Slashdot Mirror
Gator-style Overlay Ads Are Legal, Says Court
donutz writes "C|Net has the scoop: "A federal court has ruled that pop-up ads for rivals of U-Haul International, placed atop the moving company's own site by a third-party software application, are legal." In this case, it was ad serving company WhenU.com placing the ads, but this decision could have a big impact on the court cases that involve competitor Gator."
Popup ads are still legal.
If I want to install something to replace (or remove!) ads, I should be allowed to. It's my computer. But, it's something the user should have clear and full knowledge of ahead of time. I think Gator, et al, are guilty of not being completely honest with users about what they're up to.
So does this mean I can go and paste my own ads over any billboards I find, or am I over-simplifying the argument here?
Should people that install Gator (or Gator-clones) on their computer be allowed to drive moving trucks?
Use Python
I think it should be illegal, it's like your glasses modifying the newspaper you read so that (for example) near an article on Linux you see a blatant ad for M$.
-uso.
Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS
Watch Fox News and you'll see commercials for CNN ("Tonight on Larry King Live..."). Time Warner sticks on whatever commercials it wants to. I'm sure there are Fox News commercials on CNN ("Tonight on Hannity and Colmes...").
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
I really am stunned that they won. Just goes to show what a commercial piece of crap the internet has become.
The court's ruling was correct, there isn't much legal backing for the case. It's more of a case that the adware programs are being general iddiots, and companies don't like it. We just need to start getting more people to download AdAware etc so that they can get a rid of these programs.
Or, someone should hack the adware sites so they put an ad over Microsoft's web page. Then Microsoft will hear about it, get pissed, and start bundling some kind of program to get a rid of the AdWare (just hope that it's not DRM).
Makes sense.
I can replace ads with pictures of the countryside or kittens, so why not ads with different ads if I so choose, it's my desktop.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
So, you'd rather have the government telling you what software you can and can't run, and what you can or can't do with your web browsing?
Obviously the court (Judge(s)) have never used a computer on the internet. I know not to accept the certificate blindly, but most people (wrongly) think that to open the web site you need to accept theor certificate.
For those of you who think this shouldn't be legal, how would you feel about having something that blocked all advertisements made illegal too?
On the other hand, I have a hard time believing that anyone would willingly sign up to be hit with more advertisements without getting hardly anything in return. Oh well.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Yeah.. That's exactly what those terrorists are thinking. Damn I hate the US because of all those pop up ads, especially when I visit www.aljazeera.net and all these damn pop up adds come up for www.usdoj.gov. I think I'll go blow myself up.
Can you say broad generalization?
The rest of the world hates the US because we are the last remaining super power.. and every unpopular kid on the block wants to de-thrown the king.
Because it means that you are allowed to control what is displayed on your own computer.
Here's why this decision is good. If third party software is allowed to replace the ads on a web page, then it is certainly legal for you to remove ads from the web pages you see. This decision strongly protects ad-blocking software, and that's a good thing.
The pop-up ads that bother me the most are the ones that look like Windows dialog boxes. You know - "Warning, your computer is too slow, click here..."
It's not like I've ever fallen for one, nor do I think many other /.ers have (They don't look right on Gnome or KDE).
The problem is that some of the "normal" people on the internet can't tell the difference until its too late. My dad is barely computer literate to open and save an excel file (only excel!). He would fall for one of those immediately
My main concern is that some of these may be used to activate some scripts or something. Once again, those who fell for the boxes probably use Internet Explorer. Need I say more?
Robert Bindler
A Computer Science student's views on technology.
I propose to call this practice "lopping" from now on.
We can't have gator take all the credit while the brave executioners at lop.com are doing so well lately. And let's also honour their clients who can have special versions of the lop.com software be made or do it themselves. They sorta pull the trigger. Roaches couldn't do better.
OTOH, I dare LOP to LOP my FreeBSD box.
another ad program placed another ad over that ad?
and another...
you get the point, sounds kind of funky to me
paul
Gator can now effectively control a large portion of the web.
Since they can now edit web pages as they see fit (basically), sites don't have to get hacked, and this is all legal.
Why not have gator outright block pages, or slow them down. They can do what they want. This may turn into a bidding war. Your company's website is useless now, because a competitor can take control over it.
Sigh... and, now the Slashdot version:
1. Control Websites
2. ???
3. Profit!!!
-Placing icons on the desktop that launch ad-filled web pages
-Adding itself as a favorite or a home page to the browser
-Adding shortcuts to the Start Menu
All without permission of the user. Granted, those who are security-aware will have unsigned ActiveX and Scripting capabilities turned off (discussion of this can be found here, but then again, the crowd that is more concerned with these types of exploits will use browsers that are harder to exploit and easier to control, such as Mozilla, Opera, or Communicator. Not that these programs are all exempt from exploitation, but they have proven to be a much smaller target audience.
> /etc/hosts
127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ads.x10.com
127.0.0.1 images.slashdot.org
...because everyone knows that you don't actually own your computer; it belongs to marketers as soon as you plug it in the the 'Net.
I am Pepsi. I pay a software company to create software that finds coke cans in movies and alter them to Pepsi cans. No more than an "ad" does. The customer has "control" of his tv. And what appears.
Imagine watching a Nascar race and seeing the "home depot" car with the "Home Depot" logo covered by the "Target" logo via software. I really am not sure what the legal difference between TV and Computer screens would be. My cable company may be the next purveyor of "ads"....
It is one thing if you yourself block ads using your hosts file or some program, but this program did quite the opposite. When you browse the Web, it adds additional advertisements to Web sites you are visiting, and displays ads for competitors. 99.9% of the idiots who install Gator or other software don't read the EULA or even understand that this other software is being installed as well.
Think about it this way. You have a business selling computer parts. Someone goes to your site, and then all of the sudden they get a popup ad going straight to a competitor of yours. This can hamper your ability to make a sale with your customer and impacts you financially. It's a Bad Thing(TM).
