Slashdot Mirror
Don't Eat the Yellow Links
We learned about TopText (which was called HOTText until the end of last week) because a number of Slashdot readers submitted a San Francisco Chronicle story about it.
Cyklopz wrote, "...this is quite insidious. I found a link from BankOne's site to Wells Fargo! It crops up all over search engine results as well. Sheesh!"
Microsoft has removed (at least temporarily) a similar, but less blatantly commercial feature called Smart Tags from their upcoming release of MSIE 6.0 because it upset so many people.
KaZaA has an opt-out dialog for TopText when it is installed, but Benny Evangelista, who wrote the Chronicle story, says that neither he nor other people he spoke to who had downloaded KaZaA spotted it until they knew it was there and went looking for it.
KaZaA claims over 5.4 million Web users have downloaded their software so far, and boasts on their Web site that "...KaZaA is one of the most active media communities on the net, usually there are over 600 000 users online simultaneously. 90% of users are recommending KaZaA, which is the 4th most downloaded program on C|Net Download.com."
I both emailed and called TopText's vendor, San Francisco-based eZula, to ask if there was any way we could keep their TopText links from showing up on OSDN Web sites, including Slashdot. Since we often use links as integral parts of our stories, we would just as soon select our own, right? Plus there is a little matter of keeping ads apart from editorial material, which is one of those silly ethics things only journalists who care about their personal integrity may notice, but that upset us to the point of irrationality when we spot them.
Assaf Henkin of eZula told me the only way to keep TopText links from marring our sites was to email all domain names we wanted blocked to:
Henkin said it would take "a couple of days" for removal requests to be honored. But at least now you know what to do.
For more information about about how TopText works, go to eZula's contact page and (you must have Flash installed for this to work) click on the "Media Kit" link. Or, for an unanimated but more complete description of eZula's services, check this .pdf file. Note that, although KaZaA is the only eZula "partner" we know about at this time, their media kit boasts of "partnerships with tier one ISPs" and claims their software "...currently delivers your Keyword message to nearly 4 million Internet users, wherever they are on the Web, and this number is growing rapidly as eZula expands its partner base."
Will Web users notice the proliferation of these little yellow advertising links? Will they be able to tell them from the "real" links story authors or Web site owners put in? Will anyone care? Should anyone care? Or have we all gotten so used to ads sneaking into everything from movies (via product placement) to upcoming show "announcements" during the happy talk segments of local TV news that such things don't matter any more?
If that would have been possible with L&H stocks :)
Under Win2K:
HKLM/Software/Microsoft/Windows/Current Version/Run
HKLM/Software/Microsoft/Windows/Current Version/RunOnce
Under Win98:
HKLM/Software/Microsoft/Windows/Current Version/Run
HKLM/Software/Microsoft/Windows/Current Version/RunOnce
HKLM/Software/Microsoft/Windows/Current Version/RunServices
If you're plagued with Spyware, they'll often deposit a file called kernel32.dll. Just delete this and the offending program and you'll be good to go, hopefully. Can't hurt, at least.
Uh.
OSDN isn't doing anything to anyone's rights here. They aren't threatening legal action against toptext; they aren't stopping you from using it. You are correct in that slashdot has no right to demand that Slashdot be exempt from TopText,
But slashdot isn't demanding. They are asking politely. What's so bad about that?
If it displeases you that TopText is going to allow sites to opt out of being linkified, meaning you lose the usefulness (*giggle*) of toptext's links while reading OSDN sites, you should perhaps consider using an alternative to TopText, or creating your own. However you should not blame OSDN for taking advantage of Toptext's opt-out feature. Again, TopText has every right to add those links to slashdot's page on willing customer's computers against slashdot's will, but you really have no reason to be pissed at slashdot for inquiring to TopText as to whether slashdot can be removed.
Basically: Calm down. Slashdot and TopText are going to contractually enter into a mutually satisfying consensual agreement concerning TopText's program's treatment of slashdot's page, while the consumer is fully enabled to (if they so choose) stop using TopText, stop using Slashdot's services, or even to (with some difficulty, true) hack TopText's software with a disassembler and remove the part of TopText's software that checks to see if sites such as slashdot are participating in the TopText opt-out program. No one's rights are stopped. Everyone is empowered. Ayn Rand would be proud.
For the record, this TopText thing still creeps the crap out of me, tho, and i am going to stay way the fuck away from both it and that scary Bonsai Buddy thing.
-super ugly ultraman. U.N. OUT OF MY UTERUS!!
This practice is ethically shady at best.
--
I think the issue is not so much that it modifies it, but that it does so without the users knowledge. If someone says to themselves "I'd really like my web surfing experience to have ads all over the text I'm reading" and they install this program then they have no right to bitch. However if the program "sneaks in" and does this without your knowledge and consent, then it's a problem.
Maybe. Who knows?
TopText is NOT clearly 'you' modifying content for your own use. Not unless it's YOU that is specifying all those links to things.
My take on it is this: if you want to hack your copy of Mozilla so that every instance of the word 'Kodak' points to a Microsoft page slamming Kodak's horrible refusal to offer customers choice (tm), I think you're a loony and go right ahead. That way, every time you see the word 'Kodak', you will think, "There's that word that I wrote a link to", and no problem there.
If you let a _third_ _party_ come up with the link for you, I object. Write your own link! I'll happily let _you_ fill in the context of a web page and decide what relates to what, even if you're insane, but what gives you the right to turn this over to some third party? They're not you! If you want to read their ads, how about you go to THEIR PAGE and do it? Why on earth do you feel that your opinion matters on what THEY do to my content? You're free to edit what you like yourself, or have Mozilla omit all instances of the word 'the', because this is all your personal interaction with the content. You are the user, it is what you are reading, you can do what the hell you want. Your freedom does not necessarily extend to being entitled to sublicense that off, to shrug and say "Here, I'm reading this page. I know you didn't pay this guy, but put some ads in that I might think are relevant. Surprise me!"
If you want to read their ads that damn badly, how about you go to their page to do so? What gives THEM property rights over my little web homestead?
It's even worse if you're clueless and have no idea I didn't actively choose every one of those links. I'm assuming you are firmly aware I didn't choose those links and I _still_ consider it totally out of line and not their bailiwick. If you're an idiot and think I made the pretty yellow lines myself, the situation is incomparably worse. But of course nobody is ever a luser, or ever encounters a new feature unexpectedly on a strange website and concludes it's the site author's doing :P
If this is considered some sort of eminent domain and I'm supposed to NOT have any right to be certain a third party is not modifying my copyrighted material to change its meaning and implications, then they can DAMNED well pay me a royalty set by some impartial arbitrator that is in line with normal advertising rates. It is obscene to behave as if the payment to me should be zero.
TopText do not have RIGHTS to my material, whatever it is. This is a far cry from 'users downloading files and editing in advertising links with a text editor on their own initiative'. It's a third-party hijacking of content. It is indefensible.
Supposing you did have to opt in and set a meta tag to make these become active on your pages and cause the ads to happen dynamically on your content. Would you or would you not inquire, "So, how much are you going to pay me for this?"
To: support@ezula.com
.com domain could you please prevent and TopText links from appearing in any sites within my domain.
Subject: Domain to be blocked
Hi,
as the administrator for the
Thanks.
Yes, folks, no joke, no lie; if you visit Symantec'sproductspage with MSIE and TopText/ContextPro active and click their "Virus Protection" products link, right up there in the upper left, you'll be sent to -- I kind you not -- McAfee. TopText does not discriminate between links and plain text.
I have screencaps of each step of the process, along with some relevant links at http://www.sylvan-glade.com/intrusion/ And, of course, it's easy to download, install and try this out yourself. I use Netscape/Mozilla for my serious work anyway, so I don't mind leaving it in to see just how bad it gets.
I've tried to get hold of someone at Symantec to let them know they're advertising for their competitor, but I was referred to the feedback for for web site problems. I don't think the people I spoke to understood what I was saying. Does anyone know how to get hold of someone there who might get the point and set fire to this issue?
It may seem a bit Machievellian of me, but I suspect that if Symantec were to see for themselves how this little gem is making their web site work against them, they might raise enough stink that their weight might make a difference.
As far as I'm concerned, this is nothing but a glorified Trojan. At the very least it is trespass into my system [1], corrupting the intellectual property of web publishers everywhere, most likely trampling on the spirit if not the letter of copyright protection, and responsible for erectile dysfunction in ex-politicians.
Hey; maybe if Symantec gets upset enough they'll define TopText as a Trojan and have Norton AV remove it. j/k of course, but it's a pleasant fantasy...
Ray Simard
ray.sdot@sylvan-glade.com
[1] Well, not mine, since I installed it to research its effects. But you know what I mean. :-)
PS: eZula, maker of TopText/ContextPro, says you can get their keyword list by contacting them. Has anyone done so? It would be interesting to see just what it's looking for and who's being vectored to by them.
You are one who could well spend some time learning to see things through the eyes of others.
This isn't about those such as we inhabitants of /. who are accustomed to devoting a great deal of attention to our computers and what goes into them. The frequent claim that those who don't do the same deserve the kind of harm this misbegotten program does is arrogant, presumptuous and insulting. We're talking real people in the real world, who use computers the way we use microwave ovens, as appliances, not as subjects of enthusiasm or study in themselves. That is not wrong, stupid or irresponsible. It's just realistic. Many, perhaps most, are intimidated by them, and that is no reflection on their intelligence or wisdom. Any decent human being is willing to see things through their eyes, and admit that there are other sciences and realities of life that we neither understand nor investigate any more than they pick apart the software they install the way we do habitutally.
If physicians were to post to a kind of medical Slashdot the kind of attitude your post expresses, they'd be ridiculing us all for not recognizing symptoms of disease as readily as they do. After all, aren't our bodies even more important than our computers? (Some may disagree.)
(Frequent comment)
"If they're so stupid that they'd install xxx, or don't know they installed yyy along with it, they deserve what they get."
(Equivalent medical comment)
"If they're so stupid that they don't know melanoma when they see it, they deserve to die of cancer."
(Equivalent mechanic's comment)
"If they don't know when their reverse-flow-widget valve is clogged up, they shouldn't be driving."
(Equivalent attorney comment)
"If they don't remember that painting their garage doors yellow violates Title II paragraph a(2-2112)/rev. 909 USC bleah then they shouldn't be allowed to own homes."
Get it?
I think it was Will Rogers to said, as best I remember, "We're all ignorant, just about different things." Maybe Mark Twain. Regardless, it applies.
Ray
http://www.ezula.com/ is done all in flash and graphics. Thats good, now there isn't any text links to be "hijacked" by their own software.
People who "misuse" or "misinterpret" "...begs the question...", on the other hand, generally wouldn't hesitate to give a definition, and dismiss self-proclaimed "experts" as pedants. The same goes for "millennium" (or "millenium" for that matter).
They may dismiss people who know the correct definition as pedants, but that still wouldn't make them right. The meaning of 'begs the question' really isn't that obscure. If someone wouldn't hesitate to give an incorrect definition of it then they are wrong to do it. I'm sure some people wouldn't hesitate to give an incorrect definition of many things (even me!) - but they are still wrong. I don't have a problem being wrong as long as I can work out how to be right.
thenerd.
The camels are coming. I'm in love.
I wrote a little proggy which does something similar to kazaa... except it's not dynamic. You can statically change *all* text in a html page to links to google/ bablefish/ everything2 etc. It's as useless as hell, but i'll think of a use for it someday... later mike (and yes, i realise it could probably be done in one line of perl)
Cool, but useless.
You know, this kind of shit really bugs me. But as long as WE know how to get rid of it, why do we really worry?
Joe consumer is stupid. This is just another tax on stupidity. Stupid people shouldn't have any money. This helps that. Also, such things plough more money back into the Internet economy, and keeps the smart people from having to work at walmart. So just use linux & netscape, and let all the IE people pay your bills. Really. Fuck 'em.
This isn't to say I like it, just saying it's worth picking your battles and the DMCA and the Drug War are far larger problems.
It's not a matter of how you view their content,
You can view slashdot by getting the daily email,
browser, print it out etc.. thats how you view things.
what toptext is doing is changing slashdot, and giving you the impression that slashdot has a link for you.. which is wrong. When people here complain about fair use, they're complaining about where and what you use to view/listen to your legally purchased copyrighted material.
Slashdot is not charging you for talking to your dad about a story you read on slashdot. Nor are they preventing you from copying their story and printing just the facts, without any banners etc.
They don't prevent you from visiting a story more than once etc.. you can visit as much as you want to. You can turn the ads off by using some sort of ad stopper, and they won't come and throw you in jail.
So your attempt at showing OSDN's hypocrisy is feeble.
do they do this to .edu's as well? most edus are prevented from having any commercial application...
"Dogs and cats, living together...it's mass hysteria!"
With MY web page, if you have software that changes its contents, the user may or may not have any idea what it SHOULD look like. They only see your over-linked version that will lead them to things they aren't looking for. If I have a link to some local DC band's official home page, and I'm explicitly saying "This link will go to the that band's home page", then having that link go ANYWHERE else is making me out to be a liar, regardless of whether or not the user approved the software that changed that link. That software puts my reputation as a reliable source of information at SEVERE risk, and I should have the right to defend my reputation from such slander.
