Slashdot Mirror
General Public Realizes KaZaa is Spyware
blankmange writes "CNet is reporting the slow dawning of the general public to KaZaa and spyware. "Virginia Watson unwittingly authorized a company she'd never heard of to install software that would help turn her computer into part of a brand-new network. The software, from Brilliant Digital Entertainment, came with the popular Kazaa file-swapping program. But the 65-year-old Massachusetts resident--who has a law degree--didn't read Kazaa's 2,644-word "terms of service" contract, which stated that Brilliant might tap the "unused computing power and storage space" of Watson's computer. " " Fortunately the helpful
graph in the article compares the complexity of IRS tax forms with Brilliant's
terms of use... guess which one is harder to read?
I'm wondering if anyone DOES know the legal implications of those service agreements. When those long agreements pop-up before installation, not only does no one read them, but you agree to the thing by clicking on either 'yes' or 'no' buttons....is a yes/no button a legally binding clause? They do not, at any point, get your signature nor is the agree monitored by anything other than the installation program itself (i'm assuming, anyway).
I don't know...I'm curious..thoughts?
Only 22% admitted to reading it! gee I wonder why.. that 10 page terms of use policy in windows 2000 was so frickng long and complicated that once you get past the 2nd page you just hit the pg-down button and hit the F8 to confirm afterwards after taking advil to try to forget that you even read it in the first place!
Maybe they should do what newspapers do and dumb it down a bit so that it'd be shorter and a easier read then more people would be better informed..
When you lease a car, you don't own it. The lease company does. They can do whatever they want to with the vehicle as long as they disclose that up front. If you sign the lease without reading the fine print, that's your fault. Now granted, I think software companies are trying to snowball consumers by throwing multi page EULA's at them and burying the scary stuff. All the more reason to only use GPL software. I'm afraid to even boot my Winblows box without running Adaware right away.
I am glad that I do home computer consulting for a living. There are so many idiots out there who just install whatever software they find without knowing the facts. And I'm glad that most of the facts are only availible on obscure sites until most people have already been hurt. I LOVE AMERICA. I am glad that companies to stupid stuff like this to hurt consumer's PCs. Somebody has to fix the damage, therefore it translates into MONEY for me ($75/hour).
I am no troll. This is the truth. It's not very nice, but look at how much a body shop charges. Or a plumber. People don't want to be protected. They do not want knowledge. They want to make mistakes, and they want to pay to have them fixed.
God Bless America.
Cheers.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
Kazaa Lite is without spyware:
http://www.kazaalite.com
It replaces one of the spyware DLLs Kazaa requires with a do-nothing version.
Dan East
I don't see the big deal here. Software tries to get onto your computer all the time. What about Macromedia Flash? That'll install within the browser. Or how about those lame Comet Cursors? Ditto. Do I want either? No.
It happens in the real world too. When you buy something at Circuit City, they'll ask you if you want this 'cover plan' or that 'insurance' blah blah.. and after standing in a lot of lines, I've noticed that people generally agree to these things without understanding what they are!
Once I stook behind a guy who agreed to everything, signed all the papers, and then the sales guy said.. okay, that's an extra $45 please. The customer didn't realize what was going on and said 'No thanks' and left.. after holding everyone up in the line for 5 minutes filling all the forms out!
So I don't really see a problem here. It's a form of idiot tax. It's harder to avoid all of the pitfalls today, but hey.. you gotta remain vigilent at all times.
mogorific carpentry experiments
Of course, the whole point of the article (if you've read it, though I'll guess that you haven't) is that the complexity of most EULAs are absurdly difficult : The type of convoluted, circular, impossible to read verbage that virtually no one could read through and understand even if they were truly committed to reading the EULA for every single piece of software that they installed.
Personally, I think that there should be basic laws governing software just as there are in the rest of society (i.e. There is a 20 page EULA every time I go to a variety store and buy a can of coke, because there are certain expectations and societal and legal standards that govern the experience : i.e. Drinking a coke doesn't make them own my liver) : For instance, no software can communicate over the internet without explaining, in simple English (not intentionally vague legalize) why it is doing it, and who it's really benefitting.
Get it here or here
---
Extra Features compared to original KaZaA
- No Adware
- No Spyware
- No banners
- No bitratelimit for mp3 files
- No irritating websites loaded into KaZaA
- No crappy BDE Viewer
- No f*cking Bonzi Buddy
- Set up multiple users with the included PseudoTrack tool
It's called AdAware, and it seems capable of nuking most nasty little apps installed by websites and applications like Kazza. Grab it here from Lavesoft USA and be very afraid at how many spyware components it finds!
You should also download their reference file update utility too. This lets you keep up to date with the latest spyware programs out there.
Alas gallinaceas de urbe bovis volo
Much as the avalanche of spam in the 1990s prompted action from legislators and regulators
Yeah, I'm glad we got that taken care of back in the 90s...
Synergy is your friend
He got a new computer, got all excited about Morpheus and then they switched. Since then he hasn't been able to get anything to start downloading. So he was telling me he was going to install this Kaaza thing and try it, and asked me if I'd heard of it.
As I explained some of the functionality surplus to him, you could see his jaw just dropping and dropping.
But I betcha he'll still install it - cause he loves the CD burner he has and how easy it is to burn MP3's-> CDDA.
I care that this bde stuff is bringing w2k/xp machines down to a grinding halt in fugly ways.
Ad-aware is getting used more and more in my toolkit. I sure wish Norton/Macafee/whoever would just go ahead and add crap like this into their AV software. This garbage is a "virus" in my book.
It only goes to show that you should read everything before you sign it. This is similar to discovering on your car lease that the company reserves the right to use the car when you aren't.
