2

我正在寻找一些方法来保护我的内容不被复制，然后我得到了 epub3。

我正在使用 Html5 + js + CSS 开发移动应用程序，我可以使用 js + html 使用 epub3 zip 文件吗？如果是，我如何在其中添加 epub 阅读器。

我的问题可能是错误的 b/c 我对此了解不多。

需要专家的意见。

谢谢

4

4 回答 4

2

我认为这不会起作用，原因有几个：

  1. epub 是电子书的一种文件格式。目前，只有电子书阅读器应用程序可以阅读这种格式。将阅读器嵌入文件不是解决方案，因为您需要阅读器应用程序来读取文件。
  2. epub3 是 epub 格式的最新版本，它确实包含了JavaScript等所有用于交互的闪亮噱头，而且我认为它还包含许多 HTML5 功能。但是目前没有支持 epub3 中所有这些功能的阅读器应用程序。
  3. epub3 仍然是一个 zip 存档，任何能够读取 zip 文件格式的应用程序都可以打开它。如果你想保护你的内容，当然可以使用 zip 格式的加密机制。但是，当您希望用户可以访问内容时，您需要实现自己的解密机制，或者您可以使用现有方案（Adobe DRM 是主要方案）。在这种情况下，您需要使用 Adob​​e 登录并使用他们的服务进行加密，我怀疑这将是有代价的。
于 2012-07-16T09:25:09.407 回答
1

IDPF 已经指定了一个用于 ePub3 的开源轻量级 DRM，称为 LCP，但我们仍在等待它在 Readium SDK 中的实施。完成后，您将免费获得解决方案。

于 2015-10-24T18:03:24.873 回答
0

If you make it readable, it cannot be also secured too from reading. Furthermore DRMs are not very effective. Streaming content is now the state of the art of content serving, and it is not immune to copying.

Is closing contents the key for your business? Maybe you can reimaginate your business process in a more profitable way.

于 2018-12-25T19:44:00.230 回答
-1

Currently only Adobe supplies anything close to an industry-standard for encrypting epub files (see Adobe Content Server). It's very expensive, and proprietary. The epub spec does offer guidelines on how to use encryption, but it would require creating your own brand of DRM, which would then only work on your own reading system.

Epub 2 and 3 are web-friendly - they are usually HTML in a zip file. Epub 3 supports a subset of HTML 5 and some scripting capability. If you offered an online reading system, you could implement some sort of client-side decryption as the recently relaunched Mega upload service has done. It would be easily cracked, just so you know, unless you required the user to supply file-specific encryption keys that no one else knew.

Currently the best approach is to avoid DRM for epub files. Some publishers are imprinting the user's email address in the epub file as a deterrent to piracy, and others are putting files behind logins (access control). Both are better, IMHO, than paying Adobe's very high fees for the use of their proprietary content server.

于 2013-01-28T20:21:28.400 回答