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

 


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

Gator-style Overlay Ads Are Legal, Says Court 436

Posted by michael from the layer-upon-layer dept.
donutz writes "C|Net has the scoop: "A federal court has ruled that pop-up ads for rivals of U-Haul International, placed atop the moving company's own site by a third-party software application, are legal." In this case, it was ad serving company WhenU.com placing the ads, but this decision could have a big impact on the court cases that involve competitor Gator."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gator-style Overlay Ads Are Legal, Says Court More

Gator-style Overlay Ads Are Legal, Says Court

Comments Filter:
  • Popup ads are still legal.

    • Do you really want popups to be illegal? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 06, 2003 @07:09PM (#6379836)
      I know spam, popups, etc are annoying, but I'm dubious that legal approaches are a good way to fix them. Often, as is the case with censorship (IMHO, of course), it may seem like a good idea to ban something in the short term, but bad in the long run -- and in any case, the whole concept of windows, etc, may not be around in a few years.

      I'd generally rather see technical solutions, rather than legal ones, to problems on the 'Net. Legal solutions tend to not work well for mere annoyances (since people don't actually do anything, which results in laws that people simply ignore), simply cause more money to be thrown at lawyers, are slow to adapt with the times, may stifle honest-to-God positive things, tend to promote the deployment of "fragile" protocols/software (which may break when someone who doesn't care about the law comes along), and run into problems since legal boundaries (along cities, states, nations, etc) don't make much sense on the 'Net. If at all possible, I'd prefer to go with technical solutions to problems, to simply do things properly. Popups are a pretty easy thing to fix from a technical standpoint.

      Just my 2 cents.
      • Hmmm....

        Well, I think that you're generally right about legal solutions not being appropriate. Uhaul shouldn't be able to have any say in what software people use or how it works...

        On the other hand, there are a lot of problems with spyware for which legal solutions could be appropriate. For example, if a user does not agree to a spyware installation, but it is installed through some bug in activeX, the product that installs itself is really no better than say, someone who does a DOS attack (except
      • Basically, the court is saying that when U-Haul publishes a web page, I have the right to look at it with whatever funny-colored glasses I choose to wear.

        "Choose to wear" is a different issue. In fact, I choose to run all the web pages I view through one of several filters, depending on what OS I happen to be using at the time. In theory, gator users have chosen gator as their "filter".

        While I think gator is a PITA, I also think that anyone who does a little research will find it easy enought to not t

  • The ads probably should be legal (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 06, 2003 @06:27PM (#6379620)
    If I want to install something to replace (or remove!) ads, I should be allowed to. It's my computer. But, it's something the user should have clear and full knowledge of ahead of time. I think Gator, et al, are guilty of not being completely honest with users about what they're up to.
    • Problem is been looked up from the wrong side.

      All those Gator like spyware pieces of software polute system. I don't care about the adds, but I'm seriously having problems with performance on machines that are condemed to be not knowingly used for advertising means more than anything else.

      At least they should provide a way where user chooses his advertising agent like selecting your default browser in control panel. If it is selected then it us running, if it's not then "go away". That kind of agents woul

      • All those Gator like spyware pieces of software polute system. I don't care about the adds, but I'm seriously having problems with performance on machines that are condemed to be not knowingly used for advertising means more than anything else.

        While at a friend's house, I noticed that he had an ad-agent of some sort installed (possibly, in fact, one that came from a pop-up blocker) which had the audacity to create a pop-up at a pace of about 1 every 3-5 minutes, possibly faster. While we sat away from t

  • The real question the judge should answer... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Sir Rhosys ( 84459 ) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @06:28PM (#6379628)
    Should people that install Gator (or Gator-clones) on their computer be allowed to drive moving trucks?
    • Well, to be fair Gator and its ilk usually gets installed in the background as part of some other operation that the user is involved in. I really do doubt that many users go to the gator site and say to themself "Self! This program will change how I use the Internet! Why doesn't everybody have this program!"

      It comes in the background with KaZaa or some other P2P shit or even on those nefarious websites that download software by praying on the "click OK" instinct that everybody has on the Internet

      • Re:The real question the judge should answer... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by andreMA ( 643885 ) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @07:06PM (#6379816)
        If it's in fact true that there is no real user consent to the gator-driven pop-ups, then I'd tend to think that the owners of websites defaced by the popups have a reasonable claim for damages. If it was the result of a user knowingly agreeing to view popups in exchange for some consideration, then those users are on their own just as much as if they'd made a cron job pop a dialog box up every 10 minutes informing them that they were an idiot.

