Slashdot Mirror
Web Publishers Sue Gator
shofmann writes "The Washington Post is reporting that a number of publishers, including the Washington Post, is suing Gator Corp. over their obnoxious spyware, saying that Gator is "a parasite that free rides on the hard work and investment"
of other people's web sites. The lawsuit alleges that Gator's spyware contributes to trademark infringement, misappropriation of the news, and
represents unfair competition." The publishers seem to be distressed about Gator replacing website ads with its own. Several people submitted this related article about blocking internet advertising - nothing really new here for geeks, but a good URL to send to your less technically-inclined friends.
To replace the Gator ads with my own! My plan can not fail! Muahahaha.
What did one former Gator user say to another?
"Alligator, catch ya later!"
There are ads on the web? With all my anti-ad stuff, I never see one.
Michael Loves Me!
Now, would this be akin to people skipping ads with their TiVo? If I download software that removes ads for me, am I stealing from the publisher of that website?
Do most companies pay based on "views" of ads, or "click-throughs"?
I am amazed at how many people hit "yes" and actually install Gator. I think every computer in school has it.
Yet another reason to use Ad-aware.
Human/Ranger/Zangband
That the article on stopping pop-up ads has a pop-under ad?
I can put up with the lack of Alt tags and my apparent inablity to get plugins to work (flash, javascript, quicktime et al) by far overshadows the annoying pop ups and PLZ DOWNLOAD THIS GATOR THING K THX BYE! windows that deluge you when trolling through Geocities (or wherever, I just notice an abundance of them on Geocities). Man, it does feel nice. Liberating even. If we just got alt tags (because jerks like me like to put witty ephitets behind my images) in Opera, I'd say that it is my favoritest web browser.
In short GATOR = BAD; OPERA = KEEN!
Why is it when I hit ^R that ZSH calls me a cocksucker?
On constrution site barriers (so people can't get in to the site and hurt themselves), the sign "Post No Bills".
This is almost a form of digital vandalism. Not to mention that spyware is rather like a virus, slowing down your speed with obnoxious popup ads.
I hope the plaintiffs win big on this one.
I am the evil aardvark!
Look, I absolutely detest Gator, but I have to defend them on this issue.
What I choose to run in my browser is my own business, just like Microsoft's technology that modified web pages to insert links. Once a page leaves a server and enters my computer, my fair-use rights take over and I can do ANYTHING I want to that page, except rebroadcast it.
Now, people are going to argue that people aren't making an informed choice. And maybe that's true, but it's not strictly Gator's fault. Gator does inform them -- in a slimy way -- but it does inform them.
It's exactly the same as if I had a magazine delivered to my house, and hired someone to cut out all the ads and replace them with other ads. It's none of the magazine's business if I do that, and it's none of anyone else's business if I choose to use Gator.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
This strikes me as a dangerous way to think. It implies a contract of sort between you and a web site operator. They supply content and you (as far as they're concerned) have to look at their ads.
The one issue, then, that I have with Gator is that fact that it surreptitiously spies on its users and reports their browsing habits back to a central repository. Similar to slashdot, they profile their users without adequate disclosure and should be admonished for that. (IMHO, "adequate disclosure" does not mean that they reveal the fact that they are monitoring you on page 14 of the 78-page license agreement that nobody reads.) Aside from this transgression, what Gator does is perfectly legitimate and is no different than the digital editing that many television stations are now doing to block competitors' ads from live video feeds. May the strongest competitor win: it's pure capitalism. Enjoy it.
... to make me want to go back to using Lynx again.
Using Mozilla, I didn't see any pop-* ads! You must be using Inferior Explorer.
Seriously what's the problem? its not like Gator is installed automatically... the user has to install it themselves....
(yes I know its included in some softwar) but the user installs that software out of free will... so wtf is the problem?
-- Note: These Comments are Generated by ME! Not You! ME!
I keep getting emails that look like they are from friends but they are instead spoofed by a company called netrax.com. The emails have no body but they have attachments that are executable. I assume Netrax is similar to Gator. I have no idea who these people are but here is their Whois entry below. Given that they are from the Advertising Capital of the US (Madision Avenue) I assume their helpful software is simply designed to flood me with spam.
Registrant:
NETRAX (NETRAX4-DOM)
509 Madison Avenue Suite 1610
New York, NY 10022
US
Domain Name: NETRAX.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
Harris, Emily (INEVXBUJII) eharris@NEWSSUN.MED.MIAMI.EDU
MCY Music World, Inc.
509 Madison Avenue
Suite 1610
New York, NY 10022
US
212-944-6664
Record expires on 08-Sep-2002.
Record created on 08-Sep-1999.
Database last updated on 27-Jun-2002 11:42:38 EDT.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS.MCY.COM 204.60.119.25
NS2.SNET.NET 204.60.0.3
While I generally find that these lawsuits and court cases over intellectual property seem frivolous and a waste of time, sometimes a case comes along that peaks my interest.
However, I think it would be better if more cases based on intellectual `exploits' were targeted towards intangible, intellectual results.
For example, instead of people suing Gator for money (I skimmed the article and didn't notice money mentioned so please forgive me if I missed the point), why not simply sue them to have the spyware killed off, or at least the particular aspect of it that led to this case.
Now normally I don't agree with people using the law to beat technology but the least people could do, if they are going to use the law in this way, is to use it like a fine adjustment tool rather than a 14 pound sledge hammer.
Anyway, I'll sum up with this: People need to remember that you can sue for other things than money and be careful in your legal dealings - the man you sue today could counter-sue you. The law is a two edged sword and dangerous if wielded by someone lacking experience in this `sword play'.
Zero Kelvin,
zkvr.cjb.net (formerly neux.org but dropped due to apathy and desperately in need of an update)
Anyone else worried that the new Fritz chip will require that I sit through advertisements before I'm allowed to see content?
Don't think it's possible? Howzabout DVD players, where you have to sit through the various FBI warnings and movie previews at the start of the disk before the movie starts.
It is difficult for some people to take responsibility for their actions. Since some people make the wrong choice, the clear solution is to make a law to take that choice away!
But seriously, as long as they aren't being deceptive about what they're doing, it should remain legal.
Maybe people should just advertise with gator, after all, it is on every computer ever touched by a 12 - 24 year old thanks to Kazza. Then regular popup ads will die, and *nux users can browse ad free.