It isn't right, and it is unfortunate that the judge ruled this way.
No, the judges just got the wrong plantiff in front of them. U-Haul can't sue saying Joe User was tricked into installing software he didn't want, Joe User has to file that case.
If you want news, go to the source.
This is a very interesting debate, due to the fact that it's still pretty unclear as to who owns the content when it reaches your browser.
Let's think about this for a second.
copyright, while the owners of the site can easily claim copyright on any copy, images, etc.. they can't seem to control copyright on the layout of the site by viewing this site. The fact that an ad is on a website doesn't make the layout and presentation a non-copyrighted object. On the other hand, doesn't the fact that the page is thrust into the public domain give everyone the ability to manipulate the content as they see fit?
license, if a site specifically had you enter into an agreement to view the site, and within the agreement you agree not to edit the layout and presentation of said site, then the fact that you installed gator on your system (how dumb) would violate the agreement and put the you in breach of the terms. Much like a physical establishment grants you license to enter their place of business. If you began posting ads in the store, you would be kicked out. Ahh.. but the catch is.. what if you are the only one that can see that ads? Then your not in violation of the license are you?
Very tricky in my opinion, but I opt to go with:
Users should have the right to replace ANYTHING they see while browsing using 3rd party tools, unless they specifically enter into an agreement with the content owners.
The courts worked in this case, much like they worked for Larry Flynt.
the Internet-enabled computer desktop is a competitive medium, where (advertisers) can impact consumer-buying
Gee, and here I was thinking is was my workspace!?!
just goes to show how these guys think eh?
What about those ads that purposely attempt to get through security exploits in the ActiveX module in Internet Explorer; all you need to is hit "Yes". Once.
"Ultimately," Naider said, "the Internet-enabled computer desktop is a competitive medium, where (advertisers) can impact consumer-buying decisions up to the moment. These are attempts to preclude that evolution, the future of Internet advertising."
So...Mozilla's popup blocker and FUTURE FLASH BLOCKER(hurry up, you lazy, slow-assed, crap-eating, foul-mouthed, oozing, repugnant-body-odored, scum-sucking mozilla developers....and no we don't give a shit about any other mime-type blocking -- just the flash please!!! Gee....as if any other mime types irritate the crap out of us to the same extent that flash does....) Excuse me...where was I? Oh, yes... well according to these people who won the lawsuit, it appears that anything that gets in the way of banner ads, popup ads, oozing repulsive flash ads, popunder ads, et cetera, ad infinitum....anything that gets in the way of the "future of the internet" should obviously be eliminated.
Isn't it interesting how companies trying to screw your time with more ads (Gator, Nike) make arguments about freedom? Whose freedom?
Uhm... this is a case where the smaller business in the lawsuit prevailed!
Please post your anti-bussines flamebait in a more appropriate discussion.
If they're allowed to change a page's rendering or content, they're allowed to also change toolbars and the like. They're legally inside your browser. Driveby installation of browser "enhancements" could be argued to use the same techniques. E.g. an xml template for the browser's GUI (mozilla, netscape, ie?) or an active X component (ie) could fall in the same realm.
I mentioned lop.com et al earlier but it's only now that I realize that it might be considered exactly the same. Makes sense as well, because they're all the same kind of critters of course.
I personally see only one problem. Companies make such large investments in IT infrastructure (hardware and bandwidth let alone people and software) that they deserve to be able to find ways to regain those costs on their sites. This site (/.) and many other are expensive to run and maintain, let alone the huge initial costs.
So my problem is this...(UHaul case aside) could allowing changes to the site by third party software be denying companies the funds they deserve for providing the service? Each visitors costs them money. Do they not deserve to pick up the couple pennies for that?
You know companies would inject food with chemicals if they found some that made you shit ads. These guys don't know how to do that, but they can make your browser shit out ads.
OH NO, MR. BILL!
oh no, mr. bill!
AIEEE!!
Hey, if it makes the food cheaper... bring it on. I'll just the ad flusher system.
Many websites use advertising to stay free (as in beer). One problem with gator style "pop overs" is that instead of the original website driving traffic to their sponsors, it drives it to gator's sponsors. Thus gator style pop-overs reduce advertising income from the original website owners. It also reduces sales income to the sponsors that support them.
In my opinion this is a big defeat for free information (as in beer). If this does not get overruled than many websites that are supported by web advertising will have to charge money or go out of business.
Your site, your content, your visitors. If someone pays you to run ads based on your content then those are the ads viewers should see. Your advertising clients are paying for your product.
How long before someone builds spyware that rearranges the content to put ads where there weren't any ads before?
Of course, I thought Disney would've lost for the non-ending patent rights.
riding round the world on an old motorcycle
I am slashdot look at me SCO Linux RIAA MPAA space government intellectual property I'm crying 'cuz of the Tech economy, COWBOYNEAL!
I know spam, popups, etc are annoying, but I'm dubious that legal approaches are a good way to fix them. Often, as is the case with censorship (IMHO, of course), it may seem like a good idea to ban something in the short term, but bad in the long run -- and in any case, the whole concept of windows, etc, may not be around in a few years.
I'd generally rather see technical solutions, rather than legal ones, to problems on the 'Net. Legal solutions tend to not work well for mere annoyances (since people don't actually do anything, which results in laws that people simply ignore), simply cause more money to be thrown at lawyers, are slow to adapt with the times, may stifle honest-to-God positive things, tend to promote the deployment of "fragile" protocols/software (which may break when someone who doesn't care about the law comes along), and run into problems since legal boundaries (along cities, states, nations, etc) don't make much sense on the 'Net. If at all possible, I'd prefer to go with technical solutions to problems, to simply do things properly. Popups are a pretty easy thing to fix from a technical standpoint.
Just my 2 cents.