        IANAL, but I seem to recall that for there to be a contract, both parties must knowingly consent to it, and there must be consideration (value) in both directions. If in fact gator is installed surreptitiously, and if gator.com knows this and fails to take measures to prevent it, I think a case could be made that they are in guilty of trademark infringement by placing pop-ups that fraudulently appear to be condoned by the unwitting website beneath them.

        Or maybe not. *shrugs*

        • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

          by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @07:27PM (#6379909)
          Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • Re:The real question the judge should answer... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by WCMI92 ( 592436 ) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @08:07PM (#6380085) Homepage
            "It's be interesting to put together an Active X control that just annoys the crap out of anyone that downloads it, and includes a Gator-like EULA.

            Maybe Judges, legislators, etc, would consider the consequences a little more if every half hour they get a pop-up on their screen with words similar to "You're an ass!", "Screw you, loser", and "Rebooting now, and there's nothing you can do about it either, because YOU agreed to the EULA, moron!"

            So, a virus would be legal so long as it had a click this EULA?

            UNREAL!

            On the upside, this ruling also would seem to make it completely legal to use AD BLOCKING software, as well as browsers that block popups.

            I use Opera, and frankly get AMAZED how shitty the web is when IE is used.
      • mrpuffypants wrote...

        Well, to be fair Gator and its ilk usually gets installed in the background as part of some other operation that the user is involved in.

        You're right, this software does prey on the ordinary person's lack of computer knowledge. I have gotten to play the "hero" many times by clearing off gator, bonzai buddy, etc. for friends and family and "miraculously" speeding up their machine for them. I am also probably the worst driver I know. But you gotta agree, taking cheapshots at people w

  • fr1st l3gal ps0t (Score:4, Interesting)

    by usotsuki ( 530037 ) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @06:28PM (#6379629) Homepage
    I think it should be illegal, it's like your glasses modifying the newspaper you read so that (for example) near an article on Linux you see a blatant ad for M$.

    -uso.

    • Re:fr1st l3gal ps0t (Score:5, Funny)

      by thefinite ( 563510 ) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @06:31PM (#6379649)
      That's an interesting thought. An even more grave example would be going to a wesbite like Slashdot and seeing blatant ads for Microsoft. Oh wait....nevermind.

    • Re:fr1st l3gal ps0t (Score:2, Insightful)

      by shepd ( 155729 )
      It should only be illegal if they force you against your will to wear said glasses. Then again, forcing people to do things against their will is generally illegal as is.

      If you wore rose coloured glasses, and the linux ads were in red but MS ones in blue, would be have to ban those too?

  • This happens on Cable TV all the time (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kaltkalt ( 620110 ) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @06:28PM (#6379631)
    Watch Fox News and you'll see commercials for CNN ("Tonight on Larry King Live..."). Time Warner sticks on whatever commercials it wants to. I'm sure there are Fox News commercials on CNN ("Tonight on Hannity and Colmes...").

    • Re:This happens on Cable TV all the time (Score:5, Informative)

      by LostCluster ( 625375 ) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @06:39PM (#6379699)
      Yes, but both Fox News and CNN consent to allowing that to happen because they each have a 2 minute "local window" within every hour of programming, a commercial block that is specifically marked with metadata as belonging to the cable or DBS provider's ads. The cable/DBS company can then sell those ads to whomever they want, and that just happens to be a rival cable channel so be it. The stations view that as part of the deal they have to make to get onto the cable TV dial.

      The difference here is that U-Haul has no relationship with WhenU at all... they'd rather WhenU simply go away.
    • your local cable company PAYS those channels for the right to cover up the ad's in the local insertion window. It's in the channel carry fees.. it's a different rate if you insert ad's on them.

      It is nowhere near the same.. gator doesnt pay anyone squat.