--
You know, you gotta get up real early if you want to get outta bed... (Groucho Marx)
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
Also, some of my site is in a different (and shared) domain for technical reasons (lack of php support on the main site) -- can they respect my request for not tampering with my subpage ("/~acroyear/") on the shared domain, or will they only respect the domain owners (a major ISP with better things to do than argue with software like this)?
--
You know, you gotta get up real early if you want to get outta bed... (Groucho Marx)
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
E.g., the various CGI scripts out there that 'translate' pages, either to legit languages (babelfish), or to silly languages (using the old jive or swedish chef filters), but the URL is always tainted in that respect to show that this is not the real page.
If there isn't some indicator/reminder, then its changing my code and my content and may potentially slander my work (see my other replies to this story under "heck no").
Web content is copyrighted automatically, like all creations. Some things like the translators I consider fair use and don't get mad at. Some things like image blockers are fair use. Other things that change the links to advertisements are not. Someone else is making advertising money over MY content, and their advertising may or may not slander me and I have no way of knowing what it is unless I buy their service. That is something I can not allow.
--
You know, you gotta get up real early if you want to get outta bed... (Groucho Marx)
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
I don't want someone else looking at my page to see anything other than what I put in there. There's reasons I pay for my web hosting instead of just using a geocities-like service.
--
You know, you gotta get up real early if you want to get outta bed... (Groucho Marx)
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
I think it'd be tough to really guage this.. For example, I use mostly Linux machines at home. However, only 1 of 6 machines in my office is linux and i rarely touch it. On top of that, most of the time that I read slashdot is during a slow few minutes at work, so I'd say 75% of my hits to slashdot are from windows yet my OS of choice is Linux...
Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;
My viewer might show your content the way you expected, or it might translate it into a different language, read it aloud, hyperlink everything into a dictionary, or create a lexicographic analysis from it. You have no control over how markup is rendered, please relieve yourself of this concept.
The truth of the matter right there. HTML is rendered DIFFERENTLY already depending on browser and configuration. Maybe I don't have java of *shudder* ActiveX in use, Hell I don't even have the flash player installed so what I see of your page is VERY different then you intended I am sure.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Don't give me any shit about using FrontPage. I always demand HTTP 2.0 compliance
HTML is at version 4.01, HTTP is at 1.1. What is this HTTP 2.0 compliance you're talking about?
--
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Tools like thus are just another route to the semantic web that Tim Berners-Lee and the W3C are driving towards. Half an implementation perhaps, but take a look at the W3C specifications for Annotea and have a think...
;-)
http://www.w3.org/2001/Annotea/
Oh, and then pick up a copy of Dream Machines and think about what a full implementation of Xanadu would have been like...
Tools like this and Smart Tags are part of the past and the future of the web. The one way design driven web will be seen as just a stop gap on the road to a fully interactive two way communications system.
Perhaps MS pulled Smart Tags in favour of a W3C compliant Annotea implementation
S.
Incomparable. Would you favor a cable/tv station sueing you for getting up and walking into the kitchen during the commercials? Hey, how about advertisers set it up so that people in certain cities *HAVE* to sit there, with their eyes open, and watch the commercial they put on the screen,no changing channels, no going to the head, no turning off the tv, or hitting mute, turning down the volume, nothing.
There is a very large difference between an end-user/viewer refusing to see something, and a third party modifying the content of the presentation.
You have the right to not look at my writings, but you do not have the right to modify them, and place advertisements in them, especially by embedding links within them, without my expreess permission. To do so is copyright violation.
Some analogies are incorrect, and bad. Your happens to be one of them.
It is a violation of copyright to modify another's work for presentation, without permission. it is not a violation of copyright to NOT watch something. If you think the latter is the same as the former, march your butt down and put it in jail, since I can guarantee you, you are violating at this very moment, and will in the next one; for there are hundreds or thousands of commercials you are avoiding.
Consider this:
In today's movies we see an increasing number of corporate ads. We see them in product placement. Like the "Isuzu" in Misson To Mars. You can bet your butt that Isuzu paid something the get that placement.
Now, instead, let us apply this link-insertion crap to the movies. Now, you spend some effort and time to produce a movie. Then, the viewers in Seattle, see product placements in there you never intended, due to some cool technology that was installed in the projector. So now, that cool car you designed specifically for your movie, has a Ford Oval emblazoned on it, or a Chevy Bowtie, or whatever.
Picture how different that makes things. *THAT* is what we are talking about here. We are decidedly NOT talking about closing your eyes to an advert, we are talking about the adverts being placed there wihtout permission, alteration of the content, however slight, without authorization.
And as far as the opt-out goes, that is horsecrap too. Spam is spam, whether it resided in an email box, or an unauthorized link in a webpage.
Furthermore, this, just as with MS's attempt was to do, places the burdern of keeping the offender from doing it, on the author, not the offender. Hey, I know, how about we make it the victims responsiblity to stop the burglar, by telling them they do not want to be burglarized? No, the burden rests on the one who would be violating the copyright.
This does not even cover the aspect of advertising for a competitor on your own damned site, or links on your personal page to another telling everyon that you are a greedy, slimiy, bastard (not, of course saying you are, just providing an example).
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
This is what stupid windows users get for being lambs, it is their own fault.
I see nothing wrong with this software, if I decided I wanted to filter all content feed to my browser.. that is my own decision. If I want to use any ad-busting software, so be it.. if I want to use ad-adding software.. fine.
This is not a company modifying your site, this is a user modifying their own copy under fair use. If I want to use a stylesheet in my browser to enlarge text for those with poor vision or filter though a speech synthesis program.. would this be any different? I am sorry that I am viewing your content in a way other than it was designed for, but I am allowed to.
I am not saying that I think anyone ADDING advertisements to their browsing experience is intelligent, but I am saying it is within their rights.
It is also the fault and within the rights of anyone who installs a virus onto their computer, a propagator of a virus/worm should not be prosecuted for the stupidity of the masses.
Your misunderstanding, its easy for the user to get rid of the program. But, what about the people who use the program, and goto Slashdot, it'll show up with a bunch of creepy yellow links, they didn't ask for this to happen, there was no Opt-In choice for them, it did it automatically.
---
--
Insert Witty Sig Here
It does not make sense as "which leads to the question" anyway. If the phrase were something along the lines of "which begs me to ask the question", then it might make sense using the usual meaning of beg. But how does one entreat a "question"? You beg a person to do something, you don't beg a thought to do something.
This situation is similar to "inflammable". Most people don't understand that "flammable" and "inflammable" mean the same thing. So if you want to be clear you should just say "flammable". Its unfortunate that perfectly good words should die off, but when people can't understand them, that's exactly wbat should happen.
...
--
I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations
And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners.
Berke Breathed
"Begs the question" means avoiding answering a point in an argument by simply stating that your point is correct instead of supporting the point.
...
--
I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations
And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners.
Berke Breathed
So let me get this straight: in order to see web pages without random crap attached, I have to install and use one of the most often abused random crap plugins around? Oh, the irony!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
There once was a program called "Third Voice". Third voice was a browser plugin that basically turned the entire internet into a discussion page. You could place little post-it-note-like thingies onto any website you liked, and any Third Voice user later viewing that URL would see your post it note sitting where you placed it. It did this by storing the post it notes in a central database; third voice would send its home server the url being viewed, and the home server would send back any notes that third voice users had left about this url.
That's a bit funky, but i think it's a nifty idea.
People went berzerk. A bunch of people went and sued third voice, claiming 3rdvoice was violating their copyrights, defacing their websites, a billion other things. This despite the fact that the added 3rdvoice content was clearly marked. Armed with misinformation and the thousand stinging nettles of draining litigation, they attacked third voice, upset anyone could "alter the content of" their web page.
This scares the crap out of me; it serverely bothers me that practically nobody seemed to see 3rdvoice commenting on webpages as 3rdvoice exersizing their constitutional rights to free speech. (OK, maybe i am overreacting. But apathy for free speech issues scares me. Bite me.) I see only two important things here:
- I have a right to install software on my computer that alters the content i access and view in any way i want, as long as i have permission to view that content in some form.
- Third Voice has a right to maintain a database where people can comment on various URLs for purposes of commentary or critisism. The fact they display the comments on top of the webpages being commented on makes no difference*, as long as the customers are either clearly aware of what is original content and what is 3rdvoice content or have consented to having the content altered for them. (Yes, of course, the fact KaZaA customers were not fully aware of what it meant that TopText was being installed, or informed during the installation process what the yellow links would mean in future makes everything different, and makes the inclusion of TopText with the KaZaA program, whether legal or no, definitely immoral on the part of KaZaA.)
Third voice no longer exists. I have not been able to find any hard data on what the conclusions of the lawsuits filed against thirdvoice were. Either way, it is not important; Wired says that 3rdvoice went down for the sole reason that the web advertising market is shit, and legal harrassment was not involved. Sad; it was a nifty idea. Maybe someday we will see a GPLed equivilent?-mcc
Keep in mind that the same people that would keep you from listening to Boards of Canada may be back next year to complain about a book, or even a television program.
* (Offtopic side-rant: at the least, they have more right to do this than bess has to maintain a database of "objectionable" websites and distribute software which blocks those websites-- the crucial difference being that Third Voice presents their content as opinion, which it is, while Bess presents its content as pure, cold fact despite the fact it may be innacurate. The only objection with Bess would be a) that they misrepresent their product and content to consumers and b) that some school districts and libraries have been forced to install it, against the wishes of the users of those schools and libraries.)
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Nice to see someone take a stand.
So.... do you feel that when a person uses DeCSS to transfer a movie from a DVD to their hard disk, that the author of DeCSS is committing an act of copyright violation at that instant, instead of the user exercising Fair Use?
I don't want to put words in your mouth, my old friend Anonymous Coward, but by saying "It is the company" it seems your position is that the author of a program "distributes" the output of that program. If that output is a derived work of copyrighted input, then the programmer is committing copyright violation.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
This is why I emphesized the word "Who". It all comes down to on whose behalf the software is acting as an agent.
If the software is a representative of the company that wrote it, then distribution to other parties is exactly what is happening (Kazaa or Microsoft is modifying the information and distributing it to the user). It's copyright violation.
OTOH, if the software is a representative of the user who is running it, then no distribution is happening, and of course it's all Fair Use and not copyright violation.
What I'm seeing is that some people are a bit wishywashy on deciding which person the software represents. I'm a software-is-the-user and people-are-responsible-for-their-computers kind of guy. (Which is why I advocate that Kazaa and Microsoft have the right to distribute this kind of crappy software. It's also why I feel that people who connect known insecure systems to the internet, should be held responsible for the havoc those systems inevitably cause.)
But then people like Robin Gross of EFF (!!!) say that they think it's a copyright violation. Which is really funny since EFF is defending 2600 in the DeCSS case. In the DeCSS case, I'm sure that EFF feels that users of DeCSS are the ones who may or may not use it to violate copyright, and the author and distributors of the tool are certainly not doing anything wrong. In other words, when we're talking about DeCSS, the program is acting as an agent of the user, but when we're talking about SmartTags, the program is acting as an agent of its author. This is wrong.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Ok, waitaminute. Who is altering the content and redistributing it? Is it the company that made the software, or is it the computer itself, acting as an agent for the user that views it?
If I install JunkBuster or some other ad filter on my machine, it also alters the stuff I look at. Is Junkbuster (the company) guilty of copyright infringement, or am I exercising my fair use rights?
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
It doesn't necessarily matter even if you win - litigation is a costly business, and if the case drags on long enough, you may not have the money to cover the mounting costs.
Not only that, but your reputation may suffer, regardless of whether you win or not. For people whose ability to earn money rests on their reputation, this could be just as damaging as losing the case.
Cheers,
Tim
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Assaf Henkin of eZula told me the only way to keep TopText links from marring our sites was to email all domain names we wanted blocked to support@ezula.com
/usr/bin/perl
Oh, okay. *clickity-clack*
#!
$name = 'a';
while (1) {
system "echo Remove $name.com | mail support@ezula.com";
system "echo Remove $name.net | mail support@ezula.com";
system "echo Remove $name.org | mail support@ezula.com";
$name++;
}
There. That should take care of most of the Internet. People who use 0-9 or - in their domain names will have to take care of themselves, i guess.
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
TopText (which was called HOTText until the end of last week)
Actually, it looks like it's called Internet Text now.
Oops, while i was writing that, they changed its name to ContextPro.
I've heard of Internet Time, but this is ridiculous...
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
American Copyright Law,
Title 17, Section 106A(2) [The copyright owner] shall have the right to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of the work of visual art in the event of a distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation;
Their software clearly distorts/mutilates/modifies content without permission from the copyright holder. IANAL, but I doubt any such modification could be considered fair use (secion 101 defines a "derivative work" as a modification that, as a whole, represents an original work of authorship - inserting ads does not constitute this).
They are the ones that haven't a leg to stand on.
---
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38 Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include-
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors
---
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
As far as I'm concerned, KaZa is the trojan. TopText is the payload of the trojan... it is a virus.
