Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: Panama, Leeches, Comeuppance
Excuse me, is this well already poisoned? PHPee writes "Yesterday Slashdot posted an article (only thieves block pop-up ads) regarding anti-leech.com's anti-theft campaign. I happened to be one of many people who sent an email to anti-leech, explaining my disappointment, and I received an auto-responder message today, indicating anti-leech has posted a FAQ regarding its anti-theft campaign."
Wish he'd have been arrested for fraud, instead. MojoT writes "Following up from a previous story, Madison Priest, the so called inventor of a broadband Magic Box, was arrested Friday on drug trafficking charges and possession of a firearm by a felon. He must have been confusing the bit rate of his Magic Box with the number of hits he was getting off his stash."
You mean this stuff is just a kind of data? pelle writes "As a (non Panamanian) geek in Panama, I've been following the UDP story quite heavily. The Panamanian paper La Prensa reports that the Panamanian Supreme court has suspended the infamous order to block UDP's used for VOIP the Enteregulador (the governments regulator of utilities). The suspension was done on a complaint by a company called Net2Net Corp. There has been strong uproar amongst people in Panama about the blocking of the UPD's. So this is seen as a welcome thing. The article quotes Gonzalo Córdoba, the Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation as saying "Blocking the ports for accessing voice is a form of censorship". For Spanish readers the article is at: La Prensa Note, my Spanish aint all that yet, so I might have missed out several finer points."
I'll wait out the battle in my hobbit hole, thanks. An anonymous reader writes "First scooped at theonering.net: The official Lord of the Rings site has put up an amazing feature that goes into a lot of detail on the motion-capture techniques and programming that goes into the movies' battle scenes. It is one of the best-designed web features I have seen, very informative with interviews from the people working on it and interactive "design your own army"-type features. This should answer any questions left by the recent Slashdot article, and raise many more... (Requires Flash to view.)"
Don't PanIP Timothy Beere writes "Just a quick update to the Slashdot faithful. I received notice several weeks ago that PanIP was suing me and the PanIP Defense Group for the www.youmaybenext.com web site.
The lawsuit claims trademark infringement, defamation and unfair competition. They obviously see the web site as a big threat to their grand plan of suing the potential thousands of e-commerce sites that they could have targeted.
In a preliminary court hearing last week, a judge resoundingly denied their request for a Temporary Restraining Order against the web site. This is the same judge that will be hearing the patent case. We will soon be filing a motion to have PanIP pay all attorney's fees for the web site case as we feel this was nothing less than a litigation threat meant to restrain our free speech. Apparently PanIP doesn't think we have the right to inform people about what they're are doing. Or maybe they are feeling very uncomfortable with the spotlight shining on them.
One other note. We currently have 16 members in our FightBack Defense Group. The FightBack group will soon be posted on the web site.
On a personal note. I can't say enough about the overwhelming response I got from the original slashdot post. I knew if I could get the word out there that people would be disgusted by what PanIP is doing.
We are in the process of filing our responses for the Group and the case will soon be under way in the court. We are still hunting for good prior art in an effort to have their patents invalidated. We intend to stop PanIP and we need your support!"
Also their "technology" is not really effective at all. The bit where they claim to protect the HTML source of a page is absolutely ridiculous and simple to circumvent. Do they actually sell this crap??
Maybe it's just me, but they seem... well, weird. Kinda like those EARN $5,000,000 IN JUST THREE DAYS BY STUFFING ENVELOPES deals. Dunno. Maybe it's just me.
Oh, and the FAQ page tried to install some Gator scumware on load. I bet they did it because they knew the FAQ was going to get hit, because none of the other pages in the site did that.
This has already been discussed quite a bit. Is there any compelling legal argument that there is a real contractual obligation, express or implied, to force us to consume the advertising?
*mentally kisses karma goodbye*
The article headline:
"Inventor arrested on drug charges"
In the article, it says he had a pound of marajuana, and two assault rifles. The article then goes on about drugs, drugs, drugs, more drugs.