  • Taking matters into our own hands.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by jdhutchins ( 559010 ) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @06:29PM (#6379639)
    The court's ruling was correct, there isn't much legal backing for the case. It's more of a case that the adware programs are being general iddiots, and companies don't like it. We just need to start getting more people to download AdAware etc so that they can get a rid of these programs.
    Or, someone should hack the adware sites so they put an ad over Microsoft's web page. Then Microsoft will hear about it, get pissed, and start bundling some kind of program to get a rid of the AdWare (just hope that it's not DRM).
    • I am Pepsi. I pay a software company to create software that finds coke cans in movies and alter them to Pepsi cans. No more than an "ad" does. The customer has "control" of his tv. And what appears.

      Imagine watching a Nascar race and seeing the "home depot" car with the "Home Depot" logo covered by the "Target" logo via software. I really am not sure what the legal difference between TV and Computer screens would be. My cable company may be the next purveyor of "ads"....

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re:consider the implications (Score:5, Interesting)

          by LostCluster ( 625375 ) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @08:51PM (#6380272)
          It was CBS who had Dan Rather sitting in a Studio overlooking Times Square for Y2K coverage, but the famous Times Square Jumbotron has an NBC peacock on it and it's input is controled by NBC. CBS didn't want to allow NBC to control something going on behind Dan Rather's sholder, so they used a positional technology to cover up the jumbotron with a screensaverish animation of CBS logos. NBC complained loudly to anybody willing to listen, but nothing much came of it other than the fact that the existance of the change was pointed out.

          Similarly, the owners of the real Times Square billboards complained that the recent Spiderman movie went to painstaking steps to recreate Times Square in their computer animations, but their billboards were forgotten and replaced with virtual billboards that were sold by by the moviemakers. They went to court telling about how much money they paid to obtain their billboard placements and how much it meant to them... and then they got laughed out of court.
      • Actually, that's brilliant and could revolutionize the TV industry's whole business model. For instance, cable company has the right to put ads everywhere, but you don't pay for cable. You pay for individual networks. Meanwhile, networks work without commercials because you pay them directly. Only ones losing are NASCAR and I certainly don't give a damn about that.

    • Re:Taking matters into our own hands.... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by LostCluster ( 625375 ) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @06:47PM (#6379733)
      Or, simply put, we need the companies like Symantec to consider any program that is distributed by tag-along means to be a trojan horse virus (even if it does technically click a "Yes" somewhere in the sequence) and then wipes it out.
    • "Then Microsoft will hear about it, get pissed, and start bundling some kind of program to get a rid of the AdWare (just hope that it's not DRM)"

      No they won't. They'll opt to "embrace and extend" the pop-up industry with bigger, more annoying and buggier versions of the same.
    • Since using Mozilla, I could care less about ads. Get yourself a big enough userContent.css file, and you feel like you're Superman online. What's the big deal about ads? Just a little graphic here and there, right?

      UNTIL...

      I got married, and briefly used IE again until I installed Moz1.4 on the wife's PC. Man, THIS must be what everybody's so mad about. The ads are EVERYWHERE these days. It's out of control.

      I used to feel like it was stealing content, viewing websites and blocking ads, depriving them of

  • Sensible (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Blue Stone ( 582566 ) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @06:29PM (#6379641) Homepage Journal
    Makes sense.
    I can replace ads with pictures of the countryside or kittens, so why not ads with different ads if I so choose, it's my desktop.

    • Re:Sensible (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Bagheera ( 71311 ) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @06:38PM (#6379686) Homepage Journal
      Sure you can, and a lot of us do. The issue is not quite the same. Most Gator installations are done without the knowledge of the person who has it altering their desktop. (Remember, the general populace will click YES to anything) The people advertising on the (insert site here) site paid for that space. The adware effectivelly -steals- the space the rival paid for.

      It's like having something on your TV that replaces Pepsi with Coke in every Pepsi commercial you see. Pepsi would have every right to be annoyed and probably sue since they - not the adaware client - paid for the timeslot.

      • Re:Sensible (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Malicious ( 567158 ) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @06:49PM (#6379746)
        You should try watching the Superbowl in Canada.

        All of the multi-million dollar commercials are replaced by local retailers and companies, because the cable provider has changed the commercials.

        Occasionally, even the billboards on the stadium walls are changed to retailers of a Canadian nature.