A trojan is a program that serves a particular desired purpose while secretly delivering a program of malicious intent (or, as you stated, a progam that does undesirable things to your computer). Therefore, TopText is a virus, not a trogan.
---
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
I was reading his sig and was like... did something happen while I was away? Did HTTP get upgraded or something? :)
I'm of the opinion that if you can't read it in lynx, it probably isn't worth reading.
---
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
No...this is happening on your computer, using software licensed by you. If this happened on your ISPs computers, for instance, then the ISP would be violating copyright. But it doesn't, it happens on YOUR machine, using software that YOU installed.
If you don't pay attention while installing software, that's your problem, but the install program, FWIU, DOES tell you that it's going to install the TopText program, and you ARE given the opportunity to turn it off.
It's not their problem if you're stupid enough to install software on Windows by blindly clicking "Next >" a bunch of times.
My journal has hot
Of course you are excercising your fair use rights. Just as you may amalgomate several movies on a videotape or create a videotape with your collection of favorite clips or whatever, so long as you aren't distributing that, you can add links to web pages, albeit automatically. Remember, they aren't modifying the content on the web and redistributing it here. The content is being modified on your computer, more or less by you, although the program is doing it for you. However, IANAL, so don't blame me if you get used. :)
My journal has hot
A trojan is program code embedded inside another program that does undesirable things to your computer.
TopText is program code embedded inside another program that does undesirable things to your computer.
Therefore TopText is a trojan.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
What about a copy stored in ram?
And what happens when these page output altering software takes the next logical step - and purposely
alters the output of something like Google?
Then when you search on certain items,
they can have their links show up on the first page of returned results.
Something to think about...
First they burn books, then they burn people.
Some kind of IE plugin? Who uses _that_, and why should we care what the www looks like through IE, anyway?
Exceeding the recommended torque is not recommended.
Sounds like some of the biggies (Yahoo, eBay, *ack*MSN) could possibly sue over this.
It's gotta be some sort of infringment somewhere. Maybe infringement of 1st amendment? It's a reach, I know.
damn. I just spilled h20 on my mouse
pete
The sole purpose of the Internet is to get porn and bomb making plans into the hands of children.
I suggest a class action suit on the part of all webmasters.
Accuse them of defacing our web sites.
Call them Evil Hackers and the FBI will surely arrest them.
Is there really a difference if the web site is defaced on the client side or the server side? To be more precise, the changes could be described as taking place between the two.
Although, yes, I admit, there are parallels, The point about client side ad filters does not apply here. If I choose to filter ads, I download the software and install it by choice, thus it is me who who has made the decision. In this case, it seems, the client side is not 100% informed about the decision, and it is a 3rd party who is making the changes. It is a question of informed decision and choice.
Alternatively, classify it as a virus, have the antivirus packages delete it, and arrest the authors for writing such code.
The should have at least used an opt-in rather than opt-out system. Oh, but yeah, nobody would have opted in.... Maybe that means it's a bad idea to begin with???
Point and Grunt
Point and Grunt
Point and Grunt
Point and Grunt
I was recently alerted to the fact that your company has been changing the content of my web site without my permission.
I hereby ask you to discontinue the modification of the content coming from my web site immediately.
I understand that these changes are taking place on the client side, but I see no legal or moral difference between this and if you had illegally gained access to my servers - the end result is the same, and should be considered so by the authorities.
I am currently in contact with my lawyers to discuss the possibility of taking legal action against you for defacing my web site and/or copyright infringement, or other crimes yet to be specified.
The domains in question are:
[my domains...]
I expect you to remove my domains from your list within 24 hours.
thank you,
Adrien Cater
address, etc.
bla bla bla...
Point and Grunt
Point and Grunt
scare the shit out of them!
Does anydoby have the phone numbers of Adobe's Legal team handy? I'd like to see the FBI get invloved :-)
Point and Grunt
Point and Grunt
When you are installing kazaa, it defaults to a custom install with about 5 wierd programs beign selected. I managed to deselect them last night when I was stoned as fuck, but they aren't really described very well in the installation.
The way to avoid things like toptext is to always do custom installs, and always check through what you are installing.
Unfortunately, this is becoming a hazard of running free-as-in-beer commercial software in Windows.
After you install software like this, check to see what it added to your system. Look in the Startup group, look in the win.ini file, look in the appropriate place in the registry (sorry, I don't remember the exact key right now, someone will supply it in a reply maybe), and just check after your next reboot if there are any processes running that you don't remember from the last time you checked. (ctrl-alt-del in win9x, or task manager in nt/2k)
This is unfortunately simply becoming something you expect with windows freeware. It isn't free, you just pay for it in something other than direct cash payments.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
Go in the directory where ezula is (c:/program files/ezula) and run the uninstall program. Duh.
The easiest thing to do is go into c:/program files/ezula and double click the uninstall program.
A meta tag is an HTML feature used to identify your page to searchs. Check this link to Joe Burns great site on all things HTML:l
http://htmlgoodies.earthweb.com/tutors/meta.htm
See Nintendo v. Galoob for details. The Game Genie is hardware that alters Nintendo's copyrighted content. Tough.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
"Bullshit. ... Slashbots claim ... It's my content too! Baa baa baa!"
And can you present a compelling argument why one does not have this right? Other than several ad hominem attacks?
You need to realize that copyright is not created for authors, but for the public. The statement "It's my content too" is quite compelling, legally. More compelling would be "authors have a monopoly that is limited in time and extent". Visual artists have a stronger monopoly (see US Code title 17, section 106a), and might well have legal grounds to attack this - not that, IMO, they would have ethical grounds to.
Please post comments which contain some actual content and are worth reading - otherwise, why do you expect anyone to take your beliefs seriously?
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
Not the Odds song. Would somebody who's cool and bandwidth-laden like to take a few extensive Google searches and submit them to the opt-out link?
------------------------
Co-founder of GerbilMechs
Anyone know if Lavasoft plans to add TopText to their blacklist?
"It take 9 months to bear a child, no matter how many women you assign to the job."
Three easy steps: 1) Get program to parse browser history for URL's 2) Awk output for domains and save to blocklist 3) cat blocklist | pine support@ezula.com
Whew! I was 90% sure that's what it was going to say. Since I'm on a work computer I was a little worried, but what's life without a few risks?
There's a heck of a difference between modifying the way content is displayed (enlarging fonts, text-to-speech) and modifying the actual content (words on the page). The assumption is that the words were authored or comissioned by the owner of the website which you're viewing (with the obvious exception of clearly marked advertising). Toptext is subverting that assumption.
"Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
Does anyone have a screenshot, or better, a snippet of HTML with the yellow highlight tag (I'm assuming it is a tag) inserted?
If the BG color of a page is set to that exact shade of yellow, via the BODY tag or css, would this defeat the TopText highlight?
Users, or potential users, find my site via search engines, looking maybe for "notepad", maybe "address book", maybe "password manager". All my software is freeware (I make exactly zero money through coding), and some of it is open source'd. Do I want a for-profit company to pollute my pages with links to commercial notepads, addressbooks or password managers? Hell no!
"Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
You didn't read the goddamn options well enough when you installed the software. People, I'm pretty sure that the days when you can install a piece of software with the default options and trust it not to do heinous things to your computer's settings are over. This applies more to downloaded free (not Free, put away the flamethrower) software like KaZaA than to retail software, but I've made it a habit to NEVER do a default install of anything without at least reading the options. In the case of KaZaA, I just unchecked the box for whatever-this-crap's-name-is, and haven't had a problem.
SuperID
Free Database Hosting for Developers
SuperID
BearShare, one of the more popular Gnutella clients (for Windows anyway), also wants to install a bunch of advertising/promotional programs in its default install. I'm not really sure what they do, because I always do the custom install, but they're there.
The main problem is that these things are installed by default when people just click through the install program quickly, but it's really not hard to avoid them, and they are probably even listed in the Add/Remove Programs control panel.
One way of looking at it is that this is the cost of this new generation of freeware.
- Data is collected continuously in real time from network edge
- View Reports online according to different parameters - Category, Keyword, Site, Revenue
According to their privacy policy, they promise to not collect any info except on links they add, but the ability exists.Thanks to Savenow, I became suspicious and discovered a piece of software called Adaware (Windoze only) that searches for spyware and deletes it. I really recommend it as it found other spyware too. It is available at http://www.lavasoft.de.
Harlan Ellison has a cool story about this. He always had provisions in his contracts to ensure there would be no advertising in any of his books. Sometime in the 60's or 70's, some publisher got the right to reprint one of Ellison's books and they stuck one of those cigarette advertising pages into the middle of it.
:)
/. that want to take up the cause? :) NetSol should give you a place to start. Not that I'm condoning violence, you understand. You are responsible for your own actions.
If you're unfamiliar with this, go to a used book store, browse through some sci-fi paperbacks published in the late 60's or sometime in the 70's (I forget exactly when) and flip through them. If they have this advertising, it will stick out. It'll be heavier stock paper in the middle of the book, part of the binding just like all the other pages. You can't take it out without messing up the book. Cigarette ads, mostly. Lame, very lame.
Anyway, Harlan relates the story that he was really pissed off about this, and asked the publisher to stop doing this, multiple times. (And Harlan can rant and rave with the best of them. Crotchety is an understatement.) Publisher won't budge. So, to move the story along, Harlan has a lot of fans. One of his fans came up to him one day (or mailed him the story, or something) and told him what he'd done.
As the publisher was leaving work one day, the fan fell in step next to him. Started talking. "Your name is . You live at . Your wife's name is . Your childrens' names are . They go to school at . If you don't stop putting advertising in Harlan's books, bad things will happen." Takes a right at the next corner and is never seen again. Further printing of Harlan's books (with this publisher, at least) have no advertising.
Harlan relates this as a true story. Couldn't condone it, but applauded it.
Any fans of
--
Alex Johns
Ha! You're brilliant. Go find someone wrongly calling something a conflict of interest and do the same thing. That was funny.
Of course, the funny part is that BMG and the other music companies are always whining about "losing money" due to MP3 trading over P2P networks... and yet they pay for the privilege of advertising their bands in P2P apps?
Singularity. Kettle. Black.
What is "I am Sparticus"?
If it resides entirely in memory, how can there be a root.exe and a few batch files in the scripts directory?
I know people who primarily use email, for example, to send "e-greetings" cards, animated cute baby gifs, etc., from places like Spamford Wallace's PassThisOn and their ilk, which generates tons of spam for the sender AND the recipient. They LIKE getting stuff in their email, even if consists entirely of bad advertising.
In that light, and in the current state of human culture we live in where advertising is ubiquitous, I don't see this as causing too much of an outrage among normal users, especially since this smartlink stuff is not as noticeable upon first glance as, say, X10 pop-under ads.
props to all dead homiez
The problem is that the recording industry relies on immoral and unconstitutional laws to forcibly remove your rights. TopText isn't remotely similar; your fair use rights are not threatened by Slashdot requesting to opt out.
Slashdot is interfering with that relationship, and it's none of their business if I decide to use their page with their technology.
So take a Slashdot page, stick it on your local web server, and view it in its TopText-enhanced glory. Better yet, use a proxy to automatically do this. Unlike the recording industry, Slashdot will not sue you or have you arrested.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
You do not. You have copyright on your works, which prevents me from distributing copies without your permission. But it does not prevent me from locally modifying your content for personal use, either manually or via an agent such as TopText or Junkbuster.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
>Does it overwrite links in paid advertising?
hmm.. anyone tried the google adwords yet? after all.. it's a plaint text link.. easiest to doctor.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
I've sent my twenty three domains to support@ezula.com to opt-out. /.ed by hundered of thousands of domains to blacklist, they will have invent some automatic opt-out procedure.
I guess that adress gets
Of course, this should by an opt-in service, not opt-out annoyance.
"Begs the question" means avoiding answering a point in an argument by simply stating that your point is correct instead of supporting the point.
And the number of times I have heard the phrase used in that sense is ... hmm ... 0.
It does grate when people use words incorrectly, but ultimately, the language evolves. Words and phrases have come to mean different things (even completely opposite things) in the past, and the same will doubtless happen in the future. If someone uses a phrase to mean something, and its meaning is widely understood, then, hey, that's what the phrase means.
It's like Humpty Dumpty said: It's just a question of which is to be the master, that's all.
--
Repton.
Repton.
They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
Okay, who's the wise guy that told Rob about "ethics" and "integrity", eh? When did he learn about this? Has he put his new found knowledge of these fancy terms to actual use on, Slashdot, or does he just get in a huff when he sees other people violating them?
So much has changed here -- serves me right for skimming recently... :)
I love it -- the editor of a site with the profesisonalism of a high school 'zine writer complaining [even if validly] about some a company's lack of professionalism.
Pot, meet kettle. You two will get on grandly... :)
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
Them's my links and my lame DoubleClick ads (which have netted me at least $180 over 18 months). I'll sue you bastards for every penny my shyster can get!
Hey...
Does it overwrite links in paid advertising?
If so I bet the advertising companies will be even more annoyed - and will be able to show financial damage if it ever comes to a lawsuit.
I wonder if we can get THEM to sue 'em?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
- Start|Settings|Control Panel
- Add/Remove Programs
- Select "KaZaA".
