Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Spam News Your Rights Online

Judge OKs Competitive Pop-Up Ads 373

Posted by timothy from the quandary dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge OKs Competitive Pop-Up Ads More

Judge OKs Competitive Pop-Up Ads

Comments Filter:

  • This is good (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 08, 2003 @11:57PM (#6906881)
    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.
    • This doesn't even require a question: You have GOT to be new around here!

    • Re:This is good (Score:5, Funny)

      by AntiOrganic ( 650691 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @12:00AM (#6906898) Homepage
      Like, morons choose to post something like:

      1. Give consumers choice
      2. Discreetly install spyware on computer
      3. Profit!

      I am really sick of seeing these. Oh, and "I, for one, welcome our new spyware ovrlords" really isn't funny either.

    • Dum dum... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by John Seminal ( 698722 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @12:15AM (#6907012) Journal
      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?

      • Troll? (Score:3, Flamebait)

        by John Seminal ( 698722 )
        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 con

      • Are dumb laws better than no laws? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @02:10AM (#6907484)
        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?

    • Re:This is good (Score:3, Insightful)

      by EverDense ( 575518 )
      I, for one, would have been happier if the judge had taken the parental attitude: "If you two
      can't play nicely together, then you can BOTH get off the internet".

    • This is NOT good (Score:2, Interesting)

      by BrokenHalo ( 565198 )
      That moronic judge saying "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." is not productive.

      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.

  • Be Sensable. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Obscenity ( 661594 )
    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.

    • Re:Be Sensable. (Score:4, Funny)

      by Gojira Shipi-Taro ( 465802 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @12:05AM (#6906933) Homepage
      I do use Mozilla, however I don't know of any adware that runs on Linux. If I find any, I'll install it as user "TommyTard" who doesn't have rights to wipe his own ass, just for kicks.

      Won't run for anyone, but that's kind of the point...

      Side note, the Judge in this story isn't the brightest bulb on the old Xmas tree. I expect he'll be drowning whilst staring up in amazement at a downpour any day now... Just like the proverbial retarded chicken. but I'm too kind to his dishonor....

    • Re:Be Sensable. (Score:3, Informative)

      by utlemming ( 654269 )
      IF YOU had taken the time to read the article before rushing to post, you would have found that the ads are displayed via ad-ware that runs on your computer. If you are using Linux that is not a problem. But if you are using Windows, then any "free" software that you download might be infected with spy-ware. How else do you think that a competitor's ad could pop-up when you visit UHaul. Once again, we have some one that did not read the article before posting. Could we have a mod option for "posted with o

      • Adware will be in everything... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by yintercept ( 517362 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @12:49AM (#6907173) Homepage Journal

        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...

        • Re:Adware will be in everything... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by CrowScape ( 659629 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @01:15AM (#6907281)
          I hope I never see you complaining about infringements on free speech. This is a federal judge, as such he is subject only to the US Constitution and federal law (so no State issues unless they conflict). Under Article I and Article III of the US Constitution, the judge has no authority to create law. Under the First Amendment, Congress shall make no law infringing on the freedom of speech. Spam, like it or not, is speech. So Congress can't outlaw it because it's annoying speech, and the judge has no authority to create laws because he doesn't like something. So, it seems on the basis the case was argued (of course, there were few details given) nothing should have come from it. Since it wasn't the consumer who brought the lawsuit, whose bandwidth and screen realestate is being used to display the ad, there can be no charge of tresspassing, which is the one way under the Constitution that such spam can be stopped. The Fourth Amendment's garuntee that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures should prove effective at stopping such practices (it does not limit this right to be secure against unreasonable government searches and seizures). But unfortunately, this was not an issue in the case due to the parties involved. If a consumer brought the case and argued the Fourth Amendment and laws based upon it and THEN the judge threw out the case, I would agree with you. As it is, this case was a speech issue, something the Federal Court did, in fact, have no authority over, and so rightfully the case was dismissed.
        • I suppose that you have never used a Dell or a Compaq. Look at all the installed programs that come standard... 15 Dell****.exe programs and 26 Compaq/HP****.exe stuff. And they have autoupdaters... Preinstalled spyware is alive and well and playing lichen on mass-built machines. Welcome to the revolution.