Excuse me? The pound of dope was more of a threat (well, more newsworthy) than ASSAULT RIFLES?
*shakes head*
Not meant to be a troll, though I'm sure it'll be moderated as such. Just boggles my mind.
http://www.akardam.net/media/news/anti-leech-funny .png
That's all I'm going to say... this is too funny.
It looks like they are taking contributions for the effort ala PayPal.
http://www.youmaybenext.com/help.html
If everyone pitched in a buck I bet we could blow PanIP out of the water. I know that I don't want any of my clients getting sued and all of them fit in the category that is being preyed upon by these parasites. Shoot, I just talked myself in to contributing a buck for every website I manage. I would suggest that if you build sites for others that you do the same.
I'm frankly amazed at the degree to which people go to redefine words to try to change the tenor and direction of debate. A good example is the anti-leech trying to redefine your desire to not read their advertising as theft. To use the word theft to describe such actions is to belittle the meaning of the word theft, making it useless to describe actual property crimes.
Anti-leech would have you believe that you are under some obligation to make their particular business model (which is apparently to gain money by annoying people with popups) or else you are stealing from them. They admit that in a legal sense, it is of course incorrect to call it theft, but in a moral sense such a label is justified.
They are, well, full of it.
It isn't the responsibility of consumers to make a particular broken business model profitable: that is the responsibility of business owners. If you can't figure out a way to make money on the Internet, then you can't, but it seems pretty silly to bitch at your target audience for that problem. When your viewers decide to employ pop-up blocking or ad-filtering software, they are sending you as their content provider a message: this stuff is not of value to me, I don't want to waste even a single brain cell dealing with it. It is true that eventually your advertisers will likely notice that the response rate from web based advertisements are ridiculously low and will stop spending money on click-throughs and the like, and that will (at least according to anti-leech) spell an end to many websites.
Which would of course be a hideous tragedy, because who doesn't want to read through more advertising.
Businesses should learn a new lesson: intrusive pop up advertising doesn't work. Spam doesn't work. Stop paying for it. Be creative, and try to make information about your product visible to those who actually want it, don't cast it scattergun style in front of millions of people for whom it just represents an annoyance. Browsers such as Mozilla now have pop-up blocking because users want it, and that means that the users don't want to read your add for X-10 cameras or you've won a free prize while trying to access their bank accounts. Listen to your customers, and develop a business based upon respecting them, not on blanketing them with crap everytime they log in.
There is much pleasure to be gained in useless knowledge.
hint #1: you don't succeed by calling people that visit your site "thieves"
hint #2: you don't succeed by creating a business that needs screenfuls of FAQs to justify it's existence.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It seems that the site using anti-leech software (it blocks Opera in this instance) just got issued a notice from the RIAA to take down its CD cover scans section (must be due to lost profits!) If that's not juicy irony, I don't know what is.
"All art is quite useless." -- Oscar Wilde
From the FAQ:
"A website cost time and money to run. Every time you visit a website you will cost the webmaster behind that website money as they have to pay for the bandwidth you use when downloading images, information etc. Most websites depend completely on revenue from advertising through banners and pop ups. If you start trying to block that income you will still cost the webmaster the same amount of money as before, but the webmaster won't earn any money from advertsing to cover the expence. The result is obvious as this get more and more common today. In the end this can mean that the website has to shut down!"
Whoa. Chill out there, spanky.
The internet is not your (or anyone elses) personal toll booth. You don't get to plop your ass down and start demanding fees. Nobody forced you to put up a website. Nobody forced you to put up content and expend effort making that content. Hell, I don't even care if you deny me your content if I don't jump through your hoops. That isn't the issue.
The issue here is simple; your branding of those who do not enthusiastically play your game as 'thieves.' On your front page there is a graphic which states, "15% of your visitors are thieves."
