Slashdot Mirror
Judge OKs Competitive Pop-Up Ads
Mirkon writes "A while back, U-Haul filed suit against adware giant WhenU for displaying competing advertisements to users as they browsed U-Haul's site. Friday, District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee's ruling dismissed U-Haul's suit, saying '...the fact is that the computer user consented to this detour when the user downloaded WhenU's computer software from the Internet,' and 'Alas, we computer users must endure pop-up advertising along with her ugly brother, unsolicited bulk e-mail, "spam," as a burden of using the Internet.' While the ruling was issued in the context of unfair competitive marketing, it's speculated that this will have broad implications in the fight against adware - and they aren't kind to the user. WhenU chief executive Avi Naider is unfortunately quoted as saying 'This is a victory for consumer choice -- it ultimately protects consumers' right to control what they see on their computer screens.'"
Consumer choice is what we all want. But, obviously, that comes with a responsibility to make the proper choices for ourselves. Hopefully, most people on Slashdot are capable of this.
Use Mozilla? Block all unrequested Pop-Up ad's. Or maby you should pay ATTENTION to what you click. Common sense helps too. An example what not to do: (Bob see's a pop up ad offering free money) Bob: "This is awesome! This is my lucky break!!!" *click* Computer: --Crash-- Just pay attention to what you click on, be aware of different browsers that can annihalate Pop up's. And don't click links that you don't trust.
OMG OMG OMG WTF OMG WTF BBQ STFU RTFM, OMFG OMG OMG OMG ROFL LMAO OMG WTF STFU ROFLMAO
I would like to voice my hate.
I haven't seen one pop up since I started using mozilla. That my friend is "controlling what I want to see"
'This is a victory for consumer choice -- it ultimately protects consumers' right to control what they see on their computer screens.'
Considering that many ad-ware and spy systems disguise themselves as fun download toys or much needed upgrades...
Judge Lee acknowledged that pop-up ads are often troublesome and annoying. "Alas, we computer users must endure pop-up advertising along with her ugly brother, unsolicited bulk e-mail, 'spam,' as a burden of using the Internet," he wrote.
Interesting comment
Is it an indication of the legal opinion at large? That we're going to be stuck with spam, and there isn't (nor will there be) any attempt to legislate an abatement to the flood
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
I haven't received one popup since I started using the new version of the Google Toolbar. Built in popup stopper.
Maybe if they told us what we were downloading, and everything in it, we would have rights. But they hide the facts until after you instal the software, and then you have to "find" how to "disable" the unwanted "features". I hope one of those "sinpers" picks executives from these companies.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Just because adware programs choose to put other ads on top doesn't stop me from putting a white image on top. Or perhaps not even loading the image in the first place.
Sure this is already possible and lots of people do it. But the legality was often in question. (You are allowed to view the contents of the site in exchange for viewing the ads) Now with this ruling it isn't anymore.
Ad blockers are proven legal in court. That is cause for celebration isn't it?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Warning, the above code is intended for educational purposes only. Do not embed it in any web page.
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
Whahoo. I am excited now. I am glad to know that some jugde just decried that I accepted Spam and other unsolicited garbage when I hooked up to the internet. Last time I checked, I hooked up to the internet so that I could get information that I wanted. Spam, eta al, I did not want. Then the other problem I have is that who really consents to the dumb software? I mean, how many of you actually know that you installed ad-ware when you download a program. They don't exactly you that you installed ad-ware. I have sent a whole bunch of emails to Gator yelling at them and asking how on earth to get the trash off my computer. They never respond. I guess this what you get when you run Windows. Worse yet, this is what happens when a judge rules on something that he knows nonething about.
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
Even though we all hate ad-ware and we know the average computer user is vunerable to it, the judge just can't find WhileU guilty when the user installed the program.
DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE
okOn the one hand, I hate spyware and I'd like to see any blow struck against it in any way,
But on the other hand, it could be irritating in the long run if it were illegal to have certain software running at certain times, and I don't really understand the grounds for U-Haul's side
How many times has Gator and their ilk created tertiary annoyance? (tertiary annoyance being a friend asking you, mr computer person, to take it off because it is blatantly annoying them)
These users never requested such software to be placed on their machines, they simply downloaded other software with which it is bundled.
This ruling was based on the idea that the user chose to have such a program on their machine. Obviously the judge was not one who has used the internet very heavily.
"this is the gloaming"
radiohead
Here's the headline: As much as WhenU's invasive popups and banner ad coverups stink, you have a right to have software do whatever you want to the websites you view. You also have the right to agree to any EULA you want. So, if you install a program that has an EULA that says it's gonna kidnap your web browser, and you say yes, you're stuck with it.
U-Haul can't go to court and say that WhenU is interfering with their website when their program pops up competitor's ads when you visit U-Haul's site. U-Haul's site isn't being hacked, it's just that the user is using a program that supplies the ads. You're free to run any ad blocking, subtracting, or adding program you want. And WhenU isn't hacking anybody's machine, their EULA says what they're gonna do so no crying foul when they actually do it.
Yep, as dump as WhenU's program is, if you click "Yes" on an EULA you're presumed to have read it and presumed to understand it and presumed to have liked it. Let the browser beware, if you welcome a adbot onto your system, nobody's gonna save you from yourself.
between the devil we know and the devil we don't.
Okay, fine, popups are legal. That particular devil we know very well, and I gots my armor of righteousness loaded up at boot. But if popups (even competitive ones) become illegal, then who knows what the poodlefuckers will come up with next.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Maybe this epidemic will help convince people to read those software licenses more carefully, but I am doubtful. Though after I explained to my mother what spyware was and she read the article the other day in the New York Times, she has told me she's going to be much more careful about what she downloads and runs, even if a friend recommends it.
Is there any centralized archive of malicious and/or spyware programs that surreptitiously modify users' computers or cause other undesired side effects and resist uninstallation? You know, something I could tell people like my mother to use to check out a piece of software to see if it's legitimate before they install it and cause a mess that somebody else has to fix? If not, there should be.
Someone needs to design a simple "anti-stupidity" tutorial and convince the major systems manufacturers to have it come up the first time a browser is launched.
You know, common sense things like:
- Everything you see while on the internet is written by other people. Just because it is there does not always mean that it is true.
- Just because something is flashing and saying "CLICK HERE" does not mean that you have to click on it. Some companies will do just about anything to trick you.
- Don't click "Yes" to strange prompts without reading them carefully. You may be agreeing to something that is not in your best interest.
- Don't be afraid to ask other people for help, but make sure to get an explanation so that you do not have to ask again.
WhenU chief executive Avi Naider is unfortunately quoted as saying 'This is a victory for consumer choice -- it ultimately protects consumers' right to control what they see on their computer screens.'"
