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.

Comments

I'm going to make adware adware...

[Anonymous Coward]

To replace the Gator ads with my own! My plan can not fail! Muahahaha.

Tivo?

[MikeOttawa]

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"?

Re:Tivo?

[Bob McCown]

No, its more like if the Tivo replaced commericals for Brand X with commercials for Brand Y.

Re:Tivo?

[st0rmshad0w]

No, but I'd imagine it would be very similar to broadcasters digitally changing ads at sports venues, like baseball stadiums, during the telecast of the game.

Re:Tivo?

[Jucius Maximus]

"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? "

No. The gator software often installs itself without your permission if you are on win32 and use MSIE with lax enough activeX permissions. It is a trojan that masquerades as a utility that fills out web forms for you.

In fact is puts its own ads exactly on top of the a web page's regular ads so it disguises Gator ad content as the web site's content. It also sends in the popups. I believe but I am not certain that it collects marketing information based on your surfing patterns.

Re:Tivo?

[Gabey]

Correct me if I'm wrong (I know someone will), but isn't it the case that broadcasters are inserting ads onto walls and things where there *aren't* any ads? So, they're not replacing any, just adding more.

Ad-aware

[RML]

Yet another reason to use Ad-aware.

Re:Ad-aware

[ktulu1115]

...or spybot

Some claim it to be better than Ad-Aware, it seems to remove a lot of spy/adbots

Re:Ad-aware

[Ark42]

Mine is smaller: http://www.morpheussoftware.net/sab/

Re:Ad-aware

[Wiener]

Mine is smaller

That's the first time I've ever "heard" anyone say that...

Isn't it ironic

[Diamon]

That the article on stopping pop-up ads has a pop-under ad?

Re:Isn't it ironic

[JordanH]

• That the article on stopping pop-up ads has a pop-under ad?

Not really. The people who are reading the article probably won't be blocking, so they're ideal targets.

Re:Isn't it ironic

[tbmaddux]

To be fair, the article does say (boldface emphasis added):

" Nor are the new ads limited to sites purveying gambling and pornography, as they once were. Almost every big-name Web site now displays them, including Amazon.com, Yahoo, CNN.com, AOL.com, TIME.com, WSJ.com and NYTimes.com."

Re:Isn't it ironic

[Wolfier]

Is it a classic case of "put-your-name-beside-the-big-ones-so-that-you-loo k-big-too"?

Come on, NYTimes.com isn't a "big-name" Web site by any measure.

Re:Isn't it ironic

[Technician]

That the article on stopping pop-up ads has a pop-under ad?
Isn't that what Gator does? Have you checked if you have Gator? ;-)

Re:Isn't it ironic

[alexburke]

GuideScope all the way, baby!

Re:Isn't it ironic

[bilbobuggins]

That the article on stopping pop-up ads has a pop-under ad?

Not really. They don't mind showing pop-up ads, they just don't want to show someone else's pop-up ad instead of their own.

Damn it feels good to be an OPERA USER

[Vidmaster_Steve]

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!

Re:Damn it feels good to be an OPERA USER

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have images on, you are NOT supposed to see ALT tags. They are ALTERNATES for the image. You should use the TITLE tag if you if wish to write witty things about your images. Use the ALT tags to actually give alternate text for non-image using users.

Re:Damn it feels good to be an OPERA USER

[Hallow]

Yes, but Opera doesn't seem to support the TITLE attribute (and neither does the latest Mozilla I played with).

Kinda reminds me of...

[Black Aardvark House]

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.

Re:Kinda reminds me of...

[jd142]

What possible legal construct or definition fo terms could you come up with that would make gator illegal but babelfish legal?

That's easy. An illegal program changes the content or meaning of the page. Where the user should have gotten a page about the latest kernel and an ad for Oracle, the user instead got a page about the latest kernel and an ad for a camera. The meaning of the page, derived from the meaning of the sum of its parts including the ad, is different.

And in the real word, what babelfish does would be illegal. It is illegal for you to take the latest King novel and translate it into Tagalog and publish it. Only an author of a book has the right to determine the languages in which the work will be published. With babelfish, you can make an argument that by publishing freely to the web, an author implicitly grants the right to freely translate the work, PROVIDED that the work is kept as a whole (which gator doesn't do, by overriding any ads that were a part of the work) and provided that the translating web page does not represent the work as originating on any other page than the page the author published it on. In other words, no framing it in so it appears to be coming from www.scumsite.com when it was originally published on www.goodguys.com.

Not hard at all. The law is a lot like programming. The users are all potential bugs, so you code around them. You make a law so that when users input the data {the events that occur in the real world) the correct output results {the good guys win when sued). So you just put language in for all possible eventualities and clearly define your variables. The law is even like a case statement in that it has fall through rules.

Re:Kinda reminds me of...

[ichimunki]

And in the real word, what babelfish does would be illegal. It is illegal for you to take the latest King novel and translate it into Tagalog and publish it.

Ah, but the internet is part of this "real world" you speak of. Your analogy is flawed, that's all. Babelfish is the equivalent of me buying a King novel, hiring someone fluent in my language and English, and asking them to read the book to me (translating from the written English into my spoken language of choice). Even if I tape-record or transcribe that, I am not violating the law until I distribute the material. And even then, one might be able to do so dependent on a court ruling based on the Fair Use exceptions written into the copyright laws.

Gator sucks, but...

[Reality Master 101]

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.

Re:Gator sucks, but...

[Apreche]

The thing is that there are people who are paying money to put those ads on a website. The difference here between the magazine or television and the web is that the guy who runs the site gets money when people click/lead or whatever the pricing plan may be. If you cut ads out of a magazine, the magazine doesn't care. They made their money because the advertiser paid for the ad to be in there, and it was in there.
On the web the advertiser not only pays for ad placement, which in turn brings them direct profits (e.g: online casino), but the person with the website depends on those ads being shown so he can get paid through cj, or whatever system he uses.
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.
I mean, even slasdot is getting paid for the ads on the site. And if those ads don't show up because gator replaced them, then gator is indirectly stealing revenue from slashdot. Instead of say google (with its ultra cool google rackmount box thing) paying slashdot, company X pays gator.
Do you now see why suing gator is the way to go?

Re:Gator sucks, but...

[GutBomb]

the problem is that most people don't really know what it is. for example i have never met a single person that actually installed gator knowingly. My wife for example installed audiogalaxy (i wasn't home , so i would have given her the pyware free one, of course) And i came home and saw gain popups. Then i went through the installer for audiogalaxy. there was 1 checkbox asking if you would like gator installed for you. and it was cheacked by default. my wife, not being a big geek simply just clicked next. Now, my wife knows a little bit about computers and stuff, so i would imaginfe that there are TONS of people out there who simply clicked "next". These people don't read the EULA that actually tells them what it is. If gator was a program you downloaded by itself, i could agree with you, but it is virtually forced upon other people. For the most part when you install a program and it asks you if you would like a specific component installed, they will say yes, just to be safe, like maybe that component is vital to the program.

Re:Gator sucks, but...

[SimplyCosmic]

Blockquoth the poster:

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.

