Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

iDownload Tries to Silence Spyware Critics

Posted by timothy on Wed Feb 23, 2005 01:33 PM
from the o-muerta dept.
Privacy
Doug Muth writes "According to this article over on DSL Reports, yet another spyware author, iDownload, has been sending out cease and desist letters to sites that classify their iSearch toolbar as Spyware. Some research reveals that yes, iSearch really does take over users' computers. A search on Spyware Guide also turns up a writeup on iSearch."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
iDownload Tries to Silence Spyware Critics | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 446 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) | 2

  • Packets (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BoldAC (735721) on Wednesday February 23 2005, @01:35PM (#11757620)
    What?

    I have seen packets of it sending the current URL to questionable websites... especially right before it pops up a window.

    Spyware, no doubt.

    • Re:Packets (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ackthpt (218170) * on Wednesday February 23 2005, @01:49PM (#11757796)
      (http://www.dragonswest.com/ | Last Journal: Monday November 05, @07:35PM)
      I have seen packets of it sending the current URL to questionable websites... especially right before it pops up a window.

      Spyware, no doubt.

      So today's lesson is: Weasels will turn to the courts to shut up those who would warn the public

      funny thing is, it's the same lesson we've been presented before [216.239.57.104].

      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Packets by DJStealth (Score:2) Wednesday February 23 2005, @02:08PM

        • Re:Packets (Score:5, Informative)

          by harrkev (623093) <[moc.noslerrah] [ta] [nivek]> on Wednesday February 23 2005, @02:31PM (#11758265)
          (http://www.covenantspice.com/)
          That depends on what you define as "problem."

          If you define "problem" to mean that you can loose in court, then I suspect that you would be OK.

          If you define "problem" to mean that you wind up in court in the first place and have to blow your life savings and any equity in your house on lawyer fees, then I could see that there might be a problem.

          Remember, the court appoints you an attorney for free ONLY in criminal matters. In civil court, you are on your own.
          [ Parent ]

          • Re:Packets (Score:5, Funny)

            by That's Unpossible! (722232) * on Wednesday February 23 2005, @02:35PM (#11758310)
            Remember, the court appoints you an attorney for free ONLY in criminal matters. In civil court, you are on your own.

            Simple solution. Kill the CEO of the company suing you.*

            *I'm joking, please don't sue me... or I'll kill your CEO.
            [ Parent ]
          • Re:Packets by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday February 23 2005, @05:21PM
          • Re:Packets by Mattintosh (Score:2) Wednesday February 23 2005, @06:50PM
          • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
        • Re:Packets by slashrogue (Score:2) Wednesday February 23 2005, @03:07PM

          • Re:Packets (Score:4, Insightful)

            by TrueBuckeye (675537) on Wednesday February 23 2005, @03:28PM (#11758870)
            (Last Journal: Friday June 04 2004, @01:05PM)
            How can it be? You can sue anyone for anything these days. All it costs is your soul.

            It is a bully tactic...they are betting that the small anti-spyware sites don't have the cash flow to afford the inevitable legal fees. Fortunately, Kyle at [H]ard|OCP was willing to spend a quarter of a million dollars defending his right to have an opinion.
            [ Parent ]
        • Re:Packets by Zeinfeld (Score:2) Wednesday February 23 2005, @03:07PM
        • Re:Packets by Jason Ford (Score:2) Wednesday February 23 2005, @03:53PM
          • Re:Packets by pete6677 (Score:2) Wednesday February 23 2005, @04:56PM
        • Re:Packets by ssimontis (Score:1) Wednesday February 23 2005, @06:12PM
        • Re:Packets by JuggleGeek (Score:2) Thursday February 24 2005, @01:18AM
      • Re:Packets by PopeAlien (Score:2) Wednesday February 23 2005, @02:39PM
      • Re:Packets by SlayerofGods (Score:2) Wednesday February 23 2005, @05:12PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

    • Remover? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 23 2005, @02:00PM (#11757928)
      This [isearch.com] is the link that isearch.com provides through thier FAQ about removing the spyware...it offers an executable that claims to be an uninstaller...haven't tried it as not only do i lack the spyware but I'm also on a public comp with no way to see what it does...