In other words, the consumers are empowered... because they have the right to control exactly which flavour of crap gets shoved into their mouths.
Well, this could be a turning point for either side. I see a few possibilities:
1) Nothing changes, and these pop-up ads become more intrusive and more bold
2) These ruling collides with the NY Times suit against Gator, and this gets kicked up a few notches in the legal system
3) Legislators change the law, by just the right amount. They essentially stay out of it, but require explicit, unambiguous disclosure before engaging in these type of shenanigans
4) Legislators decide to over-legislate, and provide an implicit endorsement of Palladium or some Ashcroftian scheme under the guise of protecting people. And the nanny state advocates (on the left & right) will be happy.
Let's hope it ends in either option 2 or option 3.
This is a good thing; I disagree with the negative tone.
The judges reasoning is sound. If it were otherwise: Do you think it would be illegal for a future web browser to not display what it detects to be advertisements? Mozilla pop-up blocking might be deemed illegal as well, if the judge reasoned otherwise.
With a purposeful grimace and a terrible sound
He pulls the spitting web pages down
Helpless people using IE
Scream bug-eyed as the pop ups flee
He picks up an ad and he throws it back down
As he wades through the pages clicking on down
Oh no, they say he's got to go
Go go Mozilla, yeah
Oh no, there goes another ad
Go go Mozilla, yeah
Isn't posting something like this coming dangerously close to violating The Patriot Act (or something).
Not all of us have to...
"To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking
I'm using iCab under Mac OS 8.6.
Click one radio button in the JavaScript preferences and no more pop ups, ever!
iCab rocks under the Classic Mac operating systems and is also available an OS X native application.
Opera 6 also has a pop up killing option, but it's kind of clunky with older slower Macs running OS 8/OS 9.
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
I don't know if this software is commonly bundled with other software so that a common user isn't aware they are installing it. Regardless, this has nothing to do with a supposed intended purpose. Just as p2p shouldn't be made illegal for a side effect. Since when did price comparison become illegal?
ZEN is a prime number in base-36
Thanks to my adware-proof OS and my popup resistent browser the most attention I have to give to this problem is to gloat about my superiority. What? You say this sets a precident for spam? What? Despite my computational superiority I'm single and a struggling student? Damn. Now I'm not superior anymore. I'll stop gloating.
Only in a Slashdot fantasy can a Slackware install turn into several hours of sex . . . . .
"While at first blush this detour in the user's Web search seems like a siphon-off of a business opportunity, the fact is that the computer user consented to this detour when the user downloaded WhenU's computer software from the Internet," Lee said.
That sounds like a good ruling to me.
Since it certainly means that the user can consent to software which blocks ads on certain web sites without the web site owners being able to claim the user's are "stealing"
Not unless the patriot act violates the first amendment. Oh, that's right. This is the Internet. The first amendment doesn't apply.
If you install software that show's you a competitors ads every time to go to Uhaul.com, then you've CHOSEN (however unwisely or naively) to make your computer display those ads. Just like if you've installed a popup blocker, you've chosen to have the popups blanked out or eliminated. And no judge has a right to tell you that you can't instruct your comptuer to do either of those things.
"This is a victory for consumer choice -- it ultimately protects consumers' right to control what they see on their computer screens." WTF! I dont wanna see popups! as another reader mentioned ... mozilla(fb) does a very good job at this!
that's my point of view anyway ... but what's this idiot saying? Popping Pop[Up/Under]'s give people control. Where is the control? (apart from popup killing) ??? serious!
The decision was in the Eastern District Court of Virginia. That's a state court, not federal, and it doesn't even cover an entire state. And Virginia is ass-backwards anyhow, when it comes to internet-related law (see: UCITA). So for the tiny percentage of U.S. citizens actually affected by Virginia's stupidity, I suggest you move.
In fact, this is not all about consumer choice. If I got a small bar on the bottom that said "do you want to see competetive pricing for bob.com from frank.com" that would be competetive. Overriding my visit to bob.com with a bunch of frank.com bullshit is not choice any more than having the advertisement epoxied to my nose would be...
I walk into a store, for which the construction and lease/purchase was paid for by the owner, and I do not expect to see any advertising for a competitor. This seems to make sense, as the store owner paid for the store, and has the right to choose what is in the store.
I browse to a company site, for which the creation and hosting and domain name is paid for by the owner, yet the owner does not have total control over what I see. Is the spanner in this the fact that I (or someone on my behalf *cough*) pay for my connection, and I have agreed to a 3rd party 'facilitating' or 'augmenting' this visit in some way?
I guess this is a question that will become more frequently asked, as advertisers and their agents come up with increasingly convoluted methods of gaining the attention of consumers. Who ultimately has the right to state what we see, when we visit sites on the web.
The Mothership
http://pheared.net/iecrash.html
How can you make a choice when they hide what you are getting? Look at Real Media if you do not understand. Do you want your "MP3 player" sending info to some website about what you listen to, but not telling you unless you look for it under preferances-->tools-->settings-->hidden-->secret-- >we'reassholes-->nochanges-->readonly?
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
When judges make their rulings, they have two things to go by. First, they look at the letter of the law. If the law is clear on a specific point, the Judge will usually rule along those lines.
Oftentimes, the law isn't sufficiently clear about something. So judges generally look for past rulings made on related issues. They then make their ruling based on the precedents that other judges have laid down in the past. Today's ruling on pop-ups is a terribly bad thing, because other judges are likely to use it to decide future pop-up cases.
Of course, as other posters have pointed out, there are tools that users can employ to block all pop-ups. The Mozilla browser can solve this problem once and for all.
I guess the question is, how long most users remain clueless about pop-ups and spam, and ignorant about how to block these intrusions. Right now, it's mainly the tech-savvy population that knows how to do this. But I bet in five years' time, all dominant web and email clients will automatically block pop-ups and spam. With any luck, that will render stupid precedents like today's meaningless, and will send wretched companies like WhenU where they belong.
I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
Look at it this way: if the consumer's choice to install a program that substitutes pop-ups trumps the web site's desire to display their pop-ups, then my choice to install software that blocks pop-ups period also trumps the web site's desire to display their pop-ups.
The judge is basically saying "the user agreed to this behavior by clicking on the 'I agree' option for the license"
This is further evidence of the need for some responsibilities in licensing. They give people a huge legalese document, and require agreement before continuing. As if you could call your lawyer and have her come over and read through the document and approve it. What a joke..
If companies are going to be allowed to have these huge rights based on shrink wrap or click through licenses, they should be required to provide more information to offset the confusion.
