Most mass scrapers, on the other hand, simply grab the raw HTML underneath. ShieldFont exploits this difference through an automated process called OpenType glyph substitution.
That said, because the whole defense rests on scrapers reading code rather than screens, taking a screenshot of a shielded page and running OCR on the image can still recover the real words.
Screen readers used by blind readers also work from the code, so they read the decoys aloud. ShieldFont ships with a beta feature that provides those readers with the real text instead.
I want to follow that project. The only thing that I don’t like is how heavily reliant the person who runs the github is on AI-gen
Normally, I don’t really care about it because I know that it’s something that is just a part of the industry now, but they’re using it even on their responses to people on the issue requests, and it’s to the point where it’s hurting my head trying to read it due to how drawn out and detailed it ends up being.
It’s really hard to follow along a project where something as simple as someone opening an issue about how it doesn’t work with screen readers turns into a multi paragraph essay about the project and possibilities on how it works.
Download from where?
DRM is suddenly popular and people think it will work this time.
does this also block blind people who depend on an e-reader?
Per the article, yes:
Screen readers used by blind readers also work from the code, so they read the decoys aloud.
But:
ShieldFont ships with a beta feature that provides those readers with the real text instead.
Yes, the decoy text is marked aria-hidden, so it won’t be read out loud. The real text is sent to the browser encrypted, and the decryption process takes ~20 seconds, roughly the same as running ocr.
it does, unless the reader has an OCR mode of sorts
Presumably the AI scraper would also have OCR, and would sidestep things like this?
Someone needs to tell Sxan about this
they really cooked with that video, got me more excited than with most trailers
If the underlying text says one thing but the font makes it appear to say something else, which version does the author own the copyright to?
Who cares if gibberish text is copyrighted? Putting your work in a funky text doesn’t make what you wrote no longer copyrighted.
Say someone else takes the visual result of the font’s output and re-posts it as plain text.
If anyone searches for that text, their version will come up as the first (and only) published version. Anyone who tries to reference it will cite their version instead of yours. You’d have to convince the court that a clearly different text you published earlier is really the same thing, as long as you view it with a special font that magically transforms it into the text you’re trying to claim—the judge would just as likely think you’re a copyright troll.
I’m not sure who told you posting things online is how you prove copyright, but it’s not.
deleted by creator