      My expierence with spyware companies leads me to belive that this is even worse than the original spyware, but if anyone with a computer they're willing to sacrifice or a honeypot for spyware wants to try it, they've at least provided something that they claim will remove their spyware...
      [ Parent ]

      • Re:Remover? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by duck_oil (645053) on Wednesday February 23 2005, @03:08PM (#11758669)
        Great link. It should be posted:

        iDownload.com, Inc. DBA iSearch Internet provides applications which help to subsidize the free content and product offerings of many publishers. iSearch applications are not spy ware and do not collect any personally identifiable information about users. Additionally, iSearch applications do not hijack home pages, promote obscene material, alter/add items to user's favorites, modify security related settings, prevent security related applications from running, or alter cookies or url's to receive credit for affiliate driven sales.

        If you wish to remove the iSearch applications from your computer, you may download our automated removal mechanism.

        Please be aware that many so called "ad ware removers" and "spy ware removers" can cause damage to your computer and may alter your computer in such a way that our automated removal application will not function. At the present time, there is no third party software which is capable of removing iSearch applications. If you have purchased an application which claims to remove iSearch, we encourage you to contact your credit card company and request an immediate reversal with the reason of "Product Not As Described" and/or contact the Better Business Bureau.
        [ Parent ]

        • Cute. Nice cancerware. (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Mr. Underbridge (666784) on Wednesday February 23 2005, @05:46PM (#11760395)
          iDownload.com, Inc. DBA iSearch Internet provides applications which help to subsidize the free content and product offerings of many publishers.

          Gee, and how might they do that? Surely not anything that'll annoy the fuck out of me?

          iSearch applications are not spy ware and do not collect any personally identifiable information about users.

          No, just everything else. Methinks iDownload doth protest too much - I've never heard a EULA (or whatever) claim NOT to be spyware unless it WAS spyware.

          Additionally, iSearch applications do not hijack home pages, promote obscene material, alter/add items to user's favorites, modify security related settings, prevent security related applications from running, or alter cookies or url's to receive credit for affiliate driven sales.

          That's a better definition of malware than spyware, though not inclusive regardless.

          At the present time, there is no third party software which is capable of removing iSearch applications.

          Hm. So, in other words, we've p0wned your box. But we're not spyware, of course not.

          If you have purchased an application which claims to remove iSearch, we encourage you to contact your credit card company and request an immediate reversal with the reason of "Product Not As Described" and/or contact the Better Business Bureau.

          Uh huh, it's Norton who needs to be reported to the BBB. Not the bunch of assholes who have done everything possible to keep their cancerware on your box.

          [ Parent ]
          • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
        • Re:Remover? by heybo (Score:3) Wednesday February 23 2005, @10:12PM
        • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:Remover? by fermion (Score:1) Thursday February 24 2005, @11:03AM
        • Re:Remover? by Drantin (Score:2) Saturday February 26 2005, @10:29AM
      • Re:Remover? by Greymoon (Score:2) Thursday February 24 2005, @01:28PM

    • Re:Packets (Score:5, Insightful)

      by segoy (641704) on Wednesday February 23 2005, @03:36PM (#11758962)
      Since they object to Spyware, Malwaire, and Foistware, can we call them, instead...

      Suck-AssWare?
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Packets by Muchsake (Score:1) Thursday February 24 2005, @09:58PM
    • Re:Packets by SacredNaCl (Score:2) Wednesday February 23 2005, @04:53PM
    • Re:Packets by Supernoma (Score:1) Wednesday February 23 2005, @05:58PM
    • 5 replies beneath your current threshold.

  • Doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)

    by akac (571059) on Wednesday February 23 2005, @01:35PM (#11757628)
    (http://www.pocketinformant.com/)
    A cease and desist letter doesn't mean much if you're in the right. Anyone can send one. Anyone can sue. Its just being a blowhard.

    If it gets into the court system and doesn't get outright dismissed, then its a problem.

    • Re:Doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)

      by lukewarmfusion (726141) on Wednesday February 23 2005, @01:39PM (#11757690)
      (http://www.slashdot.org/~lukewarmfusion/journal/ | Last Journal: Tuesday August 02 2005, @02:49PM)
      If it did get into the court system, the court may end up legally defining spyware. Think of it in terms of libel, slander, defamation, etc. If you call the software spyware, it can damage their business and reputation. You could be held liable for their losses, even. But that would require that the claim was false. To prove it was false, the court would have to officially declare their software one way or another.

      Gator became Claria, as I recall, right around the time they started using these tactics. I wonder if someone can find an update on the outcome of their C&D orders. My guess is there wasn't any - it was just hot air.
      [ Parent ]

      • Re:Doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)

        by twiddlingbits (707452) on Wednesday February 23 2005, @01:59PM (#11757914)
        Some states have passed laws that contain a legal defintion of spyware. I also think there is a bill in Congress that bans spyware as well (I hope it is a better bill than the CANN-SPAM law). To prove libel or slander there has to be an element of "intent". If there was no intent to harm thier business they can't win. It's your right as a user to ban whatever software you want, spyware tools just tell you about the supposedly "bad" software. You actually have to take an action and agree that it is "bad" and then delete it. Therefore the USER made the decision NOT the Spyware package. The spyware only provides you with information. This one will never make it to court, it's just a tactic to try to prop up a lost cause.
        [ Parent ]
      • Re:Doesn't matter by kramerino (Score:1) Wednesday February 23 2005, @02:02PM

      • Re:Doesn't matter (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Kashif Shaikh (575991) <k2shaikh@@@yahoo...com> on Wednesday February 23 2005, @02:09PM (#11758041)
        Which is why Anti-Spyware software have to rename themselves, or put something in bold letters when something found isn't spy-based software. Something desclaimer like:

        WARNING: 'ChangeYourToolBar.exe' isn't spyware. It is a program that changes your toolbar with its own custom version, without asking your permission. If you think this is an illegitimate program, please click on the check box to delete.

        Now this removes the burden-of-proof from anti-spyware programs, and lets the user decide whether he should keep it or not based on the description.

        Kashif

        [ Parent ]
        • Re:Doesn't matter by PitaBred (Score:2) Wednesday February 23 2005, @03:29PM
        • New career by Mr. Underbridge (Score:3) Wednesday February 23 2005, @05:13PM
      • Re:Doesn't matter by stonedonkey (Score:2) Wednesday February 23 2005, @02:37PM
      • A good point by RaguMS (Score:1) Wednesday February 23 2005, @02:50PM
      • Re:Doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Wednesday February 23 2005, @03:08PM
        • Re:Doesn't matter by LocoMan (Score:2) Wednesday February 23 2005, @03:11PM
        • Evilware by TwilightXaos (Score:1) Wednesday February 23 2005, @07:28PM
      • Re:Doesn't matter by drakethegreat (Score:1) Wednesday February 23 2005, @03:15PM
      • Except... by Hamster Lover (Score:2) Wednesday February 23 2005, @03:36PM
    • Re:Doesn't matter by iluvcapra (Score:2) Wednesday February 23 2005, @01:43PM

    • Does too matter (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fm6 (162816) on Wednesday February 23 2005, @02:02PM (#11757948)
      (http://picknit.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday July 29 2006, @03:58PM)
      A cease and desist letter doesn't mean much if you're in the right.
      Every time we talk about lawsuits and C&D letters, somebody trots out this naive civics-class bullshit. It's not a matter of being in the right. It's a matter of proving you're in the right. There isn't some magically Equity Fairy who makes bad lawsuits go away. At the very least, you have to show up in court to argue that the lawsuit is bullshit. And then there's always a chance that the initial decision will be, "Well, it might be bullshit, but I need more evidence before I can decide."