There should be a group that establishes a licensing baseline for software and web services. The group would need to have representation from legitimate industry and a citizen's advocate group. They could establish the licensing norms, or averages that everyone could know, and compare other licenses against.
Then, when companies want to have a legal agreement based on these flimsy implicit actions (open a software box, click on an installer), they would be required to hire a legal analyst to interpret the license into simple language, and rate it on a number of aspects like restrictions of usage, ability to re-sell, reverse engineering, etc. And carry those ratings prominently on the outside of the box, or before the web click through.
If they are going to benefit from these legal rights, it's about time that we require them to take some responsibility! Damn, where's Ralph Nader. We should pitch this idea to him.
Making a web browser that doesn't reproduce the websites in the way the authors intended it is an absolutely legal thing to do.
Not in the USA it isn't. The USA has a law, 17 USC 1201, that prohibits circumvention of access controls around a copyrighted work in the general case.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Couldn't spyware and the like be considered the same as long distance phone "slamming" ?
Naider is practicing what George Orwell called NewSpeak in the novel 1984. NewSpeak is the deconstruction of language so that it loses all its meaning even as it gains a pseudo-patriotic emotional tone. Disagree with NewSpeak and eventually you become a Thought Criminal (DMCA anyone?). Tell me how Naider's asinine statement is any different from some of Orwell's classics:
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Check out this site for a NewSpeak dictionary and other interesting stuff. In a world filled with PR bullshit from Microsoft, RIAA, SCO, and [fill in favorite political party here], there are damned few "victories for consumer choice," and ignorance is not strength, it's dire peril.
This is the right ruling, despite the controversy surrounding pop-up ads. WhenU did not hijack or hack U-Haul's site. They did not affect U-Haul's property, the website. All it did was place a pop-up ad in the browser when the software detects the user is at site X. It is the responsibility of the consumer to understand what they install and use on their computer. This information is available prior to downloading, and there are sites such as http://www.spywareguide.com/ and others. It is not the duty of the software manufacturer to ensure that each and every consumer is fully aware of the software's abilities and implications, as this would place an undue burden on the manufacturer. Similiarly, one cannot purchase a Kia and then sue Kia for not going into detail why they should not purchase a Kia, or sue the maker of a blade coffee bean grinder because you did not purchase a burr coffee bean grinder. There are many sources to gain information on a product, from magazines, to the Internet, to word of mouth. It is for the consumer to inform himself so that he may make wise purchasing decisions, and he must bear the consequences of his mistakes, assuming the product is not defective, as commonly understood by law. The WhenU product was not defective, as it informs the potential user of its abilities and features. If the user foolishly does not take the time to avail himself of this information, he has only himself to blame.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The laws of the United States are based in our founding document, the constitution.
Since this is clearly at bottom a First Amendment case, we need to consider what the Framers meant when they set down the words "Congress shall not restrict freedom of speech." Would men like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison or Thomas Paine really have meant those words to protect obnoxious junk like spam email or pop-up ads? The answer is clearly no.
This ruling should be overturned on appeal.
Oh, they're not new. We've had moron overlords for centuries.
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
I guess if the dupe is two months old it is easier to get it past the editors...
This decision really is good for users. Had the judge ruled the other way, he would have been saying that it is illegal to display a Web page in a way that the creator does not approve of. Think about the significance of such a ruling. There was a program a couple of years back (I forget the name) that allowed its users to attach comments to particular pages that could be seen by other users of the program. So, if users wanted to make fun of a corporate site, they could do so. The Web site itself if not changed, but the end user is seeing associated content diaplayed by an entirely different piece of software.
I hate adware as much as anyone else, but this case wasn't about adware in and of itself. It was about the fact that the adware was displaying a competitor's ad when people went to U-Haul's site. Had the program been designed to simply block ads, I expect a suit would've also been filed. Had the judge not ruled as he did, he would've set the precedent that any software that changes a site is illegal. If that were the case, you'd start to see popup blockers being targeted by companies angry that their ads are being blocked. Ditto for software that removes banners.
No, the judge made the correct decision.
I would bet that it is safe to say that this group (Slashdot) is at least slightly more aware of bad EULAs and some of the nasty aspects of technology.
At the same, I would bet that fewer than 20% of us actually go through and read the EULA (I just submitted this as a poll). Given that very very few people overall actually take the time to read these -AND- everyone knows that very few people bother, it does seem reasonable to think that there should be some standard limitations on what the program can do.
If WhenU's EULA stated that the boot sector would be wiped clean after the popup appears, would that be ok???
Hunger is the best sauce.
I wish people would stop spewing out "Hey look at me! I use Mozilla! I don't see popups! I must be smarter than you!" Well I use IE and I don't see popups either, thanks to the Google toolbar. And no, I don't give a damn if Mozilla did it earlier.
The less laws on the internet the better. You shouldn't combat UCE and ads with
litigation, but with technical might.
The ruling is not about popups.
The ruling is about software the user installed on his or her computer that creates popups.
I have to agree with the judge on this one, if a user installs something on thier own machine that interferes with a websites marketing, the owner of that website has no right to disable or to dictate how that software works.
If the user did not know what the software did, then the user should not have installed it.
And the user should be using Mozilla (or a derivative) anyway, with popups disabled.
Read, L
When mincy little faggots such as yourself figure out how to crash IE. Big fucking challenge there, eh?
Yet somehow the ever-challenging hyperlink eludes you.
I'm totally a-pheared of your elite hacking skills, man.
Lots of people seem to think that regulation is the solution to overly long and/or complex EULAs. I disagree - I say let the market decide.
If an EULA is just too complex, what a user should do is reject it and take their business elsewhere. The company presenting the EULA will have to fix it, or die in the marketplace.
The only problem at the moment is people blindly clicking 'Yes' because they don't think it matters - perhaps once enough people are burnt this will change.
(For the record: I happen to believe that EULAs on products you've already paid for (ie you only see them once you break the shrinkwrap and run the installer) should not be binding, but for a different reason - you've already bought the product and the conditions of sale can't change after the sale is completed.)
District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee's ruling dismissed U-Haul's suit, saying '...the fact is that the computer user consented to this detour when the user downloaded WhenU's computer software from the Internet,'
They should consider themselves lucky. It's not every day that Bruce Lee dismisses something without some serious ass kicking...
As soon as the adware marketing plan is fully legitimized, then there will be tons of things that include adware. All computers will come equipped from the manufacturer with adware installed.
imagine the day when ISPs begin maximizing their profits by piping ad information into your machine. I doubt that the judge (who I suspect will be justly compensated for his ruling) has a clue about what he is unleashing.