This is a little bit like having a store and thrusting pamphlets into the hands of people who enter the store, then calling them thieves if they refuse the material. Does it make sense to say that by refusing the pamphlet they are denying you a revenue stream? Do you think you would be kicked or merely laughed out of court with this argument?
Your argument that you've paid for content and people are stealing it is a bit like painting a picture, displaying it on the street and then charging people who look at it, calling those who refuse "thieves." It doesn't have any real-world analogue whatsoever and you're a fool if you think that the internet is your sandbox to do with as you please. Doubly so if you plan on trying to enforce it.
And while I'm here, what the hell makes you think you have the right, the right to control how my browser -- and my computer by extension -- acts?
Heck. I think I'm going to send you a bill right now for the time it took to write this content. I imagine you'll be happy to pay it, it's entirely consistent with your argument...
My
Limekiller
It's slightly different for the 'youmaybenext.com' application. That's clearly a commentary site describing the lawsuits and what they see as the fallout from them. No real malice or illegality there (just lots of indignation and anger). Many states have anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) laws. Running against those can get you bitch-SLAPPed.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
One of many things I liek about Opera is that it ignors Gator and all of the other assorted scumware out there. YAY!
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
What I really like about PopUP ads is that if you tell Mozilla not to load them, it won't load them. (I'm borrowing my mother-in-law's PC on vacation, and it only has IE - it's been popup city here....)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
It looks like they are taking contributions for the effort ala PayPal.
<nitpick style="pedantic" value="trivial">
The expression a la is French for "in the manner or style of." I think the idiom you meant to use was via, which means "by the way of." I think you meant, "they are taking contributions for the effort via PayPal." On the other hand, you could have said, "they are taking contributions for the effort a la the EFF," which would have meant, "they are taking contributions in the same way that the EFF does." Whichever.
</nitpick>
I write in my journal
[Voice over IP] will replace phones as we know it... why isnt it more widely used?
Just about the worst telephone call you can make-- in my experience-- is the US to Sydney, Oz. The call must be routed over a satellite link or something, because the lag is on the order of half a second. When you're talking to someone in Australia, you get used to saying, "How are you today?" and then waiting while the perceptible lag passes to hear the reply, "Fuck off, you piker! It's three in the bloody mornin'!"
Every VOIP call is like that, only the lag varies from a merely noticeable fraction of a second to between one and two seconds from moment to moment, due to varying net traffic conditions.
VOIP, in other words, is more annoying and less effective than your average instant messaging system.
I write in my journal
The other way to play it is to tell them "drop the suit or we'll squash you into the ground for making a frivolous attack on us" and hope that works, but unfortunately the patent system is biased towards people who can talk the patent office into giving them patents, so this is difficult.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I see the site fine. I use Mozilla. I have popups blocked. I also use privoxy to block advertisements. I have a default policy to deny all cookies. I can still see it fine (I suspect it uses some cookie trick).
However, this entire thing is a hack. You can't ever have any assumption be 100% true about clients that may or may not execute code you send them.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
I was writing a reply to the anti-leech website when I realized that using the same logic, I could charge the site for my content!
.02,
I realize, of course, that the owner of anti-leech.com did not request the content in question, but this fact seems largely irrelevant to Mr. Wennberg. After all, much like the "thieves" who "steal" from his clients, he did not actually ask that I compose a reply, but I did and it did cost me bandwidth to post, time to create, etc., and as such I expect Mr. Wennberg to pay for the resources that have been expended.
It is in this vein that I have billed Mr. Wennberg for my rebuttal (content) on a net-30 basis and fully intend to collect. I really hope that Mr. Wennberg is consistent with his application of fairness. After all, I did spend a lot of time putting together my response and if he does not pay my bill, it might very well cause me to go out of business altogether.
---------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 19:42:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Jason Desjardins <jason@macross.com>
To: johan.wennberg@swipnet.se
Bcc: Jason Desjardins <jason@macross.com>
Subject: Crashspace: Invoice #0001
Anti-leech.com,
Thank you for your recent content purchase! Here is your order confirmation.
