think makes it
>> look 'trashy'. I want to read it in a font I choose, especially if
>> I've got bad eyesight or you choose to use a 'paper' type heavily
>> seriffed font. And I want to be able to see the whole page without
>> scrolling sideways or up and down multiple columns. I don't want to
>> have it skip down the screen because I scrolled over a page break!
>>
>> I especially don't want to have to print it out to read it properly!
>> I received a price list by email the otherday, which had multiple
>> columns, small font. Unreadable unless printed.
>>
>> Fixing the format of an online document is sheer vanity, nothing
>> else.
>>
>> I exclude from this purely technical documents which *sometimes*
>> justify fixing the format of the document.
>>
>
> Your own "vanity" may be getting in the way here. PDF is secure (in
> the sense that it doesn't run the risk of being infected with a macro
> virus, the way Word docs do), portable across any operating system,
> and capable of accomodating a variety of content -- that makes it
> ideal for circulating documents to a wide audience with diverse
> opinions about what looks good and reads well.
>
> To personally get more control over the formatting of pdfs you
> download, let me suggest that you get yourself a copy of the full
> version of Adobe Acrobat. Then you can do almost anything you want.

The biggest benefit of PDF is that it prints exactly as you expect it to,
which is why it's a popular format for pre-press, image-setting and
printing businesses.

Allistar.

impossible wrote:

> "Allistar" <> wrote in message news:...
>> impossible wrote:
>>
>>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message news:...
>>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If the viewer has access to the text to be able to render it using
>>>> the
>>>> specified font, then it can put that text in the clipboard. The
>>>> only
>>>> way
>>>> this would not work is if the "text" is actually embedded as a
>>>> graphic -
>>>> which I highly doubt as I've not heard of restricted PDF files
>>>> being
>>>> any
>>>> larger in size.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe so -- this is not something I have expertise in. But if it's
>>> as
>>> easy as you suggest to bypass copy/edit/print protection, then
>>> you'd
>>> have to wonder why this "protection" would have any credibility at
>>> all. Everything I've ever seen to "break" a protected pdf file
>>> either
>>> decrypts it (if encrypted) or cracks the security password.
>>
>> From what I know, preventing the file from being printed or cut and
>> pasted
>> is not related to encrypting it and requiring a password to open it.
>
> If you set security permissions in Adobe Acrobat with a password, then
> someone will definitely need a password to change those permissions.

Indeed, but it's up to the software displaying the PDF to implement those
restrictions. I see no technical reason why a reader could allow cut and
pasting from a PDF that has this feature disabled.

>> I'd be surprised if no PDF viewer ignores the "you can't print" or
>> "you
>> can't cut and paste" flags in PDF files.
>>
> I can't speak for all pdfs produced by any program -- but I do know
> that security permissions in Adobe Acrobat are more than simply
> "flags" that can be reset at will.

Even things like "you can't print" and "you can't cut and paste"?

If the output can be seen on screen, then it can be printed. Same applys to
putting content in th clipboard.

Allistar.

Allistar wrote:
>
> The biggest benefit of PDF is that it prints exactly as you expect it
> to, which is why it's a popular format for pre-press, image-setting
> and printing businesses.
>
Yes, but reading online or even printing for your own use is NOT one of
those activities, is it?

Cheers,

Cliff

impossible wrote:
>
> Your own "vanity" may be getting in the way here. PDF is secure (in
> the sense that it doesn't run the risk of being infected with a macro
> virus, the way Word docs do), portable across any operating system,
> and capable of accomodating a variety of content -- that makes it
> ideal for circulating documents to a wide audience with diverse
> opinions about what looks good and reads well.
>
PDFs can't be infected with macro viruses, true, but I haven't seen one
of those in years. Portable, maybe, but a PDF on a Mac doesn't look like
a PDF on a PC. If you want a 'variety of content' try HTML.

The writer of a PDF often thinks that their PDF looks good but the
majority of them are pretty dismal.
>
> To personally get more control over the formatting of pdfs you
> download, let me suggest that you get yourself a copy of the full
> version of Adobe Acrobat. Then you can do almost anything you want.
>
No way! I should spend money to make documents sent to me readable?
That's just silly!

Cheers,

Cliff

"Enkidu" <> wrote in message
news:4423a579$...
> impossible wrote:
>>
>> Your own "vanity" may be getting in the way here. PDF is secure (in
>> the sense that it doesn't run the risk of being infected with a
>> macro
>> virus, the way Word docs do), portable across any operating
>> system,
>> and capable of accomodating a variety of content -- that makes it
>> ideal for circulating documents to a wide audience with diverse
>> opinions about what looks good and reads well.
>>
> PDFs can't be infected with macro viruses, true, but I haven't seen
> one
> of those in years. Portable, maybe, but a PDF on a Mac doesn't look
> like
> a PDF on a PC. If you want a 'variety of content' try HTML.
>
> The writer of a PDF often thinks that their PDF looks good but the
> majority of them are pretty dismal.

Exactly what format are you suggesting should be the standard for
distributing public documents? All you seem to be allowing for is
plain text that doesn't include so much as a tab, linefeed, or
pagebreak character, any of which could be construed as imposing
someone else's notion of how to display words on you.

For general circulation of documents intended to be of viewed and/or
printed, I don't think you can really go wrong with pdf.

>>
>> To personally get more control over the formatting of pdfs you
>> download, let me suggest that you get yourself a copy of the full
>> version of Adobe Acrobat. Then you can do almost anything you want.
>>
> No way! I should spend money to make documents sent to me readable?
> That's just silly!
>

I don't really think the government is sending these documents to you
individually, is it? The documents are made available to the general
public and you can download them if you wish for purposes of viewing
and printing. If you then choose to view or print the documents in
some customized format, that's your prerogative, assuming the document
isn't protected, but you're probably going to have to pay somebody for
a tool that can do that for you.

"Allistar" <> wrote in message news:...
> impossible wrote:
>
>>>
>>> From what I know, preventing the file from being printed or cut
>>> and
>>> pasted
>>> is not related to encrypting it and requiring a password to open
>>> it.
>>
>> If you set security permissions in Adobe Acrobat with a password,
>> then
>> someone will definitely need a password to change those
>> permissions.
>
> Indeed, but it's up to the software displaying the PDF to implement
> those
> restrictions. I see no technical reason why a reader could allow cut
> and
> pasting from a PDF that has this feature disabled.

If Adobe Acrobat's security is that lame, I could write a program
myself to do what you suggest -- and I'm a lousy programmer. Surely
someone more gifted has tried to implement this idea at some point --
and failed.

>
>>> I'd be surprised if no PDF viewer ignores the "you can't print" or
>>> "you
>>> can't cut and paste" flags in PDF files.
>>>
>> I can't speak for all pdfs produced by any program -- but I do know
>> that security permissions in Adobe Acrobat are more than simply
>> "flags" that can be reset at will.
>
> Even things like "you can't print" and "you can't cut and paste"?
>
> If the output can be seen on screen, then it can be printed. Same
> applys to
> putting content in th clipboard.

Sorry -- until I see some implementation of this theory, I'm going to
remain a skeptic.