      • Re:Sensible (Score:4, Insightful)

        by LostCluster ( 625375 ) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @07:04PM (#6379805)
        Most Gator installations are done without the knowledge of the person who has it altering their desktop. (Remember, the general populace will click YES to anything)

        And there's the real problem. You see, the courts can't protect people from their own stupidity. How about somebody telling people to actually read an EULA once in a while... I'm sure we can get a few GPL zealots to help with this one.

  • users don't agree, they are tricked into accepting (Score:3, Interesting)

    by hashish ( 62254 ) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @06:34PM (#6379666)
    Obviously the court (Judge(s)) have never used a computer on the internet. I know not to accept the certificate blindly, but most people (wrongly) think that to open the web site you need to accept theor certificate.
  • For those of you who think this shouldn't be legal, how would you feel about having something that blocked all advertisements made illegal too?

    On the other hand, I have a hard time believing that anyone would willingly sign up to be hit with more advertisements without getting hardly anything in return. Oh well.

  • Fake Windows messages (Score:5, Interesting)

    by someguy456 ( 607900 ) <someguy456@phreaker.net> on Sunday July 06, 2003 @06:35PM (#6379675) Homepage Journal

    The pop-up ads that bother me the most are the ones that look like Windows dialog boxes. You know - "Warning, your computer is too slow, click here..."

    It's not like I've ever fallen for one, nor do I think many other /.ers have (They don't look right on Gnome or KDE).

    The problem is that some of the "normal" people on the internet can't tell the difference until its too late. My dad is barely computer literate to open and save an excel file (only excel!). He would fall for one of those immediately

    My main concern is that some of these may be used to activate some scripts or something. Once again, those who fell for the boxes probably use Internet Explorer. Need I say more?

  • Impacting Consumer Decisions (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MisterMook ( 634297 ) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @06:38PM (#6379687) Homepage
    "Ultimately," Naider said, "the Internet-enabled computer desktop is a competitive medium, where (advertisers) can impact consumer-buying decisions up to the moment.
    Right, anyone truly wishing to have me buy their products need only place a pop-up ad for a rival company on my desktop so that I might know which company not to choose. My 11 year old's computer routinely spawns 58 popups until the whole thing dies while I exercise the futility of trying to keep her from reinfecting her computer with this garbage.
    • Try using Mozilla or Netscape. They allow you to disable what scripts on webpages can do, including popups ("Open Unrequested Windows") and filling up the status bar with junk among some other things.

      If you want to block more in-page ads, try following this page:
      http://www.accs-net.com/hosts/
      and list the servers that host the banner ads in your hosts file pointing to 127.0.0.1

  • what if... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Floydian123 ( 317261 ) <pezpaul@[ ]oo.com ['yah' in gap]> on Sunday July 06, 2003 @06:39PM (#6379691) Homepage
    another ad program placed another ad over that ad?

    and another...

    you get the point, sounds kind of funky to me
    • Or what if a program simply *removed* that ad...

    • Re:what if... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by curunir ( 98273 ) * on Sunday July 06, 2003 @07:33PM (#6379933) Homepage Journal
      I have a friend who's company worked on a contract for one of the spyware companies. His job was to find software to bundle the spyware with. Some of the potential candidates already came with quite a few other spyware packages as well.

      Aparently, in the negotiations with the software developers, it was very important to be the last spyware package installed during the install process as that could ensure that their spyware package could control the users search bar and other aspects of their browser. He showed me the test computer he installed everything on and typed a non-url into his address bar in IE. For approximately 10 seconds, the screen flashed and the browser did nothing as it attempted to figure out which spyware package was to control the response to his request. The idea that people live with this sickens me.

      • Re:what if... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by shdragon ( 1797 ) *
        I had a something similar in my office occur recently. Apparently someone sent a "cute" email to one of the people in my office (you know, pretty background, smileys, etc), and so they installed it. Within 2 days, 40 people in the office had installed it. And within 2 more days, they were yelling and screaming at me asking why "the internet" was soo slow.

        I discovered that hotbar had hijacked their IE & outlook. Every time they sent an email, or clicked on a site, hotbar would try and call home, only th

  • Gator's in an amazing position. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 06, 2003 @06:39PM (#6379692)
    Gator can now effectively control a large portion of the web.

    Since they can now edit web pages as they see fit (basically), sites don't have to get hacked, and this is all legal.

    Why not have gator outright block pages, or slow them down. They can do what they want. This may turn into a bidding war. Your company's website is useless now, because a competitor can take control over it.

