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."
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
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.
Sure you can, and a lot of us do. The issue is not quite the same. Most Gator installations are done without the knowledge of the person who has it altering their desktop. (Remember, the general populace will click YES to anything) The people advertising on the (insert site here) site paid for that space. The adware effectivelly -steals- the space the rival paid for.
It's like having something on your TV that replaces Pepsi with Coke in every Pepsi commercial you see. Pepsi would have every right to be annoyed and probably sue since they - not the adaware client - paid for the timeslot.
Never attribute to malice what can as easily be the result of incompetence...
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!!!
No, but it's legal for you to buy the plot of land next to the billboard and (subject to getting the proper construction permits) build a bigger board of your own in front of their board. Their board is still there unharmed, it just becomes useless because nobody can see it.
Or, simply put, we need the companies like Symantec to consider any program that is distributed by tag-along means to be a trojan horse virus (even if it does technically click a "Yes" somewhere in the sequence) and then wipes it out.
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.
story time
I work at a LAN gaming center in Quebec, Canada, and you wouldn't believe the number of people that install wether checkers, time precision and other assorted crap on our computers. I have to run Lavasoft's ad-aware every night to keep things semi-clean. The thing is, when the pop-up installer apperars, they see "you time/date/sex dosen't appear to be exact, press yes to install our software that keeps it exact for you, sponsored by GAIN". They don't know what GAIN is, and when confronted with our "no installing software" policy, they plead that they only wanted to help us out in keeping our stuff right.
right
They need to put all the info out BEFORE they install the goddamn program. That and I need to install Mozilla everywhere...
In Canada, we don't fancy things like socks
Maybe Judges, legislators, etc, would consider the consequences a little more if every half hour they get a pop-up on their screen with words similar to "You're an ass!", "Screw you, loser", and "Rebooting now, and there's nothing you can do about it either, because YOU agreed to the EULA, moron!"
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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.
It was CBS who had Dan Rather sitting in a Studio overlooking Times Square for Y2K coverage, but the famous Times Square Jumbotron has an NBC peacock on it and it's input is controled by NBC. CBS didn't want to allow NBC to control something going on behind Dan Rather's sholder, so they used a positional technology to cover up the jumbotron with a screensaverish animation of CBS logos. NBC complained loudly to anybody willing to listen, but nothing much came of it other than the fact that the existance of the change was pointed out.
Similarly, the owners of the real Times Square billboards complained that the recent Spiderman movie went to painstaking steps to recreate Times Square in their computer animations, but their billboards were forgotten and replaced with virtual billboards that were sold by by the moviemakers. They went to court telling about how much money they paid to obtain their billboard placements and how much it meant to them... and then they got laughed out of court.