Forum Moderators: skibum

Message Too Old, No Replies

Web users 'must endure' pop-up ads

ruling applies only to America (for now)

         

ukgimp

8:53 am on Sep 9, 2003 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



Media Guardian [media.guardian.co.uk]

Internet users will continue to be plagued by unwanted pop-up adverts after a US judge ruled websites can do nothing to prevent companies placing ads on their pages without permission.

jbinbpt

9:10 am on Sep 9, 2003 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



The same is discussed on in a article on MSNBC [msnbc.com].

I am not surprised be this. If you ever actually read an user agreement, you are giving your rights away if you agree to it. The short-term solution is to add a good blocker like the Google tool bar and an ad busting program to your pc protection routine.
It surprises me that with all this happening, we find so many web designers using pop-ups. How am I to know what a “GOOD” pop-up is and how is my Google toolbar to know.

buckworks

9:20 am on Sep 9, 2003 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Administrator 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



Regardless of what individual computer users might have agreed to, I as a site owner did not agree to have my content used as a trigger for someone else's ads and someone else's gain without compensation or permission!

This ruling makes me ill, absolutely ill.

Compworld

11:30 am on Sep 9, 2003 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



Someone or some company needs to start a class action lawsuit against Gator and others. Then, a precident would be set, and I guess a favoriable ruling would help also.

CompWorld

dmorison

11:57 am on Sep 9, 2003 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



Don't think the judge really had an option here.

If installed via an official channel; Gator declares its intentions during installation.

If he were to rule against Gator then the whole issue around the legality or otherwise of the EULA would have been thrown into disarray.

Software performing a similar function; but only installed via a blind process and with no user interaction is a completely different matter.

stevedob

12:31 pm on Sep 9, 2003 (gmt 0)

10+ Year Member



I as a site owner did not agree to
The point of the ruling, correctly in my opinion, is that what gets viewed has nothing to do with a site owner. As a site owner, I don't get to have a say in what happens on users' machines, nor should I.

The opposite ruling could open up the possibility of, say, mozilla.org being taken to court for providing a browser that facilitates preventing window resizing (for example). Or, a rash of "How dare you block my popups - I'll see you in court." cases. There would be a legitimate gripe if that were to happen.

buckworks

5:32 pm on Sep 9, 2003 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Administrator 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month



If adware programs actually believed their own rhetoric about user choice, they would make it equally easy for a user to "unchoose" them as it was to "choose" them.

If they offered an easy, obvious, complete uninstall that was no more complicated for the user than it was to install the program, the argument about "the user chooses to have us" would be easier to stomach.

ukgimp

7:22 am on Sep 10, 2003 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



>>no more complicated for the user than
>>it was to install the program

Thats a crock isnt it? You have to have be quite capable of removeing all that ####, crack open spybot. Until they do as you suggest BW, I think they should be set on fire and then eaten. This sort of scumbagware or whatever you wish to call it get my back up.

Perhaps if the people residing over such cases had their pc or their chilrens pcs hijacked they would take a much harder line.

john_k

3:54 pm on Oct 3, 2003 (gmt 0)

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member



The point of the ruling, correctly in my opinion, is that what gets viewed has nothing to do with a site owner. As a site owner, I don't get to have a say in what happens on users' machines, nor should I.

Perhaps, when the scumware adds popups/popunders, it can be reasoned that it is outside of website's area of concern. Regarding the presentation of the actual web pages, however, I couldn't disagree more: what gets viewed should have everything to do with the site owner.

When the scumware alters any of the content that is presented (content being the visible text & graphics AND the associated links), then the scumware is materially altering copyrighted content for the scumware distributor's own financial benefit. It is in violation of all known copyright laws.

When I buy a copy of a book at a bookstore, I don't expect the store owner to rip out the last two pages and insert their own ending. If they have a sign up that says "We changed the endings of some books to give you a better reading experience," it is not going to help them in court. All the more so at a public library where the content is "free" to me. Likewise, if I take a drive to Chicago and follow all of the roadsigns that point to Chicago, I would be fairly upset to find myself in St. Louis just because their Chamber of Commerce paid to alter the signs. (not that I have anything against St. Louis!)

Scumware is fraud at the most basic level. It is distributed by scumpeople via deceitful tactics to normal people that are oblivious to what is going on. How many people would install something if they were told:

This software will cause popup and popunder ads to appear routinely on your screen as we deem appropriate. Most of these ads are for things on which we earn a commission. The software will also alter well thought-out, copyrighted content and links on web pages you visit. It may make some of them unreadable or appear broken. It also makes it very easy for us to track your browsing patterns and sell the information. You won't be able to uninstall this thing easily, if at all. The distributors of the software will make a good profit from all of this. Click "Install" to proceed.