Spyware Maker Sues Detection Firm 503
Luigi30 writes "ZDnet reports that RetroCoder, makers of the SpyMon remote monitoring program, are suing Sunbelt Software, makers of ConterSpy, a spyware detector program, for detecting the SpyMon as spyware. According to the EULA, SpyMon can not be used in 'anti-spyware research,' and detecting it is therefore a violation of it. 'In order to add our product to their list, they must have downloaded it and then examined it. These actions are forbidden by the notice,' a RetroCoder spokesperson said."
Re:Prove my invisible friend ISN'T Jesus. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Does it work against FBI agents too? (Score:3, Informative)
It isn't true.
Re:I dont think they'll win (Score:3, Informative)
I personally think this is generally morally reprehensive if the user is not notified of the logging software, but the owner of the computer is probably within their rights to install this on their own property.
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Even simpler solution (Score:1, Informative)
2. Type http://www.spymon.com/downloads/install.exe [spymon.com] into URL bar.
3. Download crap without agreeing to EULA.
Re:My god (Score:5, Informative)
It won't fly... (Score:3, Informative)
Also, legal documents like EULAs and Contracts cannot by their wording violate the US Constitution, the constitute of the State in which it is written, nor current Federal, current State, County, and City laws. EULAs and Contracts do not give companies and individuals the ability to bypass the Word of Law.
A few examples of companies trying to get away with this are:
* Company rules restricting employee fraternization - They may have the right do to this in company premises, but I'd like to see them try to enforce such a rule in an employee's private residence. I can smell Civil Rights Violation a mile away. The ACLU would drool at the chance to handle a case like this.
* At Will causes in company contracts - In my state some business I worked for have "AT WILL" clauses saying they can let you go for any reason or no reason at all. Technically this is an attempt to circumvent Labor Laws and Equal Opportunity Labor Laws and likely wouldn't hold up in court.
There are just some examples of what companies are trying to get away with. No one person is above the law and no company should be allowed to be above it either.
Nothing to do with copyright (Score:3, Informative)
Hasn't a crime been commited by Sunbelt? (Score:5, Informative)
This is a copy of the text sent to Sunbelt:
"If you read the copyright agreement when you downloaded or ran our
program you will see that Anti-spyware publishers/software houses
are NOT allowed to download, run or examine the software in any
way. By doing so you are breaking EU copyright law, this is a criminal
offence. Please remove our program from your detection list or we will
be forced to take action against you."
The action will be that we may be (in our opinion) forced to get the UK police authorities involved with Sunbelt over copyright theft. This is a criminal offence, not a civil one I believe.
Retrocoder Limited as the copyright holder, has the right to say who may or may not have its program. If someone has its program without permission, are they not guilty of a criminal offence?
For example, if you have a copy of Windows without MicroSofts permission, is this not a crime?
Below is a copy of the text sent to Joris Evers (who wrote the original article from it):
"As you can see, at the moment it is just a warning to them to stop
blacklisting the program. Our program is not a "trojan" or "virus",
it is used to keep a remote "eye" on your kids or employees. The user
must have access to the users machine in order to install the client.
Only the installer of the program can view the client machine. Our
program does not attempt to bypass firewalls or other such protection.
This is very different from "trojans" and "viruses" - they replicate
themselves and spread uncontrollably, you do not usually need direct
access to the users machine. They often try to bypass firewalls in
order to "reach" the internet.
Our problem is that companies like Sunbelt do not properly look at
software before they blacklist it. They clearly ignored legally
enforceable warnings that what they would be doing is not allowed by
the copyright holder. This shows that either they do not examine
programs properly or that they ignore copyright law. In order to add
our product to their trojan/virus list they must have downloaded it
and then examined it. Both of these actions are forbidden by the
copyright notice.
A similar situation arose with Grisoft with the AVG product. We sent
a similar warning letter out to them and they responded by removing
our programs from their blacklist. This resolved the situation and no
further action has been taken.
I will be consulting with our solicitor in the next few weeks about
companies like Sunbelt, what civil/criminal laws have been broken, and
how best to involve the UK Police authorities in action against them."
Microsoft provide SunBelt with their spyware defs (Score:3, Informative)
"Microsoft shares their spyware definitions with Sunbelt, but SunBelt uses the threat information differently."
