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.

Comments

this is not legal

[WildBeast]

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.

Re:this is not legal

[ScuzzMonkey]

I would say it's unethical unless there is some valid, technical reason why your program would not perform its core function properly while the other piece of software is installed. Ethically, you don't have any reason to meddle with what the user chooses to have or not have installed on his or her computer; it's simply none of your affair. If you have some political reason to not want Adaware on people's systems, fine--but that does not mean it's ethical to remove it, even if you are prompting the user. It may be ethical to simply refuse your own install unless the other piece of software is removed, but I think initiating the un-install for the other product is probably not kosher unless for valid technical reasons.

Legally is a different matter; there are plenty of things that are legal but unethical (heck, lawyers in general... nevermind) but I think the legality of this is questionable at the very least. 'Click to agree' EULAs are questionable in the first place, even before you add language to them that arguably has nothing to do with the nature of the product being installed. I could include language in an EULA to require people to wear a pink tuxedo every time they chose to use my product, or agree to sign over half their life savings to me, or whatever--but I doubt it would hold up in court. I doubt this would, either, but until someone challenges it, I guess you can continue to labor under the assumption that you have complete control of your product in all circumstances.

Re:this is not legal

[Jondor]

>Hmm... I definitely agree that this practice is
>underhanded, unethical, and plain rude, but why do
>you say it is illegal?

He doesn't. He says that writing it in a EULA doesn't automatically make it legal. They can write whatever they want but it still has to be upheld in court.

Re:this is not legal

[Darren Winsper]

"wouldn't the reason here be that the other application is going to uninstall a core part of my application?"
Interesting thought. However, AdAware does not do this automatically. I install AdAware and run it, it tells me what it found and I tell it to remove the crap it found.

However, your software starts installing, and then promptly uninstalled software I want on my machine without even asking me to (I don't count the EULA, since it's legal standing is questionable).

Tell me, how would you like it if MS decided to remove your software when Media Player 9 is installing?

Growing Trend

[the_rev_matt]

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.

Virus-like?

[Dead Penis Bird]

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.

Foolish move

[Arcturax]

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.

DMCA anyone?

[nyet]

.. making Ad-Aware a circumvention device. Somebody should turn them in. I'd pay to see that trial.

This isn't spyware anymore...

[Outlet of Me]

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.

In that case

[MoneyT]

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.

Re:This is what the Radlight guy says...

[Tintivilus]

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.