Hiding Your Choices And Saying You Made Them

An anonymous reader writes "Lawmeme's Paul Szynol describes how during installation RealPlayer hides checkboxes that elect that the user receives spam, making it look like the user chose to make the selections when in fact he probably just didn't see the options. "This is essentially a cheap and dirty marketing tactic which creates an illusion of informed acceptance by the user where no such acceptance really exists." Other people have posted similar examples from other applications. Is this illegal, or just annoying?"

Comments

Re:My feeling is...

[stratjakt]

No, the choices are there but you'd have to scroll down to see them, or some such. Just like you have to bust out the Owl Eyes(tm) to read the fine print on a loan application.

I firewall Realplayer.

[Bonker]

Let's face it. There's stuff out there that you want to see that comes in real format. If it's not downloadable, then I skip it. But if it is downloadable and not restricted to stream-only playback, then I don't hesitate to fire up Real Player, secure in the knowledge that it will never be able to communicate my personal details.

Learn to use software firewalls if you can. Hardware firewalls are great for keeping people from attacking you, but software firewalls are great for managing misbehaving software installations like Realplayer. I've never had a better security tool.

Re:I firewall Realplayer.

[k3v0]

http://www.tinysoftware.com/home/tiny2?la=EN i use tiny personal firewall, it doesnt use a ton of resources and it is freeware or shareware or something like that. no ads. itshows you what applications do what on what port and allows you to change them accordingly.

Re:My feeling is...

[greechneb]

The choices are technically there. IF you scroll down, it will show all the choices. However, at first glance, it appears that there are only the 4 top choices.

The author is talking more about using tactics such as that, or obfuscated language to make users sign up unintentionally. By default most installations have choices for email set to yes by default, so people who next-click through the install agree to giving their souls away by clicking next.

Re:Illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, right off the bat it is misrepresentation.
In this case Real claiming that I made a choice when in fact I did not.

In a physical world example it would be like giving me a contract to sign but removing several pages from it. i.e. Not just sections that I jump over because it is awkward to review ala most EULA.

Unreadably small fine print and defaulted check boxes are one thing. This is certainly a new level of sleaze that has been acheived.

been there for a while now

[Dynedain]

Yep, know exactly what the article is referring to. There's a scrolling box for 'we can market these things to you:' and by default none of the visible checkboxes are marked. However, if you actually scroll the box there are 5 (i think) options at the bottom of the list that are checked.

Tricky Tricky Tricky

And this isn't just on installation, it happens if you fully open RealPlayer to change the stupid take-over-your-computer prefferences.

This is one (of the many) reasons why I don't install RealPlayer on any of my machines, and encourage friends to remove it from theirs. If sites don't have their downloadable content in an alternative format (QT, WM, MP3, Ogg, i don't care which) I just won't watch/listen to it.

I'm doing my part to force 'em out of business. Sure, they are providing competition for MS/Apple, but I find their business practices despicable.

Of course it is not legal.

[gurps_npc]

But that has not stopped people before. P.S. the End User Agreement itself has NEVER been found to be legal. If they do not get a real honest to god SIGNATURE, than it does not stand up in court.

Not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Real Player is also spyware according to this:

Re:Probably falls into same field as minimum texts

[(trb001)]

No, no, no..it doesn't. Because a EULA goes multiple pages does not that mean you are not obligated to obey it because you couldn't read the whole thing. You are responsible, as an end user, for reading all the documentation that is provided. If there are documents referred to by links, it's your responsibility to read those as well.

These are similar to the reasons why people hire lawyers...you don't want to get screwed by some hidden text somewhere that you were too lazy to read, so you have someone else read it for you. Taxes? Same thing, lots of small, hidden text. These are all *legal* documents, they're just obfuscated.

I hate EULA's and the like as much as the next guy, but it's your responsibility as a user to read through stuff that the product provider wants you too. Otherwise, you are subject to their default intentions (which are probably ill, in this case).

--trb

Die, Real Message Service, Die!

