Don't Eat the Yellow Links

If you have a popular file-sharing program called KaZaA on your computer and suddenly start seeing yellow links to obvious ads on some of your favorite Web sites, this is because a cunning piece of software called TopText was automatically installed on your computer along with KaZaA. Many Web site owners are upset with this alteration of their content. But there is an opt-out procedure (albeit a somewhat cumbersome one) you can use to keep TopText links from being added to your site, according to the company that markets TopText.

We learned about TopText (which was called HOTText until the end of last week) because a number of Slashdot readers submitted a San Francisco Chronicle story about it.

Cyklopz wrote, "...this is quite insidious. I found a link from BankOne's site to Wells Fargo! It crops up all over search engine results as well. Sheesh!"

Microsoft has removed (at least temporarily) a similar, but less blatantly commercial feature called Smart Tags from their upcoming release of MSIE 6.0 because it upset so many people.

KaZaA has an opt-out dialog for TopText when it is installed, but Benny Evangelista, who wrote the Chronicle story, says that neither he nor other people he spoke to who had downloaded KaZaA spotted it until they knew it was there and went looking for it.

KaZaA claims over 5.4 million Web users have downloaded their software so far, and boasts on their Web site that "...KaZaA is one of the most active media communities on the net, usually there are over 600 000 users online simultaneously. 90% of users are recommending KaZaA, which is the 4th most downloaded program on C|Net Download.com."

I both emailed and called TopText's vendor, San Francisco-based eZula, to ask if there was any way we could keep their TopText links from showing up on OSDN Web sites, including Slashdot. Since we often use links as integral parts of our stories, we would just as soon select our own, right? Plus there is a little matter of keeping ads apart from editorial material, which is one of those silly ethics things only journalists who care about their personal integrity may notice, but that upset us to the point of irrationality when we spot them.

Assaf Henkin of eZula told me the only way to keep TopText links from marring our sites was to email all domain names we wanted blocked to:

[e-mail]

Henkin said it would take "a couple of days" for removal requests to be honored. But at least now you know what to do.

For more information about about how TopText works, go to eZula's contact page and (you must have Flash installed for this to work) click on the "Media Kit" link. Or, for an unanimated but more complete description of eZula's services, check this .pdf file. Note that, although KaZaA is the only eZula "partner" we know about at this time, their media kit boasts of "partnerships with tier one ISPs" and claims their software "...currently delivers your Keyword message to nearly 4 million Internet users, wherever they are on the Web, and this number is growing rapidly as eZula expands its partner base."

Will Web users notice the proliferation of these little yellow advertising links? Will they be able to tell them from the "real" links story authors or Web site owners put in? Will anyone care? Should anyone care? Or have we all gotten so used to ads sneaking into everything from movies (via product placement) to upcoming show "announcements" during the happy talk segments of local TV news that such things don't matter any more?

Re:God this pisses me off

Uh.

OSDN isn't doing anything to anyone's rights here. They aren't threatening legal action against toptext; they aren't stopping you from using it. You are correct in that slashdot has no right to demand that Slashdot be exempt from TopText,

But slashdot isn't demanding. They are asking politely. What's so bad about that?

If it displeases you that TopText is going to allow sites to opt out of being linkified, meaning you lose the usefulness (*giggle*) of toptext's links while reading OSDN sites, you should perhaps consider using an alternative to TopText, or creating your own. However you should not blame OSDN for taking advantage of Toptext's opt-out feature. Again, TopText has every right to add those links to slashdot's page on willing customer's computers against slashdot's will, but you really have no reason to be pissed at slashdot for inquiring to TopText as to whether slashdot can be removed.

Basically: Calm down. Slashdot and TopText are going to contractually enter into a mutually satisfying consensual agreement concerning TopText's program's treatment of slashdot's page, while the consumer is fully enabled to (if they so choose) stop using TopText, stop using Slashdot's services, or even to (with some difficulty, true) hack TopText's software with a disassembler and remove the part of TopText's software that checks to see if sites such as slashdot are participating in the TopText opt-out program. No one's rights are stopped. Everyone is empowered. Ayn Rand would be proud.

For the record, this TopText thing still creeps the crap out of me, tho, and i am going to stay way the fuck away from both it and that scary Bonsai Buddy thing.

-super ugly ultraman. U.N. OUT OF MY UTERUS!!

Re:New Rules for these advertisments

Rule 2 is the kicker, in my opinion. It's actually perfectly logical and sensible. Think about it- if someone wants to advertise on MY site, why on earth should they be paying TopText? They can pay TopText some sort of flat rate for use of the technology, but payment for the ad impressions must go to ME.