Um ... not exactly. A more accurate analogy (at least as far as analogies go anyway) would be if on its way through the postal system, your local postal worker cut out all the ads from the magazines and placed ads which directly benefitted him only, and in such a way that you as the magazine subscriber didn't notice.

Gator doesn't make this practice clear to users of their software other than in a badly worded sub-section of the installer which is easily missed.

Why on earth would you as an end-user actively want the adverts of a website replaced with adverts from Gator?

A user knowingly blocking ads from a site is one thing, but a piece of software trying to go behind both the user and website's back and profit off of both isn't the same.

Re:Gator sucks, but...

[gorilla]

but the person with the website depends on those ads being shown so he can get paid through cj, or whatever system he uses.

Well that kinda sucks for the website owner doesn't it? It's still my machine, and my choice if I want to download the adverts or not. I don't think Gator is a good program, and I certainly wouldn't install it even if I could, but I don't like the implication that the website owner has unlimited control over your computer.

Re:Gator sucks, but...

[JanneM]

I agree with you in general. This issue has some additional wrinkles, however. The users are clearly not fully aware what Gator does or when it does it. Gator does not mark in any way that it changes content. By switching like this _without_ the user being aware of it, they can reasonable be said to misrepresenting the web site owners.

Put it this way: if you had a program that changed banners, that you installed _knowing_ that's what it did, and it showed you ads for steamy porn on nytimes.com, there would be no problem. You knew after all that the banners came from your program, not from the New York Times. In this case, however, the intent is to do this behind peoples' backs. If it pushed goatse.cx advertisements onto nytimes site, a lot of people would be very angry at nytimes, thinking its they who pushed the stuff on them.

It's not that it changes the 'surfing experience', it's that it does it with intent to deceive that's the problem.

/Janne

Re:Gator sucks, but...

[pdqlamb]

So I'm a thief because I use Junkbuster?

Are you closely related to Ted Turner and the rest of the Time-Warner-AOHell crew?

Re:Gator sucks, but...

[Jucius Maximus]

"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."

Sure, but Gator tries to install itself in the background through stealthy scripts on MSIE. If someone hid in your home and replaced all the ads on your magazine subscriptions when you did not invite them in, would you appreciate it?

Re:Gator sucks, but...

[knabar]

While what you are saying is correct, the fact that a user can view websites any way he wants to and do anything to them still stands. Overall I guess that paying for ads on websites is just a not-so-sound business model. I agree with the original poster that Gator is doing nothing illegal.

Re:Gator sucks, but...

[Saint Nobody]

your analogy doesn't work.

it's more like you found somebody who offered to do free gardening for you, but would only do it if you let his buddy "improve your magazine-reading experience." then his buddy replaces ads in your magazines with new ads, except he does it in such a way that it's hard to detect unless you're a magazine expert.

when you ask about getting rid of the magazine-improving friend, the gardener tells you that you can't get rid of him directly, but you can trust that he'll leave on his own when you fire the gardener.

Re:Gator sucks, but...

[GutBomb]

As you've said, that the key is whether Gator really informs the user what it is doing. But that's not what the plaintiffs are saying here:

Terence Ross, the lawyer representing the publishers, said the placement of pop-up ads on the publishers' Web sites "alters the display of the Web site, which constitutes copyright infringement."

Read that very carefully. According to these people, altering the display of the Web site constitutes copyright infringement. If the court lets that through unqualified, then turning off images, Javascript, changing fonts, ad blockers, not having the latest Flash plugin, could fall into the same category.

I agree with suing Gator because it's spyware, but that suit should be brought by users, not webmasters.

I definitely agree with you on this. After all, gator does not even modify the pages themselves or replace the ads. They just ADD EXTRA popups to what is already there. it is like the crap the pizza places put on your doorknob every few days because they are too cheap to put it in the mail like all the other junk mail advertisers.

Re:Gator sucks, but...

[AftanGustur]

If you cut ads out of a magazine, the magazine doesn't care. They made their money because the advertiser paid for the ad to be in there, and it was in there.

The example in the comment you were replying to was something on the line of : what if I hire a guy to come to my house and filter "Time" magazine for me, for example, cut out all Microsoft ads and replace them with Linux ads. I paid for the magazine, and it will not be redistributed from my house. Surely I have a right to do this, even if Microsoft paid money for the ads to be in there, and they weren't when I read the mag.

On the web the advertiser not only pays for ad placement, which in turn brings them direct profits (e.g: online casino), but the person with the website depends on those ads being shown so he can get paid through cj, or whatever system he uses.

I think everybody can see the point here, but what about *my* right to block ads ? (Or have it done for me) My point is that there is no law beeing broken here !

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.

It may reduce income, but it surely doesn't *take any money away *.

I mean, even slasdot is getting paid for the ads on the site. And if those ads don't show up because gator replaced them, then gator is indirectly stealing revenue from slashdot.

Again, there is nothing beeing stolen, slashdot didn't *own it* in the first place, so it can't be stolen from it. If I want to block /. ads, I will simply do so (I am not doing it by the way). Now, if /. doesn't want to serve me the pages until I have downloaded the ads, they are of course free to do so, but again, that doesn't mean that I will display them on my screen.

Re:Gator sucks, but...

[Marco Leal]

Isn't this painfully obvious by now? This advertising model is all wrong! That's simply not the way that advertising works. The effectiveness of an ad is not measured by the number of people who immediately react upon it. The whole point of advertising is to create brand awareness. To measure the effectivenss of an online ad by its click-through rate is the same as measuring how many people turn on the next freeway exit to drink a after seeing some billboard.

Re:Gator sucks, but...

[Hard_Code]

"What I choose to run in my browser is my own business" [emphasis mine]

The operative word here is choose. The question really isn't exactly what it does (we can install any software we want to filter/replace ads), the question is, does it install itself and infest your system without your knowledge. The answer is yes. It is spyware/adware and I have no sympathy for it, even if it walks my dog and makes me breakfast.

Re:Gator sucks, but...

[Xerithane]

I just have to say cry me a river. I think that Gator for the most part, completely and thoroughly, is ass. It serves a purpose, and has an absolute plethora of people using it (and hating it) -- the end user installed it, it's a published feature of the software. If the users are too naive and ignorant to figure it out, oh well. It's their program, they run it voluntarily.

Coming down on Gator for this is hypocritical. Yes, they are an evil advert firm. If nytimes.com doesn't like it, I'm sure they could pay Gator to host their ads on the nytimes site. Maybe that's what Gator wants, who knows. Either way, I seriously doubt this lawsuit will make it very far.

In this case, however, the intent is to do this behind peoples' backs.
Uhm, with all due respect you are absolutely and completely wrong. They publish on their front page what they do:

The Gator eWallet and OfferCompanion are ad-supported software. They are part of the Gator Advertising and Information Network (GAIN), which helps keep software free by delivering messages based on the sites you view.

And now go visit the GAIN site, you will see that they say clearly that they do this. They aren't doing it behind anyones back.

From the GAIN site:

Most GAIN messages currently come in the form of Pop-Up Windows on top of or underneath other windows on your computer desktop. Some are displayed in windows that float over web sites you are viewing. To learn more about these ad vehicles, click here.