Where did all this "deserve" stuff come from ? If you put up a computer connected to the Internet, it's your responsibility to pay the bills. If you can't do it, if you used to be able to do it but the market conditions changed, that's not the responsibility of anyone but you.
You seem to have a vague childlike view of the world. Your mother should have made you clean up your own mess more often.
While it may be that Gator now 0wnz the desktop, the person nevertheless gave control over to the program -- a sort of "power of attorney" was granted to the adware by the user. They may have been fooled, but that's a far cry from the nonsense being alleged by uhaul or anyone else. They aren't trying to protect users from being suckered, they just want their monopoly on suckering^H^H^H, I mean, advertising to people.
I think that maybe adware (all software, really) should be properly labeled so that users know what they are clicking yes to. Perhaps we should have mandatory labeling for software similar to nutritional labeling required for food. I want to know what's in it and what it does. I want specifics on files, registry settings, TCP ports, drivers, services/daemons, and so on. Now, some may say that they can't disclose some info because of fears of IP protection or trade secrets. However, that isn't a valid defense to not disclosing the ingredients to a twinkie, and it shouldn't be on hiding the actions of an application.
I got a pop-up at work today that faked a command prompt window. Your average person will freak out even more when presented with something like that. I think it was for some history killer or something.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
I do not like advertising.
I do not like advertising on the internet.
I do not like advertising in the courts.
I do not like forced advertising.
I do not like intrusive advertising.
I do not like opt-in advertising.
I do not like opt-out advertising.
---So says Sam I AM....
If I am told that to install a piece of software I have to receive advertising...I click yes...*I want the software*
Why should I care if the advert comes from Russia, China or the guy down the block.
The time, effort and money spent on judicial marketing could actually go into RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.
Even computer illiterates learn quickly to ignore flashing ads.
And actually this hijacking of ads should be encouraged! IF the same ads are repeated over and over again you get used to them quicker and ignore them quicker.
In the 9 or so years being online I can only recall clicking intentionally on a banner ad once.
All of us (I think that Linux users have this too) open their hosts file and add this to it:
127.0.0.1 www.gator.co.uk
127.0.0.1 www.gator.com
127.0.0.1 www.gator.net
127.0.0.1 webdp.gator.com
127.0.0.1 whenu.com
127.0.01 gator.com
This will fix their wagon quite thoroughly, until they switch their domain addresses, then reopen your hosts file and repeat..
I've got a little hosts file (only 22K) that pretty much takes care of all of the jokers that push ads upon you by replacing their ads with a quaint DNS error.
Let me know if you want a copy of the file.
First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
What would happen if TV makers changed the comercials in TV shows to thier own? If it was legal and it was implemented in enough TVs what would happen to TV programming? The same thing is going to happen to websites that are supported by AD revenue! I am horrified by this ruling.
Right?
Blar.
Stop tricking people into installing your crappy spyware by piggyback riding on other software! And try to be more honest.
I think the judge is crooked.
Pop goes the weazel
:)
and dead goes gator when consumers sue for illegal computer access..:)
spyware is still somewhat illegal foolks
want to kill a gator today?
Don't Tread on OpenSource
You're making the (regrettably) unfortunate assumption that courts give equal protection to corps and individuals.
If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
Sounds like this is justice for all those web sites that choose to use ad agencies that use annoying tactics like pop-up ads.
--
Luck is just skill you didn't know you had.
Didn't Microsoft lose some case where they wanted to link words they saw fit to advertisements? So if you were reading a web page or a Word document and everytime the word "Buzz" appeared, it would link to BuzzCola.com and you'd have no choice over it? And every day it would download new metadata to create those links? Or maybe they were planning on doing that and consumers complained too loudly... I forget. This seems similar.
What I think might be a problem here is if this case were ruled against WhenU, it could send the message that you can't modify a site's intended content (I say "you" because despite the surreptitious installers of WhenU, you approved this program). Thus, advertisers could bring suit against a Mozilla because of its advertising blocker. It's the opposite of placing ads on top of ads, but it's the same purpose of modifying intended content.
I have to side with this ruling. If you're too stupid to avoid these programs like Gator, then purchase the adware blocker programs. So now you have firewall/virus protection/adware protection apps set to protect you. If we have to make a law to protect the lowest common denominator, we're going to have serious problems with innovation. For example, if someone were to release a program you install that changes "big words" into links to m-w.com for definitions... if this law were to be approved, they couldn't create this program because they are modifying intended content.
Although the argument both for and against the presence of competitors ads have some merit the fundamental issue is still personal choice.
I run a business, my ad is in the yellow pages along with everybody else who is in the same line of work. Why is it that despite the fact that I am surrounded by the ads of others (mostly bigger than mine) I have a larger market share in my area? A rhetorical question to which I'm sure we all know the answer to, my service is better and my prices are fair.
The decision to use a company is still based on choices made on the basis of information provided... NOT on the the basis of 'I saw you first'. You cannot call "Shotgun" in the business world and expect everybody to agree. The solution for these companies is to make sure that people still choose their service or product, even after they have been exposed to all the other available options. This is the USA, there is never going to be someone telling you that you are not allowed to be the best.
Go ahead run your ads anywhere you like in my local yellow pages. My company is the best. If these companies cant handle the competition then maybe they should check what they can do better within their company rather than attempting to call 'shotgun' and make their competitors go away!
It is easier to square the circle than to get round a mathematician. A.De Morgan 1872
This kind of mindless crap will make fair internet advertising useless. If the reverse is also legal then we should start some kind of .org to list and use netware to hack the services and software that will need to be driven off the net. Microsoft might even get smart and help for a change!
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
Offtopic, but oh well. I had a serious problem with spyware. I'd scan twice a week or more, and clean stuff out every time. Then I started using Phoenix (now Mozilla Firebird), and eventually stopped using IE altogether. I still scan for spyware every so often, but haven't run into anything since. So, maybe we should start blaming Microsoft for Spyware as well.
