[fold_left]

A product owner that asked that the content of our poker site be impossible to copy, incase someone should try to copy it.

We explained that this wasn't a thing - even newspapers, whose product is the written word, publish each day's paper online and don't apply these measures. Reluctantly they withdrew the request but made it clear they didn't agree.

Later, that same product owner was asked to organise for content to be written for the customer help documentation. We received it in Microsoft word format and on closer inspection we could see that the content had been copied and pasted from a competitor's site.

[cercatrova]

The owner brought up functionality to disable copying because they themselves were doing it and didn't want others to do the same; otherwise they would not have thought of such a detail. It only seems a bizarre request because we lack their thought processes to arrive to their conclusion that they should disable copying.

[fold_left]

Would it be unreasonable to consider the owner to be a hypocrite?

[jaredsohn]

Based on this, yes. They would be a hypocrite if they made a moral argument. But they made a selfish one of "I'm going to copy and nobody should be able to copy us" which is not hypocritical.

[eanthy]

classic po

[vanusa]

A product owner that asked that the content of our poker site be impossible to copy, incase someone should try to copy it.

This isn't bullshit, so much as naivete. And it isn't even that naive, really. Most major news site (the ones that have paywalls at least) do invest a significant amount of resources in making it difficult to (wholesale) pilfer their content -- even though they know it won't be "impossible". Any more than it one could, say, design a security system for a store or a warehouse that would be "impossible" to break into.