This is on the front page on the GAIN site. So take your conspiracy theory intent-to-deceive bullshit FUD somewhere else. You are just like the end-users and webmasters that are pissed off about this, too damn proud/naive/ignorant/stupid/clueless to read the documentation they post right in front of your face.

Re:Gator sucks, but...

[ceejayoz]

...my choice if I want to download the adverts or not...

Actually, no. Most sites have terms of service that you accept by using their site.

Re:Gator sucks, but...

[Darth_Burrito]

The amount companies will pay for ads in a magazine are determined through market studies based on the effectiveness of advertising in that medium. So if lots of people were cutting out Magazine ads and replacing them with other ads, the people who make the magazines would be forced to lower the cost of their advertising after market studies indicated the effectiveness of magazine ads was diminishing. Just because it is more difficult to accurately gauge the click back of traditional advertising does not mean that consumers gaining interest due to an ad in a certain medium does not get factored in to the pricing of ads in that medium.

Re:Gator sucks, but...

[tyler_larson]

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.

I don't agree: Gator modifies the site before the customer gets to view it, and generally without the customer's permission or even knowledge. It's more like someone going to the newsstand and pasting their own customers' ads over the ads in the local newspaper before the customer buys it.

But it does bring up an interesting point:

If what Gator is doing is legal, would it still be legal for them to pay your ISP to replace all the ads that travel down your pipe with their own? Even if they did provide a way to "opt out" and see the original ads? I don't think there's a real difference between such a scheme and what they're doing right now.

Obviously, it would be illegal to break into a company's server, replacing their adds with your own. Likewise, hijacking all outboud connections from a server for the same purpose would not be legal either.

On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with telling Galeon to not load content from doubleclick.net. I don't even see anything wrong with firewalling ad companies out of my network completely. I think doing so is no different that the way I throw away the classifieds before even opening the newspaper.

I think the real difference lies in selling ad space on someone else's page.

Re:Gator sucks, but...

[Xerithane]

Finally, I disagree that Gator properly informs the end-user about their product at installation:

I'd bet that most people who have Gator installed have never been to Gator.com and GAIN.com -- the software was installed silently by accident (described better in other comments).


I can guarantee you with any question of a doubt that you are always prompted with the Gator install screen. It has a link to their website. If the user doesn't click through and accepts that some software that they have no clue what it does is going to be installed on their system, so what?

The only way you can install Gator by accident is by slipping and clicking the acknowledgement button. It has a fucking orange and green logo, it's not like it's camouflaged or anything.

The problem is people are stupid. They think the computer is some mystical box that does something magical. Blaming Gator because they are bundled with shareware applications is plain ass stupid. At least Gator posts on their home page what they do. Did KaZaa do that? Yet you rally support around them. The reason why I don't think Gator is above all a shithole company is because they announce and declare everything they do.

To me it just proves the end user is stupid.

Re:Gator sucks, but...

[WNight]

I think the whole point of the lawsuit is that Gator barely informs the user and does it in a way as to intentional avoid doing so when possible.

If you hire someone to snip ads from a magazine, or automatically close pop-up windows, that's essentially as if you are doing it and as long as it's legal for you to do it, you can hire someone to do it.

Gator on the other hand is very unclear on what it does and doesn't really give people a chance to agree. It's like you going to the store to buy a magazine and when you get it home you find out that the magazine has been edited, without your consent or that of the publisher, to change the ads, rewrite the editorial content, etc.

And then the store claims that you agreed to this because when you bought a cup of coffee there was a contract printed on the bottom of the cups...

If Gator really was something people wanted to install, I don't think the suit would go anywhere. But Gator basically does all this without the consent of anyone.

Re:Gator sucks, but...

[AME]

I can guarantee you with any question of a doubt that you are always prompted with the Gator install screen.

And I can guarantee that you are wrong. As I was, on my Win2k machine at work, presented a "Thank you for installing Gator" dialog (or something like that, it was NOT a "click here to install Gator" dialog) when I'm quite certain that I never agreed to install Gator. I never agree to install anything on my work machine. If I need a particular plugin to view some site, I just move on because that's the machine I do development on and I don't want any freaky thing fooling with its performance or reliablility.

What's worse, removing Gator from that machine proved, well, challenging.

Re:Gator sucks, but...

[Xerithane]

And I can guarantee that you are wrong. As I was, on my Win2k machine at work, presented a "Thank you for installing Gator" dialog (or something like that, it was NOT a "click here to install Gator" dialog) when I'm quite certain that I never agreed to install Gator. I never agree to install anything on my work machine. If I need a particular plugin to view some site, I just move on because that's the machine I do development on and I don't want any freaky thing fooling with its performance or reliablility.

I have very very reliable inside information that makes me 100% confident that you did something to install gator. I know several people that work for Gator, and they all have made very sure that you are always prompted to install Gator. The problem resides between the chair and the keyboard.

What's worse, removing Gator from that machine proved, well, challenging.

I'm sorry, but I've accidently installed gator once and purposefully twice. I would go no where near the word challenging on it's uninstallation. And I'm a unix geek, I barely know shit about windows and it was still rather simple. You discredited yourself with that statement.

Re:Gator sucks, but...

[AME]

I have very very reliable inside information that makes me 100% confident that you did something to install gator.

You're assuming that the people who make Gator are the only one's in this loop. And those sites that stand to make money off of it don't do sneaky things to make sure it gets installed without the user knowing. Just a theory.

I know several people that work for Gator, and they all have made very sure that you are always prompted to install Gator.

I'll assume that this is true just because you said it. After all, those good folks who wrote Gator would never do anything dishonest or underhanded -- we know at least that they wrote Gator.

...I've accidently installed gator once...

I don't see how this is possible, considering how much work the programmers at Gator put into making sure it's obvious that you are installing their software when you do it.

You discredited yourself with that statement.

This coming from the guy who traded a Mercedes and a Toyota for a Chevy Cavalier -- and installed Gator accidentally once. I'm sorry, you were trying to say something?

Re:Gator sucks, but...

[Xerithane]

You're assuming that the people who make Gator are the only one's in this loop. And those sites that stand to make money off of it don't do sneaky things to make sure it gets installed without the user knowing. Just a theory.

If you knew anything about the internals of Gator you would understand you made yourself sound very stupid right then.

I don't see how this is possible, considering how much work the programmers at Gator put into making sure it's obvious that you are installing their software when you do it.


Simple, I clicked 'Yes' on a screen I shouldn't have and Gator got installed. It requires some level of user intervention directly related to Gators installation to be installed. Sometimes you don't mean to give it, but you still did.


This coming from the guy who traded a Mercedes and a Toyota for a Chevy Cavalier -- and installed Gator accidentally once. I'm sorry, you were trying to say something?

I do not regret my decision on the Cavalier. Right now I'm driving a Lexus, the Cavalier was simply a temporary vehicle until I found a different car I liked. I stated that when I got the Cavalier, as well. Apparently you have a huge problem reading the full text and only taking your interpretation and spewing it as right. Try harder, it's really fun to read your bizarre logic.

Dangerous Thinking

[akula1]

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.

Re:Dangerous Thinking

[MikeOttawa]

This is exactly the point that the cable broadcasters were making with TiVo users skipping ads - that there is an implied contract between the person supplying the content and the viewer to watch the ads to get the content.

