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.'"
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.
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.
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
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...
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)
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?
The cable company here does it, and so does direct tv, if you watch discoverey or other cable network youll notice that local ads takes place, where as on direct tv they display either national or direct tv ads.
I belive there are rules about directv showing out of market ads which prevents them from ofering LA broadcasts to the chicago or ny area.
Its a shame because i would actually convert from cable to direct tv if i could just buy all the local channels (including out of market locals.
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.
I just started using Mozilla Firebird with the AdBlock extention. It is incredible. In addition to no popups, adding a few simple filters to AdBlock such as:
a dv/*
*/ad.*
*/ad/*
*/ads/*
*/adx/*
*adserver*
*
*doubleclick*
removes something like 99% of all banner ads and keeps all of the content images. It is just an amazing experience to visit, say the NYTimes site, without ANY blinking/flashing gifs or Flash adverts. Its like a whole new internet.
"When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind." -- Bill Moyers
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.
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
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
This truely is a good thing, it sets precedent for things like Tivo commercial skipping and pop up blockers. Many people's gut reaction is that it is a loss; this comes simply because most people hate spyware. If this were a case against a spyware company being deceptive in its installation practices, those people would have a point, but this is not the consumers vs. the spyware people, this is a company who is mad that their ads are being replaced. They of course argue that the people don't know that they have the programs installed, but it should still be treated as a seperate case.
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
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.