      Plus there's always the chance that iDownload has discovered some obscure bit of legislation or precedent that gives them the upper hand legally. You think the people who write laws and court decisions always have the same view of "fair" as you do?

      New Yorker cartoon, showing lawyer talking to client. "Sir, you have a very good case. But before we can proceed, we have to settle one small issue: exactly how much justice can you afford?"

      If this outrages you, well, it should. Best way to express this is by contributing to any anti-spyware defenese funds that get organized.

      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Does too matter by Queer Boy (Score:2) Wednesday February 23 2005, @03:15PM

      • Re:Does too matter (Score:5, Informative)

        by Lord Kano (13027) on Wednesday February 23 2005, @03:51PM (#11759115)
        (http://www.angelfire...epublican/index.blog | Last Journal: Thursday July 27 2006, @12:00AM)
        If this outrages you, well, it should. Best way to express this is by contributing to any anti-spyware defenese funds that get organized.

        That's one way. Another is to rediscover our right of Jury Nullification [greenmac.com].

        People will quit filing bullshit lawsuits when juries stop handing them victories.

        LK
        [ Parent ]
      • Re:Does too matter by LurkerXXX (Score:2) Wednesday February 23 2005, @04:02PM

      • It's called SLAPP (Score:5, Informative)

        by Omega (1602) on Wednesday February 23 2005, @06:13PM (#11760663)
        (http://xpine.sourceforge.net/)
        This type of practice is what's known as SLAPP [thefirstamendment.org]: Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. They're used by companies as a way to silence critics. It basically works like this:
        1. Company X does something bad
        2. Citizen Group Y complains about it (in a newsletter, road sign, whatever)
        3. Knowing that Citizen Group Y has limited funds and cannot afford a long, protracted legal battle, Company X files a lawsuit against Citizen Group Y, claiming they're disparaging their product or otherwise defaming their business (can you believe there's actual laws that serve as a basis for this crap? I mean, what the hell is "food disparagement" anyway?)
        4. Citizen Group Y caves in, Company X resumes doing evil without tarnishing its good name
        Fortunately, more and more states are getting wise and passing Anti-SLAPP laws, which gives legal grounds for requesting early dismissal of a SLAPP suit. Even though this might not keep you out of court, early dismissal can prevent protracted, expensive legal battles.
        [ Parent ]
      • Re:Does too matter by richard lang (Score:1) Wednesday February 23 2005, @07:04PM
      • Re:Does too matter by CodeBuster (Score:2) Wednesday February 23 2005, @07:39PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Doesn't matter by kjs3 (Score:2) Wednesday February 23 2005, @02:33PM
    • Re:Doesn't matter by Potatomasher (Score:1) Wednesday February 23 2005, @03:02PM
    • Re:Doesn't matter by kismet666 (Score:1) Wednesday February 23 2005, @05:29PM
    • Re:Doesn't matter by CodeBuster (Score:2) Wednesday February 23 2005, @07:33PM
    • You'd render us lawyerless by Pac (Score:3) Wednesday February 23 2005, @01:58PM
    • They do! by bluGill (Score:2) Wednesday February 23 2005, @02:31PM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.

  • Hardly surprising (Score:4, Funny)

    by null etc. (524767) on Wednesday February 23 2005, @01:35PM (#11757629)
    Since when have spyware companies followed ethical practices?

  • Not Spyware? (Score:5, Funny)

    by dbleoslow (650429) on Wednesday February 23 2005, @01:37PM (#11757652)
    from TFA, Not only can't the products be called "Spyware", they can't be called "Foistware" or "Malware" either.