This may have a bigger impact than people realize.

Re:Dangerous Thinking

[UberOogie]

They supply content and you (as far as they're concerned) have to look at their ads.

In a word, no. You have the emphasis wrong for one thing. It is more like this:

They supply content and you (as far as they're concerned) are served their ads.

This isn't prohibiting ad-blocking tools. This is prohibiting tools that replace their ads with other ads.

Re:Dangerous Thinking

[goldspider]

Your analogy is flawed. This has nothing to do with any implied contract between the publisher of the content and the viewer of that content. In fact, it has nothing to do with the viewer at all.

The publisher of the content is in a contract with the supplier of the ads, probably something that sounds like "ad-supplier-X will give $Y to Publisher_Z per each hundred ads displayed on their site." When something (in this case, Gator) interferes with that contract, a lawsuit is most appropriate.

Re:Dangerous Thinking

[toriver]

That was Ted Turner's claim; of course, he should be careful about stating that since such a contract probably would include something about "quality of programming" that stations may notlive up to... :-)

It's enough...

[mixbsd]

... to make me want to go back to using Lynx again.

Re:It's enough...

[ceejayoz]

Warning, Goatse...

WTF is the problem? the user agrees to install it.

[BWS]

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?

Ad-ware is a major problem

[pmancini]

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

Re:Ad-ware is a major problem

[pmancini]

I don't think it is wierd. I think it is some form of deception. In fact now that I think about it I think the physical address and the email are both bogus. Why not? If you were going to spy or spam or both wouldn't you want to be kept hidden? I wonder if Norton AV or Mcaffee and prevent their stuff from affecting my machine?

--Peter

Palladium + Fritz Chip = Required Ad Viewing?

[scotpurl]

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.

anything you want...

[Sean Clifford]

except that advertising dollars is what makes your magazine subscription so cheap and if some third party cuts out the ads and replaces them with their own they are ripping off the publisher.

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.

Re:anything you want...

[Rupert]

You had the same idea I had here.

However, as we discussed in a previous /. story when some TV executive called Tivo owners "thieves", it's really none of the networks' business what I do when they're playing ads. I can go make a cup of tea, take a leak, switch channels, or even watch the ads. If I recorded the show, I can fast forward or skip over the ads. If I choose, I can play something else suring the ads. And if someone wants to provide me with a valuable service in return for watching *their* ads during the network's commercial break, then I should be free to do make that choice.

It's unfortunate for the TV networks, of course, because now they're going to have to find a new way of making money. However, making money is not a right, and I don't see any of their other rights being infringed here.

Re:WTF is the problem? the user agrees to install

[YahoKa]

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?

Unethical, Yes. Illegal, Not so sure

[quantaman]

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).

Re:Unethical, Yes. Illegal, Not so sure

[WEFUNK]

...all gator is doing is poping up its own window or own link which you "agreed" to view when you clicked on the EULA...

I've had the displeasure of inadvertantly having this trash installed on my computer. Now I'm pretty computer savvy (Computer Engineer) but I was probably either multi-tasking at the time and accidently hit something, or the EULA/accept may have been set up in an especially vile manner (automatic, opt-out, misleading buttons, I can't recall).

It will be interesting to see if this case aims at the validity of the Gator EULA and if any ruling might extend to EULA's in general. Since the parties filing suit are all publishers and not software companies, they might be more likely to attack the general premise and validity of an EULA that is misleading or unlikely to be read before acceptance. This could have interesting repercussions in software licensing.

As an aside, I found this quote from the article pretty funny:

"Gator ranked as the 15th most heavily trafficked Web property in April, according to Nielsen/NetRatings, with nearly 16 million people being exposed to its Web sites or software."

I wonder how much traffic is generated by those trying to figure out what the hell happened and remove the offending software (the key word is "exposed" - I bet the installation process and the redirected ads probably also count as "hits").

Re:Unethical, Yes. Illegal, Not so sure

[Jucius Maximus]

"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."

No, gator 'replaces' the advertising on the pages you view by hovering banners of the exact same dimensions on top of the original banners, making you think they are part of the original page.

Re:WTF is the problem? the user agrees to install

[GutBomb]

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.

Re:WTF is the problem? the user agrees to install

[i_am_pi]

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

Re:Enough Lawsuits?

[GutBomb]

if gator loses in the court case they will lose alot of money. this in itself may kill gator. if that doesn't, the midset of the advertisers that do not want to be associated with this month's scum queens will stop advertising with gator. soon enough companies will find out they will get sued if they mess with other people's content, and then spyware will die. I am against most law suits too, but this one may actually benefit more people than just the lawyers involved.

On the other hand...

[artemis67]

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.

Revenge

[rodbegbie]

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.

spyware woes

[Patrick13]

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.

Re:spyware woes

[sheldon]

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.

That's impossible unless you had decided to specifically trust all ActiveX content from Gator Corporation.

I just confirmed this by going to Gator.com... yes, it popped up and asked if I wanted to install it, but I confirmed No. I think the problem is your users are saying 'Yes', and you believe them when they say "But but, it never even asked me! I swear!!!!"

Re:spyware woes

[ceejayoz]

I didn't get a Gator install with that link...

Re:spyware woes

[sheldon]

The only OBJECT tag on that page is one referring to Macromedia shockwave.

I imagine if you've already installed gator once, it is not unreasonable to assume that the applet goes through and makes system changes. Although, really if it is doing that it shouldn't be marked safe for scripting... Perhaps Microsoft should have their key revoked? They could certainly push that out as an IE update.

I only download ActiveX content from known trusted companies(mainly just Microsoft and Macromedia)

Re:spyware woes

[sheldon]

Whenever I go to windows update and there is a new version of their update control, it prompts me to download it.

My advice to you would be to step away from the computer... choose a career in fishery and wildlife where you will be as far away from computers as possible. Maybe you could watch for forest fires in Colorado, I hear there is a job opening.

what IPs does Gator hit?

[night_flyer]

couldnt you just add their IP to your hosts file and point it to 120.0.0.1?

If anyone knows please respond...

Re:what IPs does Gator hit?

[johnlcallaway]

Of course!!!!

My hosts file has 220 such items in it. It is wonderful to see a webpage pop up with lots of images not drawn!!!!

Unfortunately, Mozilla feels obligated to tell me each time it fails. I think I need to add a webserver to my machine, running on localhost, and have it serve up some type of blocker indicator gif, html, or jpeg each time it gets a request.

Illegality

[Rupert]

• It is legal for you to tape Farscape so you can watch it later.
  
• It is legal for you to pay me to come to your house, pop the tape in the VCR, and record Farscape for you.
  
• It is illegal for you to pay me to tape Farscape at my house, and mail you the tape.
  

Since this is happening at the client end, I think this is closest to the second option above, which would make it legal.

Re:Illegality

[CapnGib]

It is also legal for you to pay me to come to your house, pop the tape in the VCR, and record Farscape for you, deleting the ads or better yet replacing all the Cingular commercials with Verizon ones.

But is it legal for Verizon to pay me to do this behind your back?

Re:Illegality

[Rupert]

Please do!