If this is considered some sort of eminent domain and I'm supposed to NOT have any right to be certain a third party is not modifying my copyrighted material to change its meaning and implications, then they can DAMNED well pay me a royalty set by some impartial arbitrator that is in line with normal advertising rates. It is obscene to behave as if the payment to me should be zero.

TopText do not have RIGHTS to my material, whatever it is. This is a far cry from 'users downloading files and editing in advertising links with a text editor on their own initiative'. It's a third-party hijacking of content. It is indefensible.

Supposing you did have to opt in and set a meta tag to make these become active on your pages and cause the ads to happen dynamically on your content. Would you or would you not inquire, "So, how much are you going to pay me for this?"

Re:This begs the question

Again, its a matter of interpretation. My entire HTML page for my web site is my content, in its HTML form. This to me includes the links. If I have a link, that's content. Albiet cheap content compared to paragraphs and stuff, but its something. In my case, my page is a descriptive index to other relevant pages (specifically celtic music events in the DC area), and having a link go somewhere else may cost that surfer the chance to learn about a group or event they might want to know about...

I don't want someone else looking at my page to see anything other than what I put in there. There's reasons I pay for my web hosting instead of just using a geocities-like service.
--
You know, you gotta get up real early if you want to get outta bed... (Groucho Marx)

Re:If they paid for it...

No, actually you are not. HTML and other markup languages are structured data. The data MUST be transformed before it can be shown to the user. Therefore, it is impossible for your content to be delivered to the user unaltered.

My viewer might show your content the way you expected, or it might translate it into a different language, read it aloud, hyperlink everything into a dictionary, or create a lexicographic analysis from it. You have no control over how markup is rendered, please relieve yourself of this concept.

Re:What do I do?

Don't give me any shit about using FrontPage. I always demand HTTP 2.0 compliance

HTML is at version 4.01, HTTP is at 1.1. What is this HTTP 2.0 compliance you're talking about?
--

Flash installed?

So let me get this straight: in order to see web pages without random crap attached, I have to install and use one of the most often abused random crap plugins around? Oh, the irony!

Memories of something similar: Third Voice

<ramble>

There once was a program called "Third Voice". Third voice was a browser plugin that basically turned the entire internet into a discussion page. You could place little post-it-note-like thingies onto any website you liked, and any Third Voice user later viewing that URL would see your post it note sitting where you placed it. It did this by storing the post it notes in a central database; third voice would send its home server the url being viewed, and the home server would send back any notes that third voice users had left about this url.

That's a bit funky, but i think it's a nifty idea.

People went berzerk. A bunch of people went and sued third voice, claiming 3rdvoice was violating their copyrights, defacing their websites, a billion other things. This despite the fact that the added 3rdvoice content was clearly marked. Armed with misinformation [nbci.com] and the thousand stinging nettles of draining litigation, they attacked third voice, upset anyone could "alter the content of" their web page.

This scares the crap out of me; it serverely bothers me that practically nobody seemed to see 3rdvoice commenting on webpages as 3rdvoice exersizing their constitutional rights to free speech. (OK, maybe i am overreacting. But apathy for free speech issues scares me. Bite me.) I see only two important things here:

• I have a right to install software on my computer that alters the content i access and view in any way i want, as long as i have permission to view that content in some form.
• Third Voice has a right to maintain a database where people can comment on various URLs for purposes of commentary or critisism. The fact they display the comments on top of the webpages being commented on makes no difference*, as long as the customers are either clearly aware of what is original content and what is 3rdvoice content or have consented to having the content altered for them. (Yes, of course, the fact KaZaA customers were not fully aware of what it meant that TopText was being installed, or informed during the installation process what the yellow links would mean in future makes everything different, and makes the inclusion of TopText with the KaZaA program, whether legal or no, definitely immoral on the part of KaZaA.)

Third voice [thirdvoice.com] no longer exists. I have not been able to find any hard data on what the conclusions of the lawsuits filed against thirdvoice were. Either way, it is not important; Wired says that 3rdvoice went down for the sole reason that the web advertising market is shit, [wired.com] and legal harrassment was not involved. Sad; it was a nifty idea. Maybe someday we will see a GPLed equivilent?