I don't think any individuals are risking being sued for ad-blocking software.
>If it's in fact true that there is no real user consent to the gator-driven pop-ups, tend to think that the owners of websites defaced by the popups have a reasonable claim for damages.
What about those of us who block ads, run junkbuster, proximation, etc? Your proposal would force us to render pages as the webmaster sees fit. Err, no thanks. If you publish HTML you take your chance at how the end user renders it. Don't like it? Then publish with something else.
I run an ad blocking project here, and I would not like to be grouped with gator, et al. Obviously, the problem here has to do with stealth installs (exploiting default activex settings) and ridiculously unreadable legalese.
For the record, I have met people who run spyware and who don;t care. So even if you dragged Gator into court, you'd have a hard time pushing for some kind of punishment when there are customers who don't care about privacy as much as we do.
I think this problem could easily be solved if Antivirus companies had a "treat spyware as a virus" setting. Why isn't Norton et al putting their necks on the line for their customers?
Spyware seems ripe for the next "scare meme." It does steal information and your chances of getting it compared to a virus is something like 10000 to 1. I hope to see some enterprising anti-virus upstart bundle this service and kick Norton and McAfee out of the market.
Hey, here's something to go with: moral rights (associated with copyright). Moral rights are the right of an author of a work to be associated with that work, to not have that work modified, and to not be associated with work that isn't his.
Maybe this would be the right avenue to go with against gator pop-ups.
If I put up a billboard (or rent one for a month), and my competitor comes around and puts his ad overtop of mine, thats vandalism. How exactly is this different than this case? U-Haul rents or owns virtual billboards along "the information superhighway" and someone else comes around and puts their ad overtop of U-Hauls. Its vandalism. Even if its only for a few people, its still vandalism. Another example of the court not grasping the concept because its electronic.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
Well this ruling is obviously going to be appealed... but maybe on the other hand these companies might have some kind of ad campaign etc. to try to get everyone and your grandma to stop clicking all the things that pop-up when they use IE or push an alternative browser or to turn off activex when they use IE.
"Guns don't kill people, bullets do."
I'd agree with the judges reasoning if the pop-up box to install Gator (it's an ActiveX component I believe, and there's a standard MSIE dialog box which prompts the user) said 'Do you with to install "Gator, a program which places additional advertising onto webpages. Part of the revenue from this business goes back to the website you're trying to visit"'.
However, the text presented to the user comes from the component author, and every time I've come across Gator it's along the lines of '"Date/Time checker, a program that blah blah blah enhances your internet experience blah blah blah" by Gator Corporation.' NO MENTION of replacing or adding ads to web pages.
Sure, it doesn't say that Gator doesn't do anything else, but I don't see how this is any different than, say, yet another chain mail which also happens to mail itself to everyone in your mailbox automatically. The primary purpose of the software is hostile and hidden to the user installing it, which is about as 'trojan horse' as you can get.
You've agreed to wear those special glasses. You have to click "I agree" to download Gator stuff et al. Actually, if the suit had gone the other way, and they weren't allowed, I'd be more afraid because that would mean that software licenses are moot.
This is my digital signature. 10011011001
a website was illegal, and possibly terrorism, under the Patriot Act? Specifically, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA 18 USC 1030), which then follows that it could be prosecuted under RICO rules.
I have gotten gator a couple of times and I have never hit next- I narrowed it down to a site that auto installs it on IE6 if your settings are at medium.
I like SPybot search and destroy
http://security.kolla.de
Dale Carnegie was right in "How to win friends and influence people." No one, not even crooks or murderers ever thinks he is wrong. It does no good to criticize people because they only get defensive and think you are attacking them because you are jealous of their (pick one or more) money, power, good lucks, influence, etc.
S er ver?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Articl e&cid=1057443008293&call_pageid=968332188492&col=9 68793972154
Unfortunately, that never gets you cooperation. In fact it's hilarious because EACH SIDE thinks THE SAME THING!
Have fun picking up the pieces and paying for it.
http://www.thetorontostar.com/NASApp/cs/Content
heh, most people are force into a judicial medium and go home to polish their guns. It looks rather foolish.
You must be a liberal with the "what is truth" argument.
Unless your are a site operator having your ad crappola trumped by somebody else's ad crappola, just run Panicware or Webwasher and be done with it. There are a myriad of fine tools out there to kill adjunk as fast as the crapmeisters can dream up new XML applets.
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
Maybe you will find out the answer in Matrix Revolutions.
What we haven't seen yet in court is how much gator is allowed to sneak it's spamware onto people's machines.
I like to add domains to my hosts file from ads sites domains to goto 127.0.0.1.
So this means I'm allowed to cover a billboard five minutes from my house with a banner that says "www.goatse.cx" in 4500 point font?
I used to recommend Google AdSense as the best ad system I had ever seen...non-intrusive, context-dependent on the content of the page it is displayed on...until I discovered what happened in the link in my sig. Even the once well-respected Google is just another company now.
Now I'm of the opinion Internet ad systems are a doomed system no matter what. The Internet is supposed to be this concept of freedom and availability, which conflicts with commercialism that companies have tried to infect it with since the 90s. "Internet companies" and their cheesedick college graduate CEOs should be drug out into the street and shot.
"Sufferin' succotash."
The problem with Gator's approach is that all activity occurs client side. The code and structure of the website is not tampered with but rather what is transmitted from the site to the user is modified by the programs. Therefore, in most cases websites can do nothing with their code to prevent Gator from screwing it up.
What they can do, and what MS has proved is definitely technologically feasible with Opera and MSN.com, is redirect users detected using Gator and similar software. Currently, probably half of the people who visit these sites and load a different page than others, thanks to Gator, probably have no idea their computer is infected. THESE people are the ones the companies are suing Gator over because the customers have no idea they are getting a "false" image of the company's site.