Re:Illegality

[Rupert]

That's about the best point I've seen in this thread yet. I don't know. I don't know what law they'd be breaking. If I knew (i.e. informed consent, which, in general, Gator doesn't have) that this was happening, then it should be legal. Otherwise, who knows?

Re:Illegality

[artemis67]

Frankly, I don't see the corrolation between your analogy and what Gator is doing. If you tape the show at your friend's house, you're still going to watch all of the commercials that SF Channel airs during the show. I think you're really stretching it.

Besides, all the plaintiff needs to show, IMHNLO (in my humble non-lawyer's opinion), is that Gator is overly aggressive in installing itself on users computers (i.e., without the express permission of the user), and that it tries to obscure the true nature of what the program is doing. And then show that users can't remove Gator when they no longer want the service.

Those things shouldn't be too difficult to prove. Not at all.

Once you have that, then you have a very large installed base of users who did not request that Gator replace banner ads on web pages.

And once you prove that, then your permission-based defense turns to dust.

Not good...

[athakur999]

It sounds like the ads are popups that appear when you visit certain pages. They don't actually modify the page you visited.

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.

Re:WOW

[billybobSDK]

A lot of the latest versions of AudioGalaxy and such do you not give you the option to opt out of installing Gator. Besides, shouldn't you be doing school work at school instead of downloading mp3's or uninstalling software. Computers are in schools to use as a tool for learning, not for wasting time.

Someone with money needed to sue Gator.

[antis0c]

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.

A thought

[jaaron]

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.

Outright theft.

[peterdaly]

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

the law

[jacobm]

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.

I've got an idea.

[rawg]

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.

Re:I've got an idea.

[interstellar_donkey]

I can't say that I like that idea. It shows the end result of the really skewered thinking the advertising industry has, and how it's made people respond.

In every other medium, advertising really has no instant feedback on it's effectivness, so it relies on three things: a good message, a targeted audience to provide it exposure, and a good number of people who will see it.

But somewhere along the line advertisers were taught that on the internet, because there was a potential for immediate feedback (click throughs), the effectivness of the ads can only be judged on that feedback.

But this really is'nt the case. I may see dozens of ads for 'thinkgeek.com' in passing, and one day, decide to type in the URL. (Which I have).

But in that model, the advertiser still belives it's ads were ineffective, and the website does'nt get paid.

On the other side of the coin are the users. I cringe every time I see a hapless webmaster say 'Click on my ads! Support our site'. Why? I don't go to McDonalds just because they advertise on a show I like.

I may like a website, but I'm not going to click on an ad that gives the site money when I have no intention of buying anything or even looking at the site that's been clicked through.

But somehow that's entered into the strange and twisted morality of todays net user: That it's OK to act in a fradulent manner in order to give a guy who runs a website you like a few extra cents.

And it turns into a two way street. The more and more people click through onto ads just to 'support' a website without a real interest in being a consumer, the less and less any serious advertisers will consider the Internet to be a viable medium for advertising.

I don't get it

[Mr_Silver]

Gator just fires up some adverts on a users PC based on certain pages they go to. That's not interferring with a websites content at all in the slightest.

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 ...

.. but by the wording of the article Gator isn't. It just fires the adverts up and people assume it came from that page.

Assumption is the mother of all fuckups.

Waiting for the day...

[Craig Maloney]

I'm waiting for the day when it's illegal for me to use a browser that doesn't render the page the way the company intended it to be rendered.

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.

Re:Waiting for the day...

[realdpk]

With the sizes of company websites these days (do they forget most people still use modems?) they could probably just replace everything with imagemap'd JPEGs and 1) have pages render 'perfectly' and 2) perhaps even save bandwidth.

That would/will sulck.

Must defend Gator

[Sloppy]

"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.

Re:Must defend Gator

[Mr.Intel]

You are responsible for your computer, dammit!!

Preach on brother! It all falls back on individual accountability. If you don't read the owners manual for the new lawnmower you just bought, fire it up and the blade flies through the wall of your house; guess what? It's your fault plain and simple. If you use your computer without knowing how and get screwed by Gator or get H4X0RED, then guess what, it's your fault.

Now the only problem with this is that a computer is a bit more complex than a lawnmower. Common sense doesn't apply and the learning curve is steeper. So what do we do? Do we pass laws that "protect" consumers who can't or won't get it? How does that affect those of us who do and don't need protection?

Re:Must defend Gator

[dvdeug]

If you don't read the owners manual for the new lawnmower you just bought, fire it up and the blade flies through the wall of your house; guess what? It's your fault plain and simple.

Guess what? The lawnmower company will throw money at you to go away, because they know you can win easily in civil court. No one knows, and no one can know all the intricate details of all their appliances; nor can we know all the details. People will screw up, and stuff must not be unreasonably dangerous when they do.

Also, where's the user manual for Gator? Lawn mower's don't sneak into my garage and do nasty things without my knowledge.

Re:Must defend Gator

[Mr.Intel]

Also, where's the user manual for Gator? Lawn mower's don't sneak into my garage and do nasty things without my knowledge.

A totally seperate issue to be sure, but nonetheless a slimy twist to the argument. If you as a computer user do not exercise due dilligence in reading the user agreements for software installed (I am assuming that every way to install gator comes with a written warning that it will be installed) then you are authorizing it's installation by default. If Gator did not notify you that it was being installed (however obscure) then your argument holds water.

The lawnmower company will throw money at you to go away, because they know you can win easily in civil court.

That doesn't make it legal nor does it justify the lawsuit if I am too ignorant to use a lawnmower.

People will screw up, and stuff must not be unreasonably dangerous when they do.

Unfortunately the definition of "unreasonably dangerous" is not the same from state to state so there is a general sense of confusion for those who have tried to hold multi-national companies accountable for defective and dangerous products. In my opinion the system should move back away from government sponsored protection and focus on information. Let the consumers research the products they want to by and if three reports mark brand X as safe and Y as dangerous, then they should buy X if they don't want to risk personal injury. I don't want to get worked up to full rant here, so I will say only this. If the government (of the USA) is supposed to be 'by for and of the people', then so should accountability for actions. Companies should not be the same as people but without responsibility and people should not be allowed to let a small few decide what rights the entire country should enjoy.

Re:Must defend Gator

[dvdeug]

Let the consumers research the products they want to by

That's exactly what I want to do; lug around a several thousand page guide to which products kill people whenever I go to buy something, and try to figure out whether the X1034b has the same flaws as the X1034, or if I want to be the first to try out the J1-17.

Re:Must defend Gator

[Mr.Intel]

That's exactly what I want to do; lug around a several thousand page guide to which products kill people whenever I go to buy something

That's what the internet is for. Let watever agency is in charge of 'consumer information' keep the database on their server. Use your wireless PDA/Cellphone/laptop to search the site for what you are looking for and make your decision. Not too hard if you ask me.

Re:Must defend Gator

[dvdeug]

Use your wireless PDA/Cellphone/laptop

Because everyone has a wireless connection to the net, and those working minimum wage to try and feed their kids should have to pay for one just to keep themselves safe. As well as the difficulty of checking everytime you buy something.