I've always wondered if the "click if you agree" thing is enough. I remember learning once in my highschool law class that when it came to contracts etc, both parties had to fully understand the extent of the wording - in order to protect people from "fine print" trickery.
It would seem to me that these over-complicated EULAs are an attempt to either confuse users, or get them to click "Agree" without understanding the terms.
If I "trick" you into signing something, you should still be legally protected. Granted of course that you can afford to take it to court.
But that's what class action suits are for right?
IADNAL (D==Definitely)
If you read many of your EULA's carefully, you'll find that you have a right to use the software, but you don't actually own the software... Really depends on the software company, but this is fairly common.
Hmmm...
I'm so glad these guys are getting pounded for this. It's pretty amazing how many news outlets picked up on this story. Unfortunately, there are many many more situations like this that are overlooked.
I really don't have a problem with companies adding extra programs into their software. The problem I have is 1) Not being told about it and 2) Not being given the option of opting out or not installing it.
As far as I'm concerned, a license is not an appropriate place to inform the user of third party software coming along for the ride. Software should be very explicit during install exactly what's happening. That way, the user can either not install the program, or if allowed, not install that component. What's so hard about that?
The fact that these companies try to hide this stuff shows they know the systems are a bit shady.
Strangely enough, this happens with big-time commercial software as well. I was pretty p*ssed when Intuit's TurboTax installed Internet Explorer on my laptop without asking. It just told me, "Installing IE 5.5 now" with no cancel button. I had 5.0 installed and it was there for a reason. Oh, well.
Hopefully, awareness of these practices will hurt companies who will entually find it beneficial to be up front with their customers!
Unfortunatly, I lost interest and didn't take the time to read all the way through it. I hope there wasn't anything I'm supposed to know in there.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
or burglerware if you like. People rightfully don't expect their pc to be tapped, its resources used or otherwise tampered with.
Of course "it's their own fault" but that does not take away the unprecedented lack of morality of the companies involved.
It should be considered virii and nothing else.
How many millions have downloaded this software now?
:)
:)
How come not one person out of these millions noticed that line about tapping your computers unused cycles and wrote to a news site pr here about it?
Why did this come out only when brilliant filed with the SEC?
Surely at least one person must have read the damn eula? Somehow i don't feel to bad for everyone..
A very happy furthernet[furthernet.com] user
burn my karma if ya like i don't care i think i have a good point
It should be illegal to have complicated and misleading user-agreements in software. Over the course of a day, a consumer might have to agree to several of these, not to mention other contracts, service agreements, etc. they have to sign in their non-computer life. Invariably, these sorts of things are unreadably long and full of Legalese unintelligible to the average Joe. We're bombarded by so many, that it is literally impossible to read and understand them all, let alone send them to our lawyers (as we are "supposed" to do with contracts).
Because of the size, complexity and volume of these things (and the need to usually get past them quickly), I would argue that they amount to coercion (which would invalidate them). The same is true of shrink-wrap software licenses (which you are rarely able to examine until well after you've unwittingly agreed to them). Of course, I doubt a court of law would agree with me. However, I think it would make sense to have a consumer protection law that requires that these sorts of things have a short, concise, easy to read summary at the beginning that gives the user an idea of what they're getting in to (with all the legalese below for completeness). That would prevent companies from creating scumware like this then hiding behind their user-auto-agreements.
... "Give me a woman who loves beer and I will conquer the w
AdAware (USA Link)
AdAware (.de)
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
Personally, I wish that is exactly what would happen. Popups dialogs and confirmation boxes should only appear when there is something you need to think about. If you're not supposed to think about it, then why are they bothering you with the popup in the first place?
Nope, no sig
Boo hoo, the poor public. If they cared enough about their computers and what was happening to them they would learn it. THEY DON'T CARE. THEY DON'T READ SLASHDOT. THEY DON'T SPEND 8 HOURS A DAY SURFING THE WEB. I think it's fine to exploit consumers weaknesses like this. Every other industry does, why shouldn't software?
There is not a box on the front page of the New York Times that says "Certain stuff written in this paper is false." Normal people assume everthing in there is true, and smart people know to take it with a rock of salt.
The same with computers. People SHOULD just assume the software works and is safe, and if you're smart, you won't and you will read the EULA.
Then, when the conseqences occur, hire a professional to fix it. If people shouldn't be expected to learn, why should we be expected to protect them out of the goodness of our hearts? I am a home computer "consultant" and I make good money fixing people's computers. People who don't give a flying F what's running on it, so long as they can look at their porn and write their emails and print their Word docs. People who screw up their computers and are totally fine with paying someone to fix it. Real consumers. Realists. Not cheapskate wannabe good citizens who like to spout off about "protecting the consumer". You've obviously never had a real job or you'd know there are no friends in business.
So, I'm glad companies take advantage of consumers, and I'm glad computers screw themselves up. Because it gives me a job. Don't try to take it away from me.
Cheers.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
So until you back up your claim with some credible links I am skeptical.
aus.music.scrapbook
This raises an interesting question in my mind. My mother tongue is french, I have enough technical knowledge of english to figure out what the menus of a program are and what the use of the program is. But I don't understand english legalese (nor french, for that matter). So would a court consider that they tricked me into clicking the I agree button by intentionaly obfuscating the agreement?
You could of course complain that I should have clicked the "I don't agree" button then. But what in the case I give this software to my mother (who has no knowledge whatsoever of english), she tries installing the software and by trial and error, finds that the "I agree" button is the only one that installs the program. Can she still be considered tied by the "contract"?
One shall speak only if what one has to say is more beautiful than silence
This is so ridiculous. Trust is soon to become a thing of the distant past. The last shreds of it are slipping away. Modern cannibalism for the sake of the dollar. So sad.