    Sigh... and, now the Slashdot version:

    1. Control Websites
    2. ???
    3. Profit!!!

  • Spyware Ads (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ADRenalyn ( 598918 ) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @06:39PM (#6379697)
    These types of advertisements are developed to utilize flaws in insecure web browsers such as IE, and even though their actions have been deemed legal, they are still invading the privacy of the user (unknowingly) and performing annoying actios such as:

    -Placing icons on the desktop that launch ad-filled web pages
    -Adding itself as a favorite or a home page to the browser
    -Adding shortcuts to the Start Menu

    All without permission of the user. Granted, those who are security-aware will have unsigned ActiveX and Scripting capabilities turned off (discussion of this can be found here [dslreports.com], but then again, the crowd that is more concerned with these types of exploits will use browsers that are harder to exploit and easier to control, such as Mozilla [mozilla.org], Opera [opera.com], or Communicator [netscape.com]. Not that these programs are all exempt from exploitation, but they have proven to be a much smaller target audience.

  • Of course they're legal... (Score:5, Funny)

    by VirtuaKnight ( 680220 ) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @06:40PM (#6379704)
    ...because everyone knows that you don't actually own your computer; it belongs to marketers as soon as you plug it in the the 'Net.

  • This is a Bad Thing™ (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pclinger ( 114364 ) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @06:41PM (#6379709) Homepage Journal
    It is one thing if you yourself block ads using your hosts file or some program, but this program did quite the opposite. When you browse the Web, it adds additional advertisements to Web sites you are visiting, and displays ads for competitors. 99.9% of the idiots who install Gator or other software don't read the EULA or even understand that this other software is being installed as well.

    Think about it this way. You have a business selling computer parts. Someone goes to your site, and then all of the sudden they get a popup ad going straight to a competitor of yours. This can hamper your ability to make a sale with your customer and impacts you financially. It's a Bad Thing(TM).

    It isn't right, and it is unfortunate that the judge ruled this way.
    • Unfortunately, the business that sells computer parts doesn't have a right to complain about that because the user who didn't read the EULA agreed to have those ads show up.

      What this business (and all of the others bothered by this tactic) need to do is to educate the masses about how they've been tricked by agreeing to an EULA they didn't read, and now have a bad program that they didn't mean to install on their computer. Organize a mass uninstall of WhenU and Gator's clients, and those companies suddenly

  • WHO has "the scoop?" (Score:5, Informative)

    by poptones ( 653660 ) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @06:47PM (#6379735) Journal
    Sorry, but The Masons [out-law.com] covered this days ago - along with several other interesting stories.

    If you want news, go to the source.

  • Thinking on paper.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Genjurosan ( 601032 ) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @06:47PM (#6379736)
    This is a very interesting debate, due to the fact that it's still pretty unclear as to who owns the content when it reaches your browser.

    Let's think about this for a second.

    copyright, while the owners of the site can easily claim copyright on any copy, images, etc.. they can't seem to control copyright on the layout of the site by viewing this site. The fact that an ad is on a website doesn't make the layout and presentation a non-copyrighted object. On the other hand, doesn't the fact that the page is thrust into the public domain give everyone the ability to manipulate the content as they see fit?

    license, if a site specifically had you enter into an agreement to view the site, and within the agreement you agree not to edit the layout and presentation of said site, then the fact that you installed gator on your system (how dumb) would violate the agreement and put the you in breach of the terms. Much like a physical establishment grants you license to enter their place of business. If you began posting ads in the store, you would be kicked out. Ahh.. but the catch is.. what if you are the only one that can see that ads? Then your not in violation of the license are you?

    Very tricky in my opinion, but I opt to go with:

    Users should have the right to replace ANYTHING they see while browsing using 3rd party tools, unless they specifically enter into an agreement with the content owners.

    The courts worked in this case, much like they worked for Larry Flynt.

  • wow... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by the-build-chicken ( 644253 ) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @06:48PM (#6379737)
    the Internet-enabled computer desktop is a competitive medium, where (advertisers) can impact consumer-buying

    Gee, and here I was thinking is was my workspace!?!

    just goes to show how these guys think eh?

