Slashdot Mirror
Spyware Fights Back
sparcv9 writes "According to the latest issue of Spyware Weekly, the Radlight media player not only searches your hard drive for Adaware, but will uninstall it if found. How do they attempt to legitimize this? By including a clause in their EULA that reads: 'You are not allowed to use any third party program (e.g Ad-aware) to uninstall application bundled with RadLight. Such programs will be removed. If you want to uninstall them, you may do so via Add/Remove in Windows' Control Panel.' Yes, that's right. Not only do they say you are not allowed to use Adaware to remove their bundled apps, but they will forcibly remove Adaware for you to make sure you don't!" There's also a Newsbytes story.
and because they mention it in the EULA doesn't mean it's legal. Anyway, it's not like this player will be actually downloaded much.
Spyware will do what is necessary for it to be effective. Kind of a non-story this, because I wouldn't expect anything else from spyware... Of course it's going to disable things that can find and remove it!
What's in a Sig?
You're going to see more and more companies trying this sort of thing to prohibit you having software that they consider threatening on your computer. AOL used to screw with the setting of any competing ISP's on your system (on "accident"), IE used to cripple Netscape (on "accident"), and MSFT is now saying that you can't use some of their technology in conjunction with ANY GPL software. If we can't maintain our monopoly one way, we'll try another. This of course is a nasty step forward that even billg hasn't tried, but only because he knew there would be hell to pay. It's going to get worse before it gets better.
this is getting old and so are you
blog
It's one thing to add programs and fill your disk up with junk. But to actually remove a properly functioning, legal program like Ad-Aware almost seems like a targeted virus.
And why can't you uninstall parts of their program? What happened to custom installation?
This seems illegal to me.
If I weren't nailed to the penis, I'd be pushing up the daisies!
If you were saavy enough to download ad aware in first place, what is to stop you from reinstalling it and running it again once you've installed this product? The only ones who are going to get stuck with this spyware are people who didn't think to download ad-aware in the first place. Those who lose their copy to this will just chuckle and redownload it and remove the crapware that got installed with the product.
Basically these guys wasted a lot of effort for naught and just end up looking like scum to boot.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
It's ugly. Gloves are coming off. Nobody tells me I can't uninstall software from my PC, ever. Anybody who does is going to go into the hurt locker for a long time.
Anyone besides me smell an arms race between ad-aware and these other guys?
Oh. And what if the ad-aware license text changes to say that other applications can't uninstall _it_? Will we have dueling license agreements?
- I traded my sig for a glock.
.. making Ad-Aware a circumvention device. Somebody should turn them in. I'd pay to see that trial.
...if they write it in their EULA.
Would it be legal to write in an EULA that my software X cannot be used on the same computer than software Y, and uninstall it without warning if it finds it?
Have Netscape, for instance, remove without warning Internet Explorer from your computer? (But have it written in small characters somewhere that you can't use another third party software to surf the web)
How about having a software running in background to ensure that you dont download a competing package?
People should make it clear that we, computer users, will not tolerate such things.
I think one of the problems concerning spyware and intelligent agent type technologies is the fact that in order to get good performance people think they need to rely on implicitly collected data, in which case the user always wonders exactly what else they could be collecting. They justify the use of spyware to collect information that users never would take the time to submit themselves. This is a misguided approach, since good personalized recommendation technology is available with explicit user feedback instead (such as Stumbleupon for websurfing).
I think that many companies feel such approaches are necessary in order to collect information without too much user hassle. The focus should instead be on improved interfaces which allow people to easily submit information as they desire. This way the benefits of personalization can be had, yet people know exactly how much information about themselves they have revealed...
Im about ready to come up with an
....guess what the judge told the car wash owner, wou can say whatever you want on a sign posted however conspicuosly you want, you are in fact still legally responsible, UNLESS Mr...signed a piece of paper waiving that right in FRONT of a witness, did Mr....do this ? Uhhh no your honor....Judgment in favor of plantiff $490.....next case!
E(nd)V(endor)A(ccess)A(greement)
For my computer that superceeds any EULA and the vendors acceptance will be gained prior (on a click through link at in the signature of the email I order software through.
Order X program from the author
At the bottom of the email is a link stating
something like (and of course be just as obstuficating) as the EULA's are that any software being installed on the computer this mail is originating from must accept the terms in the EVAA (access to MY , get it MY f***ing computer) and that sale or distribution of any software to this computer(the same one you are purchasing the software from) is an acceptance of the EVAA (and a link to the same)
Wrap up and invert a EULA , one of the nasties most un-understandable ones you can find, and post it at that link, keep copies of the email correspondence and buy it.
At this point your EVAA WILL in fact superceed the EULA, is this legal, yep !
Will it hold up in court ? Let me just say just as much as a click through EULA will..
If a EULA says I have to let them suck my toes, do I have to allow it ? No ! Why not ? Same reasons as "not responsible for lost stolen article" signs arent worth the plastic theyre printed on. You can say whatever the hell you want holding it up in court is another story.