Speaking of adware, I installed mouse a month ago. The friggin mouse program had an adware component. It won't be just free ware and trojans. Adware and spyware will be in everything. There will be no consumer choice.
Remember to wipe when-u...
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Windows/IE is the simplest browsing option out there for sure. Case in point being that it can be sold, supported and used by simpletons.
Unfortunately for all the schmoes who use IE and don't know how to install a plugin, I don't see Microsoft adding popup blocking to IE any time soon. Microsoft is in the content business with MSNBC and people in the content business still seem to see popups as a revenue source instead of a turnoff to most of their customers.
...but this is a good thing. The overall thrust of the ruling is that you can install software that does things large companies don't like - specifically, that interfere with their marketing alerts you to competitors offers, and otherwise helps you (at least in theory). This is good - if you doubt it, imagine the reverse. What if U-Haul had WON, and now there was a precedent saying that U-Haul got to micromanage my desktop and browsing experience at that level?
The specific details of the ruling benefits some nasty adware, sure - but the problems with the adware aren't that it pops up ads - there's nothing wrong, per se, with software that does that - IF YOU WANT TO INSTALL THAT SOFTWARE. (Sorry for shouting.) What's wrong is the deceptive tricks used to get the adware installed, and that is NOT at all related to the decision. I dislike WhenU, and have no beef with U-Haul, but this was still the right decision.
I'll say it again - a judge just ruled that you have the rights of control over your browsing experience that you'd expect. This is good. Step two, of course, is getting some rulings mandating disclosure and truth-in-advertising for the adware providers, but that is, and should be, a seperate issue.
nobody's gonna save you from yourself
.doc files on your computer with advertisement for my computer after you accept the EULA? Is that legal? You "DECIDED" to install it and you accepted the EULA, didn't you?
Considering the stupidity of the general web-browsing populous, maybe this (saving people from themselves) is exactly the type of legislation we need... what if I write some "adware" that replaces all
Of course, by "you" I mean "those of you who barely know how to turn a computer on"...
~Berj
I'm sure some genious can make a java app that will remove or stop any active adware prior to the page loading so it's ad's will show up on the page.
I dont really understand this ruling since the judge is basically saying that anyone can overwrite another's ad's. Now what about television.. networks pay millions for ad's just like they do in the internet so what's different.. is it now okay for directtv to overwrite ad's on CNN to advertis Foxnews?
Different types of pop-ups handling methods deserve special distinction and treatment by the law. I find judges that want to make blanket statements to the effect of "the user/WhenU/Gator can do whatever he wants to his computer" ignorant.
Just my 4 cents (mostly due to inflation)
The average person simply doesn't understand the implications of installing browser plug-ins. Most users are using Internet Explorer, and the default settings of Internet Explorer allow the individual to be prompted for plugins that have security certificates. These security certificates are in and of themselves a ruse, since "trusted" source only means the spyware company bought a certificate from someone like Verisign. The average user, however, sees all this and says "hey, why not, must be ok, right?"
The real solution here is to develop good habits in users, including the use of alternative non-M$ browsers/OS, changing default browser settings to enable the installation of possibly only the most common plug-ins like Flash/Shockwave, automatic set up of Javascript-disabling and ad-disabling CSS, pop-up and cookie control apps and settings, firewall apps, hosts files, and of course the regular use of programs such as Spybot and Ad-Aware. The amount of spyware/malware that I find on computers is phenomenal, and when I consult for individuals or families they are always astounded at the amount of this crap on their computer. Particularly when I explain to them what's going on, they invariably get quite angry at the peddlers of this junk. They always say "well nobody told us about this." I lament that I am the first.
Maybe it's time for the geek community to develop some altruistic marketing schemes and start educating the public at large about what's out there. Until M$ fixes a horribly broken set of Internet access apps, someone has to fill that void. Any takers?
At its heart, it says the user can look at a webpages they way they want to, and that the consumer is respocible for there computer.
I have yet to find a spyware program that does not say what it does in the eula.
And if a user didn't read the eula, they're an idiot and its there own damn fault.
Yes eulas ar long and confusing, but they will stay that way until people stop clicking through them and complain.
If you find a piece of sodtware that is instaling stuff it doesn't tell you or doesn't have reasonable cause to be doing so, then take that company to court.
It is your resposibilty to make people you know aware of these things. get them pissed off at these comapnies and tell them how to take action.
Be sure your mother circulates that article from the tiimes to all her friends.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
But it is our choice. We are supposed to read the EULA and disclaimers. That nobody does because they are too long doesnt invalidate them as a contract. It would be dangerous when the judge had ruled otherwise, that would have massive consequences for our freedom of choice.
Too many people simply are afraid to learn what it takes to use their computer. Unless they are willing to learn what it takes to take control of their computer others are in the position to take control of it.
Of those to whom much is given, much is required.
Every piece of spyware I've ever deleted was first mentioned in the license agreement of the "freeware" program or utility it was bundled with, and the user had to okay the installation before the spyware popup diverter was installed. That sounds like "told us" to me. The trick is, you actually have to read what you're agreeing to.
Do they require a measurable IQ before you're allowed to be a judge in the US Federal Court system?
U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee also placed some of the responsibility for those ads on computer users, saying they voluntarily agree to them, even if they do so unwittingly.
I'm sorry, but what the fuck is that? It's either voluntary or it's unwitting. You can't have both.
However, the point the judge mangled here is irrelevent anyhow when it is applied to WhenU. People do not willingly or voluntarily run crapware like WhenU Savenow. RTFA again and note this sentence:
"Naider said users had the right to decide for themselves whether to see pop-up advertisements, noting that 70 percent of the 100 million who have downloaded SaveNow have uninstalled it."
The owner himself admits that 70 million people have discovered his crap on their machine and removed it. That sounds about right to me. The other 30 million probably haven't figured out what's causing all the fucking pop ups yet.
Again, people do not willingly install this shit. Either some affiliate distributor snuck it into the installer without disclosing it, they buried a disclosure on page 90 of the clickthrough agreement in that annoying little box that you can't resize, or people just didn't realize that Kazaa's "partner" is about to install a pop up factory.
Yeah, I know, "read the goddamn EULA". How long have click through EULAs been around? And most people still don't read the damned things. It is pretty obvious that people are intuitively going to ignore the EULA. They don't want to read that it doesn't come with a warranty and they don't want care about the distribution license. They want to install the damn thing and start using it. Spyware companies like WhenU know this and count on it.
People do not seek out and install Savenow, or Gator's Offer Companion, or Ezula Top Text, or Morpheus Wurld Media. They are parasites that are bundled along with whatever the user is installing, and they might or might be disclosed or optional depending on the ethics of the software developer bundling it. In some cases, this shit will install through activex loading from pop up ads. Xupiter and lop.com does shit like that.