That would mean SunBelt haven't violated any EULA's and that the lawsuit should be aimed at Microsoft...
Re:My god (Score:3, Informative)
That's patently false. Sometimes, the burden of proof is with the defendant because of the nature of the case. For example, in cases of joint liability (for example, where 2 people are shooting wildly in the woods and a third person is shot, and neither of the 2 people actually know which one killed the 3rd person), then the 2 people must prove that they didn't kill the 3rd person in order to not be held personally liable. This only arises after it has been shown that they were jointly liable, though.
Another example is res ipsa loquitor. This means that the thing that happened is evidence of negligence unto itself. Usually, the plaintiff is not in a position to be able to prove what exactly happened to him, but the certain thing that happened to him could only have happened through negligence of the defendant.
In all of these cases, you still need to hale someone into court and show that they are negligent and then they may have to prove otherwise, but that's not assuming that they aren't innocent until proven guilty.
Re:So much fun (Score:2, Informative)
Registrant:
Double Dutch Designs Limited
329 Preston Road
Grimsargh
Preston, Lancashire PR2 5JT
GB
Domain name: SPYMON.COM
Administrative Contact:
Ball, Anthony anthony@doubledutchdesigns.co.uk
329 Preston Road
Grimsargh
Preston, Lancashire PR2 5JT
GB
+44.8701217399
Technical Contact:
Ball, Anthony anthony@doubledutchdesigns.co.uk
329 Preston Road
Grimsargh
Preston, Lancashire PR2 5JT
GB
+44.8701217399
Registration Service Provider:
UK Reg, domains@fasthosts.co.uk
+44 1452 541252
+44 1452 538485 (fax)
http://www.ukreg.com/ [ukreg.com]
Re:My god (Score:3, Informative)
No, it isn't. For one thing, a civil trial will never result in a verdict of guilty or not guilty, but in a verdict of liable or not liable. Second, there may or may not be a presumption of liabilty for any particular matter. While a prosecutor always must establish the guilt of criminal defendant, a civil defendant in some cases may be presumed liable unless the defendant establishes that he should not be liable.
While the lawyers are busy on this ... (Score:2, Informative)
And while you're over there, be sure to check out Anthony's post of Oct 13 in the "DETECTABLE by virusscanners/antispy-software" sub board [doubledutchdesigns.com]. I just know that Anthony is looking forward to hearing from everyone and is seeking friendly folks to keep him company.
Re:Hasn't a crime been commited by Sunbelt? (Score:3, Informative)
You should have consulted a solicitor before you embarked on this course of action, as you clearly have no understanding of copyright law. If you had consulted one they would of explained the "doctrine of first sale", (aka exhaustion) to you, and you would understand that you have no case.
For example, if you have a copy of Windows without MicroSofts permission, is this not a crime?
It is not a crime.
The action will be that we may be (in our opinion) forced to get the UK police authorities involved with Sunbelt over copyright theft. This is a criminal offence, not a civil one I believe.
Wrong, they have committed neither civil nor criminal offence, however you have just opened yourself up to an action for defamation. You really shouldn't go around accusing inoccent parties of theft.
Re:My god (Score:3, Informative)
From the forums you see people are using this to try to spy on spouses they think are unfaithful, etc. Give it up people, if you're installing spyware to monitor your spouse for infidelity your relationship is already over.
Clarification from Sunbelt (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Hasn't a crime been commited by Sunbelt? (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, the answers are NO and NO.
When you buy a copy of Microsoft windows in a store, you enter a tacit sellin contract with that store. Then, on TOP of that, Microsoft tries to limit your possible use of that good, which may or may not be legal. But the only restriction that Microsoft places legally and in an unchallenged way is that you have to BUY their product.
In the same way, once you have allowed people to download the software, you cannot restrict who can use it or not. It would be discrimination.
Microsoft does not prevent researchers or black people or foreigners to use their software, they just prevent people WITHOUT a LICENSE. Then, on top of that, they want to restrict your rights to only USE the software. Here, you grant a license to all (free download) and then say that some kinds of people (anti spyware researchers) are not allowed to use it. It is like saying that french people could not use it. Or any group of people. It is discrimination, pure and simple.
Even restricting a type of use for a product you have the right to use may or may not be legal. A court maintained the right of a company to disassemble a program they had bought to keep it working and improve it.