Its Linux.
If *you* cut out the ads and replace them (or not) with pr0n ads or whatever, that's your business. If you choose to skip ads on your TiVo, that's your business. But if TiVo or a third-party service decided to replace ads the broadcaster was putting out with their own advertising, TiVo would be ripping off the broadcaster.
Fair use means *fair*, not screw the copyright holder or the user.
The problem is Gator is usually hidden deep inside some long ass EUA or worse it's installed via a pop-up java window. Maybe the rest of the readers of this site know about the evils of gator, but the average joe or jan sixpack just want to check their e-mail and probably keep clicking just to get those damn ads off their screen.
Most users haven't a clue what it is, that is the problem. It's analagous to someone presenting a question to you in giberish, then offering you to choose a or b. How would you expect average users to know anything about it?
The Washington Post article didn't say anything about replacing ads and the slashdot link wasn't loading for me. From the sounds of it all gator is doing is when you do visit a specific site it launches a popup window displaying its own advertising. While this is highly unethical I'm not sure it would be illegal, I don't see any website that you visit having legal domain over your web browser and gator isn't altering the page itself, all gator is doing is poping up its own window or own link which you "agreed" to view when you clicked on the EULA. If gator actually closed the websites pop-up windows completely than they might have a case (though it could fall again to the EULA as having said the user wanted those windows to close). While I don't like seeing gator doing things like this I would worry about the implications of a victory on the grounds of defacing the sight or something like that. In a strictly legal sense Mozilla might actually be in danger as it allows you to stop the pop-up windows from opening at all (in many ways closer to altering the display of the website than adding more pop-ups).
I stole this Sig
most people that actually do let gator install with another application are newbies that assume that it is a vital component of the application they are installing. It should be clearly marked "optional advertising software" at least have the words optional and advertising highlighted.
Actually, if your security settings are mangled, or are left alone (some versions of IE), all you get is a "Thanks for installing gator" window. It tries (and occasionally succeeds) to install itself automatically.
If anything tries to install itself onto my machine, I ad-aware it and it goes byebye!
Pi
Gator most definitely sucks because not only is it evil spyware on peoples computers. But it takes money away from people who are trying to pay the hosting bill for their very cool web sites. ... if those ads don't show up because gator replaced them, then gator is indirectly stealing revenue
Yup. That's immoral.
But the important question to me is, why is that illegal?
You have stated some good reasons why gator are bad evil people. You haven't given me any reason to think they're doing anything illegal.
We live in a country with clearly demarcated laws and clearly defined due process of enforcement of said laws. This means that you can't say something is illegal just because it feels wrong, or because it sounds like something that ought to be illegal.
Indirect action which effectively results in something tantamount to theft, and theft, are not the same thing legally, nor should they be.
--super ugly ultraman
Ads on web sites are part of a commercial for-profit venture. Gator's replacing those ads are an attempt to directly interfere with the revenue stream of the site, which I believe is illegal.
Also, there may be some copyright issues. Every page on the Washington Post is copyrighted by them, and the ads are copyrighted by the various advertisers. It is illegal for someone to take a copyrighted work, modify it and resell it. That is essentially what Gator is doing. They are, in essence, modifying a copyrighted page for the express purpose of reselling the ad space.
Personally, I hope they body-slam Gator, and it sends a chill through the spyware community. More likely, though, spyware companies will feel emboldened by whatever decsion comes down, feeling that the court is establishing rules for their legitimate operation.
I've never seen a Gator ad as I block the app from accessing the net or acting as a server with ZoneAlarm. Since the thing downloads ads from the internet that relate to the pages you're visiting the popups never pop.
I once saw it on one machine... Amazing stuff... Not in good way of course...
At a friends house I logged on to Slashdot.org to check my usual headlines, a popup right from taskbar appeared, saying stuff like "You are on Slashdot.org, we also suggest checking xxxxx site (news.com I remember) "
I said, "who?" in my mind... Checked, its Gator advertising network.
I mean, its not just a gorilla etc, its much more, much much more...
Gator runs on linux? ;)
Gator is one of the few pieces of software I _really_ dislike... it popped up after silently installing itself when I installed something and obviously missed the "this will install random carp" bit in the readme. I recall the Gator installer even runs with a command line switch of -silentinstall or something. Grrrr.
"Cattle Prods solve most of life's little problems."
So, here's what you do.
Install ZoneAlarm (free version works fine) then install Gator. When Gator tries to connect to the internet, don't let it.
Now you can enjoy Gator's software, without them making any money from advertising. Kind of like what they're doing to the websites!
(NB: This assumes you actually *want* the Gator software to store all your passwords & credit card numbers on your hard drive)
rOD.
Rod Begbie done this, and he's not
One of my clients brought me her laptop because "it was running slowly" - (piii 500, 128 MB ram, win98se). I booted it and it was really dragging. So i installed lavasoft's ad aware program, and scanned her HD and she had 360+ spyware programs & elements installed in her system!. What I hate most about the spyware programs is that they eat resources, and mask the process from the operating system. if you use the task manager, most of the procs aren't even listed, but for instance, in her laptop, on boot 85% of the system resources were being used. As soon as she launched her web browser, or any other program, she was using 100%.
Also, when doing research, some of the lower quality sites have it set up so that gator autoinstalls when you hit the page, it doesn't even ask for a confirmation. I suppose the site gets $.05 or whatever from the gator corp per install, but what a lousy way to run a business.
::.. check out some Cell Phone Reviews
couldnt you just add their IP to your hosts file and point it to 120.0.0.1?
If anyone knows please respond...
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
Since this is happening at the client end, I think this is closest to the second option above, which would make it legal.
--
E_NOSIG
Does anyone have a hack of Gator that takes
the ads and replaces them with...nothing?
Now, I'm no fan of Gator, but I think if they lose this case it will be bad for all of us.
It's not a huge leap from going from "software that adds popups to a certain page without actually modifying the page is illegal" to "software that modifies the page is illegal", meaning any proxy software that blocks ads, for example, is suddenly outlawed... So would any software that doesn't run the JavaScript (i.e. Mozilla with popups disabled), etc. etc.
"People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999
Having installed a few P2P-clients in my virtual Windows-installation and in addition to having answered "NO" to every question about installing such applications, I still keep finding it with ad-aware.
