Slashdot Mirror
An interview with Ad-Aware's Nicholas Stark
Andrew Leonard writes: "In the wake of the Ad-Aware/RadLight spyware vs. anti-spyware showdown, Salon has an interview with Ad-Aware's Nicholas Stark, who explains in no uncertain terms Lavasoft's determination to match every move by the spyware developers."
"You are not allowed to use any third party program (e.g. Ad-Aware) to uninstall applications bundled with RadLight."
As far as I know a license statement should only apply to when one is using software, I think legally a court would uphold that a license cannot tell someone what hardware or other software they can or cannot use.
The interesting thing with this is that the are forcing users to comply with a license which is probably not even legal.
As for uninstalling software without any other warning, wouldn't this be on the same level as a destructive virus? I sure as hell wouldn't pout my name on a virus.
Also it never states that the software will be removed. It says you cannot use other applications to uninstall their spyware. So you can have anti-spyware installed on your computer without breaking this (probably illegal) license.
I would think the company is liable for criminal damage to property much like a virus writer would be.
Chicago2600.net more than a lifestyle, its a survival trait.
That's what he's been doing to them - so why the big ho-ha when he gets a bit of his own medicine?
Simple, because that is what is his users ASK of him. Most people download spyware don't know that it's there. When was the last time you intentionally installed Cydoor? When was the last time your version of p2p software said in big letters "This software will install spyware now Yes/No"?
Now if he packaged ad-aware inside of kazaalite and didn't tell anyone what he was doing, THEN he'd be getting a taste of his own medicine. This, however, is completely different.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
Dude, while I agree in general with you, who says this needs to go to court? Think of it this way...
Someone writes a "contract" that says if you happen to walk across a particular stretch of sidewalk, not only will they keep that sidewalk clean for you, but you agree to give them 50% of your salary for the next year. Then they post a copy of it well off the sidewalk, where it isn't easily read (not without binoculars). So, curious, you walk across that sidewalk up closer to it, so you can read the "sign"... is there any reasonable person that would contend you agreed to this contract?
If the dumbass that pulled the stunt took you to court for breach of contract, would the judge even hear it, or would he toss it out, only after chastising the plaintiff's lawyer?
How is a EULA any different?
Shouldn't spyware be illegal? Most of it operates as trojan horses, which are similar to viruses, and those are illegal. They mess up the normal functioning of computers and are unauthorized. Maybe they have privacy policies saying that this is ok, but would these policies stand up in court? Often these policies are only made as such so that the consumer won't challenge them, and they are probably questionable legally. You can't take away rights from the consumer that they can't give up.
I mean, if a virus had a license agreement, would it be ok to use it then? And what if the virus attached on to another program with a license agreement that you probably wouldn't read? That is really what these scumware programs are doing. It is an outrage!