Next time your rearview mirror or antenna gets ripped off in an automatic car wash and the manager say but the sign is right there say, ok fine, write it down. I took this to court once, on a new car I was dammed if I'd pay 250$ deductible on
Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
It's already in the microsoft knowlege base.
How to Remove Linux and Install Windows on Your Computer (Q247804)
There's already a name for software that, when installed on a computer, goes through and deletes other data on the machine unbeknownst to the user. It's called a virus.
Just because it's stated in their EULA that they can do that, doesn't allow them to circumvent the law. Of course IANAL, but it sounds like this struggle has gotten to the point where it is legally challengeable.
Bundling SPYWARE (the world "HELPWARE" is so much horseshit) is not problematic, so long as you clearly state, in understandable terms, what software is being installed, what it does, how much disk space it will consume, how much bandwidth it will use, what information it collects, where that information is going to be transmitted, and under what circumstances that information will be shared. Then let the user decide if the program is helpful or not.
And never, under any circumstances, remove anything that you did not put their in the first place. I do not want you to HELP me get rid of software I paid for.
Vague licensing agreements and shady installation procedures are not helpful. They are deceitful and they harm the consumer. How about DECEITWARE, or HARMWARE? Until you come clean, this bundled software will always be looked upon with scorn.
If it is legal, I'm going to start bundling virii, trojans and password stealers with my programs. And include in the EULA that by clicking agree, you waive all responsibility to hold me liable for any damages or problems incurred from using and installing my software.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
You're missing one simple fact: I downloaded and installed ad-aware because I wanted to remove unwanted software from my computer. Property, check. Consent, check. Adaware makes no bones about what their software does.
Radlight, on the other hand, tampers with my property without my consent. What, you say? Consent has an ethical (and legal) requirement that the consenting party posess all relevant information. Burying the ad-aware clause deep in a clickthrough agreement. This may meet the legal requirement, but certainly not the ethical one.
In short, your argument would only be valid if you had a "click here to remove ad-aware" button in your installer, or some similar informational device. The absence of such marks this as either a temper tantrum or underhanded scheme.
Dream as if you'll live forever.
Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
~Anonymous~
In any case, abuse of EULAs has become so widespread that I suspect they're going to end up getting regulated, anyway.
Well you don't need regulation to give you your rights under the law. As far as I know, except for UCITA (blech), no law says that licenses are binding in any way. They are just pieces of paper included in the box for your amusement, or to wipe your ass with, or whatever. Feel free to do whatever you like with what came in that box, as long as it doesn't violate copyright or trademark or any other law (ie, don't use the CD to slit someone's throat).
Of course, that doesn't mean company XYZ won't sue you over the EULA, but that doesn't mean they are in the right, just richer than you.
This virus/media player/whatever that deletes files isn't magically justified in its behavior by the EULA (just consider the EULA as a verbose warning label: Warning, this product may delete files on your hard drive).
And don't tell me that loading a copy into RAM is forbidden unless the EULA says I can, that's crap. Software has no other purpose but to be loaded into a computer's RAM (and HD), they can't be selling their software in good faith unless they know it will be put on computers.
So let's hope the result of these abuses is that the legal system simply says: "if you want your customers to act any differently than the law allows them to, they must SIGN a CONTRACT, now get out of my courtroom."
Or at least they should say a license can be like the GPL and GIVE you permission to do something that's otherwise not allowed, bu a license can't FORBID you from doing anything.
That will save everybody a lot of trouble.
The problem is of course that Microsoft, et al, will simply encode their favorite license terms directly into the law by greasing a few palms in Congress (this is how the entertainment industry was doing it for years), but at least in that case the results are a little more public (I don't know what half these EULA's say unless I read it in Infoworld, or /., but I certainly know the DMCA pretty well by now).
In summary: this magical fiction of "software licenses" has to be put to an end, and quick. Software companies don't deserve a power over customers that no other industry has (where's the EULA on your screwdriver that says it can't be used to build computers unless you pay the computer fee? Where's the EULA on your ball-point pen that says all papers you write are the property of Sanford Pen Company?)
Anyone have this guy's full name? I want to add him to our company's hiring blacklist. I encourage others to do likewise. Banishment/ostracization is the only effective tool we have right now for ethically reprehensible hominids such as this; might as well use it.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
So if he's worried about HIS bandwidth costs, why didn't he upload his program to one of the many dedicated shareware/freeware servers (Tucows, Simtelnet, etc.) and let them worry about it? After all if his intent was to "keep it free" why not do the obvious to avoid incurring expenses?
Answer: This was yet another excuse.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Don't install/uninstall AdAware.
Put some valuable piece of software in the AdAware default install directory.
Install RadLight.
Sue them for destroying your valuable property.
Spyware, SpywareRemover...
BetterSpyware, BetterSpywareRemover...
...
Spyware(n), SpywareRemover(n)...
Everytime I see anything about spyware and their respective remover apps I'm reminded of DA's 'Thumb' Device...