Slashdot Mirror
RetroCoder Threatens Security Vendors
john83 writes "RetroCoder the company that brings you SpyMon, a commercial keylogger is trying to stop vendors of security software from looking at their software. RetroCoder uses a EULA that prohibits anti-spyware publishers / software houses from downloading, running or examining the software in any way. Essentially, they're trying to hide a key logger behind copyright law." While they are certainly not the first to do so, it is interesting that companies still take this approach.
I'd like to congratulate you on your schemes to increase pageviews. The advertising money is just rolling in! Your dupe strategy has been a remarkable success. But I agree with your assessment that it needs to be replaced, the backlash is getting too great and some people are on to the plot.
Your new strategy of having a continuing thread (the Intelligent Design flood), is even better! You just throw up 1 new piece of news and there is a whole new rehash of the same posts. It's the same crap over and over again, without any new ideas or originality but it's a guaranteed 1,000 posts and multiple thousand pageviews.
Keep up the good work whoring out your site!
Slashdot is owned by the OSTG which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of VA Software Corporation (NASDAQ: LNUX)
By the way, the last few stories had a low number of posts. Consider Intelligent Design for your next topic.
By your boss to see what you are typing?
Or commercial as in installed by a dodgy person at work who gains access to the boss' or sysadmin's workstation for a few minutes?
Or commercial as in bundled with shitty software and then sends out what you type to criminals?
First one - legal, if unethical.
Second one - this type of installation should be removed by Spyware removers.
Third one - the writers of the software should be castrated.
"Essentially, they're trying to hide a key logger behind copyright law."
Copyright law doesn't have provisions for EULAs. They are using faulty contract law logic to harass security vendors. I honestly think people only think an unsigned, after-the-fact EULA means anything because they've been conditioned throughout their lives to blindingly accept authority, whether real or perceived.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Meta-moderate that as "unfair", like I do.
I'm really sick of this hiding behind licenses. Spyware makers claiming that by downloading, looking at, thinking of, pissing on, or whatnot you can't create a signature or identify it in any way. There are a ton of stories like this, but it's rediculous.
It's up to the consumer to decide what goes on their computer, and if an anti-spyware maker wants to warn users of the threats, they have every right to. Otherwise, they're not doing the service THEY are promissing the customer, by identifying those things that spy on them. It really does perplex me how much people try and push with flawed licenses and poor IP laws. If there's any sign it needs to be revamped, this is it.
-M
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
In Soviet Russia our old korean self-sueing lawyer overlords welcome you.
Far better to back out the laws that allow this; DMCA being just one.
Otherwise, we would be building law on a number of bad laws.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.