WhyADuck
Premium
join:2003-03-05
| Is this unauthorized?
What if I install a new hard drive and reinstall the O.S. and desirable software (Gator does not fall into that category!) on the new drive, and take a sledge hammer to the old drive? Is that considered an authorized method of removal? 
Realistically, I'd love to see Gator try to enforce that provision of their EULA - I mean, after all, they could put a provision in the EULA that if you use Gator you will allow them to sell your firstborn into slavery, but that doesn't mean any court would allow them to enforce it. And I really doubt that any court would ever enforce a provision like this either, so basically they might as well fart in the wind as to include a provision like that. Just because something is included in a license agreement does not in any way mean it's lawful or enforceable.
And then there's always the question, how would they ever know to begin with? If the flow of data suddenly stops, are they going to track you down to see if you removed their software, instead of perhaps just retiring an old computer or going on an extended vacation? |
|
sivran
God Save The Suite
Premium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
clubs:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Oh, I doubt they'll even try--against most end users.
When Ben or some other spyware warrior actually violates the EULA and posts the results, THEN they'll point to the license and sue. You betcha. They may not have a case--EULAs are of dubious credibility as binding contracts--but they'll sue anyway.
--
TCPA - Treacherous Computing
Kerio 2.1.5 - Best damn firewall
Licenses should be per user, Ditch Norton! Get F-Prot! |
|
CPUYODA
join:2003-01-25
Johnson City, TN | reply to WhyADuck
Same as Valve's EULA,just replace a few words here and there...;) |
|
dumb_user
@losrios.edu | reply to WhyADuck
We do not have gator problem in my workpalce (4000 PCs) in the dns WE SET GATOR.com and other gator related sites to resolve 0.0.0.0
It's the users agree to the EULA not the US IT Managers. |
|
bedelman
Premium
join:2004-06-20
Cambridge, MA
| reply to WhyADuck
Purpose of "authorized removals" EULA provisions
I agree that the likely purpose of the provisions about unauthorized removal is not to bring suit against individual users. But Claria may perceive these provisions to be helpful in litigation against companies that recommend removal of Claria software (Ad-Aware, Spybot, etc.). Thanks to these EULA provisions, Claria can try to accuse (say) Ad-Aware not just of "interfering with" Claria's business but also with "encouraging users to violate the EULA" or "aiding in EULA violations."
I don't mean to suggest that these claims have any merit, even when expressed in more formal terms. But the claims might nonetheless serve to intimidate anti-spyware software providers and increase anti-spyware companies' litigation costs in defending any claims brought by CLaria. |
|
KCT2002
join:2004-12-01
Palo Alto, CA
| Young Ben,
Claria probably realizes more hassle from third parties removing their software than anything. The AdAwares and SpyBots of the world reckless remove portions of adware applications and create customer service headaches for Claria. There is no reason for third parties to trigger the removal of an application when there is an entry in add/remove programs.
Here's how it goes... John Doe gets Claria because he wants to receive music files using Kazaa. He is recklessly installing Kazaa because he's one of the sheeple that don't think before they click. Next thing he knows he has Claria installed and then for whatever reason uses AdAware or some other thrid party application to uninstall. But the uninstaller is not triggered but rather AdAware simply throws away any files it deems associated with Claria. But maybe it leaves behind a context menu entry.
Time passes until John Doe realizes there is a context menu entry. He thinks either Claria has reinstalled itself or maybe AdWare didn't do the trick. He emails Claria and says get your #$^%$^&* off my computer. Customer service says go to add/remove programs. But he can't use that function because there is no entry because AdAware deleted it. Now John Doe is pissed. He thinks Claria is not including an entry in add/remove programs. He considers it spyware now. Now he is stuck between reinstalling Claria and then going through add/remove programs or ????
Again, no third party software applications need to provide tools to uninstall software. Operating systems already have the capabilities. Now if a company doesn't provide an entry, then have at it.
Ben, you are a smart twenty-something. Be responsible in your bashing when you portray yourself as a researcher. |
|
bedelman
Premium
join:2004-06-20
Cambridge, MA
| Gator Often Lacks an Add/Remove Entry
KCT, I have no doubt that "unauthorized" removals create some headaches for Claria. But you get the facts wrong, in an important respect, when you claim "There is no reason for third parties to trigger the removal of an application when there is an entry in add/remove programs." That sentence may be true, taken on its own terms. But it doesn't apply to Gator as installed with Kazaa: Gator does not then have an entry in Add/Remove.