I agree that the user has the right to run software that changes a web page in any fashion he/she chooses. Absolutely. Obviously. The judge got that right. However, he got it wrong that users wanted Savenow to run and do what it does.
The issue isn't about users deciding to run software that popped up ads with "relevant, competing offers". The issue is that Savenow is an unwanted parasite infecting a user's machine AND stealing revenue from web site owners by presenting advertisements based on the content of that web site.
That is why U Haul sued them. That is why UPS and the New York Times and others sued Gator.
For those of you among the 30 million infected with WhenU's shit and wondering where all the pop ups are coming from, go here and ask at that message board there. They'll find every single trace of spyware and show you how to clean all that shit off within half an hour.
On a different note...
"Alas, we computer users must endure pop-up advertising along with her ugly brother unsolicited bulk e-mail, spam, as a burden of using the Internet," he wrote.
What the hell? Has this person ever been on the internet? Must we also endure billboards dropped onto the highway in front our cars and strapped to the rear bumper? That's all pop ups and pop unders are as far as I'm concerned.
Try using Firebird. I haven't seen a bulk ad or pup-up since I switched form mozilla. Even mozilla stopped almost every popup. It will run where you uncompress it, so you don't need privileges to install it. Download a plugin (aka extensions) called AdBlock. Go into the normal options and turn off unrequested popups. Also set the options so that only images from the originating server are downloaded. With AdBlock, you can block images by name server (ex. ads.x10.com). There is a comprehensive list that you can output in many block formats here).
This is NOT a troll. You may not agree, but it is not a troll.
I think someone should give the above a try, techinicly it will be legal but after that the general public is (eh, i guess /should/ is a better word) be made quite a bit more aware of the dangers of these assinine eulas.
Even better would be a self-propigating worm with a click-through eula that pops up when you get infected (your average user wont think anythings wrong and will more then likly think they asked it to pop-up) and then do the above. Itd be quite a problem when the new york times has to either not put out a paper or put one out with no stories because theyve all been changed to ads.
He is obviously not in a position to make either of those illegal, but it would have been preferable if he had dismissed the case altogether. I am not a lawyer, but the judge is, and if he had any talent, I'm sure he could have found a pretext for booting both parties up the bum.
You are an idiot. It is true. Look at Real Player. By the time you figure out what data they collect and send, it is too late to do anything. And they purposfully give you a two pages with unchecked boxes about collecting data, but if you go three pages down you see boxes checked about them monitoring you and collecting data. Tell me they did not do that on purpose. You are an asshole for modding it down. I do not care. Plus, PC's are supposed to be about ease of use. What is easy about searching for a control panel on some software which was burried so you can disable data collection.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Basically, this case decided that *U-Haul* couldn't complain against WhenU's system on the grounds they chose to argue. This is a good thing; if a system *like* WhenU's existed that *didn't* suck - say, a Mozilla sidebar that would automatically Pricewatch search for you; heck, "What's Related..." is even closer - we wouldn't want the 'big bad company' controlling our viewing. If you can't run WhenU, then should you be able to run a word processor, when you could be using it to complain about a product? Do we have to prove 'substantial non-infringing use' for *every* software on our machines before we can visit corporate sites?
But on the same token, yes, WhenU sucks. So file a separate lawsuit, targeting the deceptive *installation* practices, not the content. And if you lose that one, petition for laws against deceptive installations, not laws protecting corporate interests.
Why's this so hard?
This ruling doesn't really bear on whether clicking "Yes" on a EULA necessarily means that you really agree. It just means that U-Haul can't say you don't. If some users sued WhenU over this behaviour, the result might be very different. WhenU hasn't hacked U-Haul's site, but they could still be judges to have hacked the user's machine.
NT
Never email donotemail@WeAreSpammers.com
This is a great ruling, because if it went the other way it could be a serious precedent against ad-blocking or rendering HTML the way you like it on YOUR computer you bought with your own money on your internet connection.
The problem, as usual, is shady companies and non-vigilant consumers. Its amazing how many tech managers still don't understand the dangers of spyware: non-trivial information being sent to third-parties. This is nothing compared to a virus, especially if you work in an industry where privacy is to be expected and legally protected like law or medicine. I'm smelling the class actions that will one day wake these clueless managers from their slumber when private information about a case or a disease makes it to the hands of doubleclick or gator.
If anything spyware itself should be under the gun through better warnings (like the big ass warning google gives you when you try to install their toolbar). That's good business and respects the consumer.
http://www.proxomitron.info/ - The Proxomitron (popup, banner, webbug, everything bad on the net killer)
http://security.kolla.de/ - Spybot Search & Destroy (spyware/keylogger/trojan killer)
http://www.free-av.com/ - AntiVir (virus scanner)
http://www.zonelabs.com/ - ZoneAlarm (firewall)
http://methlabs.org/methlabs.htm - PeerGuardian (anti-RIAA blocklist)
Start with those, clear your own systems and then most importantly, EDUCATE others to use them and understand why they need them.
Quizo69
Visceral Psyche Films
Maybe I'm living in a shell or something, but what are these good pop-ups you speak of?
Speaking about ad-ware. Anyone remember the big stink Award/Pheonix brought about when they attempted to install a spy.. I mean.. ad-ware program hardwired into the BIOSes?
!@#$% whole-grain cereal. When I want fiber, I eat some wicker furniture. - G. Carlin
The google toolbar has been updated and has a really nice pop-up blocker feature. You should give it a try.
Do you like the fact thar your grocery store sells your purchasing habits to other parties if you sign onto their "membership" to get the "member discounts"?
Of course you don't.
Do you likely like it less than paying more for groceries?
Absolutely.
When you get down to it, two things are true:
1) Creating stuff costs money.
2) Many customers would prefer to pay for stuff through inconvenience or transfer of information instead of payment of money.
This is reality. If you don't like it, pay more for products that don't do what you don't like.
paintball
>> That's funny... I'm using mozilla on win2k here and it copies and pastes just perfectly. To what are you referring, exactly?
I haven't used Mozilla proper for quite a while, but have used Firebird for cut and paste. Whereas cut & paste a web page from IE into Word will get you something that still looks like a web page, cut and paste from Firebird will get you left justified courier text. Tables get especially messed up. There are probably enough Microsoft undocumented features in the cutting and pasting of web pages where making it work would prove difficult.
For more information about the case brought by U-Haul and others visit WhenUSucks.com. They have a list of PDF complaints against WhenU and responses near the bottom. While I know U-Haul was not doing this to stop WhenU and protect consumers they we're doing it to stop customers from seeing Budget ads when they visit Uhaul.com I for one was happy to see my employeer doing this. This sort of backdoor advertising is sleazy and preys on Internet users who cannot or will not read all the details of the software they install.