Re:Must defend Gator

[Mr.Intel]

Because everyone has a wireless connection to the net, and those working minimum wage to try and feed their kids should have to pay for one just to keep themselves safe.

Being a working class joe myself, I empathize with this myself. Nowadyas however, you don't even need a permanant connection to the net at home. The library, schools and other public places have free access for us. So this really isn't an issue.

As well as the difficulty of checking everytime you buy something.

That is why I called it a burden. But at least you know for yourself that the product you want to buy checked out (or didn't). If the price for personal accountability is convenience, it seems like a small price to pay.

Oh, they care...

[Kjella]

If you cut ads out of a magazine, the magazine doesn't care. They made their money because the advertiser paid for the ad to be in there, and it was in there.

They'd care very much if nobody got to see those ads. When Gator is providing the deception that someone *else* has paid to get advertizing on that web page, I think they have a case. Not because people aren't allowed to block but because Gator's ads appears to be the "real" ads of the page.

Re:Oh, they care...

[realdpk]

If a grocery store cut the ads out of a magazine and replaced them with their own (or rather, pasted their ads over the magazine's) before its put on the shelves, that'd be the same sort of deal. Even if they said "You agree by coming in to our store that you'll get our ads in magazines", the magazine folks would be pissy.

While they could stop selling magazines to such stores, website operators can't determine if you have Gator installed before delivering you content.

Its theft the way I see it.

[Fizzlewhiff]

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.

analogy

[Sean Clifford]

I think the analogy breaks down a bit when we're comparing apples (web/print) and mangoes (broadcast). But here goes...

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.

Re:analogy

[Rupert]

Depends. Is Gator a third party, or an agent of the second party? If Gator.com was serving up other people's content with the ads replaced, they would be a third party, and I'm pretty sure it would be illegal. But running as part of my browser, presenting content to me in the way I choose seems legitimate to me (although IANAL).

I second the motion

[bruckie]

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

Re:I second the motion

[Patrick13]

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.

ironically, if they had just formatted and reinstalled the OS, the other computer probably would run just fine. it always amazes me how often people don't understand the difference btwn hardware and software.

i have probably convinced @20 not buy a new computer until they have it looked over by a someone that knows how to reinstall the OS, and clean out viruses etc. 9 times out of 10 they have had SirCam, Klez or some other stupid virus in the system.

Right to Integrity

[Jerf]

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...

Re:Right to Integrity

[Reality Master 101]

You aren't doing a thing to the page. It's being done by a third party, specifically Gator, without consent of the originator.

That's the problem -- it IS being done with the consent of the originator. It might not be informed consent to the level that we all would like, but that's a completely different issue.

Proof: If it were you doing that to the page, where are your payments for the ad space?

The payment is in the form of the services Gator provides (it DOES have some useful functions, by the way). But even if Gator didn't provide one useful thing, it's STILL none of anyone's business if I decide to use them.

Frankly, it doesn't matter if Gator informs them.

It matters a great deal. What I don't think you're seeing is that Gator is supplying work-for-hire. They are supplying a service to the person using Gator, which includes replacing the ads.

You seem to think it's illegal for me to replace ads in something that I download. I seriously doubt that you can make that case. And yes, it doesn't matter whether I personally do it or an agent for me does it. As long as it's for my personal use, it's exactly the same thing.

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.

Which is perfectly, legally, fine -- as long as they are not taking the content and rebroadcasting it. Once it is in my computer, my fair use rights say I can do whatever I want with it for my own personal use. If I want to hire Gator to modify the pages, then that is perfectly within my rights. If I want to download your web site and then hire someone to replace all the content with "Jerf beats his wife", that is fine, too -- as long as it's for my own personal use. Note that this "someone" is making a profit from the activity.

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 think you need to make a distinction between morality and legality. I fully believe it is immoral to block ads on a web site that I frequent. However, I fully defend everyone's legal fair-use rights to do whatever they want (using whatever tool they want) with media (web pages, magazines, newspapers, video, whatever) for their own personal use.

P.S. Your link doesn't work.

Re:Right to Integrity

[Jerf]

That's the problem -- it IS being done with the consent of the originator.

Trivially false; if the Washington Post consented to the modification, they would not be suing.

The payment is in the form of the services Gator provides (it DOES have some useful functions, by the way).

Also trivially false. The ads Gator are replacing in your webpages are paid for in checks written to Gator. You are not paid at all; the features of Gator such as they are are hooks to get you to use the service, just as you are not a customer of television, except inasmuch as you may pay a cable bill.

What I don't think you're seeing is that Gator is supplying work-for-hire.

Work-for-hire is an irrelevent concept here. Work-for-hire can't appropriate someone else's copyright. In fact, pursuing this angle is a quick loss for you; if Gator is doing work for hire, then QED copyright issues apply. And it turns out Gator has no right to do those modifications. Oops.

See, you aren't even 'hiring' them for content modification; to the extend that you've 'hired' them, it's for convenient storage and selected dissemenation of personal data. To the extend that you are a 'customer' of Gator, it has nothing to do with copyright at all!

You seem to think it's illegal for me to replace ads in something that I download. I seriously doubt that you can make that case.

Actually fairly easy to make. Nobody cares because when you do something, the damages are zero anyhow. Copyright law is heavily based on damages, which is one of the reasons this case is an inevitable win for the Washington Post. When Gator is doing it, that's a different story, then when you're doing it. (If they aren't the ones doing the replacement, they exactly how are they involved anyhow?)

If I want to download your web site and then hire someone to replace all the content with "Jerf beats his wife", that is fine, too.

But if your software caused thousands of viewers to see your modification, I'd sue you for libel. Large scale, systematic on-the-fly modifications are indistinguishable in results from actual modification. Shall we open this loophole to every person who can technically take advantage of it?

Also, you're missing a point; Gator is being sued, not you. What you can do with a page completely fails to defend Gator.

Once it is in my computer, my fair use rights say I can do whatever I want with it for my own personal use.

Again, flatly, totally, utterly, inarguably wrong. What "fair use" is isn't up for debate, it's a matter of law, and you don't understand it. (And the link works for me...)

Look, I hate to be snotty here, but your post is so riddled with errors that it's hard to take it seriously. You don't understand who "the originators" of the copyrighted works are (Washington Post et. al.). You don't seem to understand the economics of advertising. You don't understand "fair use" at all. You don't even know what "work-for-hire" is. Those are facts not open to debate. Your lack of understanding of those basics leads me to not be surprised that you can't seem to follow what I'm saying, let alone address the issues in a refutation, rather then re-iterate your misconceptions of what's going on and what the law says about it. You can't even seem to keep track of who's getting in trouble for what actions.

I think you need to make a distinction between morality and legality.

Pot calling the kettle black, I'd say, for someone who has demonstrated a lack of understanding of legality on this subject from top to bottom. Your belief in what is ethical does not determine the law, the law does.

Re:Right to Integrity

[Reality Master 101]

Trivially false; if the Washington Post consented to the modification, they would not be suing.

My mistake -- I missed the word "originator". As far as they go, it's completely irrelevent whether they consent to the modification, because I am the one authorizing the change for my own use. And this is what you keep missing.

The ads Gator are replacing in your webpages are paid for in checks written to Gator.