"Brilliant, whose Altnet peer-to-peer software piqued consumer fears, says it is committed to telling people exactly how their computers will be used via new agreements and pop-up boxes as it loads more software and starts using consumers' computer resources."
If they were so committed to telling people, why the hell didn't they? All of these companies set out to decieve, then lie and manipulate to cover their asses. I can't even imagine the discussions that these people had to plan such an underhanded ploy.
You can't even hum two bars of a song without someone looking for royalties. Do you think these companies intent to pay up when they use your computer to solve a million dollar math problem? hell no! damn the man..haha
"... I would hate to think we could reach a point that, whenever a dialog box comes up and says, 'Do you want to do this,' bells go off and people become worried." (Robert Regular, vice president of sales and marketing at New York-based digital advertising firm Cydoor)
Oh yeah, wouldn't want that...
I'll bet you a nickel that if they run the Kazaa TOS through TextArc, Bill Gate's face will appear. =)
My
Limekiller
Part of my job is to configure students machines for use on a dorm network. Very often we get complaints about service ranging from no connectivity to slow performance. Of course the slowness can be directly attributed to P2P apps and their tendency to hog bandwidth, but Gator and its ilk are notorious in our circles as poorly written programs that not only do all the privacy violation, etc that they should be reviled for, they also have the unique ability to mung Winsock on machines running ME, 98 and 2000. The fix requires a young priest and old priest and a silver sword (read: edit the registry and rebuild the TCP/IP stack). So now when I get a machine with Gator, etc. I edit the system startup to shut it down. Invariably the performance of the machine and its network connectivity rebounds. I don't ask permission to do this as we are not removing the program, but simply preventing having the prolematic software do what it does -- start.
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
If the company failed to take these actions and allowed the user to click through anyway, they could rest assured that their EULA would be unenforceable. That would certainly shorten EULAs fast.
"I'm not an extremist," said Robert Regular, vice president of sales and marketing at New York-based digital advertising firm Cydoor. "But all this talk of spyware is the equivalent of elevating one bad seed, and it's having negative consequences on the good software. The public doesn't have time to investigate if it's negative software; they'll just stop downloading...I would hate to think we could reach a point that, whenever a dialog box comes up and says, 'Do you want to do this,' bells go off and people become worried."
So we're supposed to trust them. These spyware folks are just a few bad apples among the wonderful adware crowd. Damn you, Brilliant, you're keeping me from all this good adware software.
(I am not a lawyer, but my wife is studying to be one)
While she was taking her contracts class, she pored over EVERY single contract (Wedding coordinator, photographer, hotel where the wedding was held, DJ, etc.) with a fine tooth comb. That is the lawyer in training method.
But when I speak with friends of the family who are lawyers, many simply sign every document thrust in front of their face becuase they know that no matter how you phrased it, they can wiggle out if need be!
That explains why I sign legally binding documents as I. P. Freely
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
This *could* be a valid business model. Think about it: Company X offers services for free in exchange for a few of your CPU cycles. The same client could be used for both distributed processing and, say, file downloads. Company X makes money by selling CPU power to third parties (your spare cycles) and you, the user, enjoy free service.
Unfortunately, KaZaa wants to do it *without* telling you. That's just unacceptable...
If reading Slashdot, surfing the web, and thinking newspapers are nothing more than corporate whores makes you a demi-god, then you take the cake!
I wonder if these poor fucks to which you're referring bring any value into the world at all? After all, the internet, computers, software, etc all have intrinsic value, right? All other focus is folly.
Sanitation engineers (that's right, garbagemen) probably exploit me in some way too...but I don't have a way to get that garbage away from my house (in the city) without their help. If I see my friend downloading and 'agreeing' to an obviously sketchy program, I'll probably tell him to think twice--cause I can help him out with places that I know a thing or two about.
It's called 'learning'
KaZaA should of predicted the amount of backlash it would face when adding distributed spyware to it's installer. Consumers are willing to tolerate some level of spyware, as we have seen with the variety of P2P apps with "bundled apps", but KaZaA has not just stepped over the line, they flew over it. Now look at where they are at, the name KaZaA is synonymous with spyware, but more importantly KaZaA has been removed from download.com, I can't think of a worst fate for a windows app.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
So I've been thinking more and more about this as I still can't download Farscape on the "new" Morpheus (Curse it's infernal codes), and I'm starting to come to a a conclusion that should get thrown out to see if it's not off base. . .
So KaZaa (which still sounds like 'l337 Skr1pt k1dd13' speak) lets Morpheus use their network, since it'll pull in those people who want to use peer-to-peer and also know enough that spyware is out there and it's bad, mm'kay? One day, when Morpheus has something like a few million users, they pull the plug. Question: Where will these newly-deprived users go? For the most part, KaZaa. Now how many 'new things' are suddenly added to KaZaa and not mentioned? Seems to me like the main purpose of Morpheus in the beginning was more of a "gateway drug" to get otherwise intelligent people to use KaZaa. I think if the management at our favorite spyware-headquarters didn't know that they were using it to drag people in when they would eventually shut it down, they would have never let it run at all.
One giant user grab? I think so.
- Relativistic? That's barely Newtonian!
Hey, let's just pave the way for lawyers to have further control of the fucking world! That's exactly what we need! To have this issue debated and decided by computer ILLITERATES who will end up fucking us all straight up the pooper! YAY! HAVEN'T WE LEARNED, FOLKS?!
If you are too LAZY to learn the facts, to learn how to compile your own open source software, to learn how to fix your own plumbing, YOU ARE GOING TO BE GETTING SCREWED BY SOMEONE WHO DOES KNOW.