    I deem thee, "Assware"
    • Re:Not Spyware? by Nichotin (Score:2) Wednesday February 23 2005, @01:46PM
    • Re:Not Spyware? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday February 23 2005, @02:04PM
    • Re:Not Spyware? by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Wednesday February 23 2005, @02:38PM

    • Re:Not Spyware? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FirstTimeCaller (521493) on Wednesday February 23 2005, @02:46PM (#11758435)

      Also from TFA: iSearch is a toolbar that in no way attempts to remain hidden or evade detection.

      That's an understatement! iSearch is about as in-your-face as it gets.

      Personally, I've never liked the term SpyWare as it seems to focus on a very narrow aspect of the problem (i.e. gathering of personal information). A better, more encompassing term might be "HijackWare". Although AssWare is certainly accurate enough.

      I think that any software that resists removal by the end user should be outlawed. True, the user may have volunarily (and probably unknowingly) installed the software. But then actively preventing them from discontinuing use is criminal (IMHO). I certainly can't think of any product that behaves similarly (except perhaps the Happy Fun Ball [happyfunball.com]. Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball!).

      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Not Spyware? by SatanMat (Score:2) Wednesday February 23 2005, @02:51PM

    • Re:Not Spyware? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by GeckoX (259575) on Wednesday February 23 2005, @02:54PM (#11758527)
      Why don't we just nip this in the butt now and label them what they actually are then, viruses. And then lets deal with the makers of them as virus writers. They get what they are asking for (not being labelled 'spyware/foistware/malware'), and we get what we need: these pricks fined into oblivion, and/or reamed in a wee private cell.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:Not Spyware? A rose by any other name is.. by swordfishBob (Score:1) Wednesday February 23 2005, @03:58PM
    • How about 'Evilware'?? by jimbro2k (Score:2) Wednesday February 23 2005, @04:15PM
    • Because it "kicks ass" :) by lxt (Score:2) Wednesday February 23 2005, @05:27PM
    • Re:Not Spyware? by rob_squared (Score:1) Wednesday February 23 2005, @10:42PM
    • Re:Not Spyware? by Phroggy (Score:2) Thursday February 24 2005, @02:42AM
    • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • IDownload Feed of Crapola by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday February 23 2005, @01:37PM

  • a letter to stop sending letters (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bdigit (132070) on Wednesday February 23 2005, @01:38PM (#11757672)
    Can we send them a cease and desist letter to stop sending cease and desist letters? or something...

    Everyone should write them a letter to quit having their toolbar hijack your computer!

    http://www.immigrantornot.com/ [immigrantornot.com]

  • Yea definitly spyware.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LnxAddct (679316) <sgk25@drexel.edu> on Wednesday February 23 2005, @01:39PM (#11757675)
    (http://krenzel.info/)
    iDownload's [idownload.com] front page claims that they are spyware free. To put things in perpective, spyware is like farting, the first person to deny it usually did it. If you read further down their list, it says "Certified Virus Free". Have you ever seen software have to claim its virus free? And where exactly do you get this certification, and who certifies it? I want to see the certificate. Its their software dammit, of course its virus free (assuming they were a legit company), just like all commercial software from respectable companies should be.
    Regards,
    Steve

  • No need for alarm (Score:5, Informative)

    by delta_avi_delta (813412) <dave DOT murphy AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday February 23 2005, @01:39PM (#11757677)
    Contradicting the article's claim that the industry isn't standing up to these guys, it's nice to see that CastleCops have themselves retained council, and their rebuttal http://castlecops.com/article-5765-nested-0-0.html [castlecops.com] doesn't pull any punches.
  • What? by sinfree (Score:2) Wednesday February 23 2005, @01:39PM
    • Re:What? by Skye16 (Score:2) Wednesday February 23 2005, @01:41PM
      • Re:What? by sinfree (Score:1) Wednesday February 23 2005, @01:50PM
      • Re:What? by tuffy (Score:2) Wednesday February 23 2005, @01:55PM
        • Re:What? by Moofie (Score:1) Wednesday February 23 2005, @02:09PM
          • Re:What? by bmwm3nut (Score:2) Wednesday February 23 2005, @03:10PM
            • Re:What? by Moofie (Score:1) Wednesday February 23 2005, @04:05PM
              • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:What? by theVP (Score:2) Wednesday February 23 2005, @01:45PM

    • Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rewt66 (738525) on Wednesday February 23 2005, @01:54PM (#11757855)
      Who needs a crime?

      I can sue you for wasting the planet's oxygen. (You're breathing, right?) The court will throw the suit out immediately, but I can file it. This also forces you to defend it, which means hire a lawyer, spend money, etc. It's a form of bullying.

      So what it really comes down to is, these slimeballs are saying, "If you call our stuff spyware, we're going to harass you, make your life difficult, and cost you a bunch of money". It's a form of bullying.

      Welcome to the United States, home of the "free" (how come we aren't free from this kind of nonsense?)
      [ Parent ]
  • Slashdot has a large pool of users by bigtallmofo (Score:2) Wednesday February 23 2005, @01:39PM
  • Cease and Desist! by Evil W1zard (Score:1) Wednesday February 23 2005, @01:39PM
  • Just let us know by Dachannien (Score:2) Wednesday February 23 2005, @01:41PM

  • Could happen to you... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by clinko (232501) on Wednesday February 23 2005, @01:41PM (#11757702)
    (http://www.clinko.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday February 07 2002, @03:25PM)
    It's all how you look at it. They believe they provide a service (although inferior, and with more ads), it is a service.

    Eventually this is going to happen to legit companies. I make a taskbar icon program [clinko.com]. I'll admit it's pretty shitty because it's beta. Also, You see more ads because of using it than not using it... (It links to pages with ads on them.)

    Is it spyware/Adware because I want to pay for a work in progress?

    • Re:Could happen to you... (Score:5, Informative)

      by jest3r (458429) on Wednesday February 23 2005, @01:46PM (#11757777)
      The EULA states:

      The software may conveniently without your input or interaction install Third Party Software on your computer ...

      There is really only one way to look at that ...
      http://toolbar.isearch.com/terms.html

      [ Parent ]
      • Damn, that's one nasty.... by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday February 23 2005, @02:23PM

      • Re:Could happen to you... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by rcamera (517595) on Wednesday February 23 2005, @02:36PM (#11758317)
        (http://rcamera.org/)
        i liked this paragraph...

        Further, you agree that you will not initiate, permit, authorize or assist any third party or application to remove the Software from your computer, or disrupt its operation or the operation of any other user. You agree that removal of the Software from your computer will only be performed by you pursuant to the instructions set forth herein.

        does this mean that i can't clean up the spywa^H^H^H^H^Hsoftware on my wife's machine for her?
        [ Parent ]

        • Violation of the EULA (Score:5, Insightful)

          by virg_mattes (230616) on Wednesday February 23 2005, @04:03PM (#11759225)
          Um, am I the only one who sees this as silly? If you use a third party application to remove the Software, you violate the EULA, which has the effect of...


          ...negating your license to use the Software.

          How's that again?

          Virg
          [ Parent ]
        • Re:Could happen to you... by Alsee (Score:2) Thursday February 24 2005, @08:33AM
      • Re:Could happen to you... by KyleJacobson (Score:1) Wednesday February 23 2005, @02:40PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:Could happen to you... by PickyH3D (Score:1) Wednesday February 23 2005, @04:33PM
      • Re:Could happen to you... by Vicsun (Score:1) Wednesday February 23 2005, @05:47PM
      • Re:Here is the second paragraph by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Wednesday February 23 2005, @03:01PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Could happen to you... by argent (Score:3) Wednesday February 23 2005, @02:00PM
    • Re:Could happen to you... by mr.newt (Score:1) Wednesday February 23 2005, @02:34PM

  • Well duh (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anita Coney (648748) on Wednesday February 23 2005, @01:41PM (#11757703)
    We value free speech so much in this country we have specific "free speech zones" to practice it. Is it really surprising that we value profit over speech?!