I work for a large computer retailer in .au as a computer service technician and all I get day in, day out is people with spyware on their machine. The most common is obviously Kazaa, imesh, bonzi buddy, whenU, xupiter, etc. This is a disturbing trend. Are people getting dumber, or lazier, or are these companies just getting smarter.
I recommend to customers the good old windows fix for most. Format/install.
Not only will this get rid of the stupid software but it may teach them a valuable lesson.
Another thing to note is that HP/Compaq whack spyware on their machines. For years HP have been using "Backweb" to download crap to customers computers. I've never actually seen it work in the 10 years I've worked with computers!
Worse still, they have started putting "Wild Tangent Game Channel" on their pcs by default.
My proposition is some ubergeek out there should write a virus like the MSblast but 3 things should happen:
1. Giant-ass DDoS attack on gator.com, bonzi.com, whenu.com, aol.com (okay, maybe not that last one)
2. User gets "you are a sucker for installing on your system. You will now go to hell - hope you have backups" on the screen followed by
3. fdisk
Maybe then people will start reading licencing agreements...
You moved your mouse. Please restart Windows for changes to take effect.
Why is this a good thing? Well, think of the alternative. People dictating how a web page must be rendered? Where would style sheets be in this world? Would there have to be a federally dictated "standard rendering" to say how HTML should be displayed so that users don't bastardize it to their own ends by replacing or removing ads?
And, if the answer is no, then how do you propose wording a law that would prevent overwriting ads on a web page while not requiring such a standard?
And what of lynx, hmmm? It completely doesn't show the content in the standard format. Ban it? Only have the law apply to graphical browsers? See what I'm getting at? It's a pain in the ass.
Far better to have the freedom and let it be. If you don't want the adware, don't click the "I Agree" button. No one is forcing these people to install adware, for heaven's sake. What ever happened to personal responsibility?
Stop the legal insanity!
I found myself with WhenU software installed on my computer. (Just for the record, I am reasonably techno-literate, and did not click on the "Yes!" button myself. I blame my family, but that's another story altogether.)
Now, the constant ads were only mildly irritating. But I thought, "Hey! I can always use Add/Remove Programs to get rid of this." So I removed WhenU, and my machine was happy.
Until, that is, I rebooted. And it was back, with its stupid pop-ups.
Now I got really annoyed, and downloaded AdAware. It found WhenU, and removed it. Phew.
Until, again, I rebooted. Damned thing was back again.
(Finally AdAware Pro got rid of it, but that is frankly ridiculous.)
Now, I don't know about EULAs. But when a software package REINSTALLS itself without asking you, when you have specifically tried to uninstall it, now that is unethical.
If there is anyway Slashdotters can suggest that would help me inflict much pain on WhenU executives, that would be greatly appreciated...
--- My dad's political betting
Ok, now I'm going to preface this with the statement I've been known to spout my mouth off and look like an idiot before, and this COULD be one of those times. I also did not read any of the other info on it other than what was in the description.
It would seem to me that the stock response is that "Adware is bad and this is going to hurt the consumers!"
As far as I can see, the only thing UHaul complained about was the fact that the adware would popup ads for another truck rental company over top the UHaul page. Accordingly, the whole existence of adware was not at stake, simply the fact that instead of a popup ad for a competing company, the content of the popup would have to be something else, say, herbal viagra, or none at all.
So the adware would have been rendered less effective in this one case, which as I see it, is probably a pretty limited case, affecting the number of popups minimally. I don't have much experience with adware, since I have a Mac and most of my Window's experience is using university computers, which lack any adware (at least the ones I've used). But I would assume that this type of popup is usually pretty rare compared to the random, unrelated popup.
A slightly similar metaphor would be walking into a convienence store and wanting to purchase a 20 oz. Coke. You go to open the refrigerator door, and lo and behold, on the window is an add for the new Pepsi Vanilla in between you and the Coke itself. I don't know if that's illegal, but I doubt it.
And another thing to consider, these are actually, in my opinion, the least annoying ads. You go to see what the rates are for UHaul, and you have an ad popping up that includes a deal for 50% off at a competitor. We might ignore it on principle, whereas mom and dad might look at it, and say, "Hey! I'll compare the two places!" It might even save them money.
Compare that to me receiving e-mails for viagra, which is of little use to a 20 y/o. Or most of us.
Ads that are reaching their correct target audience are generally not as "bad" as untargetted ads.
So I guess to sum it up, yes, adware == bad, but the effect of this ruling was probably minimal, but if the ruling was the other way around, it would probably have had a minimal affect as well. So either people decided not to read even the description and just go off of the keyword "Adware", or I should have read a bit more. Please feel free to explain why I'm an idiot if I am...:D!
Blake
that offered web surfers the opportunity to kill off the spy ware While-U by visiting the U Haul website. Ie you go to Uhaul, it discreetly checks for spy ware, if you're a gumbie user (ie vulnerable to the while-u crap), then you won't notice but U-Haul can then automatically offer to kill the while-U for you. Complete with exploding Tie fighter effects.
-- it must be true, it's on the internet.
I can't quite abide these marketing vermin (kill 'em all sez I!) thinking they have the right to redirect me to what THEY want me to see.
;)
Of course, I don't HAVE to see their excreta-I use a Mac and I run Mozilla. I only see the ads I WANT to see.
But if anything this just proves we need better educated judges sitting for cases like this one. There is no way you can read the first amendment that makes this sort of thing legitimate. Spammers and marketers have no right to a free audience. Especially since they have to take such underhanded means to FORCE it into my attention. I have the right to live unmolested by unwanted advertising. A SMART judge would understand this point.
Live ad free or die!
... some malicious sites actually have web pages that will download the software without even telling you. I've quit using IE except when necessary because of this.
If a corporation is allowed to sell end user products that change advertisements on websites then a corporation is also allowed to sell end user products that remove those advertisements completely.
If programs that remove advertisements from web sites are legal then it would make sense that programs that remove advertisements from e-mail are legal too.
And suddenly all those real time spam black lists are legal again. Rejoice!
Antti S. Brax - Old school - http://www.iki.fi/asb/
get used to it. doesn't make it right.
we're learing to avoid sites with the jump-you ads, as a means to let the posters of them know how we feel.
if you 'sign up' for something, inadvertantly or not, you're the won who must make it/your system "right".
