Slashdot Mirror
Web Publishers Sue Gator
shofmann writes "The Washington Post is reporting that a number of publishers, including the Washington Post, is suing Gator Corp. over their obnoxious spyware, saying that Gator is "a parasite that free rides on the hard work and investment"
of other people's web sites. The lawsuit alleges that Gator's spyware contributes to trademark infringement, misappropriation of the news, and
represents unfair competition." The publishers seem to be distressed about Gator replacing website ads with its own. Several people submitted this related article about blocking internet advertising - nothing really new here for geeks, but a good URL to send to your less technically-inclined friends.
To replace the Gator ads with my own! My plan can not fail! Muahahaha.
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"?
Yet another reason to use Ad-aware.
Human/Ranger/Zangband
That the article on stopping pop-up ads has a pop-under ad?
I can put up with the lack of Alt tags and my apparent inablity to get plugins to work (flash, javascript, quicktime et al) by far overshadows the annoying pop ups and PLZ DOWNLOAD THIS GATOR THING K THX BYE! windows that deluge you when trolling through Geocities (or wherever, I just notice an abundance of them on Geocities). Man, it does feel nice. Liberating even. If we just got alt tags (because jerks like me like to put witty ephitets behind my images) in Opera, I'd say that it is my favoritest web browser.
In short GATOR = BAD; OPERA = KEEN!
Why is it when I hit ^R that ZSH calls me a cocksucker?
Look, I absolutely detest Gator, but I have to defend them on this issue.
What I choose to run in my browser is my own business, just like Microsoft's technology that modified web pages to insert links. Once a page leaves a server and enters my computer, my fair-use rights take over and I can do ANYTHING I want to that page, except rebroadcast it.
Now, people are going to argue that people aren't making an informed choice. And maybe that's true, but it's not strictly Gator's fault. Gator does inform them -- in a slimy way -- but it does inform them.
It's exactly the same as if I had a magazine delivered to my house, and hired someone to cut out all the ads and replace them with other ads. It's none of the magazine's business if I do that, and it's none of anyone else's business if I choose to use Gator.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
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.
The Washington Post article didn't say anything about replacing ads and the slashdot link wasn't loading for me. From the sounds of it all gator is doing is when you do visit a specific site it launches a popup window displaying its own advertising. While this is highly unethical I'm not sure it would be illegal, I don't see any website that you visit having legal domain over your web browser and gator isn't altering the page itself, all gator is doing is poping up its own window or own link which you "agreed" to view when you clicked on the EULA. If gator actually closed the websites pop-up windows completely than they might have a case (though it could fall again to the EULA as having said the user wanted those windows to close). While I don't like seeing gator doing things like this I would worry about the implications of a victory on the grounds of defacing the sight or something like that. In a strictly legal sense Mozilla might actually be in danger as it allows you to stop the pop-up windows from opening at all (in many ways closer to altering the display of the website than adding more pop-ups).
I stole this Sig
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.
So, here's what you do.
Install ZoneAlarm (free version works fine) then install Gator. When Gator tries to connect to the internet, don't let it.
Now you can enjoy Gator's software, without them making any money from advertising. Kind of like what they're doing to the websites!
(NB: This assumes you actually *want* the Gator software to store all your passwords & credit card numbers on your hard drive)
rOD.
Rod Begbie done this, and he's not
One of my clients brought me her laptop because "it was running slowly" - (piii 500, 128 MB ram, win98se). I booted it and it was really dragging. So i installed lavasoft's ad aware program, and scanned her HD and she had 360+ spyware programs & elements installed in her system!. What I hate most about the spyware programs is that they eat resources, and mask the process from the operating system. if you use the task manager, most of the procs aren't even listed, but for instance, in her laptop, on boot 85% of the system resources were being used. As soon as she launched her web browser, or any other program, she was using 100%.
Also, when doing research, some of the lower quality sites have it set up so that gator autoinstalls when you hit the page, it doesn't even ask for a confirmation. I suppose the site gets $.05 or whatever from the gator corp per install, but what a lousy way to run a business.
::.. check out some Cell Phone Reviews
Since this is happening at the client end, I think this is closest to the second option above, which would make it legal.
--
E_NOSIG
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.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Now, I'm no fan of Gator, but I think if they lose this case it will be bad for all of us.
It's not a huge leap from going from "software that adds popups to a certain page without actually modifying the page is illegal" to "software that modifies the page is illegal", meaning any proxy software that blocks ads, for example, is suddenly outlawed... So would any software that doesn't run the JavaScript (i.e. Mozilla with popups disabled), etc. etc.
"People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999
I'm looking at this as these companies are representing individuals, even though they obviously aren't, and no money would be given to individuals, but at least Gator wouldn't exist or wouldn't be so annoying.
And no, I didn't install Gator by choice, it got piggyback installed on an application I need for a one time use. I attempted to uninstall it, and for a while I thought I did. Then I noticed I was getting pop-up ads on Slashdot one day. I emailed CmdrTaco and Hemos, the assured me Slashdot wasn't doing popup ads, but this was around the time new subscriptions were being implemented so I wasn't sure, anyhow I investigated my system and found that Gator upon uninstall actually installed a minimal installation in C:\WINNT\System\G, with one exec, G.EXE. When it ran, it had no visible task bar icon, but it would display popups whenever you went to a page. Since almost 100% of the other pages I go to have popups I never noticed, until Slashdot started having them. I do believe that was the intended result, to fool the user that Gator was uninstalled but continue to run as if it were popups from web pages.
So I'm happy, go get 'em guys.