Not that it bugs me, but I understand it bugs a lot of others. I believe most of the computers at school have this crap installed,
Does this make it illegal for me to use iptables to block any packets from companies like x10.com?
Content providers without a revenue stream vanish. It really is that simple.
Soon there will be little to browse without a subscription.
Perhaps the RIAA and Harry Fox Agency will come up with a solution.
I guess that's what everyone wants...
Maybe content providers will start using dynamic blacklists to avoid the expense of delivering content to those who block ads. Hmmm. Should I patent that idea, or OpenSource it?
I'm looking at this as these companies are representing individuals, even though they obviously aren't, and no money would be given to individuals, but at least Gator wouldn't exist or wouldn't be so annoying.
And no, I didn't install Gator by choice, it got piggyback installed on an application I need for a one time use. I attempted to uninstall it, and for a while I thought I did. Then I noticed I was getting pop-up ads on Slashdot one day. I emailed CmdrTaco and Hemos, the assured me Slashdot wasn't doing popup ads, but this was around the time new subscriptions were being implemented so I wasn't sure, anyhow I investigated my system and found that Gator upon uninstall actually installed a minimal installation in C:\WINNT\System\G, with one exec, G.EXE. When it ran, it had no visible task bar icon, but it would display popups whenever you went to a page. Since almost 100% of the other pages I go to have popups I never noticed, until Slashdot started having them. I do believe that was the intended result, to fool the user that Gator was uninstalled but continue to run as if it were popups from web pages.
So I'm happy, go get 'em guys.
..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
Okay,I'm getting confused here. I think one the one hand, you should be able to control the media once you've "purchased" it so to say. Meaning that once signal (if it's TV) or web page gets to my tv/computer, then I can mess with it all I want. Right? But what about the advertiser? I mean, the advertiser paid the station/site to broadcast my ad. Now there's no guarentee everyone won't just switch the channel, but if the signal gets messed with between the broadcaster and the viewer, then I'm screwed. What did I pay for? I guess the issue is at what point does the signal become "mine" as a viewer (if it ever really does)? I'm not sure if I'm being clear here, but it's a serious question. On the one hand I want to be able to control the media once it's in my home. On the other hand, if I'm an advertiser then I should have some assurance that my money is really buying me what I paid for (I would hope at least).
And in the case of Gator then there's the added issue that they're not only blocking ads, but replacing them. I don't like all the implications and I don't think the issue is very clear cut. There are serious pros and cons on both sides of the fence here.
Who said Freedom was Fair?
I don't know whether "gator" specifically does this or not, but I know programs like it do. Amazon.com affiliate sites for quite some time have been complaining about hijack-ware. When someone clicks on a link to amazon from an amazon affiliate site, the link is changed to include the spyware companies amazon id instead of the site linked from.
The Amazon affiliate therfore looses any commision made on the sale. This is 100% unknown the the user of the software. It would be one thing if the user knowingly installed it, but 99% of the time or more they don't even know it is there. Web site ads are no different. It's one thing if the user knowingly installs it. They have that right. If it is installed without their knowledge, it is outright theft from the website that is being visited.
I found this crap installed the other day. I had no idea anything was wrong until I went to Verizon to pay my phone bill. A popup ad came up (Verizon's online bill payment sites doesn't work with mozilla.) I figured, damnit, seems everyone has this crap now...but it was an ad for cingular wireless, a Verzion competitor. I was quite pissed to say the least, and I can't for the life of me get rid of the damn thing. (Yes, I know I need to download adaware or something like that.)
Think about if you were buying merchandise in a store. When you approach the cash register a salesperson from another company completes your sale, and keeps the money. All without the knowledge of the store you are giving your business to, or even you for that matter. Never mind that would be almost impossible to have happen...on the internet it isn't. This is not only wrong, but outright theft of goods and services and should not be legal if it is.
-Pete
Soccer Goal Plans
Curiously enough, has anyone tried to persue those folks who put out pop-up ads for unauthorized use of bandwidth? How about trying to run them down under Anti-Spam laws? They are, are they not, unsolicited advertisements, just the same as one would get in an email?
Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
The article is actually pretty muddled about why the companies are suing Gator: is it because Gator infringes on their copyrights by altering web pages? Because it pops up advertisements? Because it misleads people into thinking the advertisements come from the web page they're visiting rather than a third-party application?
The argument about Gator being misleading I buy. I don't use gator, nor have I ever, but if it's true that they're using deceptive practices to get themselves installed on people's computers and then silently altering other web pages, that's bad. But if that's not the case, well, the law should uphold my right to use the data web servers provide me in whatever way I see fit. I have no contract with anyone that says that if I download a file from their site I will render it in any particular way. As long as I'm aware that Gator is running, arguments that it's violating somebody's copyright are silly. I know it's there, and I can use my data how I want, thank you very much.
-jacob
How about a software that removes the ad, but in the background registers a click through. That way we don't have to see them and the web site gets paid.
Someone can add this to Mozilla with ease since it is open source.
The above is not worth reading.
Now, if Gator took the HTML from the website, parsed out the adverts and replaced it with their own then i can understand that the companies might be a bit pissed because Gator would be passing its own ads off as theirs ...
Assumption is the mother of all fuckups.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
I thought this an article about Sue Gator, my favorite web publisher. Thanks again for letting me down slashdot...
I'm waiting for the day when I can't use a DVD because it's not the way the director intended the movie to be viewed
I'm waiting for the day when the graphic equalizer on my stereo is deemed illegal because it's modifying the music outside of what the producer intended.
I agree that Gator should be destroyed, but I don't like the precidents we're making by taking these steps.
Only a slashdotter could think of something like that and say it with a straight face. Is everyone here a criminal? Is ripping off everything that isn't tied down really now universally acceptable behavior?
Yes.
Well then I'll be over to your house later to claim everything that is mine by right of "I want it". Don't try to get in my way, I'll scream oppression and get 500 of my good buddies to come over and help out.
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
"First they came for Gator and Microsoft SmartTags. But I didn't use that crap, so I didn't speak up. Then they came for Junkbuster and Sleezeball and my "use own fonts" menu option..."
This software doesn't modify anyone's web site. It it something that runs on a user's computer and modifies that user's perception of a web site, with that user's consent. That isn't copyright or trademark or any other kind of infringement.