[RealErmine]

The thing I hate the most about Realplayer is the message service that it installs by default, without the user's knowledge. A few days after installation a little text box appears over the taskbar telling you that you have a message. In W2K the only way short of uninstalling that I could find to remove the message service is to edit the registry keys for startup programs.

Older versions used to add the taskbar launcher app. and change file associations without giving an obvious choice which was also annoying. Real has always been my least favorite media application for these reasons. I'm glad other people find their software annoying also.

They didn't learn, they don't care.

[tcc]

Every new REALplayer release always brings up a privacy/spam/security issue on slashdot.

There was a time when Real was one of de facto thing for efficient streaming or simple encoding. Today it's not true. The player is bloated, the codec's CPU/quality factor isn't anything close spectacular (nor good I'd say), everything feels like molasse with their stuff, and on top of that, they are still pulling their dirty tricks. Why do people bother downloading it when there are TONS of alternatives?

Webmaster? heck you can encode DIVX, Quicktime, even Mpeg-1 codecs got good enough to make low bandwidth application (ok not at the same quality, but if you UNDERSTAND the basics of Mpeg you can manage to make a video that is efficient and still retains decent quality, and mpeg is cross-platform with no issues, I still use it, I do proper optimization with the vector settings vs skipping frames and chose the right encoder for the right application, each has it's strong and weak points), You can tweak the right encoding setting for the target bandwidth and voila, you're set. My last contract required me to encore a 4 minute clip, and I manage to make it small enough so dialup users could download it, it wasn't 320x240@30fps, then again same would apply with REAL, unless you like blurry/blocky transition and loads of frame skipping. That's another thing with most low bandwidth REAL content, clueless encoder put "maximum quality/crisp" with low bandwidth, that gives you 1fps or 2 but not on a second calculation but on let's say 10 seconds, you see 1 second with 2-3 frames, wait 2-3 seconds, then se another 2-3 frames, ARGH! it's totally annoying.

I'd rather have lower resolution and see something smooth than seeing skipping or blurryness. With mpeg I was doing 6-10FPS at the same low resolution, it was doing a very good job, wasn't annoying, and the video was actually useful where as the guy who made the "REAL" thing simply should have encoded audio without video for the viewer's sake. Anyways, I've managed to make good stuff with Realvideo but I stopped being impressed after their G2 system, they just bloated the damn thing where some others managed to make better codec, players, and so on.

Anyways, I've fixed the "REAL" problem here at work, all of the REAL networks ip addresses are banned, this takes care of all of the problems at the same time. If someone on a laptop goes download it at home, you can configure your firewall to send you an alert once it tries to do it's thing and go remove it from the offending laptop. This is how you deal with spyware/lameware/FS-EULAware. If everybody would do this, the net would be just a tad more enjoyable, too bad people don't care about this.

Other RealPlayer Annoyances.

[SlashChick]

I installed RealOne recently, and much to my dismay, they have removed the preference setting to kill "StartCenter". StartCenter is the annoying thing that sits in your system tray and starts up with your computer. In RealOne Player, not only does it have a systray icon, but it also places little pop-up "message" windows on your computer! It's completely disgusting.

There are no preference settings in RealOne Player to disable this, so I thought I'd post this here, since I'm sure this thread will be filled with people who hate RealOne as much as I do.

The startup code for the popup window is hidden in your registry. The easiest way to get rid of it is to use 'msconfig', which comes with every version of Windows except for 2000. (In a minute, I'll explain how to get rid of it on Windows 2000 as well.)

To use msconfig, go to Start->Run and type in 'msconfig' (no quotes.) Go to the Startup tab. You should see an entry beginning with "real". Uncheck the box next to this entry so that it won't load on startup. In addition, look for an entry called "eventsvc" whose command is "c:\Program Files\Common Files\Real..." This is part of RealPlayer as well, and you can uncheck it safely. (While you're at it, this is the place you can disable those useless ATI control panels and other muckety-muck that likes to sit down in the system tray. Don't worry; you can always go back and re-enable the services later if you disable something you need.)