  • Hey, you know something? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Faust7 (314817) on Wednesday February 23 2005, @01:41PM (#11757712)
    (http://www.drgw.net/~nnthayer)
    I really hope Microsoft, having recently released that beta of AntiSpyware, gets one of these letters.

    iDownload won't even know what hit them.
  • nice try but .... by hurfy (Score:2) Wednesday February 23 2005, @01:42PM
  • Bollocks by Reene (Score:1) Wednesday February 23 2005, @01:43PM
  • In other news... by rogabean (Score:2) Wednesday February 23 2005, @01:44PM

    • Re:In other news... (Score:5, Informative)

      by danheskett (178529) <danheskett.gmail@com> on Wednesday February 23 2005, @01:57PM (#11757884)
      Crooked, deceptive or not... Would you want your software uninstalled by other software that claimed yours was "Bad"?
      I write software for a living, and sell it for a living, and support it, etc.

      I am not the least bit worried about other people's software uninstalling mine.

      Why?

      Because, it's ultimately the end-users decision. The owner or owners of a PC get to decide what to do with it. Would I be pissed if a competitor was targetting my stuff and auto-breaking/disabling it? Yes. Are there legal remedies available to me? You bet.

      I am I pissed if an end-user decides to install some software that decides my software is bad? NO, not at all. Why is it bad? For disk space reasons, performance, or some bogus false-flag? What can I do to make my software better, that's what I am interested in.

      Citizens have final total dominion over their private property, and that's how it should be. If someone wants to install something that breaks one of "my" products, well then, too bad for me.
      [ Parent ]
  • time to stand up by CrimeDoggy (Score:1) Wednesday February 23 2005, @01:45PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • Counter suits (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mr. Cancelled (572486) on Wednesday February 23 2005, @01:46PM (#11757769)
    The sites being sent these letters should band together and file a counter suit for harrasment. There's clearly enough evidence to support that iSearch/Download are bad juju, and people/sites should not be threatened for making their opinions known.

    MHO, of course...
  • Its definately spyware by Direwolf20 (Score:1) Wednesday February 23 2005, @01:46PM

  • Here's his lawyer's address (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 23 2005, @01:49PM (#11757795)
    Just in case you want to let his lawyer know that his client is in the wrong and that the first amendment is something we hold dear. Here y'all go:

    mark@ssjmlaw.com

    Mark D. Hopkins
    Telephone: (512) 347-1604
    Fax: (512) 347-1676
    The Overlook at Gaines Ranch
    4330 S. Mopac, Ste. 150
    Austin, Texas, 78735
  • isearch, et al by jskline (Score:2) Wednesday February 23 2005, @01:51PM
  • Cease or be slashdoted by FidelCatsro (Score:1) Wednesday February 23 2005, @01:52PM

  • From the link (Score:5, Informative)

    by techstar25 (556988) <techstar25@cf l . r r.com> on Wednesday February 23 2005, @01:52PM (#11757830)
    (http://www.thepickupartist.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday January 11 2005, @04:44PM)
    iSearch claims it "displays links to and advertisements of related websites based on the information you view and the websites you visit; store non-personally identifiable statistics of the websites you have visited;"

    If that isn't spyware, I don't what is. In fact, isn't that the definition of "spyware"?

    They also claim to "conveniently without your input or interaction; install software from iSearch affiliates; and install Third Party Software".

    That's scary stuff!
    • Re:From the link by 55555 Manbabies! (Score:1) Wednesday February 23 2005, @01:55PM<