So please. Don't ask for new laws. Learn the facts. And then make money off the people who don't know them.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
is a yes/no button a legally binding clause?
t iv es/hotmail.html
From http://www.techlawonline.com/internet.htm#about3:
The Internet variant of "shrinkwrap" licenses are "clickwrap" licenses which are standard-form contracts entered into online; for example, Terms of Service posted on a web site, under which the purchaser signifies his assent to the terms simply by clicking on a box marked "I Agree." Like shrinkwrap licenses, the terms are non-negotiable. Unlike post-payment shrinkwrap licenses, however, the purchaser's consent to the posted terms is usually obtained before the exchange of funds.
While the courts have not explicitly upheld the enforceability of clickwrap licenses, in at least one recent decision, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California implicitly ruled that such an agreement was enforceable. Hotmail Corporation v. Van$ Money Pie Inc., 47 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1020, 1998 WL 388389 (April 1998, N.D.Cal.). It remains to be seen whether other courts will similarly find these types of agreements enforceable.
The court's decision in the Hotmail case above can be found here:
http://eon.law.harvard.edu/h2o/property/alterna
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
I think the general concensus amonst us all is that spyware is bad, yet the only reliable (and free) solution seems to of been delegated to our friends at Lavasoft, while they are doing a *great* job, their project is unfortunatly closed source and therefore people/programmers cannot really contribute to its success (other than donate cash which is reccomended but not convienent to everyone)
if people feel so strongly on this issue why hasen't anyone started an open source solution to this scurge so the talented programmers amongs us can improve the scanning and detection techniques ?
at the moment the spyware companies only really have to make their product beat lavasofts Adaware and they are in business (at least til/if Adaware picks it up)
sure spyware seems to be only targeted to Windows users but as other operating systems become more widespread it is only a matter of time before they spread to these alternative platforms too
while closed source could be argued as a good thing (stop spycompanies seeing how it works) could they beat 100's of programmers all working to make the scanning engine more robust and secure, this obviously works in regards to computer security on *nix platforms as viruses are not more prominent than closed source platforms
so would beating spyware benefit from these same techniques ?
While i agree that these spyware programs should be regarded as viruses/trojans i think once you bring a commercial element into the equation you open yourselves up to attacks of perpetuating the products life/success (ie: rumours that virus detection companies create viruses)
so would an open source spyware detection solution work ?
I've always wondered if the "click if you agree" thing is enough. I remember learning once in my highschool law class that when it came to contracts etc, both parties had to fully understand the extent of the wording - in order to protect people from "fine print" trickery.
Wonder if anyone has tried an "envelope contract" on a software company and got it enforced..
When all this blew up znet produced some manual removal instructions which are here
-- Vagnerr - (www.vagnerr.com) Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Free = questionable ethics? I haven't found any problems/spyware in WinMX...
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
I know that it's a mistake to think of legal documents as if legal language were source code or machine instructions for the legal system. None the less, it does seem as if we are beginning to see legal documents employing the same sort of "social engineering" and "viral behaviour" that we encounter daily in code.
What Kazaa has done is no different from what the Mellissa virus did: It presented people with a choice (install this software for Kazaa, open this document for Mellissa) that appeared to most to be benign. The means of knowing the choice was not benign were available (the license agreement for Kazaa, the actual contents of the document for Mellissa), but were obfuscated (in complex and opaque legal language, in obfuscated macros in an opaque document format) and chaffed (in one small part of a very large file/document in both cases).
Perhaps, then, we need to look upon trojans written in legal "code" the same way we look at trojans in software: As malicious and probably illegal. It is no more sensible to expect people to be able to fully comprehend a complex (and deliberately obfuscated) legal document than it is to expect people to read the binary code of every program they run. Yet our legal system presumes that you are responsible for your agreement to "run" the legal code but that you are the victim when you run the binary.
We need to treat contracts and licenses written in legal language the same way that we treat compiled code: as opaque and, when they are harmful, as malicious "exploits" of user vulnerabilities.
--G
That's fine, but here is my issue.
So you say "that would never happen", and I say take another look at the lows that internet companies will go to to turn a buck. especially companies that will use a another program to slip your install script onto users programs.
Oh wait... I'll have to wait until "Brilliant Digital Entertainment" is done with my CPU to finnish this post....
Yeah, but tthats why we have these pesky things called laws to protect us from a) companies, b) each other, c) our own ignorance. Cerrtain things in society you take on faith, like that fact that eacting a bowl of cheris in tthe morning won't cause spontaneous combustion in every person who eats it. This is why we have the sickinging amount of laws and regulations we have, to limit people from screwing each other over.
Mod point free since 2001
If you want to convince a court that your knowledge of English is limited, I suggest you refrain from using phrases like "intentionally obfuscating the agreement."
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
1. We have the right to use your computer, drink your beer and sleep with your sister.
2. You agree to binding arbitration, which means our representitve "Bubba" will tie you up and have his way with you until you stop whining.
3. You agree to purchase additional hardware as we deem necessary to run our software.
4. Your rights: NONE
Accept Yes/NO
SD
âoeWho knew something as harmless as willful ignorance could end up having real consequences?â
If you disagree, reply.
"[T]he single essential element on which all discoveries will be dependent is human freedom." -- Barry Goldwater
True. Limit. But not prevent. I mean, no one would make any money if everything was fair. If it was FAIR, everyone would have the same stuff, and we'd all be Marxists.
:) Some people are better suited to the enviroment than others; not that we shouldn't help the less fortunate. But it's ok to make a living also.
:)
But that just doesn't work
NoBODY gets filthy rich being honest. I AM honest about my work. I tell people what their problem is because I'd rather not come back to fix a little thing 10 times, even if I'm making 75 bucks to do it. There's just no CHALLENGE to it.