Invoice: 0001
Content:
----[%begin]----
From the FAQ [anti-leech.com]:
"A website cost time and money to run. Every time you visit a website you will cost the webmaster behind that website money as they have to pay for the bandwidth you use when downloading images, information etc. Most websites depend completely on revenue from advertising through banners and pop ups. If you start trying to block that income you will still cost the webmaster the same amount of money as before, but the webmaster won't earn any money from advertsing to cover the expence. The result is obvious as this get more and more common today. In the end this can mean that the website has to shut down!"
Whoa. Chill out there, spanky.
The internet is not your (or anyone elses) personal toll booth. You don't get to plop your ass down and start demanding fees. Nobody forced you to put up a website. Nobody forced you to put up content and expend effort making that content. Hell, I don't even care if you deny me your content if I don't jump through your hoops. That isn't the issue.
The issue here is simple; your branding of those who do not enthusiastically play your game as 'thieves.' On your front page [anti-leech.com] there is a graphic [anti-leech.com] which states, "15% of your visitors are thieves."
This is a little bit like having a store and thrusting pamphlets into the hands of people who enter the store, then calling them thieves if they refuse the material. Does it make sense to say that by refusing the pamphlet they are denying you a revenue stream? Do you think you would be kicked or merely laughed out of court with this argument?
Your argument that you've paid for content and people are stealing it is a bit like painting a picture, displaying it on the street and then charging people who look at it, calling those who refuse "thieves." It doesn't have any real-world analogue whatsoever and you're a fool if you think that the internet is your sandbox to do with as you please. Doubly so if you plan on trying to enforce it.
And while I'm here, what the hell makes you think you have the right, the right to control how my browser -- and my computer by extension -- acts?
Heck. I think I'm going to send you a bill right now for the time it took to write this content. I imagine you'll be happy to pay it, it's entirely consistent with your argument...
My
Limekiller
----[%end ]----
Total Charge: $90.00 USD
We bill on a net-30 basis. Past due accounts are charged an additional 18% annual APR fee, accrued every 30 days (1.5%).
Again, thank you for using Crashspace content!
Regards,
Jason
--
----
"I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men and German to my horse." - Charles V
My
Limekiller
Look closely at the banner ad that was running when I took a look at the Anti-Leech page.
The law does not call refusing to watch commercials theft or any other criminal offense. We don't live in an Orwellian time where you could be forced to watch the commercials. It's also not any civil offense I can think of -- you're not breaking any agreement you gave real or implied consent to. I think it's going to be pretty hard to make out any implied legally binding promise on your part to watch ads.
To use TV as an analogy, muting all the commercials is fine, and is anticipated by the advertisers. If anything the mute button has encouraged them to make ads less bombastic and more entertaining. However, it can get stickier, at least if you are recording and if you are using technology to block the ads. Recording is legal as a form of fair use, but I wonder if routine ad-blocking would raise a problem. I've heard this discussed in the context of these personal video recorders, where they could make ad-skipping very easy, but have made it slightly inconvenient to placate the industry. I don't know if this is out of legal concerns or political pressure. Now, ad blocking software might be a similarly suspect technology. But that seems weak, and as a practical matter the software will not be challenged.
However, I do think an ethical argument could be made that you should watch the ads, perhaps just occasionally as a compromise. We now the ads are what keep the lights on, and that the advertisers are asking for a little of our time in return to make their pitch. If they ask you up front, would you be willing to watch a few ads in exchange for your nighttime dose of Stargate? Slashdot or Salon ask us to pay a subscription to suppress ads; surely it's implied that they'd rather you didn't do it on your own, thus evading both their revenue streams and being at least a bit of a leech. You're not subscribing for the convenience of having them block the ads, you're paying to block the ads, period.