  • You can bet they will be infecting linux soon. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 06, 2003 @06:52PM (#6379761)
    With linux starting to get popular on the desktop you can bet they will start trying to sneak it in. Its not that hard, just include gator as a "dependancy" in some popular app. Or maybe they will make gatorlux their own ad infested distro.
    Welcome to gatorlux 1.0 sponsored by ford
    login : gator
    password :
    Advert : Get AOL 9 free, now with 1200 hours free for 90 days

    gator@gatorlux.ford : ls
    Your computer could be infected, download purple monkey for linux now:
    usr opt boot bin etc home tmp dev var ford

    kernel panic! Your computer's clock is inaccurate, download precision time (you could use ntpd, but then we couldn't force SUV adverts on you then)

    • Re:You can bet they will be infecting linux soon. (Score:5, Funny)

      by ejaw5 ( 570071 ) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @07:30PM (#6379922)
      try getting some work done with their distro...

      gator@gatorlux.ford: vi main.java

      Emacs is the extensible, customizable, self-documenting real-time display editor. http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/

      gator@gatorlux.ford: javac main.java

      Don't throw out your existing systems. Microsoft .NET-connected software makes it easier for you to share or integrate information using the technology you own now.
      http://www.microsoft.com/net/
  • I personally see only one problem. Companies make such large investments in IT infrastructure (hardware and bandwidth let alone people and software) that they deserve to be able to find ways to regain those costs on their sites. This site (/.) and many other are expensive to run and maintain, let alone the huge initial costs.

    So my problem is this...(UHaul case aside) could allowing changes to the site by third party software be denying companies the funds they deserve for providing the service? Each vi

  • The problem with gator style "pop overs" (Score:3, Interesting)

    by moroderzone ( 585335 ) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @07:06PM (#6379820)
    Many websites use advertising to stay free (as in beer). One problem with gator style "pop overs" is that instead of the original website driving traffic to their sponsors, it drives it to gator's sponsors. Thus gator style pop-overs reduce advertising income from the original website owners. It also reduces sales income to the sponsors that support them.

    In my opinion this is a big defeat for free information (as in beer). If this does not get overruled than many websites that are supported by web advertising will have to charge money or go out of business.

  • It should lose on the appeal (Score:3, Insightful)

    by chimpo13 ( 471212 ) <slashdot@nokilli.com> on Sunday July 06, 2003 @07:07PM (#6379826) Homepage Journal
    Your site, your content, your visitors. If someone pays you to run ads based on your content then those are the ads viewers should see. Your advertising clients are paying for your product.

    How long before someone builds spyware that rearranges the content to put ads where there weren't any ads before?

    Of course, I thought Disney would've lost for the non-ending patent rights.

  • Even sleazy people deserve freedom (Score:3, Interesting)

    by FearUncertaintyDoubt ( 578295 ) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @07:09PM (#6379838)
    Also, they've argued, it comes down to consumers owning their own desktops, which are inherently built to support many applications with multiple windows.

    While it may be that Gator now 0wnz the desktop, the person nevertheless gave control over to the program -- a sort of "power of attorney" was granted to the adware by the user. They may have been fooled, but that's a far cry from the nonsense being alleged by uhaul or anyone else. They aren't trying to protect users from being suckered, they just want their monopoly on suckering^H^H^H, I mean, advertising to people.

    I think that maybe adware (all software, really) should be properly labeled so that users know what they are clicking yes to. Perhaps we should have mandatory labeling for software similar to nutritional labeling required for food. I want to know what's in it and what it does. I want specifics on files, registry settings, TCP ports, drivers, services/daemons, and so on. Now, some may say that they can't disclose some info because of fears of IP protection or trade secrets. However, that isn't a valid defense to not disclosing the ingredients to a twinkie, and it shouldn't be on hiding the actions of an application.

  • Other than the quick glance and then immediate forgetting does actually take any real notice of them?
    Even computer illiterates learn quickly to ignore flashing ads.

    And actually this hijacking of ads should be encouraged! IF the same ads are repeated over and over again you get used to them quicker and ignore them quicker.

    In the 9 or so years being online I can only recall clicking intentionally on a banner ad once.