Some people say they didn't know what Gator does, or didn't even know they had installed it, so my point about consent is wrong. Well, that's your problem. You are responsible for your computer, dammit!! If mysterious software is getting onto your computer without your knowledge, then you have a hell of a security problem. Your machine is probably one of those listed in my httpd logs as requesting default.ida and cmd.exe, and you're probably also one of those people who keeps sending me documents to get my advice, while shamelessly gushing that you love me. Quit spreading your fucking viruses (and no, scanners aren't the answer) and lock your box down and take some responsibility, and then stuff like Gator and IE and Outlook will be taken care of incidentally as a natural consequence.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
It is your browser and your computer but those ads like them or not are supporting the sites you visit. Blocking them is one thing (I skip magazine ads and TV commercials and fully believe I have the rights to block web ads) but what Gator is doing is not very nice. Right now I am looking at and ad for the new Altus 130 from Penguin Computing. Gator would replace that with one of its avertisers. If enough slashdot readers used Gator (fat chance) over time Penguin and other advertisers would drop Slashdot and we'd either all be forced to subscribe or the site would shut down.
I think that web advertising needs to change. Banner ads and popups are easy to block and replace thus pissing off the advertisers and the site owners. Not many users care if they are replaced and many users want them blocked. Overall, banner ads are annoying (except for Think Geek ads which I often click through to). I would much rather see, in plain text and avertisements like this:
The following article is brought to you by Oracle Corporation. Oracle 9i Release 2 makes Linux Unbreakable. For more information please visit us at www.oracle.com."
A simple ad a couple of lines long with a couple links, no flash, no images, no sound. Have it before the article or after the article on the page. There'd be no reason to block them and to Gator they would be hard to distinguish from the actual article.
'Same speed C but faster'
Say I pay $50 per month for cable, both ad-laden and ad-free channels, plus $10 a month for TiVo so I can record stuff when I'm not around, stay late at work, whatever.
Now, I skip commercials like I skip print/banner ads. I just don't look at them and will do something else when commericals come on. I'll either (a) go potty, (b) get a snack, (c) thumb through National Geographic, or (d) channel surf while commercials are on. I don't do that 100% of the time, but most of the time. So does every damned body else since the debut of TV.
Just because we don't work the way they want us to doesn't give them the right to force us to. Advertisers are paying for placement, that's it. Whether I want to watch it/read it/hear it is *my choice*, not theirs.
By the same standard, they have the right to getting that placement in the broadcast stream (though I have the right NOT to record it) and in the print and web advertising venues they choose. I can choose not to view it, but no third party has the right to replace ads the advertisers pay for with their own advertising. That's theft. This is an important distinction that I hope a thoughtful court will agree with.
Finally! Somebody sues them for computer tresspass!
That's what I think spy/adware is. When users manage to do something obstructive to a server they are labeled a "hacker" but when a company does it to us its considered "good business".
Do they have one that installs random tuna or salmon instead? MMM, grilled salmon.
How does the autoinstall work? Ive been hit with other things that installed with out my knowledge ( real programs.... not just an applet ).
Id love to know how they are doing it, and how to stop it.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
A few weeks ago someone I know gave me a call. They wanted me to come take a look at their (almost brand new) computer, complaining that it was "really slow" and that it "locked up".
I paid them a visit. Sure enough, their 1.6GHz, 512MB computer was incredibly slow. Menus often didn't pop up until 15 or 20 seconds after they were clicked, explorer windows "froze" (didn't respond to keyboard or mouse input, but did repaint themselves), and the computer wouldn't shut down properly (forcing a cold power-off, often resulting in filesystem corruption).
I looked in the registry and discovered that there were about 20 programs being started automatically when Windows booted. I backed up that registry location, then deleted everything there and rebooted. The problem was gone!
I added the programs back in groups to determine which one was the culprit. Any guesses what it was? That's right! A spyware program! My hunch is that this family's teenage son unwittingly installed it along with one of his many P2P filesharing programs.
This family told me that they had purchased their new computer because the old one was having lots of problems. The new computer was supposed to be fast, easy to use, and low maintenance. A spyware program almost ruined their $1500 investment.
--Bruce
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't.
The legal claim of the suit is that Gator software "alters the display of the Web site, which constitutes copyright infringement", the article also mentions that "The publishers charge that Gator takes advantage of this confusion and offers to sell ads that appear when Gator users visit specific Web sites." I believe this means that the legal basis of the suit is that Gator specifically takes advantage of the user's confusion to associate its advertising with the relevant site, which I believe may be considered illegal in that the users are not fully aware of what's happening, and where the content is coming from. If two ads pop up when a user visits washingtonpost.com, one a "legitimate" ad for a company/product that the washington post is essentially endorsing, and one from some other vendor that Gator supplies, they have no way of knowing which came from who, and the suit contends that this is the specific goal of Gator's software. I don't think there's need for concern about legal implications for Mozilla other software, as the features in question must be specifically enabled by the user, and it seems that the lack of user choice/information is what consititutes the illegality here. And suits like these might be the only thing that can effectively curb the mass-misdirection that is spyware, since users appear to be far too technically and legally ignorant to be aware of the issue.
Mod me down, and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Once a page leaves a server and enters my computer, my fair-use rights take over and I can do ANYTHING I want to that page, except rebroadcast it.
First, do you choose what ads to add in? No?
You aren't doing a thing to the page. It's being done by a third party, specifically Gator, without consent of the originator. Personally, I call that censorship, though YMMV.
Proof: If it were you doing that to the page, where are your payments for the ad space? What, Gator gets them? Clearly, they are the ones modifying the page, if they are selling this ad space to others.
Second, fair use applies only under very specific and limited circumstances... it's not the carte blanche you seem to think it is. In this case, of the four factors to be considered in whether or not something is fair use, this completely fails three of them; Gator's use is solely commercial (1), they use the entire copyrighted work (3), and the market for the work (as defined in copyright terms which tends to talk about money) is eliminated entirely for that viewing (4). Fair use is not a defense in this case.
It's none of the magazine's business if I do that, and it's none of anyone else's business if I choose to use Gator.
It is the magazine's business. They may not want to be a party to this third-party transaction. (You can make a case for choosing on your own not to view ads, but when you add a third-party in like Gator the situation changes dramatically, especially since Gator is directly profiting.)