But this is perhaps just a lot of handwringing. Certainly ad-blocking is not a crime, but we have to acknowledge that in many cases, as with TV, we prefer ad-sponsorship over other models, such as paying. I used to use ad-blocking software and got tired of managing it. I now glance at the ads occasionally, or at least don't treat them like the Medusa, where a mere glance might be lethal. And, significantly, I avoid ad-choked sites altogether, denying myself the content while making the point that theirs is not a site to which I will give a "hit." If enough people do this, ad revenue drops and the site has to improve its scheme or perish.
Vote with your feet. Boycott sites you don't like, and respect the sites that you do visit by suffering the content the webmaster has to include not to die. If you don't like it, walk, and if you care enough, send the webmaster a note explaining why.
Sorry my prose rambles -- I'm still mulling this over.
Here's a response I was working on. I would send it, but I have no confidence they would actually read it.
Thank you for your response. I read your FAQ, and have the following questions and comments.
While I won't dispute that web sites take time to develop, many thousands of web sites operate non-commercially, and I've run several at no cost. The web is a place to share information. You characterize user preferences as theft, and even implicitly advocate turning that characterization into law:
In essence, therefore, you are attempting to restrict an environment of free exchange of information to support a commercial venture, based upon the fallacious argument that the environment depends on the success of that venture. I find that reprehensible.
Actually, according to this: http://www.google.com/press/investors.html, Google is privately funded, owned by a small consortium of U.S. IT business leaders. And despite having actually used Google's advertising services, I have not been contacted by any member of their vast sales force. I have received not even a single piece of spam. I point this out because Google's business success has come from their attitude toward their intended customers. People want unbiased, accurate, ad-free search results. Google is successful because they have found a way to give people what they want and a way to make money on it, rather than trying to force an outdated business philosophy to the Internet, and screaming epithets such as "thief!" when it doesn't work.
Using Mozilla 1.1 I pass their little "test" just fine... and I have banner ads and popups blocked.
Heh.
Don't throw your computer out the window, throw the Windows out of your computer!
I translated this with a little help from Systran(Sherlock). I lay no claim to the words being mine though, as the article was written by someone else.
Court Suspends Internet Blockage Ruling
Mario A. Muñoz
andresm@prensa.com
The Supreme Court of Justice ordered to suspend the effects of the Public Services Regulating Body (ESRP) order that blocked the ports for voice over IP, due to a finding that it was constitutionally protected.
The motion was presented by the firm Infante, Garrido & Garrdio for the company Net2net Corp, in opposition to the Oct. 25th, 2002 resolution JD-3576 by the board of directors of the Regulating Body.
In a letter from the Chief Magistrate, Winston Spadafora, the Court asked for a report on the facts of the case and ordered the immediate suspension of the effects of the aforementioned resolution.
The President of the Regulating Body, Alex Anel Arroyo, thinks international calls made through the Internet are illegal.
The ESRP order was given to 50 Internet Service Providers, ordering them to block 24 UDP access ports that were used for voice transmission, including some companies that offered that service to the public.
Those ISPs have presented several requests to the ERSP for reconsideration (of the order).
Among the ISPs that issued the request are Intered, Ayayai.com, BellSouth Internet, Cable & Wireless Internet, Cable Onda, Compu Service Communications, GBNet a CCI Network, Inter.net, PanNet, Net2Net, and Senacyt.
The national Department of Science, Technology, and Innovation (Senacyt) criticized the resolution through its director, Gonzalo Cordova, who affirmed that blocking the voice access ports "constitutes a different form of censorship".
The ISPs position is added to that of the many users would be affected by blocking the access ports known as UDP (User Datagram Protocols)
All rights are reserved by Prensa corporation. internet@prensa.com
(hopefully those don't include translation rights)
"He's more machine now than man, twisted and evil."
In Mozilla and Opera, I block unrequested popups and use user CSS to eliminate most banners. JavaScript is enabled, although I reject third party cookies.
;)
Their example just sat there in both. No access denied, no loading images, nothing.
Ironically, in MSIE, with no banner or popup blocking (and I *saw* the test popup it launched), and no reported blocked cookies, I got an access denied message after about 5 seconds.