  • Lets make them pay by doing this.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by TheHawke ( 237817 ) <rchapin@NOSPam.stx.rr.com> on Sunday July 06, 2003 @07:14PM (#6379863)
    All of us (I think that Linux users have this too) open their hosts file and add this to it:

    127.0.0.1 www.gator.co.uk
    127.0.0.1 www.gator.com
    127.0.0.1 www.gator.net
    127.0.0.1 webdp.gator.com
    127.0.0.1 whenu.com
    127.0.01 gator.com

    This will fix their wagon quite thoroughly, until they switch their domain addresses, then reopen your hosts file and repeat..
    I've got a little hosts file (only 22K) that pretty much takes care of all of the jokers that push ads upon you by replacing their ads with a quaint DNS error.

    Let me know if you want a copy of the file.
    • The problem with doing it via a HOSTS file is that it doesn't understand sub-domains. You have to block www.gator.com, www1.gator.com, www2.gator.com... I think you get the point.

      I have heard talk of a peer-2-peer application that would allow me to click on an ad and then select "block" from a list. Every hour, my block list gets circulated around the internet. Eventualy, a master list evolves that effectively blocks every advertisement from every page on the internet.

      There are 2 problems I can see wit
  • Pop goes the weazel

    and dead goes gator when consumers sue for illegal computer access..:)

    spyware is still somewhat illegal foolks :)

    want to kill a gator today?

  • The crux of the matter. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DaLukester ( 687299 ) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @07:30PM (#6379921)
    Although the argument both for and against the presence of competitors ads have some merit the fundamental issue is still personal choice.

    I run a business, my ad is in the yellow pages along with everybody else who is in the same line of work. Why is it that despite the fact that I am surrounded by the ads of others (mostly bigger than mine) I have a larger market share in my area? A rhetorical question to which I'm sure we all know the answer to, my service is better and my prices are fair.

    The decision to use a company is still based on choices made on the basis of information provided... NOT on the the basis of 'I saw you first'. You cannot call "Shotgun" in the business world and expect everybody to agree. The solution for these companies is to make sure that people still choose their service or product, even after they have been exposed to all the other available options. This is the USA, there is never going to be someone telling you that you are not allowed to be the best.

    Go ahead run your ads anywhere you like in my local yellow pages. My company is the best. If these companies cant handle the competition then maybe they should check what they can do better within their company rather than attempting to call 'shotgun' and make their competitors go away!

  • Billboard (Score:5, Interesting)

    by doormat ( 63648 ) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @07:49PM (#6379987) Homepage Journal
    If I put up a billboard (or rent one for a month), and my competitor comes around and puts his ad overtop of mine, thats vandalism. How exactly is this different than this case? U-Haul rents or owns virtual billboards along "the information superhighway" and someone else comes around and puts their ad overtop of U-Hauls. Its vandalism. Even if its only for a few people, its still vandalism. Another example of the court not grasping the concept because its electronic.

    • Re:Billboard (Score:3, Insightful)

      by alienw ( 585907 )
      That's a bad analogy. What you described (vandalism) would occur if someone hacked into the server and replaced the banner ads. This case would be more like building another billboard right in front of the U-haul one thus blocking it. Assuming you own the land, that's perfectly legal and acceptable. Seems like the judge made the proper conclusion in this case.

    • Re:Billboard (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Restil ( 31903 )
      I can't touch your billboard, just like I can't hack into the ad server and replace your ads with one of my own.

      However, if I design a windshield that detects the presence of your billboards and superimposes another image over it, such that your billboard has a different message, that's fine. The only difference is, it's a lot easier to do this online than in real life.

      -Restil

    • Re:Billboard (Score:3, Interesting)

      by TheMidget ( 512188 )
      If I put up a billboard (or rent one for a month), and my competitor comes around and puts his ad overtop of mine, thats vandalism.

      More like a garage who surreptously replaces windshields of cars brought in for repairs with "special HUD enhanced" windshields that electronically alter the contents of highway-side billboards seen through it.

      Or a sleezy salesmen that sells X-ray glasses. However, the glasses won't allow you to see the babes naked, but instead just substitude the billboard ads you look at.

  • Worrying (Score:3, Interesting)

    by lpontiac ( 173839 ) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @07:53PM (#6380011)
    I'd agree with the judges reasoning if the pop-up box to install Gator (it's an ActiveX component I believe, and there's a standard MSIE dialog box which prompts the user) said 'Do you with to install "Gator, a program which places additional advertising onto webpages. Part of the revenue from this business goes back to the website you're trying to visit"'.