This is totally irrelevent. Just like if I hired someone to cut out ads from my magazine, and they replaced them with ads that someone else paid for. The point is that I authorized my magazine to be cut up for my own personal use. That is key. Are you saying that I have no right to hire someone to cut the ads out of my magazines?

Copyright law is heavily based on damages, which is one of the reasons this case is an inevitable win for the Washington Post. When Gator is doing it, that's a different story, then when you're doing it. (If they aren't the ones doing the replacement, they exactly how are they involved anyhow?)

This is what you keep missing: I AM THE ONE DOING IT. It's my computer. Gator is not intercepting the document before it gets to my computer. I am simply running software that performs an operation THAT I AUTHORIZE on a document in my possession for my own personal use. It's none of anyone's business what I do in my own computer.

I have never seen any law stating that someone viewing media with ads is required by law to view the ads. If I choose not to view the ads, that's my legal right. Exactly what method I choose to hide them is irrelevent.

Or let's put it another way. Suppose I had someone from Gator stand in front of my computer and paste stickers over the web page with different ads. Does that still meet your definition of copyright violation? What's the difference?

But if your software caused thousands of viewers to see your modification, I'd sue you for libel.

That's a reasonable point, but not for the reason you think. I would be guilty of libel not because I modified your page or anyone elses page, but because my published program was broadcasting the libelous modification on a mass scale. This would only be relevent to the current case if the content that Gator was inserting was libelous (or other problem) in some way.

Also, you're missing a point; Gator is being sued, not you. What you can do with a page completely fails to defend Gator.

If Gator's sued, then that's an attack on my fair-use rights to modify media in my possession. It's the same as the DeCSS case -- publishers of the DeCSS code are getting attacked to prevent me from being able to excercise my fair-use right to duplicate media in my possession.

Look, I hate to be snotty here, but your post is so riddled with errors that it's hard to take it seriously.

And arrogance doesn't make you any less wrong. I'm not sure if you understand the points I'm making, but I understand exactly what you're trying to say. You're just wrong, sorry.

What "fair use" is isn't up for debate, it's a matter of law, and you don't understand it. (And the link works for me...)

Well, the link still doesn't work for me, so if you would like to quote from something from fair use law and prove me wrong, feel free. I would particularly like to hear how my fair-use rights do not allow me to hire someone to cut out the ads from a magazine or allow someone from Gator to paste stickers on my monitor.

Re:Right to Integrity

[Jerf]

It's still working for me. Don't understand what the problem is. It's not even slow. Google doesn't have a cache.

Well, you can try http://www.cetus.org/ , "Fair Use of Copyrighted Works" (in the Discussion section down a bit), the "Fair Use: Overview and Meaning for Higher Education" on that page.

Here's section 107 of the US Copyright Act:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified in that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include --

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Amplification: I'd recommend reading more about it then just the raw text, though. Each of those terms is a technically defined term, given meaning by many court decisions.

Historically, the courts have been pretty strict about this, and demanded complete satisfaction of all four criteria, not just one. As in my original post, 1 and 4 are complete, abject failures for Gator. 3 is almost certainly one too, though as that's the crux of the debate, that can be argued. But from a fair use perspective, it doesn't matter; failure on two of the points is already enough to judge it not fair use.

Thanks for the note.

Re:Right to Integrity

[Reality Master 101]

See, this is the crux of where your understanding is flawed. The purpose of copyright law is to control the copying and distribution of materials. There is no copying or redistribution going on here. Only modifying some content in my possession for my own personal use.

Let's look at 1 and 4.

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

Let's see, since I am performing the modification and not profiting from it, this does not apply. That fact that Gator is making a profit is irrelevent. They are making a profit from distributing their software, not from the republication of the copyrighted material.

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The intent of this is asking the question of whether copying material affects the potential market or value of the copyrighted work. Since I'm not redistributing my modified copy of the work, then this section is completely inapplicable.

Re:Right to Integrity

[Jerf]

I AM THE ONE DOING IT.

Then WHY AREN'T YOU BEING PAID FOR THE ADS GATOR SHOWS YOU?

Follow the money... you aren't doing the modification. Gator does through their agent. End of story. You aren't chosing the modifications, indeed they may be happening without your knowlege. You don't intercept the page, their agent does, again, possibly without your knowlege. You can't selectively chose to replace an ad with a picture of a ducky... because you aren't in control. You can't replace an ad with the text of the GPL... because it's Gator in control, not you.

You're free to write your own proxy and use it; note that this happens all the time and no debate occurs about it, so there must be something different about this.

The knowlege point is doubly telling... You can't be said to be giving consent to a behavior occuring without your knowlege, which is what happened to a lot of people. That proves it's Gator doing it, not you. (As it turns out, your permission is insufficient for Gator to modify somebody else's content, which is also a major point, so merely consenting on one side does not end the problem.)

How is it that you can claim that the users are somehow responsible for modifying the contents of the page when "the users" aren't even necessarily aware of it occurring? A strange idea of "responsibility" you have.

(Note this all goes away if the Post had granted permission, not that it would in this case. Acts between three consenting parties are OK.)

I would be guilty of libel not because I modified your page or anyone elses page, but because my published program was broadcasting the libelous modification on a mass scale.

I rest my case. Broadcasting libel on a large scale is libel. For the same reason, broadcasting copyright infringement on a large scale is infringement. Theft of market value from the work is the very definition of copyright infringement. Gator's gonna get toasted.

Trying to work out a system where this simple fact is violated leaves gaping holes where anyone can crawl through. Do I have the right to secretly install software on everybody's computer who will read your post that will intercept their page requests to Slashdot and make it seem you actually agree with me by changing your posts? By defending Gator, you are defending that "right" and action, even the secret part of that. (Plus you wouldn't mind having product plugs added to your post, in your name.)

Perhaps you don't mind tossing away your right to be heard with integrity by people; I value it a bit more strongly.

Criteria for fair use posted elsewhere in this thread. While I apologize for the broken link (which still works for me... I just tried the IP address (128.228.100.102) but they must be using virtual hosts), it still doesn't excuse continuing to lecture me in your ignorance about what fair use it; it really isn't my responsibility to explain to you something you should know before lecturing me about it. Please don't try to 'rebut' the law point-by-point, just by casually reading it. Many, many court decisions have refined the meaning of the law, in non-obvious (an invariably stricter, not freer) ways.

I'm not sure if you understand the points I'm making, but I understand exactly what you're trying to say. You're just wrong, sorry.

Ditto, only I've got documentation for my points. I guess we won't be getting anywhere soon on that point. So, to the silent readers, I encourage you to find documentation links and read for themselves, rather then take two random Slashdot yahoo's opinions on the topic.

Re:Right to Integrity

[Jerf]

The purpose of copyright law is to control the copying and distribution of materials.

No. The purpose of copyright law is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," Straight from the Constitution. That's why copyright so critically depends on these value considerations.

I've said my piece (as the rest of the issue is covered elsewhere), since I'm just speaking for the people silently reading this, so again, I encourage people not to take my work for it, but to learn for themselves.

Re:Right to Integrity

[Reality Master 101]

You're throwing out and mixing lots of different concepts that have nothing to do with each other. Let's see if we can sort it out.