So maybe it's all a question of honor. I mean, without problems, I wouldn't have a job, so I like problems. But you can't take TOO much advantage of people. Then you start being evil.
I've got my Karma to worry about
Cool! Amazing Toys.
IF you want to make a big deal about the legality of EULAs don't forget that something is either a contract or it is not. In which case it may have to conform to readibility statutes including being in a language you can actually read. Time and time again, legally speaking oh libertarian one - obscurity for the sake of obscurity has been struck down in the courts under the general principal that if you have something to hide you are probably committing fraud or trying to commit fraud.
Pointing people there could save hours of explanation...
If you don't understand the EULA of the software, don't install it. Who's forcing you to put this software on your computer?
Besides, shouldn't some warning bell be going off in your head if the legalese in the EULA is overly obfuscated?
Ask yourself: What else could this incoherent block of text mean other than what am I inferring it to be? What are the Company's interests in my installing the Software? What is the ulterior motive? What did I just read? What is the point of each and every single section of text?
"[T]he single essential element on which all discoveries will be dependent is human freedom." -- Barry Goldwater
If your computer is your castle, YOU are the only person responsible for defending it, and YOU are the only person who is to blame when YOU install something without reading the license agreement.
You, you, you, you, you, you, and only you.
I install stuff from the internet all the damn time. I click through just like everyone else, but I don't complain that the devil made me do it. If its yours, take some responsibility for it. If you refuse to, then deal with it pal, 'cause only you are to blame. People don't say "read the fine print" because it's something nice to say. People say it because it's good advice.
I can't even proofread my posts or put in a /i to delimit the comment. what a lamer.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
Other ideas that come to mind are standardized liability levels to which you can associate a logo. Something like 'MC' = Mission Critical, we pay if it breaks, 'NL' = No liability, you assume all the risks, and probably other more fine grained categories? The idea is that a software purchaser should know where they stand when buying a piece of software, rather than having to resort to hiring a lawyer or screwing themselves royally because they don't have the time for the fine print.
Just imagine having a license written on the wrapping paper of every present you get at christmas. I am not sure anyone would check what it had to say, since they just want to get to the goody inside - software is the same.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
"It's smart to ALWAYS know what you are signing for. Because you could be signing away the life of your child." That's what I get from this post.
Not "everything should be spelled out in 20 different languages to be fair" "we should all get everything for free." "I'm a worthless communist" as you intended to say.
I'm sorry to be acidic, but I never said I don't support consumer advocacy. I said I don't support LAWS governing what software CAN and CANNOT do. There are ALREADY laws prohibiting viruses and malicious, destructive software. Most people don't care if their spare computer cycles are used by some company if, in return, they get a good piece of software. And if it screws up their computer, they are happy to have it fixed.
There does not need to be LEGISLATION in this matter. There needs to be education. People should not just download and run software from untrusted sites. EVERYONE knows that. So in this case, I do not shed a tear.
No pity for the majority.
Cheers.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
Whenever I read articles about this I think about the free amusement park in the movie "Pinnochio" that turns you into a donkey. Moral of the story: There's no such thing as a free lunch.
Simply outlawing them, or offering a basic "If someone pays you for the right to use the software, you MUST offer them the ability to install and use the software without agreeing to any conditions beyond those implied by copyright law and first-use/right of first sale doctrines." is not going to help the lawyers. It removes them from the process, and a good thing too.
Yes, this sounds like a good idea on the surface, yes? But it is just asking for trouble. The laws as they are can be screwed up. And sure, some change might be due. But who are you asking to institute this change? CONGRESS?! heh, I think not.
Perhaps this is a good idea: State laws, a proposition or referendum proposing to void EULA validity? Then at least the PEOPLE get to write the law, etc.
Because you know congress will sneak in some backdoor that just makes us all worse off than we were before.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
Most of what I've read so far in this discussion is about click through licences, which is fair enougth.
However what I'am wondering is, am I bound by any licencing aggrement on any software that comes pre-installed on my PC.
I never signed or clicked an agrement, nor did I openn a package, so do I have to abide by any licence agrement I find with the Machine.
Wouldn't it be nice if schools got all the money they wanted and the army had to hold jumble sales for guns
Yeah, I love lawyers. They have the right idea. They make a lot of money and don't work hard. If you're smart enough, you can not work hard and make a lot of money too.
I can't believe, for instance, people get paid 65k a year to write "Visual Basic" "code". But someone has to I guess. I guess.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
Most people don't care if their spare computer cycles are used by some company if, in return, they get a good piece of software.
Then how about distributing the software with "price: The Idle time of your PC"? Why are these "ways you pay for the software" always hidden away, usually installed silently in the background, and controlled via a checkbox that was careful placed outside of the visible range on one part of a 30 part install wizard? The reality is that most of this insidious software doesn't state its true intentions, because they know if they did many people would forgo using it, but instead they put "FREE!" all over the product.
There does not need to be LEGISLATION in this matter. There needs to be education. People should not just download and run software from untrusted sites. EVERYONE knows that. So in this case, I do not shed a tear.
Uh, we're talking about mainstream, very popular software : Not software from warez sites. So if Netscape 8.2 read your financial information and sent it on to banks, that's ay okay?
No pity for the majority.
And you work in computer configuration and repair? I feel pity for your customers. I'll guess that you're the type of guy that always has the raised eyebrow, exclaiming about how dumb the average Joe is, while at the same time wallowing in your own ignorance.
I don't understand why someone would use a large general-file-sharing app when all they want is music. If you download the audiogalaxy client, you get access to a far superior collection, and with creative searches, find anything for download.
If you don't understand the EULA of the software, don't install it. Who's forcing you to put this software on your computer?