If users with ad-changing spyware were redirected to a page similar to the ones people using third-party browser (not MIE or Netscape) frequently get on major sites, a page that said something to the effect of "You have software installed that may prevent the proper viewing of the site" and then named exactly what was messing things up, I would bet that a lot more action would be taken against spyware. People would be aware that their Internet is filtered and hijacked, and they would do something about it. Currently, I doubt future court rulings will be different until the technology and method of presenting/counter popups and ads changes radically.
Ok, it's been ruled that Company A has more ownership rights to my desktop than Company B.
So, where's a ruling delineating my ownership rights to my desktop?
Remind me again why exactly ad-blocking is a good-thing?
1) Get Coca-Cola to pay my company mucho bucks to "popup" a Diet Coke ad everytime the TV viewer was supposed to see a Diet Pepsi ad?
3) Profit!
What about users customizing their DVRs to play content they _prefer_ instead of the ads they were going to see? (ie, show me those beer babes fighting in the fountain ad everytime that lame shampoo commercial comes on).
Or how about allowing the user to automatically skip commercials altogether? ... Err ... Whoops
i'm so gay.
i'm so a nigger.
The GNAA is so for me...i've spent so long
trying to find more GAYNIGGERS like me...i almost
wept when they let me join and showered me in the
holy GAYNIGGER seed cum-slinging ceremony.
it was a beautifully GAY NIGGER time.
Actually, a lot of laws are put in place just to protect stupid people from sneaky people. For example, a lot of financial products are covered by disclosure and right to cancel laws for exactly this reason... and I expect more people are financially 'stupid' than technically stupid.
Or the judge uses a Mac. I don't think I've ever seen any of this crap on the Mac OS.
The converse has been done (same tech, opposite purpose). He coined the term "mediated reality" for his wearable computer systems that have the ability to recognize, for example, a billboard, as he walks down the street and replaces the ad with something of his own choosing.
Dr. Mann is the original 'Borg', cited here on Slashdot before. Sorry, I'm too lazy to look up the links.
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
Of course this stuff is legal, otherwise OSDN probably should have taken action a long time ago.
..then we'd call it Windows.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
Because I am not, and never will be interested in clicking on the fucking monkey, buying herbal viagra, or purchasing an X10 camera.
Because I hate exiting explorer, and having to spend the next 30 seconds closing dozens and dozens of popup windows.
Because I hate having to snake my mouse cursor through a forest of "mouse-over" ads to get to the little X without accidently travelling over a hair-trigger active window, and triggering a window cascade.
Because I hate trying to close an ad window, and realize a second too late that I have inadvertantly clicked on a fake image of a window contained inside a popup ad, thus sending me off to an advertising website.
Because I hate having to exit Netscape entirely because of a runaway window cascade.
Installing ad-blocking software has made the internet usable for me. I consider that a good thing.
I do not like pop-ups and spam
I do not like them, Sam-I-Am!
I will not click them with my mouse
Nor will my daughter, dog, or spouse
I do not like them with Slashdot
I don't like them on any spot
I don't like them, no Sir! - no ma'am!
I do not like pop-ups and spam
I don't like your E-U-L-A
This is a game I will not play
Don't like them in the spring or fall
I do not like them, not at all
I do not like pop-ups and spam
I do not like them, Sam-I-Am!
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
Because it means that you are allowed to control what is displayed on your own computer.
Haha! You got hoodwinked! You'll always have control about what is displayed on your computer.
The real item here is that this judgement seems to confirm that the parasitic business model of companies like Gator is legal and acceptable.
That my friend, sucks.
detect gator agent, redirect page to we are sorry but your computer is currently unsecure running the GAIN system and we cannot allow you access to our page. Please come back when you have unistalled the GATOR client and are running a secure browser and we will be happy to do business with you. Thank-you and good luck with your security errors, the management at U-Hual.com
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Gator *must* be doing something illegal with their deceptive installation requests.
I know better, but my kids don't. Keeping spyware of the win2k machine is impossible. I know they could be surfing with Linux. They will be soon enough; however, the problem still exists and running Linux is not going to fix it for everyone anytime soon.
Their misleading and deceptive methods are no better than those employed by those using other media to scam and exploit people.
People have a right to clear and honest accounting for what software does, and is going to do on their machine *before* it is loaded.
They also need to be assured that a request for removal is honored as well.
The decision helps to strengthen and define the rights people have when viewing content. Not what the litigants had in mind, but good anyway.
There is no better advocacy for OSS than this sort of thing. Linux+Moz+Konq makes for a very peaceful and enjoyable web experience. The Internet is downright hostile toward win32 users right now.
Companies like Gator do nothing but help that along.
Blogging because I can...
Only the copy of your ad on a user's computer was replaced, and since that replacement was done by software the user installed then that should be his prerogative. I doubt you have his signature on some contract requiring him to view your ads. The only grey area I see here is the "under the radar" installation of most of these software products, which means in practice that the user probably never intended to start switching around his ad banners, he just clicked "OK" on a EULA that said something about ad swapping on page 4.
Can't you stop this stuff at the firewall. The companies that do this are, thankfully, still few. Block their IPs and scan for illegal download types.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
The new Google 2.0 Toolbar (still in Beta) has a pop-up blocker as well. Can disable it with a click, or disable it for the next page by holding down Ctrl. Plus it keeps track of how many you've blocked.
----- ----- -----
This is the crux of the matter, the ability of modified M$ XML to do what should be system command modified functions is stupid. The internet redirect security settings of IE can get overridden by smart XML- microshaft .net code! Might as well not have any internet security or user control. Big question is why the IE browser alows plug in like crap without the user having to impliment the stuff.
As I said in my first post to this topic, sneaky advertising is killing the real value of the net, to legitimate firms.