-mcc
Keep in mind that the same people that would keep you from listening to Boards of Canada may be back next year to complain about a book, or even a television program. [boardsofcanada.com]

* (Offtopic side-rant: at the least, they have more right to do this than bess [bess.com] has to maintain a database of "objectionable" websites and distribute software which blocks those websites-- the crucial difference being that Third Voice presents their content as opinion, which it is, while Bess presents its content as pure, cold fact despite the fact it may be innacurate [peacefire.org]. The only objection with Bess would be a) that they misrepresent their product and content to consumers and b) that some school districts and libraries have been forced to install it, against the wishes of the users of those schools and libraries.)

Re:This begs the question

Ok, waitaminute. Who is altering the content and redistributing it? Is it the company that made the software, or is it the computer itself, acting as an agent for the user that views it?

If I install JunkBuster or some other ad filter on my machine, it also alters the stuff I look at. Is Junkbuster (the company) guilty of copyright infringement, or am I exercising my fair use rights?

---

sheesh

TopText (which was called HOTText until the end of last week)

Actually, it looks like it's called Internet Text [ezula.com] now.

Oops, while i was writing that, they changed its name to ContextPro [ezula.com].

I've heard of Internet Time, but this is ridiculous...

Re:This begs the question

Of course you are excercising your fair use rights. Just as you may amalgomate several movies on a videotape or create a videotape with your collection of favorite clips or whatever, so long as you aren't distributing that, you can add links to web pages, albeit automatically. Remember, they aren't modifying the content on the web and redistributing it here. The content is being modified on your computer, more or less by you, although the program is doing it for you. However, IANAL, so don't blame me if you get used. :)

TopText = Trojan?

A trojan is program code embedded inside another program that does undesirable things to your computer.

TopText is program code embedded inside another program that does undesirable things to your computer.

Therefore TopText is a trojan.

--

It is really pertty noticable during the install

When you are installing kazaa, it defaults to a custom install with about 5 wierd programs beign selected. I managed to deselect them last night when I was stoned as fuck, but they aren't really described very well in the installation.

The way to avoid things like toptext is to always do custom installs, and always check through what you are installing.

Buyer Beware

Unfortunately, this is becoming a hazard of running free-as-in-beer commercial software in Windows.

After you install software like this, check to see what it added to your system. Look in the Startup group, look in the win.ini file, look in the appropriate place in the registry (sorry, I don't remember the exact key right now, someone will supply it in a reply maybe), and just check after your next reboot if there are any processes running that you don't remember from the last time you checked. (ctrl-alt-del in win9x, or task manager in nt/2k)

This is unfortunately simply becoming something you expect with windows freeware. It isn't free, you just pay for it in something other than direct cash payments.

Somebody Who's Cool

Not the Odds song. Would somebody who's cool and bandwidth-laden like to take a few extensive Google searches and submit them to the opt-out link?
------------------------

"spyware"

I recently got my first Windoze box and started putting a few freeware programs on it. Soon I discovered that ads were popping up out of nowhere on my machine. I discovered that one (not sure which one) of the freeware programs installed a piece of software called Savenow which popped up these ads.

Thanks to Savenow, I became suspicious and discovered a piece of software called Adaware (Windoze only) that searches for spyware and deletes it. I really recommend it as it found other spyware too. It is available at http://www.lavasoft.de [lavasoft.de].

Re:Complain to the advertisers

> I'm sure that if BMG, Frost, etc were made aware that their ads through this service were damaging their reputation with existing customers, they might reconsider sponsoring toptext. No sponsors, no toptext.

Of course, the funny part is that BMG and the other music companies are always whining about "losing money" due to MP3 trading over P2P networks... and yet they pay for the privilege of advertising their bands in P2P apps?

Singularity. Kettle. Black.

Re:TopText = Trojan?

A trojan is program code embedded inside another program that does undesirable things to your computer.

TopText is program code embedded inside another program that does undesirable things to your computer.

Therefore TopText is a trojan.

A trojan is something that makes surreptitious use of your computer without your permission.

Seems to me that's been a federal felony since just before the Internet Worm.

A better opt-out strategy

1. Start|Settings|Control Panel
2. Add/Remove Programs
3. Select "KaZaA".
4. Remove

Alternatively,

format C:

if you're in a "take off and nuke them from orbit" kind of a mood.

--
I have no fin
no wing no stinger
no claw no camouflage
I have no more to say...

If they paid for it...

The problem from my point of view is that they are not paying me as a content owner to insert their advertising on my sites, nor are they providing me as a user with a benefit for having their software (such as free access to otherwise-paid sites). As such, they are simply taking from me either way - there is no quid pro quo. This is not theft in the classic sense, because I am not left without something I had before, but it is intrusive, abusive and rude.