- Remove
Alternatively, if you're in a "take off and nuke them from orbit" kind of a mood.--
I have no fin
no wing no stinger
no claw no camouflage
I have no more to say...
150 Opening BINARY mode data connection for slashdot.sig (129323052 bytes).
The problem from my point of view is that they are not paying me as a content owner to insert their advertising on my sites, nor are they providing me as a user with a benefit for having their software (such as free access to otherwise-paid sites). As such, they are simply taking from me either way - there is no quid pro quo. This is not theft in the classic sense, because I am not left without something I had before, but it is intrusive, abusive and rude.
-jeff
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
From the SFC article:
It preys on people who are into using computers but don't know what they're doing. As much as I think these things and MicroSoftSmartOverUseOfCapitaliZationTags are evil, it does sound like a group of people waiting to be taken advantage of. I have trouble working up a lot of sympathy for an argument that analogizes well to "Those cops who give you fines for going through red lights are preying on us people who are into using cars, but not so automotively savvy that we know what we're doing."
As for its legality... as underhanded as it may be, it's probably legal. A piece of software you chose to install (though perhaps not realizing at the time that that was what you were doing) on your computer is adding a new function (though not one you necessarily want) to the way you browse the web. Functionally, it's pretty similar to JunkBuster.
[TMB]
the "I am Sparticus" approach - sprinkle your site with tasty yellow backgrounded goatse.cx links ....
I'd have to agree. The fact that a 3rd party buisness is deciding what to underline in yellow would suggest to that they are altering someone else's content before it gets to me. Would this not be the same as me intercepting a news broadcast and using editing software replacing say a pepsi can with coke. or, an entire story which is one of my own writing.
Fair use permits me to sit at home and modify taped broadcasts anyway i like, so long as its for my personal use. But if a 3rd party was doing this, i'm not sure if copywrites would not be violated...especially since this software installs secretly.
I love KazaA... It's the best of the gnutella offspring providing reliable results and more important I can actually download stuff without being putt on infinite hold (and if I am, the client starts looking for alternative connects).
:-)
However during the install there was ONE step that asked me to install a bunch of browser plugins and seeing has how the "install KazaA" software was perma checked and there were a bunch of plugins that looked pretty useless I simply unchecked them. The result is that my experience with KazaA has been remarkably pleasant.
I think it's unfortunate that Kazaa choses to squander their good will by installing stuff liket his on the unsuspeting, but in these days of declining internet revenue apparently even good companies with good products can't escape the sleeze of the worst of the Internet Advertizers.
There's a banner add in the client and when it flashes something I'm interested in I click on it. I don't begrudge them the ad, it's a good and worthwhile product. But I do agree installing browser plugins which are nothing more than ways to inflict ads on you even when you're on someone elses content is way beyond the bounds of good taste.
So I guess the moral is, download KaZaA, enjoy it, but pay extra special attention when you're installint the product.
A p2p filesharing company finally found a way to make money, i never thought it would happen.
-- free as in swatantryam - not soujanyam.
Then you first have to know about them. We now know about microsoft attempting this, and the little idiot company that spawned this /. thread. How many more are there in the wild?
Hell I installed this without toptext no problems.
In the same way that we keep getting the message 'do't open attachments' we should start propagating the message 'watch for spyware when installing' far too many people just blindly click through these installation procedures.
We need to immediately form a congressional committee to spec out the One True Rendering Specification that all browsers must comply to. The browsers can use some technology the congressmen heard about called XML or Java or Microsoft Office or something that will use advanced technology to divine the layout that the HTML author had originally intended.
Writing, distributing, or talking about programs that change the rendering from the Specification will result not more than 327 years in prison, or the copyright lifetime of a work-for-hire, whichever is less.
Oh, and by the way, using Lynx is treasonous, so get up against the wall! How dare you change my content so that it's text-based instead of graphical!
Jerks!
Somewhat offtopic but I was glad to see the reference to Frank Zappa in the story's title... :)
Find all references to "ezula" (The producers of topText) in your program files and registry and..
Love it. It's the greatest!
Like how I inexplicably got a copy of AOL IM installed with Netscape 4.74 even after doing a custom, what I thought was bare minimum, install? It's lovely! Like how WMP and IE attach themselves like a cancer to Windows installations? (i like IE just fine, but loathe WMP and the security holes, useless functionality and bloat it brings with it)
If AOL wants to package its IM with Netscape or KaZaAaAZAAaaaAA010als0@aol.com wants to package its own ReLinkIFiEr 1.o with its software, that's fine. Just be up front about it and let me opt out of dumping 10 tons of crap on my computer to get to the tasty nougat center, mmmkay?
Easy does it!
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
Is there a way to use ActiveX, JavaScript, or some other client side tech to determine if TopText is installed, and if so forward to a page that explains why they can not access the site, and how to uninstall toptext (perhaps even have something that runs the uninstall app from the browser w/ a click)
Anyone want to work on this?
There is a good definition here in the Skeptics Dictionary, though there are some funny RL examples here.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
What made me upset about the whole thing is that it silently runs in the background at all times... if it did it only while Kazaa was running it would be a more acceptable form of advertising. Regardless it isn't fair to modify people's content without their knowledge/permisison.
Well this program 'only' puts a yellow underline under certain keywords in the text. That's not really "altering" the content as the content is exactly the same (albeit with little yellow underlines). I think you'd have a tough time arguing against this on copyright grounds.
- j
I can have my JSP server refuse connections from IE if Microsoft decides to pull that Smartlinks shit (I don't currently, so you IE users are currently welcome to come look at my winged penis and stuff. Though my domain name does seem to give IE some problems...) Does this application add anything to the HTTP request header that I can use to filter out users of this software? I don't mind software of this nature as long as I can detect it with my web server and refuse to serve people who are using it.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Surely JunkBuster is the more egregious violator of your precious IP rights... is it not?
Something to think about...
Edith Keeler Must Die
Okay, but are they misquoting because they add links? If they link Bank to Wells Fargo, with the underlining, and assuming the user doesn't know the software is there and doing this then doesn't that imply that MY page is endorsing Wells Fargo somehow?
I have no friends. Will you be my friend?
You won't have to worry about it if you're an Adelphia customer... if they find you using KaZaa, they'll cut you off anyway and you won't have to worry about pop-up ads.
Zaphod B
Zaphod B
When duplication is outlawed, only outlaws will have
No, it will be harder. MS actually cares about their PR image somewhat (to the masses, not the /. crowd) and if mainstream media (NYT, WSJ) get pissed about something and rant in their op-ed pages, MS listens. Some two-bit con artists might not care. No matter what you say about MS, they're NOT two-bit...
I am not sure this is a correct interpretation of what happens. Technically it is the TopText costumers who are "rendering" your web pages. They are just using a wierd browser, which happens to add clickable yellow spots here and there on the page. Legally I doubt anything is wrong with this. Considering how the browser apparently is sneaked onto the system together with something else, I find it wrong morally.
Does this modified MSIE still just identify itself as MSIE or does it admit that it is not really just MSIE? If it identifies itself as a TopText-modified-MSIE, then it is simply a matter of redirecting visitors using this browser to a warning page. If it doesn't, web site owners have to decide if they prefer ads on their site (most likely pointing to the competitor) or if the dare to ask their visitors to stop using MSIE because some editions of it do not live up to the editorial line of the site.
Jacob
PS: A long term option could be to insist that browsers somehow include a list of installed plug-ins in HTTP requests.
Atheism is a non-prophet organisation.
I noticed it, and politely declined. As a matter of fact, if I recall correctly there was another bundled program with Kazaa as well, which I also unchecked. This isn't a matter of scrutinizing a legalese-crammed EULA, it's a matter of paying attention when the install program stops and asks you a question. If you're the kind of person who keeps clicking "continue" without reading the text, you deserve whatever you agreed to.
-Legion
I see. You defend your misunderstanding of petitio principii (begging the question) by means of an argumentum ad populum (an appeal to popular opinion).
According to your argument, I would need to write my own WWW-browser. After all, using a third-party program that formats everything, like IE, is giving business to THEM. Clearly not a good thing for you. Duh! It all boils down to what YOU like or dislike. That's egoistic, small-minded and hypocritical.
Here's my point. If I want a third party to translate your page on my computer, or do whatever I want with it, that's my choice. It's supposed to be a free market out there. If you can't see this, you're just too emotional about the issue.
I'm not saying I agree with the deceptive tactic of installing crap with a totally unrelated product. That's the bad thing here, that the users are kept in the dark of why they're suddenly getting yellow ad-links. Then they start complaining to the webmasters and suing them. I think we found the root of the problem here., don't you?
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Joe Sixpack installed the friggin' program. If it was deceptively installed along with a totally unrelated product, that's where we can nail them. But if Joe Sixpack knows about its features and uses them, he should be allowed to have automatic links to pr0n-images for words like 'rape' and 'teensex' for all you care. THAT's what fair use is all about. There's nothing inherently bad with this type of program, as long as the user is not deceived of what it does.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
What is wrong with it if it is what the user wants?
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Nice slogan they've chosen for themselves. Take a peek on the upper right corner of their page, right below Contact Ezula: Own the Net!
Hehe, yeah. That's right 3ZU14 0WNZ Y00!
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
I believe I have every right under fair use to alter content that I download to my computer. If CNN doesn't want me excercising fair use, they shouldn't let me have access to their website. CNN should have absolutely no control over the content as soon as it enters my computer. I choose how I wish to view it.
That people are installing and running the software unknowingly is what's bad here, not that web-content can be altered _locally_ by third-party software. Incidentally, I'm already viewing/editing this through two third-party software: Internet Explorer and Web Washer.
All the whining on here basically comes down to: "I want control over my content. They can't do this to me!". It's not a very rational or mature statement. In fact, if you're against the DMCA and it's restrictions on fair use, it's a very hypocritical and selfish attitude. No wonder there are so much war and conflict on this planet when people change attitude immediately when they feel threatened.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
JunkBuster is NOT clearly 'you' modifying content for your own use. Not unless it's YOU that is specifying all those ads to remove.
My take on it is this: if you want to hack your copy of Mozilla so that every ad for 'Kodak' doesn't show up, I think you're a loony and go right ahead. That way, every time you don't see an ad for 'Kodak' where an ad is supposed to be, you will think, "There's that ad that I removed", and no problem there.
If you let a _third_ _party_ come up with what to remove, I object. Write your own remove algorithm! I'll happily let _you_ remove the revenue of a web page and decide how I should support the content, even if you're insane, but what gives you the right to turn this over to some third party? They're not you! If you don't want to read the ads they remove, how about you go SITES WITH NO ADS? Why on earth do you feel that your opinion matters on what THEY do to my content? You're free to edit what you like yourself, or have Mozilla omit all instances of the word 'the', because this is all your personal interaction with the content. You are the user, it is what you are reading, you can do what the hell you want. Your freedom does not necessarily extend to being entitled to sublicense that off, to shrug and say "Here, I'm reading this page. I know you didn't pay this site, but take some ads out that I might think are irrelevant. Surprise me!"
If you don't want to read their ads that damn badly, how about you go to sites with no ads? What gives THEM property rights over my little web homestead?
It's even worse if you're clueless and have no idea I didn't actively choose to have no ads. I'm assuming you are firmly aware I didn't choose to have no ads and I _still_ consider it necessary for my site to remain up. If you're an idiot and think I decided to put content up for free with no ads, the situation is incomparably worse. But of course nobody is ever a luser, or ever encounters a lack of ads on a strange website and concludes it's the site author's doing :P
-no broken link
Even in this case, the DMCA doesn't apply. It's only if you subvert the technology for the purposes of violating copyright. If you use a program to, say, watch DVDs that you own on an operating system with no DVD player, then you aren't violating the DMCA because you aren't violating copyright.
-no broken link
This program doesn't alter the contents of the HTML either. It changes the way it is displayed.
-no broken link
Be sure to use a free long distance software like MSN or Net2Phone. Why have it on your bill?
-no broken link
BearShare is also a add whore, it defaults to installing some addware apps, and when you deselect them is says "are you sure? this is how we make money you selfesh fuck!", i think the text might be a little different.
Download Accelorator also does this (i think).
-Jon
this is my sig.
Everytime Morpheus would startup and I moved my cursor over the system tray icon it would have a little text box that would say "Kazaa"
No one can come after you, because the link WAS NOT ON YOUR SITE
You're missing the point. People can, and most likely will come after me, regardless of whether I am legally liable. Even though I am in no way liable, I can still be hurt by litigation, if only in terms of reputation, etc...
"fist in the air in the land of hypocrisy"
That's true. I guess my real problem with this is that I keep envisioning it being used in a deceptive manner. Who is going to knowingly install a program that is for all intents and purposes going to advertise products on every web site you visit? It's just such a great way to advertise without people realizing it, I can't imagine companies not taking advantage of this.
"fist in the air in the land of hypocrisy"
It's insidious, and I still think it's a bad thing.
1) Just because the link is different from others doesn't mean Joe User who is visiting my site for information is going to know some one else added the link.
2)I don't have to say "go take these". I could have the words "a good way to diet" somewhere, and they could be a link. Therefore, I now have a link on my page which makes it look like I think the pills are a good way to diet.
