EFF, Gator Against Other Pop-ups?

The Register reports that Gator has filed suit against Extended Stay America Inc to ensure that Extended cannot block its ads. Gator's argument is that consumers should be able to decide what they see on the Web and not Web site owners. It said in its suit that Extended Stay America has no right to prevent computer users from choosing to get its software and "viewing separate works, comprising advertising on that user's own computer screen, even when other works share the screen." Meanwhile, the EFF is considering supporting Gator's case, saying the issue is about who controls a computer when people go on-line.

Comments

Details?

[clark625]

I think this article is either missing some rather important details, or wasn't very clear. Is Extended Stay America blocking its customers from viewing Gator content while using the "hotel's" network, or somehow magically blocking Gator from working while someone looks at their website from anywhere in the world?

I don't really see a problem with any hotel or whatever that provides me internet access as a service blocking any particular content. So long as it's in the agreement signed at the front counter--seems fair. And if people don't want this type of service, simply don't stay at their chain. Personally, I like that sort of thing so I would be inclined to stay with them more often knowing this. It's not a first ammendment thing since I'm told about it up-front and I can choose to stay elsewhere.

On the other hand, if Extended Stay America has found a way to disable Gator from working on their website from anywhere--my congrats. Yeah, it's probably going to cost them in this civil suit that they may lose. It's still cool to think that someone's found a way to disable Gator, though.

Re:You're all missing the bigger picture

[0x0d0a]

Could Time Warner Cable block sites that are critical of AOL?

Sure, I'd support their legal right to do so, say, come up with a web page saying "this site is blocked by AOL/Time Warner".

Of course, if they redirected requests to a apparently legitimate false (their own) website, I'd consider that illegal, since you're claiming to be www.wehateaol.com or similar. Probably fraud.

I'd also support the right of the media to do a nasty series of articles about this, and the right of the consumer to switch away from AOL after hearing that AOL does this.

Censorship isn't inherently wrong. If all the members of a church don't want porn on their public access computers, that's their right. People should be able to voluntarily engage in censorship. The problem with censorship is when something like the government starts doing it -- then you're screwed, because you can't ever escape it.

Entertaining considering my .sig, eh?

Should Universities acknowledge the RIAA letter and continue their P2P crackdowns?

This has nothing to do with whether netadmins should listen to the letter or not -- it only relates to whether, if they do decide to take action based on said letter, they have the righ to do so. Sure, I'd also support the right of a network admin to bandwidth cap or port-block ports on their own network. Of course, such things might factor into my decision to attend that university...