-jeff

a quote

From the SFC article:

"These companies are preying on us people who are into using computers, but not so tech savvy that we know what we're doing," Hoppe said.

It preys on people who are into using computers but don't know what they're doing. As much as I think these things and MicroSoftSmartOverUseOfCapitaliZationTags are evil, it does sound like a group of people waiting to be taken advantage of. I have trouble working up a lot of sympathy for an argument that analogizes well to "Those cops who give you fines for going through red lights are preying on us people who are into using cars, but not so automotively savvy that we know what we're doing."

As for its legality... as underhanded as it may be, it's probably legal. A piece of software you chose to install (though perhaps not realizing at the time that that was what you were doing) on your computer is adding a new function (though not one you necessarily want) to the way you browse the web. Functionally, it's pretty similar to JunkBuster.

[TMB]

Adelphia customers, don't worry!

You won't have to worry about it if you're an Adelphia [adelphia.com] customer... if they find you using KaZaa, they'll cut you off [cnet.com] anyway and you won't have to worry about pop-up ads.

Zaphod B

Re:Heck No.

I really don't get why there's such a community uproar over link-insertion--either this, or IE's Smart Tags.

Why? Ok, here's a hypothetical example:

Let's say I'm a well-recognized nutritionist, and as a service to the world at large, I have a web site dedicated to dieting with your health in mind. Lots of people visit this site because they want to lose weight, but they are concerned about their health. Now, let's also assume Drop-Dead diet pills have bought adspace with some link-insertion company. Suddenly, links to the potentially dangerous Drop-Dead diet pills are appearing all over my site, and even worse, people are buying these and using them like crazy. Why not? My site is dedicated to healthy dieting, I'm a certified nutritionist, and I've got links to Drop-Dead all over my page.

And then of course, say some one dies from this and his/her family comes after me because I "recommended" the pills?

THAT is why it's a bad thing.

Re:This begs the question

Well this program 'only' puts a yellow underline under certain keywords in the text.

According to the article from the SF Chronicle, it also highlights text that is already a link, leaving the original intent for the link as simply one of hte options presented when the text is clicked. This is simply wrong.

Extra Heinous Bit

From the article:

If the highlighted Web site word was also a hyperlink, the TOPtext gives a choice of going to the original destination or the advertiser's site.

Holy hijacked surfers, Batman. It's bad enough that it changes your site in the eyes of the visitors, but screwing with your own navigation is over the top. It's one thing to turn normal text into links, but changing the links on a site is something else entirely.

These people need to be sued.

The most effective opt-out technique:

Be sure your web sites all have yellow backgrounds.

--SC

Top Text links for IE Only!!

You can opt out of this DURING THE INSTALL, which most people should have done anyhow. The easiest thing to do is to reinstall the product and OPT OUT then.

I don't use IE as my default browser any how.

Bruce Davis
UNIX Systems Administrator
Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products

Re:Screenshot anyone?

Here's a link to their website... shows the technology in action:
http://www.ezula.com/Advertisers/Advertisers2.asp [ezula.com]

--Bob

more than this

This is more than just altering the content. It is altering the content and making it appear as part of the original content.

This creates a false sense of attribution. This is what Ford claimed in it's case [2600.com] against 2600.

This also relates to the framing cases.

What do I do?

Maybe this is more suitable as a submission to "Ask Slashdot"...

I have a site -- The Official French Fries Pages [tx7.com] -- which I've managed to keep alive since 1996,[1] although I really need to upload a few new pages.

Do I say, "Fine. Whatever. You wanna look at my page and links the wrong way, I don't care," and just let anarchy reign supreme? I mean, I'm a "Slashdotter", right? I've been here for a few years (although I couldn't be bothered to register for a while), and I'm certainly an "0ld sk3wl Internet-doofus" (since '86). This is just more crap that I can ignore, and anyway, we all hate frivolous lawsuits and copyright bullshit... unless it hits home.

Or do I look at it like RIAA or MPAA: This is my goddamned IP [tx7.com]. Them's my links and my lame DoubleClick ads (which have netted me at least $180 over 18 months). I'll sue you bastards for every penny my shyster can get!

Oh how ugly reality can be.

While the above was meant, at least in part, as sarcasm, I truly am unsure what to do. I could be tempted to join a class action to prevent the modified display of my site, not for the money but for the principle.

Do I not have a right to say what can and cannot be done with my creative works? And doesn't RIAA say the same thing?