"the biggest fear of the 'rich' (aka: corepirate nazis, aka: the walking dead), is that the poor (see also: MOST of US) might rise up & eat them" (or beat them, at their owned 'game').
when a court informs us that we do not have
the right to control the ads that are placed
and viewed on our own web sites. I understand
that this is a third-party software, that the
web site viewer is using, but wow! Isn't there
some way for web sites to temporarily block
these, just like f***microsoft.org can block
me when I'm using my Windoze box? Or like some
sites block you from viewing them if you have a
pop-up blocker running? As someone who owns a
business and has a web site for same, I find
it objectionable that ads for a rival could
be viewed by my customers... Luckily, for me,
those with bigger guns (ie, LOTS of money) are
fighting this thing.
If a nice, well-muscled group of young men want to invite themselves into your domicile, recline on your couch, drink your beer and make sport with the women of your family...well, that's the price we pay for indoor plumbing and paved roads.
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
'Alas, we computer users must endure pop-up advertising along with her ugly brother, unsolicited bulk e-mail, "spam," as a burden of using the Internet.'
Bullshit! Spammers are amoral creeps who will be first against the wall when the revolution comes!
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Well, if we put it that way, the fact is that WhenU consented to having its website vandalized as soon as they plugged in the Internet connection of their corporate information infrastructure. Alas, corporations must endure web defacement along with its ugly brother, unsolicited security consulting, "blackmail" as a burden of having an Internet presence.
Have fun and hack away, it's legal!
Weren't the network complaining that TiVO and such were depriving them of their potential income from ads? Can't this same ruling be stretched further to allow TiVO users their god-given right to skip over ads?
Which is nice.
Wearing pants should always be optional.
ethical treatment of handling advertisements is that if they are to be displayed with this software it must be displayed prominently so the user knows what s/he is getting themselves into.
/.
Unfortunately, in the Uhaul vs WhenU case, this does not apply.
It would be up to the affected user to sue the software maker for decepive or unfair business practices.
Oh- IANAL, but I did discuss this case with a friend who IAL (and a consumer advocate) over beers when the case was first mentioned on
Read, L
Um, can I take a rain check on that? Here's hoping for (speculating that) another ruling, in a follow-up case to be initiated in the not-too-distant future, will send this back the other way. Ads are a nuisance, and all most of us do to them any way is close them out. Anything that causes users to accidentally click on something and send them into a nightmarish loop of ads and "Internet grafitti" (as I call it) undermines the free will of the user.
Ads should be clear about what they are advertising and where they are taking the user. Ads should not falsely represent themselves or their intentions. Ads should not "pop-up" or "pop-under" in an attempt to trick users into supporting something they would never click in the first place if given an actual choice about it.
On this note, I think the Opera web browser (if you haven't paid to register) handles ads very well -- setting them aside in the upper right-hand corner of the browser, off the web page itself. Now, if only they could work on removing the pop-up and pop-under ads that plague the Internet and somehow maneuver those into a special advertising block or window of the browser, then we'd be making progress.
Again, the problem is choice. A user should never accidentally click on any ad he didn't wish to see in the first place. That would essentially be the same as a television ad running on top of your television program instead of during the commercial breaks -- that has been outlawed, and so too should Internet advertisements that get in the way of your browsing.
(So let's use the Opera/AIM method: if you've gotta have ads, put them in one place and out of the way of the application's useful area. Allow users to pay a registration fee to disable or hide the ads. Quit trying to trick users into clicking the ads; the trickery is not good salesmanship, but the commercial equivalent of entrapment, the kind of thing monopolies are accused of.)
There is no such thing as good popups.
Mozilla is great.
You can stop most pop-up adverts and you can stop most spam. Instead of making draconian laws that involve banning software - the very same type of laws we try to stop when its the DMCA. We can use technology to stop these annoying things. Any sort of html based pop-up can easily be stopped in the browser or via a proxy, if its something you downloaded then dont download it! Most adware programs have been cracked - eg. Kazaa lite to stop adverts so you can use the cracks and show the marketing people just how much you hate intrusive adverts. Dont let the government fill the internet with stupid legislation thats un enforceable and usually punishes people who have legitimate uses against it.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
This is why you need an intelligent popup blocker... Ive been saying this for a while... For both spam and popups, you need a smart blocker, since the advertisers will get sneakier and sneakier. You can't stop them with legal action because they don't care.
I'm getting perfectly acceptable c&p from Firebird 0.6 (Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030516 Mozilla Firebird/0.6) into Word 2000 (9.0.6926 SP3) on Win2k SP3 (Win 5.0 build 2195) using this Slashdot page as the source.
Could you be more specific about the software versions which were exhibiting the symptoms you described?
TomV
"But your Honor, the user CONSENTED to install my virus, by willingly opening that infected email."
What do you think about the ethics of a company that markets its products through SaveNow? If they are ethically comfortable cheating competitors, and cheating publications out of ad revenue, it would be out of character for them to do anything but cheat their customers.
No one wants to say it, but in truth, any company that will advertise through these guys who install-by-fraud is untrustworthy.
The "burden" of using the internet (Be it $9.95, 21.95 or 41.95) is enough that I shouldn't be subjected to unwanted SPAM.
I realize this has nothing to do with the initial case, but for him to mention SPAM as if I opted in for every peice I get is totally off-base, and shows a pretty good degree of ignorance about the internet.
'This is a victory for consumer choice -- it ultimately protects consumers' right to control what they see on their computer screens.'
What a retard. If I go to the U-Haul site, it's because I WANT to be there. I could go to Ryder as well, if I chose to do business with them. In fact, I'd check both websites, make my decision, and then do business with one of them. Having a popup assault me with another choice is stupid. It'd be like going to the Subaru dealer for a WRX, but a Honda salesperson from accross the street accosts you in the Subaru lot, trying to shove an Accord down your throat. Stuff like that turns me off.
Isn't it interesting how you come to recognize posters based solely on their sigs???
Some Logitech keyboards have that f-lock. When the keybord first gets power it defaults to a mode where the f-keys send some macro that my system doesn't regignise. (I assume windows wouldn't either without their software) The f keys have labels like Cut, copy, and such, with the idea that you can press them buttons instead.
I hate it. Every time I reboot (normally not often, but the kernels were unstable for a while on my system) I have to press that stupid button before I can switch my virtual terminals. All to get some more buttons on the keyboard I don't use.
Bull.
There is NO reason we have to simply 'endure' the crap that is appearing on our screen with out our permission. They are using MY resources to display their ad. That is not acceptable.
I wonder who paid this judge off to just 'roll over'.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Along with the free version, there's the option of supporting their efforts to keep our machines spyware-free.
I've taken to burning the mini-CDR discs with these tools, along with Mozilla, and handing them out to friends and family.
This is not consumer choice. Unauthorized installation of uwanted programs that track movements, bombard ads, collect personal information, and phone home... what part of illegal criminal activity don't they understand?