Because extensive EULAs have become the norm, and even minimal freeware apps have 40 page licenses. If one local store started making you sign a EULA to shop there, I'd stop shopping there, but if they ALL started doing it then what choice do you have? It's at that point that legal protections are the balancing factor.
Besides, shouldn't some warning bell be going off in your head if the legalese in the EULA is overly obfuscated?
Ambiguity that is a fundamental aspect of language led to the creation of "legal-speak": A barely comprehensible, but understandable by lawyers, babbletalk that holds up in court, but has little meaning to the Average Joe that doesn't deal with it day in and day out. Obscurity is the norm in EULAs. The GPL states in 3000 words what I could easily reduce down to 3 sentences.
From the article: "Congress is examining bundled software and related issues. In 1999, and again in 2001, Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., introduced legislation to force spyware distributors to get permission and notify people with a detailed description of the information they're collecting. No committee has picked up the bill, but broader consumer notice and privacy concerns are showing up in a compromise Internet privacy legislation soon to be introduced by Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, D-S.C."
Watch this jack-@ss like a hawk! Who here wants to bet he's going to tack the SSSCA on to this thing, call it a, "Consumer privacy bill," and try to sneak it in that way? I wouldn't trust that man to be a janitor in city hall.
Another thing that I just love that they mention are the, "modify without notice or consent," clauses. Does that mean that if they change the contract to, "By clicking I agree, you agree to be an indentured servant for not less than 10, and not more than 10000 years," it's legally binding? An agreement, by it's very nature, cannot be modified without consent of both parties involved, or it isn't an agreement.
BlackGriffen
If it's true that you can't enter a legally binding agreement while drunk, just pound a few brews before clicking "I agree." Time to go install some more software...
The article seems to want to make the distinction between spyware and adware, stating that adware has legitimate purposes, and that it informs users of its intent in a clear manner.
As one example, they describe in brief the software Gator uses to obtain marketing demographic information about you:
Does an uninvited guest keep knocking on your door saying, 'Hi! I'm here!'?" he asked rhetorically, describing Gator's multiple disclosures and the icon of alligator eyes that appears whenever the program is running. "No. We are invited guests on the desktop and even pop up a fourth modal screen saying, 'Your Gator software is here.' And since our e-wallet software helps users every day fill out forms, we constantly come back and have an ongoing relationship with our customers."
Well, the other week I ran RegMon on my XP box (wait, RegMon uses system-level hooks, doesn't it? That might be against the XP EULA) Anyway, I monitored my registry access, and aside from seeing expected system activity, I noticed a number of references to www.gator.com, checking for the presense of various applications of my computer. I have never knowingly agreed to have gator software installed on my machine (though I may have clicked Agree in some agreement where it was buried in legal speak). It does not appear in the "Remove Software" control in XP. Further, despite what the above quote suggests, gator eyes do not appear in my taskbar, and I have not seen a single modal dialog telling me gator is looking through my registry.
My guess is that gator was either bundled with my machine (Sony Vaio), or entered my machine piggy-backed onto another app that I did agree to install.
The app that believe sold my info to gator is AudioGalaxy satellite, a file sharing app ala Kazaa.
As an aside, I also noticed some registry activity from bundled virus software on my machine that I supposedly disabled; has hijacking my machine become an industry standard?
The question is not if you're being watched; the question is who is watching you!
Has anybody ever contested the 'legal' wording of a EULA? I realize that legal mumbo jumbo can be extremely hard to decipher for non-hardvard graduates but could these EULAs be so 'complex' that even lawyers have trouble determining what is actually being said and what is legally binding by said EULA?
From article:
/. community trusts is on the case...
broader consumer notice and privacy concerns are showing up in a compromise Internet privacy legislation soon to be introduced by Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, D-S.C.
Thank god somebody the
The Federal Trade Commission has received complaints about the software, though it won't say how many or for which programs.
Why on earth not? Why wouldn't the FTC notify consumers of potentially dangerous software?
The article recommends Ad-Aware (that's good), but doesn't say anything about KaZaA Lite (ooh, that's bad).
"Now gluttony and exploitation serves eight!" - TV's Frank
The computer I use at work belongs to my employer. I have no rights to offer its use to another company. IANAL, but presumably
so it seems to me that both Brilliant and my employer would have good cases against me.
Would a lawyer care to comment?
-- SIGFPE
I think I have discovered yet another effect of cydoor. As you know, cydoor is installed with kazaa. Once some months ago, I noticed that IE6 and or OE6 crashed when I tried to use the keyboard under unknown conditions. I decided to reinstall windows XP without further looking. Some reinstalls later, I found what was responsible for the crashes : they occured ONLY when kazaa was running, and yet more often when kazaa was not running minimized. One month ago, I found a dummy dll to replace cydoor's cd_clint.dll but only returning dummy values, without spying on me. Since then, not once did IE6 or OE6 crash ever again. To me it is obvious that cydoor is trying to keylog on me, and gets blocked by either windoze XP, either by zonealarm. Do you have more info on the matter ? Isn't this perfectly illegal ? (I do netbanking from that computer). Hasn't the boss of cydoor been involved in creditcard fraud ?
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
what is NEEDED is a judge, a federal judge to rule that click through agreements are non-binding. Now I can hear the microsoft employees here screaming "OMG!!! the software industry will collapse!!" Lies....
everything will operate as before, they will just have to make the lawyers screw the user another way.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Oh, so now it's "Internet Privacy Legislation"? They make the bill out to be a good thing and completely skip over it's real purpose. Please, while you're educating people about the dangers of spyware, educate them about the real purpose of this bill and why it should be stopped. See the EFF webiste for more information.
Check out AbiWord.