Mod me down for being redundant I do not care, truth is more important, for the second time.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
Use the new google toolbar with its popup buster and other goodies... makes the web a much nicer place and is not shitty like the Yahoo! screwbar
"When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail." - Abraham Maslow (1908-1970)
What you U-Haul needs to do is setup an anti-GAIN POP-UP. Set to come up over the GAIN one. The Pop-Up should tell people that GAIN is installed on there computers and what GAIN does and how to remove it. Or just tell them to use adware to do it for them.
It is legel for GAIN to due pop ads, But if it is not clear that the ad comes from GAIN then it should be illegel under the grounds that People think that When-U has some affilation with U-HAIL the names are to close for people not to think so. It is also makes poeple think that U-Haul sells popup ad space which they don't
Besides the fact that Gator tries to sneak itself onto a computer, the legal implications for Gator should be the same as Privoxy or any of the hundred banner-replacing proxies and popup-stoppers.
That's the way it ought to be.
Advertisers have no power to force you to see their ads if you (with the help of Gator) decide you want to see something else. Therefore the decision is correct. The advertisers can go to hell.
Gator has no right to sneak software onto user's machines without their proper permission. Gator can go to hell.
If you disable ActiveX in IE, you will get a prompt from IE when you visit a webpage with ActiveX control. You have to press "OK" to dismiss the prompt, that's even more annoying than popup ads. That's why I use MyIE instead.
These are vile programs. The kind whose deletion by anything other than the official uninstaller will kill your Internet connection. Programs whose tendrils wrap so tightly around your core components that they are like a weed you cannot kill. Programs designed to befuddle the average user and wreck havoc when they are crossed. In other words, they are completely legal viruses and trojan horses that hide behind the EULA's veil of "we're not responsible for damages to your system."
Now, I'll be the first to admit that I think people need to make themselves aware of this issue and take responsibility for what they download and use. They do need to have a look around the Internet prior to downloading a popular program, just to see what little "bonuses" come with it. However, I also think our government should step in and save those who are ignorant to the problem. Both government agencies and software designers can do a lot more to crackdown on this than they have. Legislation should be passed that outlaws programs whose sole purpose is to produce unwanted advertising and whose nature is elusive at best.
Let's face it. Someone out there is getting very rich off of our personal information. Rich enough to swamp the Internet with more ads to spread the infection to more computers. It has to stop.
Are then fully legal and recommended. Just that some people thought it would be like stealing to block adds.
I also skip tv-commercials. It's the time when you go to the fridge. Someitmes, though, I watch tv-shop or whatnot infomercials. It's incredible. They sell crap for incredibly high prices. I wonder who orders the crap.
And other pro-user software (ad-aware, etc.) that interfere with sites like this.
Gator argues that "consumers own their desktops", which is actually right.
If this ruling stands, there'll be no way to successfully sue the makers of software like Ad Aware or Junkbusters.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
By the way use Adaware for Spyware.
I use Opera (7.03), and I'm amazed at how stable it is when compared to IE 5.5. Added bonus: Opera won't take my whole system down if something Bad happens. Sole lockup issue is flash/shockwave; have to use firebird for flash movies/games. :( Not to mention, if/when Opera does crash, you can go back to EXACTLY what you were doing by simply restarting it. :) Try that with ANY other browser, ha!
I have been trolled.
In Internet Explorer, unsigned ActiveX controls are disabled by default. And IE prompts you to accept signed ActiveX controls. Even Mozilla allows Java applets to run outside of the sandbox if the user accepts the prompt.
The only immorality I see in Gator is that they don't make it clear to inexperienced computer users (like my grandmother) exactly what their software does. If it said upfront that it will share all your information and occasionally pop up annoying ads in response to you visiting a site, making it appear as if that site generated the ad, then I would see nothing wrong with it. But I wouldn't expect them to have more than a handful of users if they ran an honest business, except maybe those who clicked "yes" by accident and hadn't removed it yet.
On every computer I've seen Gator on, the user didn't even know it was there, except that they were bombarded by popups, private information was shared without their knowledge, etc.
"But we don't want your ads!"
"Sorry, but you have to take them!"
-----
"But we don't want to redistribute the source code on our thousands of man hours invested in making this crappy code production ready!"
"We're not sorry, and you have to give us freeloaders the code...assholes!"
More like, the person who would be viewing said billboard signed an agreement he/she didn't understand, and the advertised glued a competitors ad onto the glasses/eyeballs of the viewer.
Remember, this is all happening on the side of the client, and only with people dumb enough (computer dumb anyhow, which is unfortunately the general populace) to accept such agreements.
"We're not sorry, and you have to give us freeloaders the code...assholes!"
Kind of crude and brutal, but this attitude does exist unfortunately.
Maybe that's why licences like that of Perl, Apache, Postgresql, and ACE + TAO seem to be held in higher regard than the GNU GPL --
no strings attached, done purely for the good of humanity and not out of spite or ego, or the forcing of some political/religious philosophy on someone.
I didn't realize this until recently: Win2K has a built-in NTP client. If you are on an NT domain or other corporate LAN, this has probably already been set up for you:
There. No cheesy spy-ware necessary. Also, performance-conscious gamers needn't worry. NTP synchronization requires, at worst, perhaps one packet per hour to keep things straight.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
And in that country/state/whatever...
In the rest of the world, and in another tribunal, things may appear diferently. AND WILL!
"Both WhenU and Gator have argued that their ad-sales and delivery tactics are legal because consumers agree to receive the ads when they download and install their software. Also, they've argued, it comes down to consumers owning their own desktops , which are inherently built to support many applications with multiple windows."
I nearly shat myself when I read that.
Gator/GAIN do not advertise that they may interfere with the correct operation of your computer. I have had some real fun experiences removing these programs. Than heavens for ad-ware removal tools.
See my journal, I write things there
Ad substitution technology is quite advanced now even for real-time stuff so that TV companies showing sports matches have to be contracturally forbidden from replacing the ads.