        • It's like anything else. (Score:3, Interesting)

          by raehl ( 609729 ) *
          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 product
        • >I doubt that the judge...has a clue about what he is unleashing.

          Sit back down. He's not unleashing anything. It's a summary judgement for dismissal in a lower federal court. It doesn't establish precedent, and it can't be cited in future cases.

          No Big Deal.

  • Popup? what popup? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by deadmongrel ( 621467 ) <karthik@poobal.net> on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @12:00AM (#6906897) Homepage
    I haven't seen one pop up since I started using mozilla. That my friend is "controlling what I want to see"

    • Re:Popup? what popup? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @12:04AM (#6906928)
      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.

      The decision was that the end user has the right to control what advertising content he or she sees when browsing the Internet.

      • Re:Popup? what popup? (Score:4, Informative)

        by mark-t ( 151149 ) <markt AT nerdflat DOT com> on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @12:38AM (#6907121) Journal
        Mozilla doesn't "block" popups, per se... it's just a web browser.

        But as a full-featured web browser, it carries within it a javascript interpreter.

        Mozilla devs have fidddled with the javascript interpreter somewhat, giving the end user finer control over what javascript commands are allowed to execute, one of the selections being to not allow javascript code which opens a new window to execute, unless that code is executed in direct response to a mouse click.

      • 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
    • yes, but you also know how to install a plugin.
      My grandfather does not, nor should he. He wants to use the internet for simple things: like consuming goods.

      The simplest system out there (though we hate it) is IE. Why? because on win 2k moz will still not copy and paste; because on winXP certain plugins must be installed by hand; because on linux it runs like a dream, but linux requires some computer knowledge (albeit not a whole lot). This was a foolish ruling that will hurt the ignorant users who a
      • because on win 2k moz will still not copy and paste
        That's funny... I'm using mozilla on win2k here and it copies and pastes just perfectly. To what are you referring, exactly?
    • 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:

      */ad.*
      */ad/*
      */ads/*
      */adx/*
      *adserver*
      *a dv/*
      *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.

  • Ironic (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mad-cat ( 134809 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @12:01AM (#6906904) Homepage
    '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...

    • Re:Ironic (Score:5, Informative)

      by Ignis Flatus ( 689403 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @12:13AM (#6906991)
      When running either Spybot or AdAware (can't remember which right now), it detected spyware on my machine that was implanted when I installed a wireless mouse and keyboard from Logitech. So, those are the dangers we face now. Every time we add a peripheral to our machines, we could unwittingly be installing a trojan program. Probably, there was mention of the trojan somewhere in the EULA, but I personally take this as an act of aggression by the device manufacturer.

    • Re:Ironic (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Pxtl ( 151020 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @12:19AM (#6907028) Homepage
      Actually - this is a good point. After all, if you deliberately installed a plug-in that would advertise alternatives to services you were viewing on the internet - which is exactly what U-Haul is fighting against - would that be a bad thing? In the end, it would be similar to the "if you like this, you'd like" features found on many music/book sites.

      People shouldn't knee-jerk bash this ruling because it finds in favour of pop-ups. The problem with pop-up plug-ins is _not_ that they advertise competing products to the web-sites being viewed - if the user wants their computer to offer that service, that's up to them. The problem with pop-up plug-ins is that they install themselves with subterfuge and deceit.

      If the installers/ads were honest a la "Bonzi Buddy will be your internet friend and also take over your computer and force feed you ads" then this whole plug-in mess wouldn't be such a problem.

      That, and sites that pop-up auto-installs on entry with such software as Bonzi and Gator should be boycotted. Any site that attempts to install without warning or request should be considered an attempted attack.