"Morals suck, Beavis."

woof.

[1] Don't give me any shit about using FrontPage. I always demand HTTP 2.0 compliance and I got tired of writing six or more versions of each and every page so that any browser could see it. And if another standard came out, I had to rewrite all the pages with a version for those browsers, too. At least I edit the FP "code" and cut the actual size down about 60%. And you can still view the site in lynx!

Re:Morpheus

Further searching on Google [google.com] show's that yep they're the same. Here's an article [mp3sneak.com] about the history of Music City and Morpheus. Also, a very informative OpenP2P article [openp2p.com] which details the server structure used by Kazaa and morpheus. Also interesting to note that both use FastTrack [fasttrack.nu] software to build their networks. According to the FastTrack website, their software is also used in another client, Grokster [grokster.com] (annoying pop-up warning).
--

Re:News for windows users?

I would like to exclude such stories from my homepage. Why? Because I don't run Windows.

This story is relevant to the following groups:

• Windows users who install KaZaA
• People who design web pages that may be visited by Windows users who install KaZaA (the story even specifically mentions the opt-out address for site owners to mail)
• People interested in the copyright ramifications of a service that surrepticiously alters how web pages look to viewers
• People interested in the legal ramifications of piggy-backing one software install on top of another -- this isn't a Windows-only issue; Linux has closed-source software, too. Regardless of whether or not you personally only use open-source software, some closed-source software would still be relevant in a Linux-only topic.

Re:Top Text links for IE Only!!

This misses the point.

The truth of the matter is that the rights it affects are the rights of the publishers of the website.

I am a recent victim of Top Text. I am a systems architect for a VAR/distributor of IBM Products. We have several custom sites we have developed for contracts with State Governments for the purchase of IBM and other hardware.

One of the explicit requirements of several of these contracts is that there be NO LINKS TO EXTERNAL SITES, supposedly to prevent their users from downloading any infected programs or files. We can't even offer files for download on the site ourselves.

So, when IBM bought ads on Top Text to create those hideous yellow links to their own ecommerce site, they appeared on our own catalogs. Not only were they causing to break a contract worth MILLIONS of dollars, they were stealing business from us. Great way to treat a business partner, no?

Anyhow, we found an interesting solution that did NOT require the sending of email to Top Text. We added the meta tag MS provides to disable Smart Tag rendering. Bye-Bye Top Text links.

So, apparantly Top Text is lying. We never emailed them, all we did was add the meta tags to all of our pages, and those nasty yellow links disappeared. Apparantly, the plug-in is using the Smart Tag SDK or something, and you can easily disable it.

Still Sucks, Though !!!!!

BJ Hoffpauir
Systems Architect

Time Trend, Inc.
www.timetrend.com [timetrend.com]

Re:This begs the question

Nice try. :)

If we implemented the all new CryptoKey plug-in, and required it to view our website, then this yellowlink thing would be illegal if it interfered with our plug-in, per the DMCA. As plain text, I'd say Fair Use reigns. While Fair Use is protected by the fact that there are exceptions for it written into the law, nothing in the law says that a content provider has to make it possible for you to Fairly Use their materials. (It would be nice if more consumers would refuse to buy things that take away Fair Use, but so goes life...)

Personally, I don't see what the big deal is with these yellow links, or smart tags. If the users like it and continue to support it by using it or paying for it, then that's their problem. It's no different than if I want to use my own CSS to make pages readable, or if I want to run the page through a translator, or out to the speech synthesizer. Well it is different... because in this case the installation of the program is done somewhat sneakily, and in the case of Smart Tags, well, it's dodgy because it's Microsoft. But the underlying principle is the same.

News for windows users?

If you have a popular file-sharing program called KaZaA

I think it's time to add one more /. section - news for Windows users. I would like to exclude such stories from my homepage. Why? Because I don't run Windows. I already know that installing closed-source software is like trusting your root password to Mr. CEO of MegaCorp, Inc. That's why I don't.

This begs the question

Regarding junk like this - are there legal ramifications? If a website's content is copyrighted and this software ALTERS the content before it is presented to the user - are they liable in any way for mucking up the web site content? Doesn't copyright law prevent alteration of copyrighted material?

Re:Top Text links for IE Only!!

This is the meta tag:

<meta name="MSSmartTagsPreventParsing" content="TRUE">

Re:Adelphia customers, don't worry!

hey hey hey... they only cut you off if you're downloading copyrighted material and get a complaint filed against you - which isn't likely to happen if all you download is pr0n, like me :)
--