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 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?"
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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]
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"
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.
--SC
You read fiction? I write it! Lemme know what you th
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."
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!
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!