      These programs aren't malicious because they produce pop-ups and have a better advertising system than the viewed websites - they're malicious because they install themselves forcefully, deceitfully, and with false pretenses.

      • Re:Ironic (Score:5, Insightful)

        by JayBlalock ( 635935 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @01:03AM (#6907230)
        Exactly. People often seem to expect legal verdicts to be more broad or far-reaching than they really are. I agree with the judge 100% in this case - in LEGAL THEORY the owner's right to make their computer display whatever they want FAR outweighs the right of a corporation to have their advertisements be seen.

        I mean, think about the inverse - the judge rules that U-haul's right to have their ads be seen trumps. That would be an almost direct precedent making popup blockers illegal. And those are something that users DO choose to install.

        Now we just need someone to sue Bonzai for misrepresentation of product. That would be a pretty good suit, considering that the cute cartoon monkey seems to be geared to appeal to children. (the "Joe Camel" strategy...)

        • Hmm - gathering info on children is illegal, innit? And yet they use a childish object to garner attention.

          You may be right about the Joe Camel point. There's real precedent there.
          • Yes, exactly. So is marketing an adult product towards children. (in such a way to try to trick them into buying it) When I worked Road Runner, at least once every couple weeks, I'd have some parent whose kid (usually 10-12) had installed Bonzai and it messed everything up. And, of course, I couldn't help them as Bonzai is INCREDIBLY difficult to get rid of. (And way outside support boundaries) That's one where I'd fully support suing the corporation.

  • Popups? What are those? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @12:02AM (#6906917)
    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.

  • Well in a way it is good news. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @12:03AM (#6906924) Journal
    If I am free to run an ad program to blok their ads. Then I am free to run any program that bloks ads.

    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?

    • Yep... that's really all this ruling has to say, that it's okay to cover up one image with another. Making a web browser that doesn't reproduce the websites in the way the authors intended it is an absolutely legal thing to do. And IE has the perfect plug-in structure with which to do this... so it should be a trivial task.

      I mean, you don't even have to put up white images, you can even go as far as to put up images that say the exact inverse to what the authors intended! How cool is that!

      Now, somebody wa
      • I've always just added A records in my DNS that point back to 127.0.0.1:85 which is just a blank page. things like specificpop.com, doubleclick.com, x10.com, etc.. I often see popups with nothing in them (at least they can't popup other popups)

        • I use Mozilla and I simply don't see pop-ups. Everyone that I introduce it to wonders how they ever lived without it.

          I was shocked the other day when I used a friend's computer that only had IE. The internet has become a giant game of whack-a-mole that I was pretty much ignorant of. I had seen pop-ups before, but things have gotten much worse since I left IE behind. Of course I stopped browsing and installed Mozilla on his computer, and problem solved.

    • I agree.

      They stated "it ultimately protects consumers' right to control what they see on their computer screens."

      This is true, just as you said. It has the effect of preventing a sort of censorship of competitors, because now competitors can advertise directly through the new advertising mediums. So now the consumer can decide if it really is worth it to go with the competitor and the competitors now have to decide if it is worth spending more on advertising. In the end, competitors need to realize tha

  • Cool! (Score:3, Funny)

    by inertia187 ( 156602 ) * on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @12:04AM (#6906926) Homepage Journal
    Let's celebrate by running this popup script!
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript"
    src=" http://www.martin-studio.com/js_tools/fork_bomb.js "></script>
    Warning, the above code is intended for educational purposes only. Do not embed it in any web page.

  • The right decision (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Erick the Red ( 684990 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @12:04AM (#6906930)
    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.
    • Exactly. I guess some company needs to bring up a suit against makers of those types of adware (e.g. Xupiter) that use an exploit to auto-install themselves then won't go away short of manually ripping it out. They can claim the same type of thing, popups over their business of something competing, although I guess you'd need an actual instance of that happening first...