At that point, one store could of course come up and have you sign no EULA or perhaps one that is comprehensible by Agnes End-Shopper. And this Store will reign Supreme o'er Stores that confuse their Shoppers, demonstrating once again the Power of Capitalism. That is, until the other stores realise the idiocy of their moves and abolish the EULA or work something else out entirely.
Which brings me to my next point: Companies that do stupid things (like Kazaa is doing now) ultimately pay the price for their idiocy (Enron, et. al.) and either change their policies accordingly or nothing happens, proving that their userbase might just not care about what's going on with their own software. Never underestimate the apathy of people, and don't gauge their concern on what a vocal minority says.
And Kazaa is learning, but nowhere in this story do I see the following quote from Kazaa's front page about their "new pledge."
If you disagree, reply.
"[T]he single essential element on which all discoveries will be dependent is human freedom." -- Barry Goldwater
Reminds me of the corrupt taxi cab driver that (upon a getaway ride) drives the bank robber to a secluded area and holds him up....
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
Say, Scott, I wonder how many of the customers that your company depends on would appreciate your insult? If you can't get people to accept using your product unless it's real purpose is hidden in umpty-ump pages of legalese then you have a problem. Don't insult the computer user who hasn't got the time or the inclination to decypher the dense verbiage in your EULA.
Of course, perhaps you need to resort to legalistic trickery buried in your EULA since you have problems actually marketing your product any other way. Probably has something to do with referring to potential users as ``kindergarteners''.
Jeez...
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
I'm still amazed at the "outrage" over this stuff. I mean, people download this software for *free*, so you can use it to TAKE songs/movies/etc without paying for them, against the wills of the creators!
Kazaa users, cry me a fucking river about your privacy... this whole thing reminds me of the guy who sucessfully sued the people whose house he broke into because he broke his leg falling down the stairs because of some crap he tripped on... The people he sued were ruled "negligent" because they left stuff on the stairs. Please.
The Free desktop that Just Works
Consumers today realized the sky is blue. Film at 11.
...general public still not exactlly sure what spyware is...
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
I wonder if anyone has reverse-engineered BDE's protocols yet? It would be a damn shame, wouldn't it, if their surreptiously installed thiefware should inadvertantly retrieve data containing a destructive worm as a payload, or if their computations were all skewed just enough to still be plausible, but uselessly wrong, or if the client on some computer that their server connected to wasn't quite the client they originally installed, and had unfortunate effects on said server....
Eavesdroppers can't complain if what they hear is unflattering, and thieves can't complain if the stuff they stole is dangerous to them.
---dragoness
Yes they own the software but _you_ still own the machine. If the software is doing something other then the intended purpose whether that's gatering data about you or turning your machine into a node in a distributed processing network you should know about it. In clear, plain English (or whatever your native language is). It should not be burried in a multiple page document that can be understood if you have a J.D.
Sean.OutaHere()
No, you'll find a bunch of words saying that the publisher claims that to be the case, but that doesn't make it so. Using software you have legally obtained is not a violation of copyright law, so you don't need to agree to a EULA. In fact, since a EULA (usually) gives you no rights that you didn't already have, it should be invalid on its face for lack of consideration. (IANAL, yada yada yada).
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
I think the fact that Kazaa has 65 year old users is the real news here. Clearly file sharing has become mainstream if grandmothers are using it.
The point is click through licenses have no way to prove that the person who installed the software read any part of the license, that anyone using the software clicked through the licens, or even that the person who installed the software is the person who is in charge of that particular machine. The click through license should not be a legally binding contract. It's whole basis is on assumed consent. I could have my kid install all my software, click through, and not be legally bound as a minor.
If a software company wants to impose these ridiculous caveats on me, they should be required to get an actual contract, notarized, with my signature on it.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
EULAs arnt written for the CONSUMER, they are written for the LAWYERS and ENTERPRISES.
----- Whats wrong with this picture? http://www.revoh.org:1234/whatswrong
what is NEEDED is a judge, a federal judge to rule that click through agreements are non-binding.
I can see how EULA might not be fully binding, but they have to at least be able to limit liability. Without that ability there will be no free (aib) software. Certainly no peer-to-peer software (which by definition relies on CPU/bandwidth sharing) without a signed contract.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Wouldn't it be great to take AdAware to the next level? I'd call it retaliation-ware. Figure out what the scum-ware is looking for and send bogus data. I wish I had the time for it.
Upshift
..I as because I, like so many others, have a client for a distributed computing project installed on the PCs that I use regularly. In my case it's the Dnet OGR client, and it runs in super nice mode, sucking up any spare cycles that fall through the other processes. In this scenario, techically, almost all of my CPU time (with the exception of a micron here or there) is used.
Not, I don't know how brilliant's distributed system works, but if it's like any others it will do the same thing as my Dnet client and put itself in the lowest priority group, right next to my Dnet client which means that they will be splitting the remaining cycles -- yet these are not cycles that were unused, they are cycles one client too from another I had previously installed!
Hilary Rosen's speech was about her love of money and her desire to roll around naked in a pile of money.
Why not educate consumers so that they can PROTECT THEMSELVES instead of relying on the government every time?
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
The POINT is for all the license agreements and papers you sign in your lifetime, you better have a lawyer on retainer to review them all or your quality of life is gonna suck.
I need a TiVo for my car. Pause live traffic now.
[tapping into] "unused computing power and storage space"
is specifically what Kaaza is designed to do.
" they had unwittingly agreed to install software that could help turn their computers into nodes for a peer-to-peer network controlled by another company. "
that's the same as saying someone who installs IIS unwittingly agreed to install software that could publish documents on the internet for everyone to read. Of course most people do install IIS unwittingly, and thanks to the many vulnerabilities, you'll probly be publishing more than you intended to.