3)I certainly will, but perhaps the damage has already been done?
"fist in the air in the land of hypocrisy"
I really don't get why there's such a community uproar over link-insertion--either this, or IE's Smart Tags.
Why? Ok, here's a hypothetical example:
Let's say I'm a well-recognized nutritionist, and as a service to the world at large, I have a web site dedicated to dieting with your health in mind. Lots of people visit this site because they want to lose weight, but they are concerned about their health. Now, let's also assume Drop-Dead diet pills have bought adspace with some link-insertion company. Suddenly, links to the potentially dangerous Drop-Dead diet pills are appearing all over my site, and even worse, people are buying these and using them like crazy. Why not? My site is dedicated to healthy dieting, I'm a certified nutritionist, and I've got links to Drop-Dead all over my page.
And then of course, say some one dies from this and his/her family comes after me because I "recommended" the pills?
THAT is why it's a bad thing.
"fist in the air in the land of hypocrisy"
...anybody going to buy advertising for words like "CowboyNeal" and "First Post" and link them to goatse.cx? That's a good way to use the technology, methinks.
Someone had to say it, so put down those rocks.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
does anyone else find it strange that you have to opt out of this type of thing? wouldn't it make more sense to opt in, instead of every single person having to change thier web page just to avoid this kind of crap?
Rich
Big words from an AC:
It was installed in the license you stupid fuck, its right at the top, they didn't even try to hide it. DUH!
I don't know which license you read, but I saw no mention of this software in the one I read. Nor is it mentioned any place on their (Kazaa's) website. Care to quote your source, perhaps provide a URL.
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
What is wrong with it if it is what the user wants?
By purchasing the right keywords, you can destabilize a competitor's website using this. For example, let's say you're running a travel news site. By purchasing the word 'travel', people who visit cnn.com and click 'travel' in the navigation will be shown a link to your site as well as the option to go to the actual link location. Even if the user understands what's going on, which is by no means a certainty (remember that people are getting this software without realizing it), it still infringes on CNN's rights.
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
Clearly, people who are downloading and installing the Kazan software are not expecting 'TopTen' to be installed as well. Sure, you don't have to install it, but you will by default.
I wonder how this is really any different from a kind of Trojan Horse style of crack. If they're not doing more to disclose this at install than a non-descript checkbox (e.g., including it in the license) then they should be charged, criminally, with cracking the computers of their users.
Downloading and installing free software should not give the software producer the right to do what they will to your computer. Sneaking it into the install process should be criminal if it isn't already.
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
Has anyone found anyplace where this is disclosed other than as a default install option? There's no mention in the license, terms of use, faq, installation guide, or anywhere else on their site.
Is having a checked checkbox really all they need to do this? If I add a checkbox to software I'm distributing that says "reformat my hard drive" and then do so if they leave it checked, do I have no liablity?
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
Wrong. I am under no illusions that these links are from Slashdot. If you want to argue "public confusion", that's a different issue.
Public confusion is exactly the point. You download a program to share files, mindlessly click through the default install, and presto, your web browser is now adding links to pages. I think most people wouldn't even realize the cause and effect here and would very likely think that the links *are* part of the site.
Kazaa does not disclose that this software will be installed anywhere except the install process. If you don't uncheck the box (or even know why you should, after all you want ALL the features of the software your installing, right?) TOPtext is installed. It's an opt-out system that doesn't even disclose what you'd be opting out of.
Also, TOPtext doesn't just highlight plain text. It'll also change existing hyperlinks if somewhat has bought that keyword from them. Instead of linking to what the author intended, it presents optional links, of which the original is only one with advertiser(s) making up the rest.
I would be fine with all of the things it does if they a) told people what they were opting-in for and b) made it opt-in. I agree with you that people should have the right to choose, but we shouldn't be forced to make a choice. That's the fundamental problem with opt-out. They're effectively saying "We've made this choice for you, now choose to undo it, if you don't agree."
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
Well this program 'only' puts a yellow underline under certain keywords in the text.
According to the article from the SF Chronicle, it also highlights text that is already a link, leaving the original intent for the link as simply one of hte options presented when the text is clicked. This is simply wrong.
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
From the article:
If the highlighted Web site word was also a hyperlink, the TOPtext gives a choice of going to the original destination or the advertiser's site.
Holy hijacked surfers, Batman. It's bad enough that it changes your site in the eyes of the visitors, but screwing with your own navigation is over the top. It's one thing to turn normal text into links, but changing the links on a site is something else entirely.
These people need to be sued.
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
You mean like Pornolize?
You're using her as bait, Master!
Between these guys and MS, it sure looks like these things are destined to happen.
Sig free since 2/6/2002
--SC
You read fiction? I write it! Lemme know what you th
Yeah, it's your right. However, there's a certain question as to whether it's Ezula's right to place those links there. Bear in mind, they are profiting (key point 1) from altering content (key point 2) without the copyright owner's permission (key point 3).
What are they afraid of?
Well, here's an example. I run a corporate website for a fairly large company. It includes a jobs page which lists the benefits our employees receive. One of those listed benefits includes the words "life insurance". Ezula linked those words to some online insurance sales company, which I nor anyone else I asked had ever heard of. The overall effect of this is to make it appear as if my company's life insurance carrier is this company. It is not. This is a bad thing - it alters our content on multiple levels - not only linking people out of our site, but creating the appearance of endorsement. I don't know if this has happened, but what if someone is considering working for my company, sees this link, notes that this is a life insurance company he or she is not sure of the reliability of, and decides not to take a job here? That is what I'm afraid of.
Chris Tembreull
Web Developer, NEC Systems, Inc.
Chris Tembreull
"My karma just ran over your dogma."
So if 999/1000 people say that pi equals 3, does that make it so? If they say "turbocharger" when referring to a supercharger, are they the same thing? If they say "URL" when they mean hostname, are they interchangeable? The layman's misunderstanding of a(n admittedly technical) term does not make the misunderstanding correct. I'm afraid I have to put myself on the side of the language lawyers here, because the other way lies "It means X because it means what I want it to mean", which leads us to Ministry of Truth.
But that's a slippery slope. Shouldn't users have the right to install software like this? I mean, I might find it really compelling to have sites intelligently linked together. Naturally, most of us aren't fans of this being used as advertising, but it's the same thing: if that's what the customer wants (installs) they should be able to have it.
And even if you disagree with me on that point, would you argue the same about stylesheets? The CSS 1 spec states that user agent (personal web browser) stylesheets have precidence over page-specified stylesheets. So if I want, I could force my browser to display Slashdot with a pink background, orange text, and whatnot. Clearly that's okay, but Taco probably wouldn't choose those colors himself.
MyopicProwls
MyopicProwls
My homepage
A good action to take, but to some extent its just falling in and accepting their terms. You should not have to "opt out" of a situation where words are being put into your mouth withour them even telling you. I know that arround here sueing is something only "bad people" do, but if there is a web site that has the money, I hope they take these guys to hell and back through the court system. "You can ask us real nice to stop misrepresenting your page to readers after you find out about it on your own" simply does not cut it.
To put this in brick and morter terms, what if a company like (the now defunct) homeruns delivered newspapers to some people with their groceries and started putting "special suplements" in all the papers. And when the papers started asking why they were inserting content and making people think it was part of the Globe or the Herald or whatever, the company said "well, there's a request for us to do this buried in the fiftieth page of our service contract that they didn't opt out of, and it doesn't really SAY the its a globe aproved suplement, and if they were really familiar they would notice it was on a kind of paper you never use, but you know, if you don't like it you could have called us and given us a list of every issue you didn't want this to happen in...." You know, I think they'd get their asses sued.
At the very least, aside from them screwing with intellectual property, one could argue that their advertising is being done using the website's client base and reputation and thus they owe a portion of advertising revenue to the people they've been sticking it on. I could come up with a complicated analogy for that too if it isn't obvious.
Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
Though it seems a bit underhanded on the face of it, I believe systems like this are a good way for business to get done in a free software environment. Napster only worked so well because the program stayed running after you closed the main window. It was somewhat annoying to the 20% of people who noticed it, but it meant that most of the users were sharing files, oblivious to the situation. Its a sort of software-user meritocracy... if you know how to turn off the garbage, you can, if you can't figure the stuff out, you support the community with your ignorance. :)
People shape laws. Not the other way around.
I believe we should write our congressmen and senators and ask, nay demand that they create legislation that will create the following basic rules.
Beautiful, just what we need more laws telling me what I can and can't do.
This is just like junkbuster, it alters content once downloaded according to fair use rights.
Once I download something I can alter it however I want for my own personal use, if I want to change the font size I can, if I want to change the background color I can, if I want add some links I can, if I want it insert the word 'fuck' thoughout it I can, and if I want a program to do this for me I can!
This company is actually kind of nice providing an opt-out for websites. Does junkbuster provide opt-outs for websites?
Open Source, Open Standards, Open Minds
I wish so too! All my options are worthless.
<Top Text Link>
"All your options are belong to us"
</Top Text Link>
Bruce Davis
UNIX Systems Administrator
Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products
"I'm The Bounty Bear. I will find him anywhere. I'm searching."
You can opt out of this DURING THE INSTALL, which most people should have done anyhow. The easiest thing to do is to reinstall the product and OPT OUT then.
I don't use IE as my default browser any how.
Bruce Davis
UNIX Systems Administrator
Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products
"I'm The Bounty Bear. I will find him anywhere. I'm searching."
FastTrack is a company that makes the FastTrack library. They also make a consumer product called Kazaa which uses the FastTrack lib. The lib is licenced to other consumer based products, like Grokster and Morpheus.
This is a disturbing trend among free-to-download software.
-- Agthorr
Java and ActiveX can, assuming the program has permission. You rarely run across a java app just browsing the net that will. Its a pain. If you want to see an ActiveX control that does in action, see windowsupdate.microsoft.com (assuming you're using windows).
However, most languages have no way of accesing the hard drive. Anything that would allow you to do this has to have some form of proof that they are secure, or they would never be widespread enough to be in use. And if it doesn't, its a virus (or to the effect of).
Here's a link to their website... shows the technology in action:
http://www.ezula.com/Advertisers/Advertisers2.asp
--Bob
This creates a false sense of attribution. This is what Ford claimed in it's case against 2600.
This also relates to the framing cases.
Fight Spammers!
Consequently newspapers might take any old crap as editorial, use 2 inch high banner headlines, put in an unnecessary amount of pictures, paste in parts of old stories, put in horoscopes and other such nonsense, just to keep up with the amount of advertising sold. The best trick was to give away a 'free' magazine with the paper, which could then carry any amount of ads.
This tradition is probably why Roblimo doesn't like mixing ads and content.
I don't know if this law still applies (I don't read newspapers), or even if it could apply to a web site (that charges a subscription?), but if it did then making content into ads just might be illegal.
But probably not. ... Forget I mentioned it.
there's not much chance of them mucking with your image binaries, is there?
(*) yes, I'm being facetious
--
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
<META NAME="MSSmartTagsPreventParsing" CONTENT="TRUE">
For those not sure about this, this needs to go somewhere between<HEAD></HEAD> in your HTML.
That's pretty much all I have to contribute at this time. Any more info would be gladly received via this page.
Opinion: Scientology is a cult you should avoid. Follow the
Hello,
I am the owner of the following domains, and I am requesting that TopText, or any product using the same or similar technology, present or future, created or licensed by your company, not interact with them in any form, shape, or manner. Please let me know when your exclusion database has been updated to reflect this.
[domain list snip]
Hopefully this will cover me in the event they go and change the name to "EyeballGrabber" or somesuch.
Opinion: Scientology is a cult you should avoid. Follow the
Why is it they haven't prosecuted these bastards? Is it perfectly okay to do nasty, illegal, trojan things to computers as long as you're registered as a corporation?
Maybe if enough people file complaints about this trojan piece of shit, we can toss their CEO in jail. "Hey! I didn't do it! I just work for the corporation! And I'm from Russ-- er, check that."
When I say that I have a right to my works, I mean the following:
1) I created a document to be viewed in toto as I created it.
2) I provide particular information, often in a scholarly fashion, which contains links. Each of these links has a specific purpose, namely, to provide further bibliographic or internally-referential information.
3) Modification of this information distorts the meaning of the information I have presented.
Consider the case of a scholarly paper on something other than French Fries, be it cold fusion, a Higgs boson, Ununoctium, or even pulse rockets. In such an article (if it is indeed scholarly), I will provide links to examples and sources. If some company comes along and modifies my treatise to include other links to something other than that which I have referenced, there is a clear and serious detrimental effect to the validity of my document.
I get a lot of hate mail from Belgians as it is, and changes to my links may generate even more hate mail. Yeah, I'll get over it sooner or later, but the point is that my carefully researched (really) content has been altered, not by the end user, but by a third-party, for-profit company. And it seems there is little I can do about it, even though I could've sued the Washington Post for defamation and character assasination for misquoting me in print.
Consider Terry Pratchett and the Discworld series. The Colour of Magic was done in Germany by a particular publisher (see lspace.org), who modified a couple pages ino order to insert a soup advertisement into the text! Imagine reading a Stephen King novel like this: "Karen, almost frozen with fear, locked the door, but simply locking a door isn't good enough. When it comes to home security, you need ADT. ADT provides 24-hour protection at the push of a button. Or at the first sign of trouble. Unfortunately, Karen doesn't have ADT home security. What's she up to now? Well, Karen, staring out the peephole..."