    However, the text presented to the user comes from the component author, and every time I've come across Gator it's along the lines of '"Date/Time checker, a program that blah blah blah enhances your internet experience blah blah blah" by Gator Corporation.' NO MENTION of replacing or adding ads to web pages.

    Sure, it doesn't say that Gator doesn't do anything else, but I don't see how this is any different than, say, yet another chain mail which also happens to mail itself to everyone in your mailbox automatically. The primary purpose of the software is hostile and hidden to the user installing it, which is about as 'trojan horse' as you can get.

  • Huh? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Cinematique ( 167333 ) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @08:36PM (#6380203)
    So this means I'm allowed to cover a billboard five minutes from my house with a banner that says "www.goatse.cx" in 4500 point font?

  • How to beat Gator for good? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 06, 2003 @08:53PM (#6380286)
    The problem with Gator's approach is that all activity occurs client side. The code and structure of the website is not tampered with but rather what is transmitted from the site to the user is modified by the programs. Therefore, in most cases websites can do nothing with their code to prevent Gator from screwing it up.

    What they can do, and what MS has proved is definitely technologically feasible with Opera and MSN.com, is redirect users detected using Gator and similar software. Currently, probably half of the people who visit these sites and load a different page than others, thanks to Gator, probably have no idea their computer is infected. THESE people are the ones the companies are suing Gator over because the customers have no idea they are getting a "false" image of the company's site.

    If users with ad-changing spyware were redirected to a page similar to the ones people using third-party browser (not MIE or Netscape) frequently get on major sites, a page that said something to the effect of "You have software installed that may prevent the proper viewing of the site" and then named exactly what was messing things up, I would bet that a lot more action would be taken against spyware. People would be aware that their Internet is filtered and hijacked, and they would do something about it. Currently, I doubt future court rulings will be different until the technology and method of presenting/counter popups and ads changes radically.

  • Can this ruling be extended to DVRs? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Professor D ( 680160 ) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @09:09PM (#6380344)
    Suppose I design a commercial DVR that allows companies to pay me to "popup" ads over the commercials that the owner would otherwise see?

    1) Get Coca-Cola to pay my company mucho bucks to "popup" a Diet Coke ad everytime the TV viewer was supposed to see a Diet Pepsi ad?

    3) Profit!

    What about users customizing their DVRs to play content they _prefer_ instead of the ads they were going to see? (ie, show me those beer babes fighting in the fountain ad everytime that lame shampoo commercial comes on).

    Or how about allowing the user to automatically skip commercials altogether? ... Err ... Whoops [slashdot.org]

  • seems very simple... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Archfeld ( 6757 ) * <treboreel@live.com> on Sunday July 06, 2003 @10:17PM (#6380665) Journal
    detect gator agent, redirect page to we are sorry but your computer is currently unsecure running the GAIN system and we cannot allow you access to our page. Please come back when you have unistalled the GATOR client and are running a secure browser and we will be happy to do business with you. Thank-you and good luck with your security errors, the management at U-Hual.com
  • If I run an application that strategically blocks advertisements, how is this any different from what this company is doing? In my case, someone else paid money for that particular ad to be presented, and I'm "overlaying" (more like overriding) it with another piece of information (a randomly generated quote). I think the court ruled correctly, as the user took action to install this program (whether he paid attention to the click-through license or not). I would think that, if the court ruled the other way, that would open up many popup blockers / advertisement blockers to various lawsuits.

    Now, as to the issue of the click through license -- I wonder what other way we could do such a thing? Perhaps legal mandates stating that all applications / tools / utilities from 3rd parties must be plainly presented the user? The problem, of course, is that this would be a local (at best) solution, and, it would, I think, just create some wierd variant of that type of advertisements, probably doing more harm than good.

  • The decision is OK, sort of (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Monday July 07, 2003 @11:39AM (#6383586) Homepage
    The court ruled that an advertiser can't complain if the user installs something that replaces their ads with other ads. That's actually good; it protects ad-blocking software. It's also surprising. It opens the door for Tivo to do something similar to television. That will be interesting.

    Users who have Gator on their machines against their will may have a computer intrusion case, under federal "exceeds authorized access" computer crime laws, but that wasn't what was litigated here.

Slashdot Top Deals

Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.

Close