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."
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.
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
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).
No, because you don't own the billboards.
However, If you buy a magazine, you are perfectly free to paste any other ads over the ads printed in your copy of the magazine. After all, it's your property.
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.
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!!!
-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.
Yes, but both Fox News and CNN consent to allowing that to happen because they each have a 2 minute "local window" within every hour of programming, a commercial block that is specifically marked with metadata as belonging to the cable or DBS provider's ads. The cable/DBS company can then sell those ads to whomever they want, and that just happens to be a rival cable channel so be it. The stations view that as part of the deal they have to make to get onto the cable TV dial.
The difference here is that U-Haul has no relationship with WhenU at all... they'd rather WhenU simply go away.
...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.
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, 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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.