Why do I have no say in this matter? The changes to my site and links are not being done directly by the user. I have no problem with fair use of my site; it's been quoted and misquoted around the world. I do have a problem with theft and hijacking, which my site has also been subject to. (A number of sites have copied -- verbatim -- the page, Twenty-two Things To Do With French Fries Besides Eat Them and I have crawled up their tightly-closed orifices to protect my creative works).
As I said, my comment was only partly meant in jest. I have serious problems with both sides of the question, even when I take both arguments to the extreme. At the extremes, I tend to favour the laissez-faire approach because I don't want RIAA telling me I can't make a killer mix CD with New Model Army, King's X and The Pogues, but somebody screwing with my content really bugs the shit out of me. You just have no idea of the sacrifices involved in keeping the OFFP going.
woof.
Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
I have a site -- The Official French Fries Pages -- which I've managed to keep alive since 1996,[1] although I really need to upload a few new pages.
Do I say, "Fine. Whatever. You wanna look at my page and links the wrong way, I don't care," and just let anarchy reign supreme? I mean, I'm a "Slashdotter", right? I've been here for a few years (although I couldn't be bothered to register for a while), and I'm certainly an "0ld sk3wl Internet-doofus" (since '86). This is just more crap that I can ignore, and anyway, we all hate frivolous lawsuits and copyright bullshit... unless it hits home.
Or do I look at it like RIAA or MPAA: This is my goddamned IP . Them's my links and my lame DoubleClick ads (which have netted me at least $180 over 18 months). I'll sue you bastards for every penny my shyster can get!
Oh how ugly reality can be.
While the above was meant, at least in part, as sarcasm, I truly am unsure what to do. I could be tempted to join a class action to prevent the modified display of my site, not for the money but for the principle.
Do I not have a right to say what can and cannot be done with my creative works? And doesn't RIAA say the same thing?
"Morals suck, Beavis."
woof.
[1] Don't give me any shit about using FrontPage. I always demand HTTP 2.0 compliance and I got tired of writing six or more versions of each and every page so that any browser could see it. And if another standard came out, I had to rewrite all the pages with a version for those browsers, too. At least I edit the FP "code" and cut the actual size down about 60%. And you can still view the site in lynx!
Alternatively, you could get StartupCPL, a tool that collects and lists the entries in the appropriate registry locations. You're still left with checking autoexec.bat and win.ini, but this has been very convenient for me on many occassions. It has no cost, but the source isn't available.
I only wish I could get it to remember which files I was downloading if I exit and reload the program in the middle of a download. As it is, the transfer window is cleared when I start WinMX.
>you need to stop using the WWW to deliver it and look into a medium that's adequately protected by the DMCA.
You can still use the WWW and your site can be DMCA protected. And, using this method, it will also be fully compatible with the most popular browsers:
Your site starts a javascript popup Agree/Disagree window asking the user to agree to some terms.
Your javascript multiplies their answer by 13. It then adds (or subtracts) that to all the letters in the javascript-embedded HTML-in-a-variable.
Spit the output to the browser window.
Instant DMCA encryption protection, fully popular browser compatible (although not standard HTML). Life is good.
I think I'm going to do that right now...
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
For the uninitated or lazy (me) Go to go old download.com and download adware this will detect any spyware/crapware on your windows system and allow you to remove it.
failing that try C:\deltree /y *.*
I'll note that the missus installed Morpheus the other day. When trying to share only a part of her files, Morpheus instead chose to share EVERYTHING on her computer. What's more, it neglected to mention on installation that it would always automatically start up when the computer does, and does not put an icon into the system tray or make it in any way obvious that you are sharing your files...
So it managed to refuse to let her choose what she wanted to share, and didn't care to tell her that she was, in fact, sharing everything from the moment her computer was turned on, regardless of her feelings on the matter.
I distrust file sharing programs that do that...
My, are we quick to harsh words. Perhaps you should set yourself up with a 5-10 minute editorial timer for each post.
Thinking about that, perhaps most of slashdot should do the same.
Morpheus is a program that appears to be compatible with Kazaa (on searches some usernames show up as user@kazaa and others as user@musiccity) and contains no spyware or text-altering annoyances. It has the ability to download from multiple users at once, resume downloads, search by category, etc. I've been using it for the past month or so and it's worked pretty well.
--
IANAC (I am not a coder):
I wonder if there is any way to alert the web server that the client is running this kind of software. I'd love to pop up a window as a public service message, saying something like "Looks like your computer has been infested with..."
Is there a way to do something like that with JavaScript? Can JavaScript check for the existence of a file on the client's filesystem?
I suggest that to solve this, we find out which companys are using this productm, (such as Wells Fargo) contact thier competetors, (such as Bank of America), and show them just how all of the BofA customers are getting hyperlinked back to Wells Fargo when all of thier keywords come up. Maybe then we can pit the big corporations against this and then there will be some real action taken.
Here is a program called OptOut which searches for spyware, and helps you remove it. (if you use windows ;)
Damn the man.
------
Random, useless fact: I type in startx entirely with my left hand.
I haven't sent it yet; I'm certainly open to suggestions, but I suggest anyone else bothered by this do something similar. The article claims they will block sites they are asked to. Maybe if enough people ask they will get the picture....
haha.. thanks.
---
Can someone post a screenshot of a web page being presented with these links?
I would be especially interested in seeing www.goose24.org (a site I'm involved with).
But Yahoo! or any other would be fine. I just want to see what these things look like.
wish
---
No, not TopText (although that irritates me). It's this: "I both emailed and called TopText's vendor, San Francisco-based eZula, to ask if there was any way we could keep their TopText links from showing up on OSDN Web sites, including Slashdot."
DAMN IT OSDN. Keep your goddamn hands out of my browser!!! If I want to use TopText, it's my goddamn business, not yours. If I want to use their service on your web page, IT'S MY RIGHT. It's my computer. I can view your page any way I want. It's called "fair use".
Or has Slashdot suddenly decided that they will decide how I view their content?
Sorry for the strength of the wording of this post. But this is a great example of the evil of do-gooders who want to "only help us" to make the "right decisions".
Hell/Paved/Intentions.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
An interesting test case for this that I can think of off the top of my head: What if I wrote an http proxy that "protected" children from offensive language in HTML documents by replacing them with say "####". Am I violating copyright because I'm altering somebody else's copyrighted HTML? Or am I exercising my right as a parent to censor information moving between the internet and my "impressionable" child? If I'm allowed to do this, am I allowed to install another piece of software that puts yellow underlines on some words or phrases?
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
This story is relevant to the following groups:
Didn't know anything about this until I read the article and noticed that the word 'poker' in the article above this one was highlighted in yellow. Running C:\Program Files\Ezula\UNINSTAL.EXE (or something like that) did the trick.
Sorry for the delay. Here's the code:
Bryan "BJ" Hoffpauir
Geez.
:P
meta name="MSSmartTagsPreventParsing" content="TRUE"
add the opening & closing brackets. slashcode rejected the actual html meta tag.
BJ
Bryan "BJ" Hoffpauir
What sort of standards do you mean? HTML is a recommendation from the W3C, which is (mostly) a consortia of private companies. You can trust all you want, but you really have no prior agreement over what the rendering agent will be, or what it will do to your HTML.
HTML is like a musical score. Just as a score is not the actual music one heres, HTML is not the actual page one sees. So, the Web is a world of "cover versions." Get used to it.
Someone else is making advertising money over MY content, and their advertising may or may not slander me and I have no way of knowing what it is unless I buy their service. That is something I can not allow.
Then either stop providing your HTML without a prior contractual usage agreement, or turn all your precious content into images or Flash or something, or get of the Web. I'm really sorry that the Web isn't what you would like it to be, but there it is. The HTML and the Web is *built* on one party transforming the work of another. Trust is nice but not guaranteed; people will transform HTML in ways that suit them, not you.
Java is the blue pill
Choose the red pill
Exactly. But folks surfing the Web don't actually *see* HTML, they see an interpretation, a rendering.
A web browser takes the HTML and uses it to perform some actions. There may be some general consensus on what the results should be, but there is no guarantee. In fact, it is well known that what a viewer sees can greatly vary from one browser (say, IE) to the next (lynx).
When lynx fails to render a page's background color or fancy font, does anyone complain that the content has been altered?
Unless there is some contractual agreement about how someone's HTML is to be rendered, I'd say the rendering tool (e.g. a browser) has carte blanche to do whatever. Hell, it's doing all the work.
Once you serve up HTML, you've lost control.
Java is the blue pill
Choose the red pill
I tried Kazaa, Morpheus, Limewire, and a good number of other programmes which names I can't remember. I couldn't stand any of them. I can't stand spyware and I can't stand programmes that forcefully sit on my startup menu without giving me the chance to disable such feature.
However, around a month ago I found WinMX. It's by far the best one of its kind (at least for me). No popups, no compulsory startup, no spyware.
In the Transfers window, right below the file list area, there is a button that says "Show Incomplete Files". When you reconnect click there and it will give you a list of all files that are not complete downloads (including the ones you were downloading before you disconnected). Then right click and "Retry", that solves the problem.
One of the explicit requirements of several of these contracts is that there be NO LINKS TO EXTERNAL SITES, supposedly to prevent their users from downloading any infected programs or files.
:)
... this is probably why they are considered to be so effective ... and could definitely cause monetary and/or perceptional damage to any site they infest without permission.
Well, at least if they can't download programs on their machines, they can't download anything that installs TOPText, so it's only M$ XP installs that you need to worry about anyway
And you've used the right tag to suppress it already.
Nonetheless, in my mind both TopText and SmartTags are essentially deceptive advertising. You should not need to have to modify your site or otherwise opt out of them, since they both make it appear as if your site is endorsing the product and/or site being linked to
It doesn't even come close to the defense that 3rdOpinion (post-it (TM) notes for websites) had that it was the user's choice to have the notes added - this definitely tries to sneak in "under the radar" so to speak, and present itself in a fraudulent manner.
Liquor
Liquor
Sanity is a highly overrated commodity.
Google have published OS stats for June in their current zeitgeist. They don't look so good for Linux, with only 1%, well behind MacOS' 4%. Keep in mind that these stats do not reflect marketshare, they reflect total installed user base (of course only for people who use Google).
I almost posted a story on this myself. I'm a developer for a Candle Company, and have spent the last few months finishing up the companies online shopping cart. Shortly after installing this software on my work machine, to my horror I saw links on my candle site directing me to another online business selling candles! It didn't take long to figure out what was going on with my pc, but if this trojan (yes, it's a trojan virus in my opinion) was installed on my wifes computer, she would be hopelessly stuck with it, not knowing what to do. I removed this software, and e-mailed the person who recommended it to me with my opinions. what a bunch of crap.
Ok, I really hate it when I site I want to look at gets /.ed, but what the hell, lets flood their mail server and send every domain name we can to that support address listed above.
Nice try. :)
If we implemented the all new CryptoKey plug-in, and required it to view our website, then this yellowlink thing would be illegal if it interfered with our plug-in, per the DMCA. As plain text, I'd say Fair Use reigns. While Fair Use is protected by the fact that there are exceptions for it written into the law, nothing in the law says that a content provider has to make it possible for you to Fairly Use their materials. (It would be nice if more consumers would refuse to buy things that take away Fair Use, but so goes life...)
Personally, I don't see what the big deal is with these yellow links, or smart tags. If the users like it and continue to support it by using it or paying for it, then that's their problem. It's no different than if I want to use my own CSS to make pages readable, or if I want to run the page through a translator, or out to the speech synthesizer. Well it is different... because in this case the installation of the program is done somewhat sneakily, and in the case of Smart Tags, well, it's dodgy because it's Microsoft. But the underlying principle is the same.
I do not have a signature
I use @home and I can no longer use many filesharing programs such as bearshare. Thanks to the MPAA threating my isp, I now have to buy inflated priced cd's and help fund the mpaa to censor other isp's to inforce their price goughing cartel.
I will try this new program and hope it will not be censored as well by big corp. Links are not, I don't care at this point.
http://saveie6.com/
First of all let me start out that I hate the sneaky bundling of other products into what I really wanted. To me opt-out is Bull Sh*t. It seems untrustworthy for an application to secretly install itself. Most of the time these are the programs that are the hardest to get rid of once you realize that they have taken control.
What about the people that want to have those extra links. I actually like the idea of quick/smart links, but I would rather have them setup in a manner where they aren't there visually. I want it as a right click option. To me I think it should be more like a search or definition in a new window.
Basically it would go down like this: select some text and then choose for some more info on this topic.
I can easily see how this could be problematic as well. People are always going to be buying up those "more info" type information. That is why I would like it hooked into encarta or some impartial information. That way if I want more info on the x-box it would tell me what it is and give me a few pics. From there it would be up to me to find more info.
Damn that was a rambling peace of poo. All I care about is: dont mess with other peoples work/sites, give me the option to still get that more info WHEN I WANT IT not when you want me to have it, and no paid links for more info.