..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
Okay,I'm getting confused here. I think one the one hand, you should be able to control the media once you've "purchased" it so to say. Meaning that once signal (if it's TV) or web page gets to my tv/computer, then I can mess with it all I want. Right? But what about the advertiser? I mean, the advertiser paid the station/site to broadcast my ad. Now there's no guarentee everyone won't just switch the channel, but if the signal gets messed with between the broadcaster and the viewer, then I'm screwed. What did I pay for? I guess the issue is at what point does the signal become "mine" as a viewer (if it ever really does)? I'm not sure if I'm being clear here, but it's a serious question. On the one hand I want to be able to control the media once it's in my home. On the other hand, if I'm an advertiser then I should have some assurance that my money is really buying me what I paid for (I would hope at least).
And in the case of Gator then there's the added issue that they're not only blocking ads, but replacing them. I don't like all the implications and I don't think the issue is very clear cut. There are serious pros and cons on both sides of the fence here.
Who said Freedom was Fair?
I don't know whether "gator" specifically does this or not, but I know programs like it do. Amazon.com affiliate sites for quite some time have been complaining about hijack-ware. When someone clicks on a link to amazon from an amazon affiliate site, the link is changed to include the spyware companies amazon id instead of the site linked from.
The Amazon affiliate therfore looses any commision made on the sale. This is 100% unknown the the user of the software. It would be one thing if the user knowingly installed it, but 99% of the time or more they don't even know it is there. Web site ads are no different. It's one thing if the user knowingly installs it. They have that right. If it is installed without their knowledge, it is outright theft from the website that is being visited.
I found this crap installed the other day. I had no idea anything was wrong until I went to Verizon to pay my phone bill. A popup ad came up (Verizon's online bill payment sites doesn't work with mozilla.) I figured, damnit, seems everyone has this crap now...but it was an ad for cingular wireless, a Verzion competitor. I was quite pissed to say the least, and I can't for the life of me get rid of the damn thing. (Yes, I know I need to download adaware or something like that.)
Think about if you were buying merchandise in a store. When you approach the cash register a salesperson from another company completes your sale, and keeps the money. All without the knowledge of the store you are giving your business to, or even you for that matter. Never mind that would be almost impossible to have happen...on the internet it isn't. This is not only wrong, but outright theft of goods and services and should not be legal if it is.
-Pete
Soccer Goal Plans
The article is actually pretty muddled about why the companies are suing Gator: is it because Gator infringes on their copyrights by altering web pages? Because it pops up advertisements? Because it misleads people into thinking the advertisements come from the web page they're visiting rather than a third-party application?
The argument about Gator being misleading I buy. I don't use gator, nor have I ever, but if it's true that they're using deceptive practices to get themselves installed on people's computers and then silently altering other web pages, that's bad. But if that's not the case, well, the law should uphold my right to use the data web servers provide me in whatever way I see fit. I have no contract with anyone that says that if I download a file from their site I will render it in any particular way. As long as I'm aware that Gator is running, arguments that it's violating somebody's copyright are silly. I know it's there, and I can use my data how I want, thank you very much.
-jacob
Now, if Gator took the HTML from the website, parsed out the adverts and replaced it with their own then i can understand that the companies might be a bit pissed because Gator would be passing its own ads off as theirs ...
Assumption is the mother of all fuckups.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
"First they came for Gator and Microsoft SmartTags. But I didn't use that crap, so I didn't speak up. Then they came for Junkbuster and Sleezeball and my "use own fonts" menu option..."
This software doesn't modify anyone's web site. It it something that runs on a user's computer and modifies that user's perception of a web site, with that user's consent. That isn't copyright or trademark or any other kind of infringement.
Some people say they didn't know what Gator does, or didn't even know they had installed it, so my point about consent is wrong. Well, that's your problem. You are responsible for your computer, dammit!! If mysterious software is getting onto your computer without your knowledge, then you have a hell of a security problem. Your machine is probably one of those listed in my httpd logs as requesting default.ida and cmd.exe, and you're probably also one of those people who keeps sending me documents to get my advice, while shamelessly gushing that you love me. Quit spreading your fucking viruses (and no, scanners aren't the answer) and lock your box down and take some responsibility, and then stuff like Gator and IE and Outlook will be taken care of incidentally as a natural consequence.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
It is your browser and your computer but those ads like them or not are supporting the sites you visit. Blocking them is one thing (I skip magazine ads and TV commercials and fully believe I have the rights to block web ads) but what Gator is doing is not very nice. Right now I am looking at and ad for the new Altus 130 from Penguin Computing. Gator would replace that with one of its avertisers. If enough slashdot readers used Gator (fat chance) over time Penguin and other advertisers would drop Slashdot and we'd either all be forced to subscribe or the site would shut down.
I think that web advertising needs to change. Banner ads and popups are easy to block and replace thus pissing off the advertisers and the site owners. Not many users care if they are replaced and many users want them blocked. Overall, banner ads are annoying (except for Think Geek ads which I often click through to). I would much rather see, in plain text and avertisements like this:
The following article is brought to you by Oracle Corporation. Oracle 9i Release 2 makes Linux Unbreakable. For more information please visit us at www.oracle.com."
A simple ad a couple of lines long with a couple links, no flash, no images, no sound. Have it before the article or after the article on the page. There'd be no reason to block them and to Gator they would be hard to distinguish from the actual article.
'Same speed C but faster'
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...
How about browsers that don't have active X, flash, and other trash? Will they outlaw my lynx? The step is larger than you think, but no less likely. I can hear the microturds now, "you must display copyright material exactly as intended or you are stealing." DRM becomes more oppresive all the time.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
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.