Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

No Honor Among Malware Purveyors

Posted by timothy on from the say-it-ain't-so dept.

metalion writes "True to the saying 'no honor among thieves,' adware company, Avenue Media, is finding that competing adware company, DirectRevenue, is detecting and deleting their software. Now Avenue Media is crying foul and have filed a lawsuit against DirectRevenue stating that DirectRevenue 'knowingly and with intent to defraud, exceeded its authorized access to users' computers.' DirectRevenue acknowledges that it may uninstall competing applications in its user license agreement. A researcher at Harvard University, Ben Edelman, reasons that 'Once the computer is infected with 10 different unwanted programs, the person is likely to take some action to address the situation.' Just how far will adware companies go to continue to attempt to bombard us with their ads?"

10 of 416 comments (clear)

  1. Too funny by networkBoy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We all have been complaining about malware for years. . .
    Now they are complaining about themselves.
    When does it stop?
    -nB

    --
    whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  2. fight amongst yourselves by Se7enLC · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now if only we could make these malware programs only target other malware programs and not the operation of the PC...

    We could have a little battlebots competition! The Amazing Bonzi takes on reigning champion THE GATOR.

  3. I hope the plaintif prevails by Total_Wimp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hope they win the lawsuit. If they were to get the courts to agree that hiding malicious wording in the EULA is fraud then that would be a nice boon to shutting some of these people down.

    In fact, just about any attack on the concept of click-through EULAs is pretty good in my book. Scream "contract!" all you want, they're bad for me personally and bad for the industry. Consent and informed consent are two different things and it appears the industry has completely abandonded any pretext of the latter.

    TW

  4. Exceeded its authorized access? by ClubStew · · Score: 4, Insightful
    exceeded its authorized access to users' computers

    And is my mom and other not-so-savvy users granting said authority in the first place? This suit seems riddled with assumptions that it was legal in the first place to install such software.

    And since when has malware displayed any EULA - or any UI, for that matter?

  5. Playing CoreWars the Internet... by mikael · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wondered how long we would have to wait for this to happen. I always imagined it would be university students or black-hats. I never imagined it would be spammers/spyware authors trying to kill each other's programs.

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  6. Re:If they succed . . . by GauteL · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nothing. Ad-Aware's advertised main function is to remove adware.

    This lawsuit is about some adware going outside the boundaries of their advertised function, and removing other adware and only telling the users by the fine print of the EULA.

  7. Re:Well... by vettemph · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Maybe then people will take some action against these bullshit programs.

    We have, It's called Linux.

    Mozilla is the key along with a system that is better suited to internet attachment.

    --
    The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
  8. Advertisers in general are going insane by wowbagger · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I'd submitted this gem to /., but they obviously felt it wasn't news.

    A lady in El Paso gets a telemarketing call. She says no, repeatedly. Telemarketer ignores her, repeatedly. She hangs up, forcefully.

    She later gets a letter saying:

    Jill Beyer,

    Before you are rude to another telemarketer, you should keep in mind that he or she has your phone number and your address.

    Many of them live in your own state and most don't give a (expletive)!

    So, Ms. Beyer, the next time a telemarketer calls and you don't want to be bothered, a simple "not interested" will do.

    Your son or daughter or next-door neighbor's daughter could very well be a telemarketer. A handicapped, wheelchair-bound person could be a telemarketer. A biker or ex-con is more likely to be a telemarketer. You really, really shouldn't (expletive) with them!

    As they say in the telemarketing industry, "Have a good day Ms. Beyer!"


    So, we have:
    • Television stations prohibiting us from recording shows (via the broadcast bit)
    • TV execs saying "skipping commercials is theft"
    • Telemarketers threatening those who will not listen to their pitches.
    • Adware companies fighting over who can infest your computer.
    • Drive-by installs of adware


    OK, I move that we commit all advertisers to institutions for the criminally insane, right now.

    Any seconds?
    --
    www.eFax.com are spammers
  9. Re:When it will stop. by Bertie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not benign - there's nothing much benign about malaria, for instance. It's not about not affecting your host, it's about not killing it, and that's true of malware as much as it is of a biological parasite.

  10. Actually, this brings to light a larger question.. by Ratphace · · Score: 4, Insightful


    ...and that question is just how binding is a company allowed to make its EULA?

    I think all the EULA's are out of control as to how much control and ownership these companies have over your PC and what right's we as owners of the PC should have reserved.

    I keep hoping someday, someone, somewhere will really bring all these EULA's that we are all subjected to each and everytime we install something, under a microscope and start really questioning the legality of said EULA's.

    Just my 2 cents...