Left to chance

It’s My Browser, and I’ll Auto-Click if I Want To

Free file hosting provider MediaFire seems to think that, when you follow a link to download a file from its service, it has the right to control your browser. This is yet another example of a web site owner forgetting that it’s your computer, and it’s none of their business how you choose to experience their web pages.

This latest spat involves SkipScreen, a Firefox plug-in that automates the process of downloading from free hosting sites like RapidShare, zShare, MegaUpload, and others (including, until recently, MediaFire). Some of these ad-supported download sites try to force downloaders to sit through a “waiting period” before revealing the actual download link— a “feature” that these sites doubtless tout to advertisers in order to get premium ad rates. SkipScreen automates this waiting-and-clicking for you. Simply put, it does nothing you couldn’t accomplish just as well by hiring a human to browse for you.

MediaFire has responded by sending a lawyer letter to Mozilla, which hosts the SkipScreen plug-in, along with thousands of other Firefox add-ons. EFF has taken SkipScreen’s creators as clients, and has sent a letter to Mozilla explaining why MediaFire doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

Here’s the short version: it’s my browser, and I can ignore your ads if I want to.

MediaFire’s arguments to the contrary are entirely misguided. First, they suggest that SkipScreen somehow lets users “steal bandwidth.” That’s wrong on the facts: SkipScreen just automates the exact process that the user would otherwise have to do themselves in order download a file. No “extra downloads,” no additional bandwidth for MediaFire. Second, MediaFire argues that the use of SkipScreen violates MediaFire’s “acceptable use policy.” That’s wrong on the law: users who follow a link to a MediaFire download never click-through or otherwise agree to any “acceptable use policy,” so there’s no contract here that prohibits a user from using whatever browser she likes (including whatever plug-ins she likes) to download a file.

Sure, MediaFire probably would prefer that we all sit, transfixed, while they display ads for us, just like certain Hollywood executives wish we would never leave the couch or hit FFWD when commercials run during our favorite TV shows, and certain websites wish they could ban Firefox ad-blockers. Fortunately, there’s nothing in the law that says that by simply visiting a website, I give up the right to control my desktop.

Original article at EFF.org

Filed Under: EFF

Michael Lankton

My apologies. I think I glanced at the graphic and assumed it was part of the page's monetization. Funny that the trackback on the article in question on Connected Internet goes to your reprint of the EFF.org article instead of the original.

Incidentally, Connected Internet is not my web site. I contribute a weekly article or two. I can't claim responsibility for the design or the monetization.

Lastly, it's frustrating when you start a discussion like this, and instead of an intelligent conversation where people of differing opinions get together and share ideas in attempt to persuade or at least understand each other, it ends up in "f*ck you, it's my web browser and my time and I don't have to do a damned thing I don't want to". It's a selfish, not very smart response.

Granted, I can be as guilty as the next person at responding before I have my facts straight, as evidenced by not catching that this was not your article. My point is, I have a position regarding ad blocking. People are not under any pressure to see things my way, but if they respond to my article I expect them to have read it. The point of that article is pretty clear if you read it, and there is nothing unreasonable about my stance. I used an unreasonable title so people would read it, which appears to only have succeeded in riling up people who read the title only and jumped straight to a response.

Is there intrusive, useless monetization on the web? Absolutely. Like I said in the article, vote with your visits and don't utilize those sites.

Should people like me and the owner of Connected Internet be penalized because someone annoyed you to the point of running ad blocking software? In his case, his web sites are his sole source of income. Perhaps he has a little too much going on in the way of monetization, but if my mortgage payment depended on it I probably would too. In my case, I always view the monetization of a site I make as part of the design. The ads are going to look like they belong to the page, and they are generally going to represent product that pairs nicely with the content of the page. Do you disagree that it's a small price to pay to occasionally click an ad link on a site that you feel provides real value to you? At the very least, why block them?

fak3r

Michael
I appreciate your reply, and apologize if my ribbing replies offended. I suspect we've both been around for some time, and know all too well the feeling of posting something before you've read all the facts, it happens, as it happened to me as I was incorrect by stating that the site was yours. Also, I think I will rework this site a bit more to make it clearer that I'm just aggregating content in an attempt to avoid more confusion. I'm trying to provide this content more exposure to try and focus others thoughts and initiate conversation around the issues. Also, I completely understand with your frustration of writing a post hoping to spark some intelligent conversation only to watch it implode after one reply drags it down. .

I disagree with some of your points on ads and a users' responsibility to view them, but respect your opinion and appreciate how you've laid them out. I will re-read your post and provide some (hopefully) more intelligent counterpoints. The fact that this these issues are without precedent and open for discussion is what interests me so much, so I am happy I was alerted to your article.

Regards

Michael Lankton

It's doubly funny because your inclusion of the Connected Internet article only shows that you didn't read that article all the way through.
Mindless chest thumping. The internet is full of it, you're in good company.

fak3r

Michael
While I can appreciate your opinions, I have to explain a few things that you said that are incorrect.
It’s doubly funny because your inclusion of the Connected Internet article only shows that you didn’t read that article all the way through.
While it's true that I didn't read the Connected Internet article beforehand, I also did not write the article above that referred to it. Look at the end of the post, where it says, "Original article at EFF.org". If you read my 'About' page you'll see that I've migrated this site to aggregate related news about online privacy, digital rights and the law. See, this is something I believe in, but since I have a proper blog and I post to Twitter constantly, I ended up not having time to maintain this one, so I thought I'd do another thing to give back to a cause I belive in, EFF. I've been an EFF member for 5 years, I meet with EFF staff attorneys every year at the Defcon conference, I created and run the EFF LinkeIn group for years and I even run a Tor node to enhance the anominity project they've championed.
Given the amount of ads on this page this article is hilarious.
First, remember that I didn't write the article (you remember that now right?), so yeah, I have 3 ads, kinda annoying I'll agree, I didn't know if I wanted to have ads on here or not, but I do. Now, since *you* brought it up I hit the link on Connected Internet that you brought up and found that it was you that wrote the article, neato. But wait, let's look at the ads on your page, I counted them out...FOURTEEN! (SOURCE) There are ads from multiple sources all over your page, in fact:

YOU HAVE SEVEN TIMES AS MANY ADS ON YOUR SITE THAN MINE

and you bring it up? With all due respect, BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Mindless chest thumping. The internet is full of it, you’re in good company.
Pot, meet kettle!

Michael, you've made my night, while reinforcing what I believe about online rights. Oh, and feel free to run Ad-block plus on any of my sites, that's your option since it's your bandwidth and personal browser. The Internet is free buddy, make something positive out of it!