This week Googleannounced that they will be adding image based ads to their Adsense text ads program. My question is: why? The great thing about Google's text ads is exactly that. They're text. Being text means that not only are they unobtrusive, but that the advertiser has to explain what the product is that is being sold, and why I should click there, instead of putting big flashing seizure-inducing banners telling me how I'll win a free DVD player if I hit the monkey. Because of that (and their contextual nature) I've clicked on way more Google text ads than I ever did when flash banners and pop-ups were the in-thing. I understand that the image ads are just static images, with no Flash or Java allowed, but the slippery slope towards x10 cameras in women's bathrooms isn't too hard to see.
Is there something I missed this week or something you think I should know about? Let me know by leaving a comment below or emailing me at Jeff@malgenic.org
As mentioned in Ed's Column this week, Used news is going to be a weekly news roundup focusing on Fair-use, DRM, and other side effects of the corporatazation of the Internet. As the webmaster of this site(and as Ed's son before that) I have often lobbied him to cover more of the stories that are important to the future of freedom in the digital age, but his aging brain can't help but associate words like "peer to peer" and "theft". Just kidding -- he agrees they're important, but he only has so much time and space. So each week I'm going to try to point to as many of those stories that I think are of import as I can, and maybe add a little perspective. If you feel that there is a story I may have missed, or an issue you think I should be covering here, please feel free to leave a comment below or send me a e-mail at Jeff@malgenic.org
By Ed Foster, Section UnFairUse Posted on Mon Feb 16, 2004 at 01:31:36 PM PDT
With all the people who switched to TaxCut because of last year’s TurboTax product activation fiasco, I should point out that not all customers of H&R Block’s tax software have found it to be pure sweetness and light. And users who report problems to the company may find their right to use it questioned.
By Ed Foster, Section UnFairUse Posted on Sat Jan 31, 2004 at 03:44:01 PM PDT
As we've seen, the sun never sets on Intuit's attempts to force QuickBooks customers to upgrade through its "sunsetting" policies. But while they should be used to it by now, many QuickBooks 2002 customers are nonetheless reacting angrily to an Intuit e-mail that says they must upgrade their software by April 30, 2005 in order to keep using the Do-It-Yourself Payroll service.
Ever hear of a company that refused to tell you about its products? There's a real one: RealNetworks. I read about RealPlayer10 so I wanted to find out about it. Went to the web site, and it sensed my OS and only showed me info on RealPlayer for the Mac. The new version is not available for the Mac (no surprise), but I was still curious. There is apparently no way to see info about the PC version from a Mac. Even a link labeled "RealPlayer for PC" took me to the Mac software. Very frustrating. This is nothing new, I have seen this previously. I think the lawsuit between Real and Microsoft is really about which is the most arrogant company.
A quick test by my webmaster using a Mac system confirmed the behavior this reader reports.
By Ed Foster, Section UnFairUse Posted on Mon Jan 12, 2004 at 12:57:10 PM PDT
Many readers are expressing dismay over the revelation that Adobe Photoshop CS contains code to prevent reproduction of images of U.S. and other currencies. One reader writes:
As with all forms of copy protection, you know this will only hurt the honest users. The counterfeiters won’t care, but the rest of us are going to be saddled with an unknown performance hit … Should my computer start behaving strangely for any reason, I’m going to have wonder if it’s Photoshop misinterpreting what I’m doing. Thanks, Adobe, I guess the joke’s on us for having put our faith in you.
A Christmas Surprise From ReplayTV: Service Charges
By Ed Foster, Section UnFairUse Posted on Wed Dec 24, 2003 at 01:42:41 AM PDT
Normally it's not polite to ask how much a gift costs. But if there's a ReplayTV under your Christmas tree tomorrow, make sure you ask the gift giver for the receipt. To activate the ReplayTV service, you may have to prove how much it cost.
"Last week I purchased a ReplayTV 5504 at Circuit City for $150 as a Christmas present for my mother," a reader wrote. "I bought it instead of a Tivo because the box had a big green sticker on it saying 'This ReplayTV unit includes 3 years of ReplayTV service' and I didn't want her having to pay a monthly service charge. Now the ReplayTV-related message boards on the Internet are saying that the company claims the sticker was a mistake, and getting the service activated requires a $12.95 monthly subscription. Talk about bait-and-switch!"
Usage Restrictions--Nasty EULA Terms--Intrusive Software
A report on the computer game site Evil Avatar claims that a patch issued for one of Ubisoft's games, Rainbow Six 3: Raven Shield, is searching the computer on which it's installed for virtual drive programs, and if one is found refusing to run the game. Virtual drive programs such as Alcohol 120% or CloneCD are used to copy the contents of a CD onto a hard disk, which allows the user to bypass the copy protection schemes that rely on having the original CD in the drive to play. Ubisoft claims that their copy protection scheme is covered under their EULA, but observers see nothing in the EULA that seems to indicate this. Suggestions that the problem may be due to a bug in Macrovision's SafeDisc 2, the copy protection scheme that Raven shield uses also seem doubtful, as the software was able to work on computers with virtual drvie programs prior to the latest patch.
Sources: Published Reports
Update [2003-12-26 20:20:11 by Jeff Foster]:It appears that Ubisoft has backed down and released a patch to fix the problem for Raven Shield. No word on whether they will do the same for other games with the same problem that are mentioned in the comments below.
Microsoft Censorship Clause Spreads to More Products
By Ed Foster, Section UnFairUse Posted on Mon Dec 15, 2003 at 12:10:12 AM PDT
Is it possible Microsoft has something to hide about the performance of its server and developer products? It’s hard to escape that conclusion when you see how many of its license agreements now contain language forbidding customers of those products from disclosing benchmark results.
To have my column automatically e-mailed to you, submit your email address in the form below. Of course, I will not turn your address over to any other party or send you any unrequested e-mail.