Then WHY AREN'T YOU BEING PAID FOR THE ADS GATOR SHOWS YOU?

What difference does it make whether I'm paid or not? The only question is whether I'm running a program that I choose to run and modifying the content under my own control. Yes, I am. I could pay Gator for the right to run Gator, and it's exactly the same thing.

You can't selectively chose to replace an ad with a picture of a ducky... because you aren't in control.

You're mixing two different concepts here. 1) Control over the modifications, and 2) control over whether modifications are done at all. What modifications are done is totally irrelevent. The only question is whether I'm authorizing the modifications to be done ... and I am. Just as if I hire someone to cut up my magazine. It doesn't matter whether I direct how the magazine is to be cut, the only question is whether I authorize the cutting, and whether I redistribute the cut-up version.

You can't be said to be giving consent to a behavior occuring without your knowlege, which is what happened to a lot of people.

Fine, but this is a totally unrelated concept. If you want to criticize Gator of not making the consent informed enough, I'm with you. But that has nothing to do with whether it's my right to make the consent at all. You have been arguing that I shouldn't even have the right to run Gator if I want to.

Broadcasting libel on a large scale is libel. For the same reason, broadcasting copyright infringement on a large scale is infringement. Theft of market value from the work is the very definition of copyright infringement. Gator's gonna get toasted.

Except that Gator is not broadcasting anything except a set of ads. COPYRIGHT LAW IS ABOUT THE RIGHT TO COPY. Gator is not rebroadcasting web pages. All the activity is being done on my computer, authorized by me. There is no copyright violation because there is no copying being done.

I have the right to secretly install software on everybody's computer who will read your post that will intercept their page requests to Slashdot and make it seem you actually agree with me by changing your posts?

Of course not. But again, you bring up irrelevent information. Do I have the right to download a program BY MY CHOICE which modifies THE DISPLAY of posts on Slashdot for my own personal use?

Perhaps you don't mind tossing away your right to be heard with integrity by people; I value it a bit more strongly.

Dude, THINK ABOUT THIS. It's you who are trying to throw away YOUR rights. If you are not allowed to have programs on your computer that might modify copyrighted content, think about where that leads. DeCSS is just the beginning of things like this.

it still doesn't excuse continuing to lecture me in your ignorance about what fair use it; it really isn't my responsibility to explain to you something you should know before lecturing me about it.

Look, I'm not going to claim that I'm an expert on law, but you are misapplying fair-use here. Once again, copyright refers to "rights to copy". The purpose of the fair-use laws are to define when I'm copying materials "in a fair way" that's not a copyright violation. There simply is no copying or rebroadcast here, except for my own personal use.

Look, let me bring back a quote from your previous post:

Once it is in my computer, my fair use rights say I can do whatever I want with it for my own personal use. [...] Again, flatly, totally, utterly, inarguably wrong.

Please explain to me how I am restricted from modifying copyrighted information FOR MY OWN PERSONAL USE according to the fair use laws. If you read the fair use laws, you will notice that private, personal use meets the standard of all 4 points. If not, please explain how I'm "totally, utterly, inarguably wrong".

And while you're at it, please answer the question you conveniently ignored: Is it still a copyright violation if I hire Gator to come to my house and paste advertising stickers on my monitor when browsing web sites?

Re:WTF is the problem? the user agrees to install

[SCHecklerX]

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

[Sean Clifford]

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.

Re:Good point

[Rupert]

Right, and that's why I keep wibbling on about informed consent. An ideal court ruling would be that if Gator had obtained, or made an effort to obtain, the informed consent of its users, then what it does would be legal. However, since they clearly *don't*, they should lock them up and throw away the key.

I hope this suit is thrown out

[Lord Ender]

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.

Exaggerated

[hendridm]

> 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.

Re:Exaggerated

[hendridm]

> There were more than several ocassions where the person had over 100 spywares.

Bullshit. Most of those "spywares" were probably cookies, and cookies are not spyware. Okay, marketing firms can track your movement on participating web sites that links ads through them, but don't be so dramatic! IMO, cookies are harmless, unless you are paranoid enough to live in a wire mesh cage to disrupt incoming radio signals.

Or did she have 100 actual spyware programs running on her system? That's a lot of Gators!

Give me a break...

Good riddance

[OpIv37]

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.

ad aware?

[twitter]

Why not just fix the problem with Debian? You know M$ will build paths around Lavasoft and others.

Good show

[Sean Clifford]

We're in agreement. :)

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.

Next?

[twitter]

So would any software that doesn't run the JavaScript (i.e. Mozilla with popups disabled), etc. etc.

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.

What about Tivo?

[sheldon]

So Tivo sucks because it allows you to skip past the commercials?

Sometimes people should stop to think how consistent their arguments are.

Re:What about Tivo?

[Erasmus Darwin]

"So Tivo sucks because it allows you to skip past the commercials?"

There's a difference between fast-forwarding through a commercial and completely skipping it. With my Tivo, I've been known to go back and watch commercials that catch my eye (with the added benefit that a lower level of "advertising fatigue" makes me more intent when I do watch an ad).

In this case, Gator would be like the latest lawsuit-laden ReplayTV units which feature an automatic commercial jump that almost completely removes the commercials from the broadcast. Even then, Gator's still a step worse in that it's mostly doing its activities without user awareness.

Re:What about Tivo?

[Xerithane]

Sometimes people should stop to think how consistent their arguments are.

A. It's Slashdot.
B. if ( dislikeCompany(featuredCompany) ) flame();

I don't think stopping to think will change this.

I like this analogy better

[DragonMagic]

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.

Lawsuit grounds?

[Mulletproof]

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! ^__^

GATOR IS A VIRUS!!!!

[Zapdos]

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.

The Sad Thing...

[fm6]

...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.

Nope

[athmanb]

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.

Re:Nope

[Rupert]

So it would be illegal for my ISP to do this. But Gator is not an ISP.

Re:Nope

[athmanb]

Gator also stands between you and the content provider.

Web page -> ISP -> computer -> browser (including plugins like Gator) -> user

Re:Die gator!!

[einhverfr]

Gator is spyware? Who would have guessed?

Re:Google is as guilty as Gator

[jacobm]

How can the average webmaster compete with this?

Maybe ... by getting out of the business of giving copies of their data to strangers with no strings attached and then getting upset when those strangers do what they please with it?

If you don't like strangers using your data, don't give it away. And certainly don't give it away to them, demand they use it in one particular way, and then get mad when they also use it in another way you don't like. It's as simple as that.

Heh. Irony.

[babbage]

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... :-)

Re:Google is as guilty as Gator

[ceejayoz]

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?

Get a proper ISP for your hosting? If I click on a link to a website in Google and it doesn't come up in 10-20 seconds on broadband, why shouldn't I use their cache? If you're gonna run a site, have the bandwidth to do so.

Terms of service agreements

[rcw-home]

Actually, no. Most sites have terms of service that you accept by using their site.

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.

Bad Bussiness model...

[geekoid]

...
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.

All they'd have to do...

[Mulletproof]

...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.

While agree that does suck

[Archfeld]

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 ?

Computer Lab Hell

[lostchicken]

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.