Once you've unchecked whatever you don't want to load, hit "OK". You will be prompted to restart your computer to make the changes take effect. Go ahead and restart. When you log in next time, you'll see a box explaining that your system is now in "diagnostic" mode. Check the box that says "Don't show me this again" and click OK to be on your merry way (hopefully with a faster bootup time.)

In Windows 2000, you can manually edit the Registry to get rid of these keys. Unlike msconfig, there is no going back, so make sure you know what you're doing! Look in HKLM or HKCU under Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run. You should find the little bugger there. Delete it.

(Standard disclaimer: If you screw up your computer doing this, I am not responsible. If you don't know what a key is, it may be best to leave it alone. Doing a Google search may help you figure out what is necessary and what isn't. In general, leave anything that has to do with your hardware alone, especially modem software, as your modem may require it to work properly.)

Also, when installing RealPlayer, always take the time to read the installer to know what it's doing! You can, and should, disable most of the crap it tries to do, such as opening MP3s and auto-updating your RealPlayer with the latest advertisements. Try "compact" mode as well--that should kill most of the remaining advertisements.

I hope this helps those of you who are (unfortunately) faced with RealPlayer's wrath. The tips above can help to tame your system and make it a bit nicer to use your computer.

As always, if you have relatives who use RealPlayer, or you maintain it in an office setting, it may be best to perform that procedure on every computer. There's really no need for workers to be distracted by RealPlayer advertising. If you're using msconfig, don't forget to restart the computer and disable that "diagnostic" mode box that pops up, as well, or your less technically-inclined relatives/co-workers may be calling you for help! ;)

mplayer

[ViXX0r]

This may be OT for this discussion, and it may be completely anti-EULA altogether, but is anyone else here aware that mplayer has had Real support for some time now in the 0.90 series? It works pretty good for me and you can even use the included mencoder program to convert realvideo into any number of less annoying formats.

Enforceability

[Chazmyrr]

A key point on the issue of consent was raised in the comments to the original article. This or a similar case is probably why Dark Age of Camelot requires you to scroll through the EULA and rules of conduct before the Agree button can be clicked. I think this practice will become more widespread in the future.

Re: Cheap Trick: RealPlayer Windows Installation (Score: 1)
by Barry on Thursday, January 16 @ 11:43:36 EST
(User Info | Send a Message) www.wbklaw.com
The practive may or may not be "unconscionable," but it does likely fail to create an enforceable contract, at least in the 2nd Circuit. See below.

In Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp.,[*] the court stated that, to be enforceable, click-wrap and shrink-wrap agreements require users to perform an affirmative action unambiguously expressing assent. In this case, there was one small box of text referring to the license language, which was "couched in the mild request 'Please review and agree . . .'" The court found that this was a "mere invitation" and not a condition. Failure to require users to indicate assent was "fatal" to Netscape's argument that a contract had been formed. To be enforceable, language must indicate that a user "must" agree to the license terms. Importantly, for purposes of this post, on appeal, the @nd Circuit found it important that the notice of the existence of the contract was not visible until a user scrolled to the next screen and not visible when the user made the decision to "accept." The Second Circuit said that a reasonably prudent person would not have known or learned of the license terms prior to using the software and could not be held to have had "constructive notice" of the terms. The Second Circuit held that "in circumstances such as these, where consumers are urged to download free software at the immediate click of a button, a reference to the existence of license terms on a submerged screen is not sufficient to place consumers on inquiry or constructive notice of those terms." If the hidden terms at issue here ("consenting" to unwanted spam) would be material to the user's decision to click/accept, Specht may be instructive.

[*] Specht, 150 F.Supp.2d 585 (S.D. NY 2001), aff'd Specht, et al. v. Netscape Communications Corp., et al., Nos. 01-7860(L), 01-7870 (CON), 01-7872(CON) (2nd Cir. October 1, 2002).

Not a problem

[Trogre]

Just as well we don't need to use realplayer any more for "realmedia" content.