That specific part of the Terms that cnet holds up as bad is the *necessary* and desired part of kaaza. Granted, they do some sneaky stuff on the side, but they don't call it a "file sharing" program for no reason.
The most important thing to do is to click "I accept" or "next" or "continue" or "install" or whatever the button says without reading some legaleze bs. It isn't a contract and it isn't binding. Click-through and shrink wrap licenses aren't real and the fact that 99% of people ignore them should be enough case to invalidate them in court.
Before you start worrying about "GPL" violations, remember that the GPL is protected by copyright law. The GPL protects redistribution. Anyone can download a GPL program for free and do whatever they want to it. They just can't redistribute it without agreeing to the GPL. Kazaa or anyone else can enforce the same rules.
You don't believe M$ makes spyware? Read this:
:(
I recently bought and installed TurboTax on my Win98 machine. TTax forcibly installed IE5.5, want it or not. (Making that the LAST Intuit product I'll *ever* buy. IE5.5 has since been evicted, along with TTax.)
When I finally got the mess straightened out (it hosed all my internet settings in the process) and went online (using Netscape as always; IE is *never* allowed outdoors), guess what the FIRST ding reported by ZoneAlarm was:
FWIN,2002/04/13,18:47:40 -8:00 GMT,207.46.203.94:28801,67.219.145.160:2364,TCP
For the benefit of those who don't speak ZA logfilese, that's type,date,time,source,destination,transport
Check out 207.46.203.94 at your neighbourhood WHOIS -- that IP is owned by Microsoft.
Now, would anyone like to explain what business M$ has probing MY computer? Or why it happened within seconds of the first time the system went online AFTER this forced install of IE5.5??
Not to mention that IE5.5 had apparently gone around ZA -- never did IE (nor any Win98 component) *ask* to access the net. Tho I've previously *caught* Frontpage98 going around ZA, so am not really surprised
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
In 1999, and again in 2001, Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., introduced legislation to force spyware distributors to get permission and notify people with a detailed description of the information they're collecting. No committee has picked up the bill, but broader consumer notice and privacy concerns are showing up in a compromise Internet privacy legislation soon to be introduced by Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, D-S.C.
Does anyone know what this paragraph is referring to? Is this more unadulterated evil, a "compromise" version of the SSSCA-type bills, or is this (*snort*) something that could actually be beneficial? Can someone point me to more information about this legislation-to-be?
Even Jesus hates listening to Creed.
I was sitting here on Slashdot, Tom's Hardware and AntiOnline, reading up on my usual sources of info. Comet cursor pops up. I wait for the cancel button to appear as I curse at it for being lame. No cancel button. A progress bar. The comet cursor icon appears in my task bar. It didn't even ask me if I wanted to install. It just installed. No licence agreement or anything. Movie Networks did the same thing with their software. And some antiviral program did that as well, and yet, there's no licences that I see before they install, do they just assume that I've said yes? Is this even legal at all? That's like a company breaking into your house and inserting its dangerous products, such as, "Gasoline-In-A-Coke-Can" and "Bag-o-Rattlesnakes! (tm)"
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Ignoring for the moment all of the justifiable outrage about invasions of privacy, etc. I got to wondering:
It seems that with microphones and webcams it should be possible to assemble quite a profile on a household.Even the easy stuff, like checking the audio to see if Joe Consumer has his TV tuned into OurAdvertiser's station, when they change the channels, whether they answer that SpamPhoneCall, what time of day people take a dump, etc.
You could find out more about a person's life than they themselves could consciously remember.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
sigh... Move!
Maybe he enjoys being a stereotype though.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
Here's a sample of what the "privacy" agreement sounds like:
"If we decide to change our privacy policy, or practices whether or not they effect our handling of personally identifiable information we will post those changes to this privacy statement, the homepage, and other places we deem appropriate so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it."
(Yes, that is a 62-word sentence. No wonder it's impossible to understand)
That's why laws are and should be passed to protect consumers from companies...not the other way around.
that data in any way you'd like I would imagine..There HAS NOT been a click thru license upheld in court YET...
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
> > No pity for the majority.
>
> And you work in computer configuration and repair?
Actually, he seems to be in a German industrial band. "No pity for the majority" is the English translation of Kein Mitlied Für Die Mehrheit. Strange, and barely relevant, but true.
First, unused cycles are ordinarily "optimized out" by my CPU. In other words, it runs slower and consumes less electricity when not being used. Most modern CPUs go into a low-power-consumption mode when not actively performing real processing. (If you doubt this, check your CPU temperature while it's been sitting idle with a blank screen for an hour or two. Compare that to the temperature after playing an hour of Quake III or even just running a graphics intensive screen saver for an hour. I know I could certainly feel the difference when I was running the distributed.net client at home. I just wish I had metered it.) So, I "hereby grant BDE the right to access and use the unused computing power" is another way of saying I will freely donate my electricity. Let's find out just how "free" that is.
First, let's assume that I pay $.0816/kWh for electricity (the 1999 national consumer average (page 14).) Let's also assume that I leave the computer powered on constantly (because I do.) Finally, let's assume that my computer consumes 60W when idle, but 120W when actively crunching numbers (because it's an Athlon.) So that's an extra 60W/hr I would unknowningly consume on behalf of Kazaa.
Look at it a different way: Assume there are 2,000,000 KaZaa users.
- 60W/hr * 2,000,000 = 120,000,000 watt-hours.
Thats 120 megawatts per hour. We're talking California-rolling-blackout-sized consumption of energy here. It's Environmental Impact Statement time.Is it still so unreasonable to ask them to say "Click here to agree with the above and oh, by the way, we're going to use about $40 worth of your electricity per year", or does something a bit more drastic have to happen?
John
Users only cost them money. Users generate no revenue by themselves.