Oh wait, it's criminal trespass when a kid hacks into a corporate website and replaces a front page. Put them in prison, although it's the computer equivalent of a can of spraypaint.
Oh wait, it's grand larceny when some kid shares MP3s. Sue them into bankruptcy, although it's the computer equivalent of shoplifting.
But it's okay for the music industry to hack our computers, it's okay for spammers to blast porn to every kid in the country, it's okay for these bottom-dwelling pirates to essentially hijack your computer with their malware adware spyware filth.
These computer illiterate judges and these politicians and lawyers who suck the teat of corporate money deserve nothing but hatred, abuse, and scorn.
Pretty crappy situation to be in if your U-haul. My question is about the adware. Are these ads already bundled in when you download the software? I'm curious to see how the adware knows which ad to display when a user hits U-hauls site.
Consider this: If U-Haul had prevailed in this case, it's quite likely that the next defendants in a lawsuit would be companies and individuals who provide ad blocking or pop-up blocking software, or even spyware removal software.
It's a good thing this decision didn't go the other way, or popup blockers like Mozilla or Google Toolbar could be ruled illegal.
Just think about it. With this ruling on our side, we will NEVER have to worry about some company suing because Mozilla, or BFilter, or Privoxy or whatever has blocked their ads. This is a precedent that blocking an ad with another ad is okay.
The end user can AGREE that they want software installed that covers an ad with a different ad.
In my case, the ad-substitution I want is as follows. I want all ads replaced by an ad for my popup blocker. The popup blocker's advertisement just happens to be very light in color, very dull, rather than splashy glossy bright glowing twitching animated seizure inducing ads that were obscured.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
( thats: READ THE FUCKING JUDGES COMMENT if you are too slow to figure it out )
He clearly was speaking in much broader terms then just this one example of 'giving persmission'. ( ever hear of legal precident? That would apply to his comments as well )
to quote the story tag: "Alas, we computer users must endure pop-up advertising along with her ugly brother, unsolicited bulk e-mail, "spam," as a burden of using the Internet.'"
If you say i give anyone permission to spam me, then you are insane as well as stupid.
Ill give you that in the case he was ruling on installing of a 3rd party 'enabler', but when its lumped in with 'spam'.. then its much larger. and the 'oh well its part of internet life' attitude is NOT acceptable. not at all.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
We all want the web to be above national legislation & if that's the case we should stop sulking & adapt to the realities this implies.
Meaning taking personal responsability & modifying our computers with code that protects our computer from undesirable code we openly chose to expose our computer to by chosing to go on-line
It really is so simple.
Actually AFAIC even computer viruses shouldn't be banned - IMAO by chosing to go online with a windows computer one is by default chosing to expose one's computer to viruses. One should accept that fact & adapt. Why the business of zeros & ones going up & down cables is the business of govt is beyond me.
This is great! As a consumer, I'm glad they are protecting my right to see live video on my computer screen of the WhenU company officers and the judge in this case being publicly flogged as idiots. When does the video start?
I downloaded The Google Toolbar plugin for IE and I don't have any more problems with popups. Those morons can sue each other into oblivion. I don't care. I'm not paying any attention to their crap, and if you get Google's popup-blocking toolbar, you won't either. I guess Microsoft is saving this incredibly useful feature for the next release of their OS to give it at least one useful enhancement. Too late. Google's toolbar rocks!
Most of those things download themselves without the user's consent!
I get what looks like a web page when I copy and paste from Moz 1.3 into Word on Win2K.
-no broken link
A finding in the other direction could have had very bad implications for `You Might Like...' features, pop-up blockers and end-user control in general.
As for the morons who install adware by mistake: they're morons. I have as little sympathy for them as I do the idiots who climb into bear cages at the zoo.
Adware is not like other advertisements. Adware is an active program that resides in your computer at all times and actively manipulates your behavior.
Someone showed me the way the Kazaa adware program worked a year ago. An end user would go to a web site, and click on an ad. This ad has a tag that says, I came from sitexxx. the adware program would swap out the tag and say. No, I came from kazaa.
Swapping out tags from an ad to claim a commission is not free speach, it is misdirection.
Adware may be helping pay the cost incurred while pirating music, but, if you want to look at it from a free speech point of view, adware is essentially a program sitting in a computer that is limiting the free speech of others.
Adware follows all the activities of a computer user and actively manipulates that behavior. This act of following the user's behavior and programattically manipulating behavior makes it completely different from traditional advertising. The ability of adware to change the advertisements by other companies is the most disturbing part of the industry.
Free speech does not say that you have the ability to block the speech of others.
Personally, I think the biggest problem with adware is that it reduces the ability of other companies to pay for products with advertising. By swapping out the ads that appear on online newspapers, adware virtually destroys the ability for online newspapers to exist.
When adware moves from the computer to the ISP it will get even worse. When the ISP is running programs that manipulate ads, then even Linux boxes will be affected.
http://www.jd500.net - JD5000 Proxomitron Filter Set (VERY POWERFUL)
You must master your joystick like a fisherman masters bait! - Gimpy
Thank god there are a few judges who get it.
The result will be a nasty tug-of-war between the marketers and the consumers. But I'd much rather have that tug-of-war than to see the courts and congress intervene.
The right solution is for consumers to become more informed and aware of the adware/spyware issue, so they can protect themselves. Yes it's too bad that consumers are forced to become smarter, but that's the price we have to pay for freedom.
The alternative would be much worse: a "nanny state" that uses legislative and judicial power to ensure that nobody does anything to "hurt" anyone on the Internet. And the definition of "hurt", of course, will be made by big-money lobby groups (such as the RIAA).
The idea of a "nanny state" scares me much more than the abuses of unethical marketing companies. At least I have a fighting chance to avoid abusive marketing companies. But with the "nanny state", I have no idea how much innovation they have suppressed, and so I have no concept of how much we all really lost.
The "nanny state" reminds me of my very worst nightmare: that of being doped and drugged for the rest of my life for my "safety", losing the ability to think for myself, and never realizing what they took away from me.
On the other hand, being abused by companies has the opposite effect on me: it invigorates me, it gives me a mission, and it forces me to improve myself. And I get to keep a small amount of power, because I can always vote with my dollars.
and you just explained how
Chances are the page was a bit more complex than Slashdot.
All I need now is to write an installer that replaces the standard EULA crap with:
This product is sold, not licensed. You may do whatever you want with it, subject to the laws where you live.
Do you agree? yes/no
You must click yes to install this software.
And then bring that to court. It's about as enforcable as those draconian EULA's
Don't worry u-haul. All consumers are on your side :)