From my article: "If Gator were easy to uninstall, users might not need to resort to third-party removal programs. But Gator makes its software hard to remove. Browse to Add/Remove Programs on a computer with Gator installed, and there's often no entry for Gator. Instead, users are required to identify, find, and remove all programs that bundle Gator, and only then is Gator's software designed to uninstall. This unusual removal procedure -- unique among all programs I've ever encountered -- makes Gator difficult for users to remove." |
|
KCT2002
join:2004-12-01
Palo Alto, CA
| reply to WhyADuck
Re: Is this unauthorized?
I have not installed Kazaa in sometime and as you can appreciate this stuff changes frequently. So if Claria is in fact installing with Kazaa and the ads are attributed to Claria but no add/remove entry exists for Claria, then maybe (MAYBE) a problem exists.
But that being said, Claria is more than reasonable in their efforts to identify themselves during the install process. And if end users weren't so reckless in their effort to "share" music, maybe they wouldn't have this advertising experience they don't in fact want.
My biggest problems related to this crusade is the hypocrisy and unique standards Claria is held to. Why not attack AOL for their practices? They deliver unattributed pop ups if you use their IM client (see their TravelZoo ads), they bundle Viewpoint so they can deliver more sophisticated advertisements (find me that consent and EULA), they take enormous ad buys from Freeze.com and others who proliferate the distribution of adware products, they even use Claria as a method to promote their services (see their press release today about their video search services). I can create a similar story about Yahoo or Real Networks.
I'm tired of the whining about Claria (and WhenU and 180 Solutions) when your real complaint is the Internet as a whole and its attempts to deliver advertising. It seems like you seek an overly utopian pipe dream to me (although I clearly know why you do it).
The World has bigger problems than Claria and other legitimate adware companies. |
|
VirtualLarry
Premium
join:2003-08-01
| reply to KCT2002
Re: Purpose of "authorized removals" EULA provisio
said by KCT2002  :Claria probably realizes more hassle from third parties removing their software than anything. The AdAwares and SpyBots of the world reckless remove portions of adware applications and create customer service headaches for Claria. There is no reason for third parties to trigger the removal of an application when there is an entry in add/remove programs. Oh, and Claria's "hidden" bundled software, doesn't cause hassles and headaches for those that find out that they have it installed, and likewise, the customer-support lines for their PC builder/vendor, when the clueless user calls them up to help remove the unwanted software that was installed?
There is no reason for third party adware/spyware software to be installed along with an installation of another application, without: a) being clearly disclosed, offering the user a choice in said installation, and b) being easily and cleanly un-installable.
said by KCT2002 :Again, no third party software applications need to provide tools to uninstall software. Operating systems already have the capabilities. Now if a company doesn't provide an entry, then have at it. That's clearly untrue, based on the number of 3rd-party installation-monitoring/uninstallation-helper software (ever heard of CleanSweep?), because the OS doesn't actually have *any* functionality in that regards. It simply provides a designated area for installed programs to list themselves and a helper routine to be called for de-installation. However, many, many applications (not limited to just unwanted bundled advertising-ware), do not fully un-install themselves, hence the need for 3rd-party tools to clean up after them.
said by KCT2002 :Be responsible in your bashing when you portray yourself as a researcher. Likewise. |
|
VirtualLarry
Premium
join:2003-08-01
| reply to KCT2002
Re: Is this unauthorized?
said by KCT2002 :And if end users weren't so reckless in their effort to "share" music, maybe they wouldn't have this advertising experience they don't in fact want. Are you suggesting, that Claria only intends to target those users that are involved in ethically-questionable file-sharing practices, and that therefore excuses Claria's own ethically-questionable means of advertising? That two wrongs do make a "right", for advertising-ware? I think not.
said by KCT2002 :I'm tired of the whining about Claria (and WhenU and 180 Solutions) when your real complaint is the Internet as a whole and its attempts to deliver advertising. It seems like you seek an overly utopian pipe dream to me (although I clearly know why you do it). Do you somehow think that "spam" is an acceptable practise as well? I see "hidden" bundled advertising-ware as much the same, ethically-speaking. |
|