See my journal, I write things there
I live in Germany at the moment and we have some major problems with dialers using high-toll prefixes.
It used to be just porn-sites getting up to the dodgy stuff. Now it seems to be anything (although not on /. yet).
See my journal, I write things there
Indeed. Configure your firewall to do transparent squid, and then put the following into your squid.conf:
Say no to software patents.
"If it's in fact true that there is no real user consent to the gator-driven pop-ups, then I'd tend to think that the owners of websites defaced by the popups have a reasonable claim for damages."
I don't see how these two things are related. WhenU isn't touching UHaul's server so they are not defacing it. UHaul doesn't have any rights to the user's computer and how they display the website. They cannot stop you from using a pop-up blocker or resizing the text, or loading only the text, or replacing some images with others of your choosing.
OTOH, if WhenU and Gator are being deceptive when they get consent from the user, then the user might have some recourse, but UHaul is SOL.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
"Your current security settings prohibit running ActiveX controls on this page. As a result, the page may not display correctly."
If you don't believe, try it. And that happens on every single page you visit with ActiveX control, every time.
Ok, it's ok for a user to decide that they want to modify the contents of a page however they see fit. But to have third party do it? How would you feel if you knew that somebody was altering the links on your web page without the user knowing it. Is this a violation of free speech? I mean, what if I had a link to a web site that some middle man didn't approve of, and they changed it?
This is ridiculus.
WhenU, as seen in today's New York Times, is the future of advertising. Stop bitching and start saving!
"consumers agree to receive the ads when they download and install their software" Uh huh... Consumers "agree" do they? The way Gator gets people to install their products is what should be illegal. It's like if Mars bars put on the fine print of their wrappers that buying a bar entitled them to come round to your house and plaster your hallway with advertising posters. You're not expected to have agreed to some sort of legal contract simply by buying a Mars bar, it shouldn't be construed that you're selling your desktop space simply because you download what is alledgedly a useful program.
Guess I already know what to do tonight...
Cutting and pasting penguin pictures over M$ adverts on all my magazines...
The big issue here is that ActiveX security is flawed to begin with. Companies use this exploit to install 'helpful' software based on the 'Click OK' instinct. This is simply bad design on Microsoft's fault, and companies like Gator have no qualms about using it to their advantage.
.com boom product to ease noobs into the new technology utopia. But most of us are grown up now, and my mom knows how to install software. It's time to stop trading 'ease of use' for security.
;)
Users are given what looks like an official internet explorer endorsement for the software. ActiveX exploits don't have to have _anything_ to do with the webpage in question! They are a major security risk, probably the biggest security hole in MS's bug-ridden heap o' code. Yet little can be done because good productive software people do use ActiveX.
ActiveX was a
BURN ACTIVEX, BURN!!
1) Give mozilla the IE skin
2) replace all IE icons with shortcuts to mozilla with IE icons
3) make mozilla default browser
Strangely, I've have not seen popups in about six months. Of course, that might be due to IERadicate and Opera, but hey, look at my sig...
I'm the guy with the unpopular opinion
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you would want to download an .exe file in this scenario, you wouldn't be allowed. Right?
.exes are just plain evil, but not _all_.
Of course, a lot of
80 CC D8 AF AE D3 AB 54 B7 2E CE 67 C7
Yes you would... Just use a real browser. That's what the second acl line does...
If I run an application that strategically blocks advertisements, how is this any different from what this company is doing? In my case, someone else paid money for that particular ad to be presented, and I'm "overlaying" (more like overriding) it with another piece of information (a randomly generated quote). I think the court ruled correctly, as the user took action to install this program (whether he paid attention to the click-through license or not). I would think that, if the court ruled the other way, that would open up many popup blockers / advertisement blockers to various lawsuits.
Now, as to the issue of the click through license -- I wonder what other way we could do such a thing? Perhaps legal mandates stating that all applications / tools / utilities from 3rd parties must be plainly presented the user? The problem, of course, is that this would be a local (at best) solution, and, it would, I think, just create some wierd variant of that type of advertisements, probably doing more harm than good.
Michael C. Hollinger
You need Norton Ghost. Take a master image of every machine, and restore it on a schedule every night. End of problems.
from this Provider checkbox? I keep looking for it, but don't see it.
How about the Spider-Man movie? Making a 'digital overlay' was smacked down in court there, when the original advertiser complained.
While the venue may be different (movie + real-world, versus website), isn't the principle the same? That would make this a neat little contradiction.
"Choose to wear" is a different issue. In fact, I choose to run all the web pages I view through one of several filters, depending on what OS I happen to be using at the time. In theory, gator users have chosen gator as their "filter".
While I think gator is a PITA, I also think that anyone who does a little research will find it easy enought to not to use gator if they don't want to.
Give gator et. al. their due...Think about the light bulb that lit up over someone's head: "Hey--we can write a filter proxy. But instead of taking the ads out--we can put ads in! And we can sell ad space that our audience will see when they view the web pages of our clients competitors! We'll make millions [angry with us]. Mwuahahahaha..." Wish I'd thought of it.
I think this is a good decision. I would find it disconcerting to hear the courts say that I must view a web page as its author intended. I get to choose how I view something. If I want to read a magazine back to front, I get to choose. If I want to filter the web content I view, I get to choose
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
put your gaming user, guest, default user, whatever in the normal users group (it might be called Restricted or Unprivledged), or make your hard disk unwritable except for a special partition or folder where saved games go.
Then they can't install spyware even if they wanted to, and if they did it'd be easy to find.
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
Their software preys on people who don't understand that a window doesn't neccessarily have to have a border and the familiar "windows blue bar" across the top. Therein lies the deception. (Or, at best, the scummy abuse of the common perception of what a "window" is.)
Also, your entire argument seems to be based on "people are allowed to install what they want on their computer." Your argument is totally irrelevant, because nobody is accusing the endusers of anything.