Frankly, it doesn't matter if Gator informs them. What they're doing is highly unethical, and almost certainly illegal.
By the way, you need to be exceptionally careful about this. If you let Gator do this, then there's really nothing stopping them from modifying the contents of the page, since from a copyright point of view, that's exactly what they're doing. If they can modify for the purpose of commerical profit, then they can do it for any purpose, since that's the highest purpose in our broken copyright laws. Of course, if Gator can do it, anyone can.
Letting Gator doing this, and defending them is handing everybody in the world free reign to modify anything they can technically get access to, just because they can. ("Might makes right?") There's just no difference. I for one do not want to hand this power to anybody. That it will be abused pretty much goes without saying. We must defend the right to integrity.
It should be obvious that on this point, the right to integrity is more importent to us little guys then the Washington Post, which has the resources to defend itself.
I've been around this debate more then a few times; please, before replying (not Reality Master 101 personally, everybody), at least read the fair use link and educate yourself about the current state of the law. You're free to think it's not perfect, and should be some other way (as I do), but please, for the love of Gnu, no lengthy, fact-bereft lectures on personal misconceptions of copyright law...
"...nothing really new here for geeks, but a good URL to send to your less technically-inclined friends."
Given the warped weltanschauung of most /. weenies, I hazard the "technically-inclined" are, if not badly out of kilter, then, likely best described as bent . I point to exhibit a: "technically-inclined"
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
Personally, the best pop-under blocker (and flash killer, cookie stopper, java de-scripter, etc) I've come across for the Windows platform is The Proxomitron. As if all the options weren't enough--it's even scriptable!
The problemis the idiots who install this stuff don't really hurt themselves at all. What if said idiots were admins at a public library or school? Big time misrepresentation of a site's content, wouldn't you think?
Good point. It's up to a court to decide, of course, but I'd say that since Gator is spyware it fails the user agent test.
If you use Mozilla, make sure to install Bannerblind.
As the name suggests, it hides any banners on a website you're viewing. It works by telling Mozilla to not display/remove images of a certain size (most ads are of a specific size). You can also add different banner sizes as time goes by (I've eliminated 99% of ads - Slashdot is completely ad free for me).
If I want to run software on my PC that blocks or replaces advertisments (weather that is Gator or Mozilla's BannerBlind or JunkBuster) I want to have the right to do that. If it is ruled that ad-interfering software is liable for lost revenue, that would put good software our of business, as well as Gator.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
> she had 360+ spyware programs & elements installed in her system!
Perhaps, but I just ran Adaware for the first time for grins, and it found 9 spyware "elements" on my system, 8 of which were cookies...
I hardly find cookies to be detrimental to my system or productivity.
Personally, I am happy that someone finally called Gator on their bullshit. Gator installed itself on my computer (possibly my fault for clicking "Next" without reading what was checked). When I tried to uninstall it, it automatically installed OfferCompanion without giving me an option to refuse. When I uninstalled OfferCompanion, it installed this digital wallet program. This went on for an hour-
Even if Gator was originally installed due to my own personal error, there was no way for me to know what I would have to go through to get rid of it.
Gator is a huge invasion of privacy- it attempts to hijack users' computers. The company does not provide adequate information about how its' programs work. I'll be happy when the company executives are mopping floors at the ChiChis where they used to eat lunch.
Why not just fix the problem with Debian? You know M$ will build paths around Lavasoft and others.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
This is one of those rare pleasures, where I get to have an intelligent, informed discussion with another person on /. Good show.
Y'know, as your earlier patent-pending post suggests an "informed" Gator could be a sweet idea. I really like the idea of having an advertising agent that will replace regular advertising with stuff I'm interested in (yes, I want targeted advertising rather than the regular drivel). But I also want a way for content providers at sites that I visit (and TV shows that I watch) to get paid. I wonder how these can be reconciled.
I find most /. banners advertise stuff I either (a) use, or (b) am interested in. There are those (.Net stuff, Micro$oft's 1' of separation) that I'd rather not see at all and instead would like to see an ad for a new ThinkGeek product or nicotine IV drip or something.
Being a java programmer myself I don't use MS products but I believe active x allows you to deliver applications that plug into IE for windows.
You are asked for some some sort of confirmation but the box is not very informative. Something like "Do you want to install this pluggin from website.com"
Many users just click yes.
How about browsers that don't have active X, flash, and other trash? Will they outlaw my lynx? The step is larger than you think, but no less likely. I can hear the microturds now, "you must display copyright material exactly as intended or you are stealing." DRM becomes more oppresive all the time.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
So Tivo sucks because it allows you to skip past the commercials?
Sometimes people should stop to think how consistent their arguments are.
Imagine you bought a TiVo, set it up, and started watching TV and recording shows.
One show you record has a special software which is installed when watching it to make an interactive show, thanks to the magic of TiVo. However, since most people never read through the EULAs, they simply click okay, have fun with the show, whatever, and then perhaps delete the show from their drives.
Well, that software not only included an interactive part of the show you saw, but also installed tracking software that TiVo was fully aware of, but also commercial replacement technology that they weren't.
This software is set that after any one commercial (by testing out its approximate length and change in normalization of sound), it will play one of the commercials it has downloaded and saved for you, over top of whatever commercial was playing. It would be so integrated that the viewer would never notice, and the station or franchise who is showing the channel receives no money or notice of this action.
The only people who make out are TiVo, who got the initial money to have the first part of the software's activity work, but also the software who got the money for these ads to be placed over other ads. This would be a better analogy for what Gator does.
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
A lot of this type of intrusion started when PC distributers bundled the OS with ISP software (advertising) such as AOL and MSN. At the time none of us though anything about it. We all got our new computer, booted it up and found all of this extra crap. Some useful some not. We complained a little but just got used to it. We didn't mind because it kept the cost of our computer down. Then the internet got big. We didn't want to pay for access to our favorite websites so companies started putting banner ads at the top. Again we complained, but it wasn't all that bad. Then the popups started, we began getting annoyed, but put up with them. I think now with this Gator advertising we have hit the limit. Now companies are installing stuff on our computer largely with out our knowledge, and getting paid to do it. Hopefully this will wake people up a bit, but I fear that most of the dolts who just want their email/internet, but do not want to really learn how it works, and the danges of using it are going to let companies like Gator get away with this for a long time to come. I just don't know what can be done about it. I would have to aggree with many of the comments already posted. This may be immoral, but not illegal. The only way to stop this kind of advertising is to eliminate the market for it. But as long as Joe User is uneducated enough to click on the ad, this will continue. This is all brough to us by the same people that actuall call those overseas investors who claim to want to give you $1 milion if you just send them $80k.