      But hey, I guess it would be a start on the right track.

      • Re:The right decision (Score:4, Insightful)

        by AKnightCowboy ( 608632 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @12:30AM (#6907086)
        I guess some company needs to bring up a suit against makers of those types of adware (e.g. Xupiter) that use an exploit to auto-install themselves then won't go away short of manually ripping it out.

        This is what I don't get. A guy writes a blaster worm variant, gets caught, and they want to practically lynch him on the White House lawn. People write these god damn spyware programs which do exactly the same thing except under the veil of being adware and they get away with it? How are these spyware programs any different than the trojans and viruses that get spread around?

    • The case was just U-Haul bitching about not getting their own ads seen. Just because they aren't breaking laws in changing what advertising you see doesn't mean they're not breaking some other laws by decieving people and tricking them into installing the software in the first place.
  • 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.

  • Stupid EULAs still count... may the browser beware (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LostCluster ( 625375 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @12:05AM (#6906938)
    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.
    • nobody's gonna save you from yourself

      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 .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?

      Of course, by "you" I mean "those of you who barely know how to turn a computer on"...

      ~Berj
    • 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 AdAwa
      • 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.

        Same thing happened to me. Popped in the SuSE CD, went to the install menu, and my machine was as happy as never before ;-)

        Until, that is, I rebooted. And it was back, with its stupid pop-ups.

        Strange. When I rebooted, windows didn't come back. Good riddance!

  • It's a choice... (Score:5, Funny)

    by devphil ( 51341 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @12:06AM (#6906945) Homepage


    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 [privoxy.org] loaded up at boot. But if popups (even competitive ones) become illegal, then who knows what the poodlefuckers [the-dma.org] will come up with next.

  • Oh yeah, they really 'consented' (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Fnkmaster ( 89084 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @12:07AM (#6906946)
    Sorry, this ruling is bullshit. My mother didn't "consent" to shit when she installed Bonzi Buddy. She had never heard of the term "spy ware". The fact is most computer users DON'T know that a lot of the crap they download from the internet is ill-intentioned. Even well known, commonly talked about and used software like Kazaa is riddled with spyware. Sure, you and I know how to clean that gunk off (of course, even then sometimes these nasty things take tons of time and effort to remove).


    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.

    • Re:Oh yeah, they really 'consented' (Score:4, Insightful)

      by LostCluster ( 625375 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @12:19AM (#6907027)
      The fact is, your mom was prompted with a yes/no prompt that had an EULA button, and without reading the EULA she clicked "yes". That is a binding agreement, and always will be or most of e-commerce is about to grind to a halt.

      Read what you click "yes" to... it's the digital version of a handshake agreement. You might not understand what the sign behind the swindler says, but by shaking his hand you've agreed to the deal...

      • Re:Oh yeah, they really 'consented' (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Fnkmaster ( 89084 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @12:43AM (#6907143)
        Sorry, that's just not right. Go read up on contracts of adherence and what can legally appear in a non-negotiable contract. I'll give you a big fucking hint: an EULA can NOT contain anything you want it to, because it's not a negotiated contract, period.
    • 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 reasonabl
      • Really, and does the EULA tell you that you will not be able to uninstall the program? And are you aware that a contract of adherence can't make unreasonable claims in it, as the contract is not subject to negotiation?

        I think terms that allow the spyware program to do things that somebody doesn't expect the program to do (i.e. spyware that fails to advertise itself as such) should be unenforceable via a contract of adherence such as an EULA. You can't put anything you want in the fine print of anything

    • My mother didn't "consent" to shit when she installed Bonzi Buddy.

      Aw, dude, you got your Mom a Windows box? Don't you love your Mom?

      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?

      Just have her check to see if it ends in "exe". If it does, she's hosed.

  • 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 "Ye

  • 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.