This
All good points, save #1. Joe User had to learn that a link was a link, and that he needs to dial into the internet... Joe User can learn that a red squiggly line or a "smark tag box" is not the author's work.
... and a reason that if such a thing does exist, it needs to have some fairly standard settings.
Say, trademarks & dictionary lookups for multisyllabic words only? And only when it makes sense?
If I go out and buy a book, and then slap stickers all over the cover art, or tear out every third page, I can still sell it. Once I buy the books for me to sell, assuming no contracutal obligation to the contrary, I can do whatever I want with them ("first sale" doctrine) and then go out and sell them again. (Assuming I'm not making "derivitive works", but, well, that's a whole different ball of wax.)
I really don't get why there's such a community uproar over link-insertion--either this, or IE's Smart Tags. The whole friggin' interweb was founded on the idea of the hyperlink--that you click on a term, and it takes you to other like terms.
Yes, central control over this by one corporation (like MS) is bad. Certainly, add-driven scumbal LCD advertisers using this like the article states is bad.
But the idea itself is good. As long as users can turn it off (or rather, have to turn it on) or redirect who controls the darn thing, the dot.com mentality web designers can just grow up and learn to deal with it.
In any case, IANAL, and even if I was one you should never take legal advice from stangers on the internet, like me
Incidentally... I would love to see some stats from Slashdot that display the breakdown of OS's that visit their site. I'd wager there are way more non-Linux people here than you think.
"And like that
I think it's time to add one more /. section - news for Windows users. I would like to exclude such stories from my homepage. Why? Because I don't run Windows. I already know that installing closed-source software is like trusting your root password to Mr. CEO of MegaCorp, Inc. That's why I don't.
This is so ironic, because as a slashdot reader that does NOT use (or like) Linux, I have to wade through an amazing amount of Linux-related news that is mis-categorized. They generally like to put Linux articles in every category BUT the Linux category.
So I think you should be able to exclude Windows stories from your personalized slashdot page just as soon as I can exclude Linux stories from mine...
"And like that
Hello!?
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
I have been trying to aruge my point at Kazaa with little sucess or reply from the Kazaa staff. I sent it to /back a while ago, but it never appeared :)
http://www.kazaa.com/forum/read.php?f=6&i=3537&t=3 250
So now large corporations want to alter *my* content and use it for input in their audience production process.
... as long as I can alter and reuse their content in any production process I have in mind. So bring on the TopText and MS "Smart Links" and let's clear the air: corporate media can have their cake and my cake and eat it too ... but I get to have *their* cake and eat it too ... err ... too.
... heheh
OK
It's only fair (use)
Has anyone tried complaining to the advertisers using the service? I'm sure that if BMG, Frost, etc were made aware that their ads through this service were damaging their reputation with existing customers, they might reconsider sponsoring toptext. No sponsors, no toptext.
My productivity applications are gcc, make and gdb.
Abiword is sufficient for my resume. Mozilla is sufficient to post it on all sites were I want to post it. StarOffice is sufficient to read all the legitimate documents (not jokes) that my colleagues and friends (not spammers) send to me. And I hope to replace it with Open Office soon.
depends on the country.
if the country's copyright law is in the British tradition, where copyright is primarily an economic right, then the answer is no. this program does not alter the content, all it does is change how it's presented on the screen.
if the software hacked into the server at the other end and altered it, that'd be different. :)
if the country's copyright law is in the so-called author's rights tradition, then the answer is yes. one of the most common moral rights in these countries is the author's right to choose how the work is presented.
most author's rights countries are in Europe. however, Canada, despite being a British copyright country mostly, has moral rights sections in its copyright law.
The UK and US do not. dunno about Australia.
somebody should sue these bastards either in Canada or in continental Europe. get an injunction. this is so open-and-shut it's not funny.
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
Damn I was wondering how ads kept popping up on my friends computer. Hmm, wonder if its a seprete installer or if the EULA allows them to install 3rd party software with their software. Anyone know?
What you advocate is called "The Tyranny of the Majority". To a certain extent, all of us (people who notice) have an obligation to prevent actions and actors from harming the common weal.
Something like this obligation is what's behind successful systems of government that have representative democracies (USA, UK, Canada, etc). Sure, the vast bulk of the population thinks that minority X is evil, reproduces by laying eggs and prefers to eat boogers. Does that mean that the government has an obligation to sterilize all breeding-age members of minority X? No - just the contrary. The government has an obligation to educate the vast bulk of the population about the errors of their ways, and indeed, to prevent harm to members of minority X.
You also ignore a great evil when you blow off the harm that ubiquitous advertising causes. All advertising is a form of lying, adult US citizens are expected to disbelieve all claims made in ads. What do we learn from this kind of all-enveloping falsehoods? That it's acceptable behavior for sub-human marketeers like the TOPText people to insert their ads on my content without paying me for getting people to look at their falsehoods.
Personally I don't think it's an issue of copyright at all. Other posters brought up some good reasons, and I tend to agree with that part - no copyrights are being violated when a client-side program alters the HTML (but of course IANAL).
The problem I have is this: Your average AOL user probably won't know that the yellow links are not part of your page. It will appear that your site is advocating the products or services being advertised (linked to). A lot of new users assume that a linked page is part of the same site, or that the current site is somehow associated. Remember when MS had a warning message whenever you'd click an external link on their site a few years ago? Warnings are always there for a reason (but that was damned annoying).
From the article I get the feeling that a user isn't informed as to what the links are, or that the software was even installed without really reading through the install messages (users are used to clicking "OK" "I AGREE" "Install the damned thing already!")
Imagine if your own website was linked to something you (as the webmaster) are against or otherwise object to (say, RedHat.com linking to Microsoft.com wherever you see the word "Operating System"). This false impression is what is wrong with the system, much like that whole Smart Tag thing.
Besides all of that, secretly installing something that mucks with web pages, hiding the details, and apparently making no effort to inform the user that this is happening -- is yet another issue I have with this.
- Jman
NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
Two pretty major differences IMHO..
---
dear eZula
After reading some information about emailing the domains i want you blok, i ask you to remove all TopText links from the following domains:
and of course the list goes on and on and on. :)
hey, they didn't say anything about toplevel domains, did they?
Okay, its a troll, but i'm interrested in the reply ;)
This sig is intentionally left blank
This is not a company modifying your site, this is a user modifying their own copy under fair use. If I want to use a stylesheet in my browser to enlarge text for those with poor vision or filter though a speech synthesis program.. would this be any different? I am sorry that I am viewing your content in a way other than it was designed for, but I am allowed to. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ great analogy, this is the only comment worth reading everyone should mod this up
i am convinced that "/.ers" are homosexuals and imma make that my "sig"
The way to avoid things like toptext is to always do custom installs, and always check through what you are installing.
Apparently, the real way to avoid things like this is to get stoned. Let's put that in the manual!
Anyone know how to detect if it's enabled? I'd rather just use mod_layout to forward any user to a page that says:
:)
"Sorry, this site is incompatible with TopText. You must disable or deinstall TopText in order to view the content available".
It'd be really nice if there was some cute ActiveCrash or Javascrape method of doing this.
So far it doesn't look to affect me anyhow, no apparent support for Omniweb under MacOS X
apparently, in a typical display of corporate bravery, kazaa is blocking traffic from the slashdot link above.
you can get there by typing the url in your browser, however.
go get it
IMO, I think i still should be illegal because it is being sold as a commercial product which is not advertised as such to the end user.
If I install JunkBuster or some other ad filter on my machine, it also alters the stuff I look at. Is Junkbuster (the company) guilty of copyright infringement, or am I exercising my fair use rights?
But you are, by your choice, and fully informed, exersizing those rights. I am not so sure that an unintentionally installed piece of software is the same sort of thing. Fair use is pretty nebulous and limited. I would argue that most of it involves personal use, not commercial use and this is the problem. If you are selling software which add ads and you don't tell anyone, then they are not excersizing their fair use. YOu are altering content and redistributing that altered content.
Sig: Tell all your friends NOT to download the Advanced Ebook Processor:
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
It will be a lot easier to stop these guys than it will Bill G.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Still, even if it is "only" a yellow underline it's still CHANGING your content, and still calling it your own. coppyright grounds would be hard to fight this on, but i think there are things you could fight it on. since your users would expect anything on your page to come from you (can any lawyers comment on this?)
The opinions in this post are ficticious. Any similarity to actual opinions, real or imagined, is purely coincidental.
I'm wondering, does MuiscCity Morpheus (afik, KaZaA with MusicCity's logos all over it) also install TopText? and if they place their ads on my site, is there any legal action i can take, or is there any way to collect royalties from them? (Hey, if you want ad space on my site, you pay me.)
The opinions in this post are ficticious. Any similarity to actual opinions, real or imagined, is purely coincidental.
Oh, wait...
But masters, remember that I am an ass: though it be not written down, yet forget not that I am an ass.
So, let's summarize.
When you install Kazaa, a Napsterish or Gnutellaish piece of software for trading files, you may also inadvertently let the installer install software that alters links on Web pages as you browse.
Or, if you prefer, when you install this software which lets you sidestep content-producers' intellectual-property rights, you may also inadvertently install software that sidesteps content-producers' intellectual-property rights.
But the first one's a feature and the second one is INSIDUOUS AND EVIL.
"Uh, excuse me, sir, but i think you've got a LOG in your EYE, there."
Well at least MS isn't bold enough to put "Own the Net" on their homepage (look at the top right corner)
Yikes! They really do mean it!
Regarding junk like this - are there legal ramifications? If a website's content is copyrighted and this software ALTERS the content before it is presented to the user - are they liable in any way for mucking up the web site content? Doesn't copyright law prevent alteration of copyrighted material?
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
I've been using KaZaA since it got popular (after napster) and I just recently upgraded to the latest version last night. Due to license agreements, you can opt not to install top text, as well as the other "enhancement" spyware that kazaa tries to install as well.
If your so inclined not to have spy software installed from P2P programs such as KaZaA and Audiogalaxy, I'd suggest using Ad Aware to find and remove the offending programs/cookies/etc
blah
Looks like marketers are determined to replace lawyers as the most despised profession in American... It's apparent that there is NO lowball, invasive, offensive tactic beneath them.
Marketers have no qualms about calling you during dinner, calling you on your cell phone, stuffing your e-mail inbox with SPAM, wasting your fax machine paper with ads, etc, etc. This is one reason why I dumped my land-line phone, 90% of the calls I got were marketers. And most marketers will NOT allow you to be polite and get rid of them, they FORCE you to be rude.
On the positive side, my eye-hand coordination has improved drastically since I've been forced to learn how to rapidly close pop-up windows that spawn more pop ups when closed, etc.
I know some will say that such adware is the price you pay for those services (like Kazaa), but I do not think this is an ethical way to support a product. Quit giving away the service and start charging a reasonable fee instead.
The more invasive and offensive marketing becomes, the more rapid the resistance to it will increase...
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
Duh... I'm of average smarts, and noticed these programs were asking, begging to be installed, but I didn't. It's not that hard to RTTTIOTSIFOY!!! (read the text that is on the screen in front of you!!!).
/. 'tude and look at the service. While it's a windows only network, it's still doing a great job compared to other file sharing networks.
If you don't want to run this software, get a clue. I don't think that anyone who is paranoid about tracking and unwanted software is going to install this stuff - i'm paranoid, more than most and I spotted this right away.
But I still support Kazaa, it's a fine network, let's get past the
I still think it beats most other networks hands down. Gnutella, sorry, but it's no Kazaa - i hate booting to windows, but other file sharing networks don't compare.
Get your Unix fortune now!
If I buy a book I can highlight (or doodle, or rip out, pages for that matter). It becomes my book.
I can also hire a person to buy some books, make random drawings, and rip out pages before I read it. If I decide that I don't like the alterations, I better be sure that I know how to fire him.
As for the copyright crap, the authors content isn't being altered. The html on the server is exactly the same. The next guy won't be influenced by another reader's alterations. If I don't want a copy of the book I wrote and sold (note I did not say "my book", because I sold the copy) altered or perverted by some guy with a highlighter, I should choose not to sell copies. If I don't want the html downloaded and viewed by some guy altered or perverted, I shouldn't put it up.
This is no different than changing the font size in my browser. Most people who change it don't see anything wrong with that. An artistic web designer might shit a brick when he sees that someone has thrown off the balance of his page by changing the font. If you don't know how to change the font back, don't mess with it.
And they went trudgin'
...Until they came to...
Bit after bit
Across the vast internet
Bit after bit
St. Alfonzo's internet breakfast
Where I found a unix machine
and wheedled in a coke can
In lieu of the latrine...
(Thank you Mr. Zappa)
Damnit, Jim, I'm an anarchist, not a F@#$!^& doctor!
Am I the only person who thinks its funny that people are complaining about software that highjacks their content when they installed the software in the first place to steal someone's elses?
--
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
--
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
But seriously, the legal argument brings up an interesting point. They claim what they're doing is perfectly legal, but if I released something
(even a legitimate stand-alone app that isn't quietly installed with other software)
that removes or overwrites the ads on their software, they'd haul me into court so fast my eyeballs would stretch. Anyone remember "AIMazing"?