The companies paying for the ads are being damaged, but so are the people that do business with the sites whose ads are "overlaid." Since advertising is used to drive traffic and sales of goods and services, overlaying their ads takes away real sales. So the company must either post more ads to generate the same sales, or raise prices on goods to compensate for lesser sales.
So, the list of people harmed by Gator is as follows:
1) People who buy things on-line (through higher prices).
2) Companies who sell things on-line (through increased ad costs to achieve the same sales).
3) People who advertise through Gator, since they know the threat presented by Gator, and how easy it would be for Gator to "overlay" their ads if they were placed through a different advertiser.
4) Anybody who uses a computer on the net, since the success of scumware like Gator leads other people to write new, "better" scumware. The uproar and lawsuits just encourage them to make their software even more blatantly a "torpedo-install."
So far, the list of people who benefit from Gator is pretty short:
1) Gator itself.
Companies like Gator and WhereU.com are leeches. They exist not to create any innovative products or services for anybody, but only to siphon profits away from companies doing actual business. In the real (non-virtual) world, these people run protection schemes, gambling books, and hijack trucks, and are referred to by the name "mafia." Wonder if Gator's salespeople call on companies that they most often "overlay." Gee, wouldn't that be a huge coincidence...
No, they don't... They rely on people interpreting their use of the term "seperate window" incorrectly to get access to their machines.
I don't see where anybody has proven that. Most of the people I know with Gator on their machine want to know how to make it go away... This is also a deceptive lie, since the only "free software" you get from Gator is Gator itself.
No. Dis-allowing deceptive advertising practices harms only Gator (and their "competitors") and benefits everybody. It in no way means "no more non-browser apps" or "no-plugins", it means no deceptive advertising.
I think if you TRULY explained what Gator did to the people who have it installed, most would want it removed. Of course, uninstalling Gator can be a difficult, if not impossible task. I ended up re-installing Windows after my machine was accidentally infected with Gator. Ads just kept popping up, even after I removed it... "What a coincidence... Zero pop-ups ever, then millions after I uninstall the torpedo-ware."
Who did what now?
Watching the Los Angeles Dodgers game on ESPN last night, we noticed a strange banner ad for Sportscenter behind home plate. We then realized that was where a physical banner ad for Fox Sports West exists in the stadium. The ESPN ad was a digital overlay placed to cover-up the actual ad for their competitor.
I can't find a google reference, but I believe that Fox sued and lost. ESPN has the right to alter reality in broadcasting the game as they are broadcasting over their own network.
Users who have Gator on their machines against their will may have a computer intrusion case, under federal "exceeds authorized access" computer crime laws, but that wasn't what was litigated here.
you did uninstall SaveNow, but you didn't uninstall the hidden installer. Find out what program installed SaveNow, then you will be able to determine how it keeps re-instating it on the system.
Peruse you HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Current Version\Windows\Run and RunOnce registry entries and look for suspicious guys. Search the registry for anything to do with Savenow and see if it gets referenced from an unrelated place.
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
You think Linux users have this... where do you think Windows got that from? Same place we did...
Berkeley (hee hee)
I don't like that solution, however; the DNS error is quite annoying. Consider adding a small webserver that doesn't log 404s to increase browsing performance (and facilitate file sharing with friends).
Finally, some ad software is getting smart and fetching IPs to contact manually or on the fly, sans host-based DNS resolution.
Sigh.
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
Movable placards advertising Charlie's Angels 2 have been placed just in front of every poster advertising The Hulk. Hey, they're just an overlay. If you want to see the other poster, you just have to move them out of the way, right?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
You expect Joe Public to be able to comprehend the GUI of SS&D? Yeah right...
Ad-aware is MUCH cleaner and simpler to open and tart a scan with. This is *very* important simply because the people that most often have trouble with spyware are the same people who have less computer skills then us IT people.
Spybot's update link is buring in the tiny little "online" button on the side. Who is ever going to notice that unless they go through all the options? This is a CRITICAL component! What good is a virus scanner or spyware scanner without keeping updated ref files? Not good at all... Now look at Ad-Aware 6. As soon as you open it up, the first two options are START and Update Now. Simple, easy, and effective. The differences in the engine simply do not matter if the user can't easily keep it updated and easily find the START SCAN button.
Here's how it differs. The program is doing something that is substantially different than what the user believes it is doing. If you go up to somebody who has the Gator forms handler installed, and say "What does that program do?" they'll say "It fills in forms." If you say, "Do you have any programs installed that alter website advertising?", they'll say "No."
I don't think that users should be expected to understand every aspect of a program's operation. But I think that the fact that Gator does something substantially different than what the user believes, and that this subversion is unrelated to and unnecessary for its primary task, then it's different.
It can be argued that the EULA gives them permission to do stuff. But there's good legal arguments (from my understanding, but IANAL) that EULAs are unenforcable (based on a general rule about non-negotiable contracts). So here's a question. Does the act of installing a program give it license to do whatever it wants, or is it only allowed to do stuff that is part of its advertised purpose?
Personally, I think that it should not. Did the judge make the right call? I don't know enough about law to answer that. But if the judge ruled in accordance with the law, then perhaps the law should be changed.
"Bah humbug, mutter, gumble... "
Gumble? Really?
Who's the crackhead who moderated this as Insightful?
This isn't just a "billing dispute." Google refuses to pay the money because they claim mentioning the ads on the site and telling people to click the products they're interested in seeing is in some way against their Terms and Conditions.
In just four days, over $100 was made via clickthroughs. Google's story changed from e-mail to e-mail. They just don't want to pay up, and they feared the long-term expense of such a successful ad system on Slackers Guild.
Telephone call to customer service? God, you're an idiot. How about actually reading the link? Good thing I'm here to keep you and your crackhead moderator friend in line.
"Sufferin' succotash."