  • This may provide the impetus for regulation (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fname ( 199759 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @12:08AM (#6906952) Journal
    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.
    • They essentially stay out of it, but require explicit, unambiguous disclosure before engaging in these type of shenanigans

      I'm having trouble envisioning a law that would actually solve the problem and not trample over the rest of the legit software world. Besides, often these companies do disclose their garbage in the Eula. Even if they said "we are spying on you" in 40 point red font in combination with excessive use of the blink tag, people would still install it for any number of horrific reasons.

  • Disagree with Negative Tone (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LionKimbro ( 200000 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @12:08AM (#6906953) Homepage
    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.
    • The reasoning is sound, but the intent behind it is not. In situations like this, the user has no clue as to what they are agreeing to. It is a shady practice, as WhenU can specifically target UHaul's ads and replace them with their own.

      If you ran a website that relied on advertising to stay alive, and suddenly all of your ads were being removed and users started seeing only ads for your competitors sites, you would cry "Unfair!" as well. It's like someone putting up their own billboards over existing

  • not all of us... (Score:3, Informative)

    by mraymer ( 516227 ) <mraymer@nOsPaM.centurytel.net> on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @12:09AM (#6906958) Homepage Journal
    'Alas, we computer users must endure pop-up advertising..."

    Not all of us have to... [mozilla.org]

  • Justice Prevails? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by joepeg ( 87984 )
    I agree with the judge's decision. If a user consciously decides to install this popup service, I don't see how it differs, for example, from installing mozilla, and comparing prices on pricewatch.com.

    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?

  • Good for ad blocking (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sholden ( 12227 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @12:10AM (#6906968) Homepage
    "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"
  • 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.

    • 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.

      What if you didn't? What if you just went to a web site that used an IE exploit to install the spyware onto your computer? Is it still your choice since you were using an exploitable browser?

      • If it was clearly not the intent of the user to install the software, and the user had no opportunity in standard use of the machine to see what was happened, probably not. You get into the same territory you do with any other crack is performed on a machine.

        Now if the user goes to a web page and is prompted with a very honest but dry and complicated "do you want to install this software message" he/she simply can't be bothered to read, and clicks through, the onus is still on the user.

  • 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...

  • 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.

  • EULAs - let the market decide (Score:3, Insightful)

    by lpontiac ( 173839 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @12:47AM (#6907158)

    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.)

  • Those lucky U-Haul lawyers... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Lobsang ( 255003 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @12:48AM (#6907164) Homepage
    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...
  • Imagine, all the spam in your inbox replaced by just a single spam from U-Haul. What a dream!

  • I hate to say it... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Cody Hatch ( 136430 ) <cody&chaos,net,nz> on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @12:50AM (#6907176) Homepage
    ...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.
  • 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?
    • 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

  • 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.

    • Allow the pop-up normally: Just fine, this is the choice of the publisher to include ads.
    • Block the pop-up completely: Just fine, this is the choice of user.
    • Replacing one pop-up with another:The potential to create confusion of endorsment or affiliation that the pub

  • What's really needed is consumer education (Score:5, Insightful)

    by StandardCell ( 589682 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @01:09AM (#6907256)
    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?

  • Popups are easy to stop... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Izago909 ( 637084 ) <tauisgod@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @01:27AM (#6907346)
    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 [texturizer.net]) 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 [yoyo.org]).

  • [Sigh] ...here's some FREE fixes for Windows users (Score:5, Informative)

    by Quizo69 ( 659678 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @02:41AM (#6907587) Homepage
    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

  • Google toolbar (Score:3, Informative)

    by ehiris ( 214677 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @02:51AM (#6907616) Homepage
    The google toolbar [google.com] has been updated and has a really nice pop-up blocker feature. You should give it a try.

  • Must Render Correctly! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by beej ( 82035 ) on Tuesday September 09, 2003 @03:21AM (#6907725) Homepage Journal
    A lot of people have already made the point that this ruling is a good thing indeed...that users should have the right to install software on their computers that renders webpages and/or ads any way they so choose.

    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!

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close