--
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
--
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
--
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
To all the whiners out there...
Pay more attention to what you're installing on your computer!
It's always so easy to blame the other guy for our own shortcomings.
Despite what EULAs say, most software is sold, not licensed.
Yes, this is an unresearched opinion and I do not know if a court has considered a similar case. However, it is the one I came up with when discussing MS's Smart Tags and one I still feel is worth making.
Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.
I mean we've been talking a lot lately about MP3's and piracy... well think about this: Your content is sent out electronically to someone's computer, and before it is displayed, someone else "adds" to it, potentially (and probably) changing the message or theme of your work. To me that sounds like a violation of not only the right to free speech but also the right to protect your ideas. Anyone else feel this way?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ now you know
It saves me time I'd otherwise spend searching, at least. My brother just installed Kazaa in his new computer, and I watched him let several things through ZoneAlarm. (He doesn't seem to understand the point.) One of those was called "ezulabootexe" or something. A google search turned up nothing. Onflow got on there somehow, too. It looks like I'll be dealing with those today.
Providing security for the ignorant can be a full-time job. I need to find one that will pay me.
My IP is 192.168.1.100 Hack it if you want.
Come now people, It's pretty much standard procedure for me now that whenever I install a piece of freeware I look for the catch. People that just click through the install process and let random companies, especially the insidious file sharing devils (insert thunder.wav), deserve to reap the rewards of their hasty decision. Read the fine print people (or in this case the dialogue box). There's no such thing as a free lunch.
Eventually this crap will wind up on disney.com o something, thanks to some shareware app... and next thing you know, heeeeeeeeeeere comes goatse.cx links! :P
Not a good thing.
There are, however, other legal questions raised which are more likely to find their way into a court room.
1. Dilution of advertising revenue: Websites who sell advertising space on a per-click basis to companies who's products are related to the page content will have their advertising revenues diluted by additional theme related product links.
2. Breach of Contract: Advertisers who pay for exclusive advertising rights on a site will have their advertising contracts breached by a third party.
These legal issues are more likely to be successful in court because they deal with loss of revenue as opposed to abstract and embattled copyright issues.
And do we have a clue as to who owns the word "goat"?
Does the income I've derived from working with Unix belong to SCO?
It's only IE now, but it's also only a matter of time before it's ported to Netscape/Mozilla etc. - you're safe now, but give it time.
----------
Darryl Ballantyne
----------
Darryl Ballantyne
http://www.darrylballantyne.com
Another effective way of having your site removed (and a more immediate one) would be to call them. Their number, as listed on their web site, is 415-558-7777.
Maybe that would drive them nuts enough to rethink their strategy.
----------
Darryl Ballantyne
----------
Darryl Ballantyne
http://www.darrylballantyne.com
The concept in a good one, targeting your ads to a specific audience, but in practice it will fail for one simple reason. In the marketing and ad placement world, the ultimate goal is not to find the right customers, instead, the goal is to find any customers. If this kind of software ever takes off you will find the more cash-heavy companies buying not just words in thier own sphere, but all of the words in the English language.
Instead of having "shoes" going to Nike and "food" going to McDonalds, you'll have "bike" "Mozart" "the" "Sunday" and a whole host of random and indiscriminate words all pointing to www.xxxhotteens.com.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
What happens if it starts linking to content people find offensive?
What if it inserts links to adult sites when a kid is using the computer, for example?
When I make a website, if I want to show ads on it, I'll show ads. I'll chose who can get links and whatnot.
Maybe I want to make a website about how bad Nike is with the sweatshops, and next thing I know I've got yellow links all over my new website pointing to Nike sites saying that 8 year olds making shoes is a good thing.
I'd be pretty pissed if my content started getting dilluted like that.
-J5K
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
I read in an earlier post that Bank One had a link to Wells Fargo added to their site. Now, is that right? Personally that is very wrong. Bank One, or any other company should not have to advertise for their competitors without their knowledge.
That would be like having every instance of x-windows on a website aving the windows part underlined linking to Microsoft. Then every instance of Open Source, or Shared Source on Microsoft's website may as well point to something on the EFF site properly explaining the licenses involved.
Let's say you are an author and you are writing a completly free piece of fiction that you are putting up on the web. Would you want your readers distracted by links that someone else feels need to be in your work? These links would completely destroy the integrity of your work. For that alone you should be compensated.
This debate will go on forever. One thing is certain though. The people that care about their rights will do their best to stand up for their rights. The rest will just not care and will click the yellow links.
--
.sig seperator
--
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
I find this method of advertising to be rather awfull. While it may never happen, I believe we should write our congressmen and senators and ask, nay demand that they create legislation that will create the following basic rules.
Rule 1
The author of a website has the option of opting in only by adding a new meta-tag to their HTML code stating that they allow this form of advertisements to be displayed on their website.
Rule2
The developer or group that owns the website must be compensated for allowing their content to be altered by third parties. This compensation will increase dramtically if this is a corporate or small business web site that then has competitors advertisements littered about the site.
Rule3
Religous and non-profit organizations shall not have their sites compromised by these forms of advertisements. These sites and operators are also disallowed from being added to any of these adds as it would only be fair to all parties involved.
I am sure there are more rules that people can come up with and still allow these marketers make some sort of a nickel. Anyway, if I was running a website commercial or otherwise and found my content being altered even slightly with material that I find objectionable. Such as, a competitor's link or completly unrelated material, I would immediately get a lawyer and prepare a case against this company and any others like it.
Sure, that will only add to the already large docket of court cases. Unfortunately, there just is no other legal or legislative method of dealing with companies like this.
--
.sig seperator
--
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
We learned about TopText (which was called HOTText until the end of last week) because a number of Slashdot readers submitted a San Francisco Chronicle story about it.
No. You learned about TopText last week, but the SlashDot regular was treated to movie Katzviews, 8 rounds about Dmitry, a couple repeat articles, and two dozen stories we'd read 6 hours earlier on Yahoo!.
In the unlikely case noone else has mentioned it so far, Ad-Aware is a very useful tool for getting rid of all sorts of junk unscrupulous companies install on your computer along with their programs.
It's time some webmasters wake up to the fact that users aren't always going to see a page the way they designed it, and in some cases users are going to deliberately re-arrange content. If I want a program that puts extra links on pages then I'm damn well going to use it, and I don't care what webmasters think. If I want to remove adds, remove pictures, change colours, add frames, reduce the HTML to plain text, index it, sort it, or just generally mangle it then that should be up to me.
-- Welcome to nowhere fast / nothing here ever lasts.
This is insidious technology which we obviously don't want on our systems, but even if law makers decide to do something about this type of aggressive advertising, what kind of legislation would adequately (and morally) address the issue.
It seems pretty obvious that inserting your own advertising links into other peoples web pages is wrong, but manipulating data is what computers are all about. Should a browser-maker have charges brought against them because they render certain pages incorrectly, thus defaming the page author?
Like I said, blatant ad links is obviously BAD, but where can the line practically be drawn?
By the way, begging the question is 'answering' a question without adressing it, ie. Q: What evidence do you have for your claim? A: I know of know evidence against it. 'Begging the question' is one of the most commonly misused pretentious phrases out there.
...and this lie crawls out of its mouth: 'I, the state, am the people.'
It is used far more commonly as "leads to the question" than as the literally nonsensical debate formalism you suggest. It makes sense as "leads to the question" when interpretted normally (compare "This movie is just begging for a brutal review!"), whereas it only works for your preferred purpose when memorized as an obscure set-phrase (where the hell did it come from, anyway? A literal translation of a Latin idiom?).
;-)
"Begging the question" should <i>never</i> be used to mean a logical error, because it is obscure, completely misleading in a literal sense, and thus will be usually be misinterpreted by the vast majority of your audience. Simply say it plain English: "You're giving your belief as evidence that you're right." or "That's not evidence, you're just asserting your claim!" or even "That's circular logic."
Such a term is just an archaic excuse for pseudointellectual snobs to roll their eyes at their opponents and dismiss them because they haven't learned the same jargon. IOW, outside of the debating club, it's a vehicle for an ad hominem attack.
---
---
You'd be surprised at the broadband connection available to things crawling around in your hair.
Thus, it is not a case of argumentum ad populum as a logical error to consider common usage.
Now, there are different levels of consensus, and one can argue that consensus among professional writers or among "educated men" is more important than in the general population. Regardless, that ridiculous literal translation is only known to a handful of language pedants and debate geeks, a minority among college-educated people or even professional writers. It is jargon at best.
If not even 10% of the population recognizes an idiom, it is not part of standard English, and it's fair game for literal interpretation.
---
---
You'd be surprised at the broadband connection available to things crawling around in your hair.
People who misuse or misinterpret "pi", "turbocharger", and "URL" generally have a very fuzzy concept of those terms, hesitate to define them, and are ready to defer to some authority. The popular conception of "turbocharger" is, "Something that makes the car go faster, that I don't really understand." and the popular consensus is to defer to industry experts on the precise definition. There is a consensus of authority as valid as any consensus of definition. Put simply, they know who to ask for a definition, and that makes the definition valid.
People who "misuse" or "misinterpret" "...begs the question...", on the other hand, generally wouldn't hesitate to give a definition, and dismiss self-proclaimed "experts" as pedants. The same goes for "millennium" (or "millenium" for that matter).
The "language lawyers" like to imagine themselves authorities, but they are not because they are popularly rejected.
---
---
You'd be surprised at the broadband connection available to things crawling around in your hair.
Buy the word "Chinese" and have it go to www.whitehouse.gov. Heh.
Chick friend of mine told me about KaZaA, so I checked the site. Decided not to download it when I saw that it "requires" Media Player 6 and IE 4 at least. Good thing I didn't download it, because I would have been on the warpath when I figured out what the hell it was doing. I guess Microsoft did something good for once: Kept me from downloading a shady piece of software.
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
As previously mentioned, this said program will turn all occurances of a chosen word or phrase into a link to a specified website that has information or sells the product inferred or described by that keyword. Now, there are a few kickers here.
First off, this doesn't really apply to us computer savvy people, but I am sure there are plenty of people who just mindlessly installed this program. Ok, now say I run a web site that reviews DVD players. Now, when I am talking about the pros and cons of a certain dvd player, do I want whenever the word DVD shows up to link to some random company that I have no control over? Say the site says "I recommend this DVD player, as its features are ..." and DVD Player becomes a link to a completely different player that what I am talking about. To the uninformed surfer that would look like I was linking to one thing while talking about another. It just doesn't make sense.
It's like if I go into the library and just randomly insert phrases into the books.
"It was the best of times DRINK SPRITE, it was the worst of times NEW FORD EXPEDITION - 0.9% APR - LIMITED TIME ONLY!"
Oh but its ok, because I may have but a small disclaimer outside the library saying "We reserve to right to insert ads into other peoples' work"
I don't think so folks, it just doesn't make sense.
Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk who carried a gun and ran from the mob. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it. That does not make sense. Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor with a bunch of two-foot-tall Ewoks. That does not make sense.
Why should a company be able to randomly insert links and change how people percieve content? It just doesn't make sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must ban this program!
(Star Wars fans, I understand that if you read the Star Wars books you will argue that Chewbacca does indeed NOT live on Endor, I am merely using this as an example, quoted partly from South Park )
"An individualist is a man who says: 'I will not run anyone's life - nor let anyone run mine. I will not rule or be ruled. I will not be a master nor a slave. I will not sacrifice myself to anyone - nor sacrifice anyone to myself.'" - Ayn Rand
"We shall show mercy, but we shall not ask for it" -- Winston Churchill
I still haven't figured out how I got this one installed, but I recently found it on my computer at work. I frequently visit sites that have alternate media types and weird plugins when doing research online, so it could have been installed during one of those sessions. In any case, I noticed it when a "pop-under" ad didn't have the usual icon in the menu bar. Instead of the usual IE 'e', it was a little green dollar sign. I checked my Task Manager, and sure enough, a program called SaveNow was running. (It was in the processes tab, and didn't show up as a usual program.) I had seen it before, thinking it was some stupid MS thing (maybe a daemon to make sure my Excel sheets were autosaved, or something; never gave it much thought) but was outraged that something was installed on my machine without my consent. If I consented to the plugin on the page, fine, install the plugin. Don't piggyback this garbage and f*ck with my machine. Who knows what kind of information that thing was sending to wherever?? Has anyone seen this before? Where does this trojan bastard come from?
It is not only text that is/may be copyrighted material. Layout and images are as well. As a designer I would be angry if the layout of my pages were changed, a change may include other colours on text that I did not intend to use. What is the next step; Making imagemaps with links on my copyrighted pictures? Maybe a program that scans an image on my page and recognise if there is a can of coca-cola in it and replaces it with a can of pepsi instead? The program is not really altering the picture/text itself. Only adjusts the way the user sees it. That doesn't make it less wrong. My copyrighted material is still violated.
"It is up to you to install it" is not really a good argument for me. We all know what is going to happen if it is not stopped early enough. As MS (and in the future loads of other companies) want it as a part of the Operating System it will in the future not only "link" web-pages but probably also: installation programs, games and authoring tools (such as a text-editor). This scenario is far to easy to imagine...
Gives me the creeps.