I would say that because a website broadcasts into a public medium (the internet or times square) that gator would not be doing anything illegal.
BUT if I pay for a web service (or paid to do a market survey let's say), that contract between the service and I is binding, and Gator's activities would be illegal.
When wearable computers become commonplace, there will be eyeglasses that block out advertising i norder to regain "personal views" of the world. Will they be illegal?
YoGrark
Taglines like these contribute nothing
Canadian Bred with American Buttering
Really, I have serious doubts on the successful outcome of this lawsuit. First, I hate Gator. Despise it, like nearly all of you. It is a parasite and I question the sanity of anyone who lets it onto their computer (but it helps me remember passwords!).
Gator is a piece of software that monitors where you surf and spawns the appropriate advertisements as you do so for maximum marketing penetration. One of the instances was that every time a gator infested machine visited WeightWatchers.com, a Diet Watchers add popped up. I fail to see the legal grounds for a lawsuit here. Weight Watchers is effectively engaging in anti-competitive practices by trying to keep a 3rd party utility from spawning it's surfer relevant ads? That's called "hypocrisy". That's What Microsoft does when you identify Opera as itself at Hotmail.com instead of an IE. As shity as it is, Gator has every right to operate in the background and display whatever the hell it wants. At most, gator advertisements should come with the tagline "A Gator message..." or such to avoid any confusion.
As far Gator "replacing website ads with it's own" is a bit beyond sensationalism. Infact, both of the articles state quite clearly that Gator profits off the confusion it creates, not by banishing another sites adds. In fact, the only text I could find even coming close to that was "In one extreme example, San Francisco-based eZula has been working with file-sharing networks Kaazaa and iMesh to superimpose links to marketers' sites over text on Web pages." Any site that actually does this or replaces your ads with theirs should be smacked down, and hard. But Gator doesn't. Pop-ups. nothing but annoying pop-ups.
I hate Gator and you hate gator. It's a spyware parasite. But it tells you what it does when you download it-- Remembers your passwords and gives you access to great deals based on your surfing habits. It has a right to operate anywhere because the downloader gave it that right, not the website. If that weren't the case, then programs like the Proximitron should be illegle too. This harks of the people trying to force you to watch their commercials on TV. And if I really wanted to play devils advocate, it may suck for the business being "gatored", but do you lose if you can get the product you're after at a healthy discount? It's called a coupon... Wait... those are anti-competitive too...
And the flames come rolling in! ^__^
You need a FREE iPod Nano
There are some websites that automatically install GATOR on our user workstations without asking. One time I had GATOR installed this way on 73 workstations, due to that days popular websites. I have to manually remove the Bastard program. (Corporate will not go for AD-aware) The uninstall when you uninstall the supported program is a absolute lie. The only program that was installed was gator.
Look for CMEsys and/or GMT in your task manager process. We use a proxy authorization scheme to connect to the internet, as soon as people were logging into their workstation, they were being asked for their proxy username/password. Generally most thought they had some type of virus. I tend to agree that GATOR is a virus.
Yes the websites that do this are being blocked as they are found. Currently ~ 47 sites.
Get a free ipod.
Interesting how the article in the NYT on blocking popup ads has a popup of its own. I realize this is a site-wide script, but the irony is just too good.
That's Mr. Eradicator to you.
trance-port
That sounds more like a problem with ie to me.
...Is that Gator is pretty good personal data management application. I hated having to remove it. But I had no choice. Even ignoring the privacy issue and the extra popups, the spyware components impact system stability and performance. Yet another driven to self-destructive behavior by frenetic search for revenue streams.
It's illegal for your cable provider to intercept the Farscape show, replace the ads with their own and pass it along to you.
Note: For this analogy, just assume the original ads where put there by the producers of Farscape.
This lawsuit is potentially another nail in Google's cache copy, to the delight of webmasters everywhere.
If Gator offered an opt-out for the publishers suing them, such that if a publisher put a "noarchive" or a "nohijack" meta on every page on their site for the benefit of Gator's software, would this cause the publishers to drop their lawsuit?
That's what Google offers. And no, it wouldn't satisfy the publishers. Copyright protection has to do with opt-in -- which is express, prior permission. There is no way that the failure to opt out is the same as express, prior permission.
Of course, you can argue that a simple robots.txt exclusion can keep Google off of your site. But many webmasters cannot afford to disallow Google altogether, because their referrals from Google are a significant portion of their total traffic (from 30 to 70 percent).
Fortunately, it appears that as Google's monopoly increases, the cache copy problem won't increase at the same rate. Recent major portals that have contracted with Google to provide search results (earthlink.net, netscape.com, and aol.co.uk), are not showing the "Cached" link. Big portals recognize the need to keep searchers on their own site, and they have the clout to make this happen.
But most webmasters are smaller than Earthlink, Netscape, and AOL. The Google cache copy puts its own branding at the top of our HTML. To add injury to insult, recently Google's blurb began stating that if you want to bookmark this page, you should use Google's URL instead of the original site. Google adds value to the cache copy by highlighting your search terms. Finally, their servers are so fast that many Google searchers get into the habit of ignoring the original sites altogether. How can the average webmaster compete with this?
This situation robs webmasters of control over their own material. Yet Slashdotters typically love Google, and one thing they love the most is the Google cache copy.
It's a good thing that Slashdotters don't have the final say on such matters.
AdSubtract kills ALL advertisements (even the annoying flying ones.)
How much is your sanity worth?
The gator I know and hate most also comes with some kind of file rating thing. Both spam, both eat CPU one is confirmed to track usr downloads. That in of it self doesn't bother (P2P and a firewall are a pain in the but to traceroute) the thing that drives me up the wall is Gator: don't you want to get spamed with pop up ratings? Me: no not realy I'm just looking for some shareware diag tools to test cygwin with. Filespam: Rate this file now damnit. By theway if Lavasoft get suide again you can use add subract. It works prity good.
show up at their offices with black ski masks and crowbars and take care of their servers?