I'm really impressed by this, uh, "technology". Seriously -- they've come up with something this poor, and actually manage to sell it to people! I wish I could do that, although hopefully with something less lame
For some websites. Generaly the ones who use Anti-leech.
Frankly I have *no* problem with Anti-Leech. I think they put it quite eloquently in their faq:
You are the thief! You steal my screen by poping up pop ups
If you don't like pop ups, then use a pop up blocker! But then you are not welcome to Anti-Theft protected websites as you are not ready to give something in return.
If a website wants to use Anti-Leech, *let it* There's no reason it shouldn't.
True, I think that people who say "We should force you to view our ads if you use are service" are missing a key element that people who don't want to view they ads probably aren't going to click on them.. but hey it's their content and their choice to block, charge or whatever with it*
*So long as they don't try to prevent others from providing the same content *cough* siaa *cough*
Nature doesn't acknowledge pleas or namecalling if you can't get your food to survive. The buisness world is just another part of nature, if your methods of survival don't work, then you don't get to survive.
Nobody likes banners, popups, or spam all they do is annoy users and steal OUR bandwidth, so when your buisness model based on popups, banners or spam fails, analagously speaking you die.
Google's advertisments work because they're TARGETED. You search for something and they slip in a couple of text based ads related to WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR.
Here's a weird analogy: In Vietnam the U.S. dropped more blanketing bombs on North Vietnam than in all of WWII and it accomplished almost nothing. It was a stupid strategy because just like with mass spamming/popups the liklihood of any given bomb accomplishing something was nil just like the odds of any single ad generating a profit are nil, you're just wasting "bombs" that never make an impact just like your untargeted ads face a disinterested audience.
Google gets to survive because their method works, you don't because yours doesn't.
No hurry up and croak, we're tired of your bs.
Question everything
Not only that... but I just checked it out with Netscape 3.04 with js and images off, and the site worked fine. So did calling the "test image" via context menu. Yeah, I'm real impressed too.
I'd be even more "impressed" if I were using an afflicted browser, and Anti-Theft was installed on a site I wanted to view, and I had to wait 25 seconds to be told I'd be allowed to continue using the site. I'd probably have already left under the assumption that the server was down or something.
Seems to me we need a new category for software like this. I suggest "Barnumware".
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
One of the many things that I liek about Windows is that it downloads Gator and all of the other assorted scumware out there. YAY!
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
Hmm I clicked on the link to see their FAQ and their attempt at redeeming any of their legitimacy.. and what do i get? the trademark of the scummiest sites on the internet.... a Gator install request.
Sorry, but they are scumbags through and through. anyone supporting the invasive popups and allowing gator anywhere near their servers are worse than telemarketers that scam old people.
Sorry, but their actions and how their site acts says contrary to someone interested in doing legitimage business and I will continue to warn people away from their company and anyone that uses their services.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I'm blown away.
It appears most people who replied read this:
Excuse me? The pound of dope was more of a threat (well, more newsworthy) than ASSAULT RIFLES?
and promptly went into Gun Defense mode.
A few people pointed out the legality of guns vs. the illegality of weed. That's not what he asked. He asked which was more of a threat.
A few other people pointed out the media's and authority's tendency to exaggerate the nature of weapons found during raids. "Assault rifles" could be, well, anything. However, a person firing a bullet from a rifle is more likely to threaten a person's life than a person lighting up a fatty, which is what RollingThunder was trying to get at.
If there weren't an insane War on (Some) Drugs that turns people who grow plants and brew chemicals to trade with others for personal use into criminals, this raid would never have happened.
I'm disappointed. A lot of people completely failed to answer his (possibly rhetorical) question regarding which is a greater threat to human life, instead falling back on the law or media/police exaggerations to dodge the issue at the root of this.
You can support a person's right to own weaponry and still acknowledge that the availability of weapons poses a greater threat to peace and life than the availability of a plant.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.