Don't agree w/ these business practices but....

[failedlogic]

Don't agree w/ these practices but, I always use user@127.0.0.1 as my e-mail address. Most programs or websites asking for such information almost always fail to recognize it as invalid. That'll teach em.

Re:Illegal?

[DDX_2002]

Uh, the most basic requirement for misrepresentation is that there be a representation to someone. To whom, exactly, is Real representing a certain fact? And what fact?

In the real world, it's more like handing you a ten page contract, with a clause on page one saying "We will not do X" and having a sub-sub-sub clause on the eighth page say "Notwithstanding the clause on page one, we will do X under the following situations..."

For a unilateral contract (contract of adhesion, if you prefer), in the Anglo-Canadian common law world, Tilden v. Clendenning says the person presenting you with the contract should bring any unusual terms to your attention, if they intend to rely on them later. OTOH, that case involved rental car contracts and was premised on people not having time to read them over carefully before signing - I don't know if they'd apply it to click throughs read in the privacy of one's own home.

IANAL, and even if I was, YMMV.

Re:How is this illegal?

[MeanMF]

If someone gives you a contract in .001 font size, no it is not illegal. It is up to you to say "I won't sign this, and I won't use your product."

I used to work in the automotive finance industry, and in many states you have to print contracts in a legible font and size. Anything that is smaller than a certain point size will render the contract invalid in court. California is even more strict - they require lenders to put all sorts of disclosures on contracts. They also specify font sizes, etc. The company that I worked for was not in the business of trying to deceive customers, so this really wasn't an issue for us, but I imagine it could create some real problems for some of the shadier lenders out there.

RealPlayer 8 and Under 13

[KalvinB]

You can download RealPlayer 8 at ftp://www.icarusindie.com in the apps folder. It's the last version before they shit all over themselves.

Also, thanks to the US government I tend to be Under 13 quite a bit. It's a lot easier than unclicking all those stupid boxes. I'd also like to thank Real for not verifying my moo@cow.com e-mail address and that my name is not actually FUCK OFF.

Seriously though, why are we complaining? You're not required to put valid information in those fields. Even if you feel moraly obligated not to lie, at least sign up for a junk Hotmail account to use when you fill out various forms.

If some site/program actually has the balls to force valid information out of me I go somewhere else. Unless I'm paying you, fuck off .com. Real.com can have my real name and address when I pay for their software. Until then I'm under 13 and live in Uganda.

Ben

HOW-TO: Create a fake e-mail address

[Kjella]

1. Try something completely illegal, like nospam@no.mail.

2. Try something with a .com, like svkb@sdljbg.com

3. me@privacy.net (or me1...me9). These adresses are actually valid, and made for this purpose.

4. If you need to "answer" to the mail, create a one-time throwaway account. On page 100 of google noone will recognize it as a "free account" if they don't like hotmail etc. Reply, and ditch account.

5. Don't ever give out your real email for any crap. Get a different one for all the newsletters/mailing lists etc. Give your real one only to real people(tm) on- and offline.

6. Enjoy a very spamfree account. That's what I have anyway :)

Kjella

Re:The question is...

[phil reed]

http://www.spamgourmet.com takes care of that just fine. Disposable email addresses on demand! (Just a satisfied customer.)

Re:Illegal?

[flatt]

You know, as a person who has one of these "ultra-generic-let's-send-spam-to" addresses. This really is annoying. I'm not saying the address, but you could probably figure it out.

Everyone should be using me@privacy.net, they will auto-respond to the spammer with a message that the person did not wish to sign up mailing list x.

Real is annoyingware and possibly spyware

[cardshark2001]

I don't use the real player anymore, period. I don't trust a program that tries to contact the internet without telling me what it's going to do. Furthermore, the last time I installed it (quite a while ago), it tried to change my www home page. This is one of my biggest pet peeves with software. Just because I dl your software, I want to change my home page to your crappy website? How does that follow?

Same goes for ICQ.