The Gator Corporation
2000 Bridge Parkway, Suite 100
Redwood City, CA 94065
I'd love to join you, but I'm on the east coast.
Fittingly, when I followed the NYTimes link it showed me an unrequested popup window. This is very interesting to me, as I've got Mozilla set to not allow pages to do that, and this was in fact an article about, well, not wanting to do that. Figures then that this would be the page to poke through my trust in Mozilla's ad armouring features... :-)
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
The complaints reflect growing turmoil in the Internet advertising industry, which increasingly has embraced intrusive, flashy and experimental ad tactics as online advertisers try harder to lure customers.
Advertising on the Internet has become extremely intrusive. I for one am wary of signing up for services that I could actually use because I'm afraid of my email address being sold thus filling my mailbox with services I have no interest in.
How many of you purchase things from companies because the berate you with popup windows and "trojan" software? People won't be so stupid forever, and when they do smarten up, Internet advertising as we know it will be over.
~Vlade
Shouldn't that be a number of publishers are suing, not a number of publishers is suing? Nice English...
If you browse the web on a console you won't get any pop-up,unders, or downs. You will not see any of the banner ads, no flash animation, nothing flying across the screen or images either. Does that mean Lynx users are next to be sued? It alters the intended look of a web page more then Gator does. After all, I have no idea what this is supposed to mean:d ir=security;page=article;kw=;pos=ad2;sz=468x60;til e=2;ord=1025206824572?]
[;dir=securitynode;dir=technology;dir=techpolicy;
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
Everyone tries to make an analogy as to what Gator is doing based on something that has happened in the past. Problem is, this is a brand new crime, only made possible by technology. There are no laws specifically geared towards this, nor are there laws that should apply (since existing laws were not written with the internet in mind).
The bottom line is that a company (Gator) is making a product that benefits by directly harming another party (web site owners) by either covering up advertising with its own ads, or by placing additional competetive advertising on the site (or as a result of the site showing). Gator does not own the content that it covers, nor does it have any agreement to use this content. Gator could not possibly exist without this content.
Could you picture the Right to Life group placing ads on Planned Parenthood's website showing pictures of aborted fetuses? Could you picture Exxon placing ads on Greenpeace's website? This is what Gator is doing, and its wrong, regardless of if the user agrees to it.
Gator is making money by diverting it from others. It doesn't matter that millions of individual users (not Gator) are doing this; A law should be passed that addresses companies that do damage using millions of users as their army.
Nevermind the BS about the "those people should get another business model". They have a business model. You're f*cking with it if you use Gator. You're f*cking with it if you use an ad blocker. It's as bad as telling a vending machine operator that he should figure out a more secure way of storing his candy, because you can get it for free by tipping it over. Or telling the cable company that they should figure out a new business model, because you can just run a wire to your neighbor's house to get free cable.
Some things are just plain wrong, yet selfish people always figure out a way to rationalize their actions:
"I don't want to see those ads, I didn't authorize them on my browser, so I have the right to install a banner blocker".
No, if you don't want to see those ads, you have the right to not visit the site, period.
-- A frustrated content site owner.
And if I choose to breach those terms, what law have I broken? It's no more a valid contract than me saying "By reading this you agree to send me $100", even ignoring the quid pro quo facet of that analogy.
WTF is wrong with this, is that gator presents itself to the user as a small utility, while it's actually doing a lot more - and not so pretty things too.
This kind of program is usually called a trojan, and virus scanners are supposed to shoot them on sight. Now I wonder why Gator is left alone by virus companies. Are those maybe too busy creating new viruses they can scare people off with, to keep sales up?
"Agree to install it?" Most gator users have no idea where it came from. Same with our ol' friend Bonzi Buddy. They sneak in disguised as some other software or new users are tricked into clicking a 'fake error message' which automaticall installs the software. Seems to me gator got in trouble a few years ago because you couldn't remove the program. They were forced to offer an uninstall program at their website. I have heard that it can be very difficult to remove completely from your machine. Uninstall and it is back next time you boot. These are deceptive, nasty practices by dishonest companies. I bet less than 10% of gator users "agreed to install it" knowingly.
This is more like selling ad space on TV. The advertisers pay you for the viewers who watch the program, and should watch the commericals inbetween. Imagine that advertisers learning that many of the people that watch your program have a free tuner box above it which over-write their advertisements. The advertisers will than refuse to pay as much for ads on your network, and the network suffers. Same way with the web pages, in the end the web page suffers.
Gator is another one of those problems screaming out for a technical solution, instead of a legal one. There really needs to be some kind of specialized denial of service app that can be widely distributed, which corrupts whatever protocal gator is using and clogs their servers with spam. Lord knows, they cause enough traffic on our networks that turnabout is fair play.
In the meantime, I guess at least there is
ping -t gator.com
but somehow its just not as satisfying as purposly feeding them heaps of bad data.
Simple way to block it:
www.mozilla.org
I started with nothing and have most of it left.
The length and obscurity of EULAs means that most commercial software is very expensive - multiply a lawyers hourly rate by the size of the EULA for every weekly microsoft security update and you will find that IE or Win XP is very expensive indeed. At least you only need to read the GPL once, which should only take a couple of hours.
...
Just because some site chose a bad business model, I have to be forced to view there ads?
Will everybody still be so gung ho when they go after Opera?
It's my computer and bandwidth I pay for, I sure as hell can block what ever I want to.
By there logic, It would be illegal for me to tape a piece of paper on my screen that covers banner ads.
Hell, If I want to filter data out of the HTML, I can do that to, its my conection.
If I want to pay a guy who tapes over the ads in a newspaper, that my right as well. If he makes money doing this for 1000 people, good for him.
TO those people who scream that they won't be able to make money, tough. Its not societies responsibility to let you make money, go pick a profitable way to make money.
15 years ago, many of us saw how the internet was going to change the world, and rejoiced. Well, here we go.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Gator doesnt replace ads at all. Never ever did.
The worst it did was at some point last year it
popped up an ad in a separate window over top of
an existing ad but the popup location could be
changed by the user and the popup could be moved
aside to see the original ad.
I hate adware as much as the next guy, spam too.
But at least be accurate. Yeah, it's evil, but it's not THAT evil.
...Is offer up the text "Brought to you by Gator" on every pop-up. as long as Gator doesn't actively alter the content of the site, there shouldn't be a damn thing the webmaster can say about it. As much as I hate Gator, the websites have no right to dictate what you can and can't look at/use while surfing, including 3rd party utilities that offer competitor coupons based on where you surf, just like TV sydicates shouldn't be able to force you to watch their commercials by suing a company who blocks them. in effect, the companies that force these lawsuits are saying you don't have the right to not watch/view our advertisements. You don't have the right to turn off the TV. You don't have the right to run software that features better deals than out product. I don't recommend anyone download Gator, but these lawsuits are the height of hypocrisy.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
is it my fault that a web site owner built his business on a poorly thought out, flawed system such as ad driven ? I totally ignore comercials on my tv, and record over them on my VCR/Tivo as well. How I veiw a web page is my choice entirely ? Fonts, pictures etc, any other ruling is silly. The offshoot of this is to require a particular browers so that your site is rendered faithfully as you intended ? What is i use Lynx and can't se any pictures ? is that illegal too ?
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
This argument is complete nonsense. People and organizations pay for an advertisement because they believe that it will recieve attention. Magazine executives most certainly do care about what happens to their ads because they want to get paid for the next issue too.
What makes internet advertisements different is that eliminating them can be done efficiently. Paying someone minimum wage to spend an hour eliminating ads from a magazine will cost more than the cover price for each affected issue. On the web this can be done at nearly no cost for any number of impressions.
Nevertheless, this is about business models. A free market economy derives its strength from subjecting companies to selection pressures like this. That an activity makes it difficult for some people to make money does not make it wrong or even illegal. Freedom should trump commerce in cases like these.
Not all those who wander are lost.
Look at who is suing ... now ask yourself why?
... this is the first shot in a
Internet advertizing must be putting a hurt on
print advertizing. Where do job seekers and
posters go these days. Where do people look
for stuff for sale.
Just watch
war to pick off ANY internet advertizing that
is more effective than a simple banner. Gator
is first but I think you will see that same
lineup of plaintiffs again. Maybe DoubleClick
will be next when they claim their cookie
setting is a violation of privacy.
They don't give a damn about your privacy or
anyone's ad content except their own. The print
media is trying to kill a segment of the net
that competes with it like the record industry
took out a different segment.
If you really want to see the Internet survive
SOMEONE has to be able to make money at it. The
people that have been doing things in old
established inefficient ways are going to fight
tooth and nail against any more efficient means
that does not give them a share of the profit.
It is just greed, dont fall for the crap.
"Seriously what's the problem? its not like Gator is installed automatically... the user has to install it themselves...."
Well older versions of Divx installed Gator without consent or knowledge of doing so.. does that make it right? lets say that we put a new radio in your car but at the same time we install an electronic ID coded GPS and can track you where ever you go in your car. Is that right as well?
One time my system was invaded by Gator's spyware. I searched my system and found that the spyware had sprung at least 2 new directories, beneath the "Program Files" folder.
96 files were residing under those two directories alone.
There might be some other directories and/or files ( dll, dvx and other system files) from Gator's spyware in my system, but those two directories were the main ones.
I downloaded AdAware and ran it, AdAware searched my system and in the first run reported that it found 24 files. I told AdAware to delete them.
Then I ran AdAware again. In the second run AdAware found another two files. I delete those files too.
On the third and subsequent runs, AdAware found nothing.
And I checked my system, those two directories were still there. Some of the files were still there.
I went to DOS and did a "deltree" on those two directories. But I am still worry.
There might be some other files from Gator's spyware sprinkled around my system. How to locate them ?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Fuck you Gator.
The new DivX 5.x has an adware version, unfortantly this adware version then install gator silent install and then gator. unless you have a good firewall you wouldn't know about it.
Access Point Live Mapping Access Points with Google
I run the network for a camp, as well as for the 22 node lab we use.
12 had Gain installed, 16 had Gator. Another had something that changed the default 404 page to a page full of links to porn sites. I don't even know what that one was, but I can tell you that after embedding itself into IE, it was a real pain to remove, not to mention having to explain to a 7 year old camper why [s]he cannot click on a link to a "bad" site.
Any program that operates when it not called upon to do should is, and should be treated as, malware or a virus. If you want an ad-supported app, save 7 year olds and their counselors everywhere the hassle of continuing your "ad based payment" after your app had been terminated.
-twb
"Seriously what's the problem? its not like Gator is installed automatically... the user has to install it themselves...."
Well older versions of Divx installed Gator without consent or knowledge of doing so.. does that make it right? lets say that we put a new radio in your car but at the same time we install an electronic ID coded GPS and can track you where ever you go in your car. Is that right as well?
IMHO - *ALL* internet ads are a foolish roundabout way to make money off of something that in my opinion never should have been so heavily commercialized to begin with. Gator is beating you all at your own game, and it's all legit. No room for whining. I think that Gator is the net-parasite that just MIGHT make money off of internet advertising.
Keep in mind that it's the web server's job to serve the data, and the data alone. It is the client machine's -right- to do whatever it wants to the data once it's received. because a site was intended to be viewed at 640x480 - and it's viewed at 1600x1200 do users get sued because it's an altered and misinterpreted view of what they meant to deliver? Come on you dot commies, come back to reality. Now i remember why i dont read slashdot.
--_-
And if I cant install it due to policy? Not everyone can 'just install bla bla' as i hear so often.
Its rather annoying actually. Like telling people 'just install Linux' when they have a problem with MSWord. Elitist bastards, hope you don't work in tech support and treat your users that way.
.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
More importantly: I also agree that NYTimes has no "right" to require the client-side rendering of their website to match NYT's "expectations."
If the NYT wants that, they should deliver their homepage in some kind of encrypted protected fixed PDF-like format that doesn't allow modification.
I would go further and say that if the NYT wants that, they should send out an armed manservant with a briefcase (containing the HTML) handcuffed to his arm every time someone requests a page. Because that is the only way they will be able to control the manner in which the public views the NYT's work. Once those little bits travel out over the network, the game is over. Joe End-User can filter or reformat or do whatever he pleases. As long as it's short of redistribution, there is no limit on what you can do to process your data. Using some cockamamie "secure" format is very much akin to copy protection in its other forms: an annoyance to all, but not an obstacle to the determined.