Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.

New Third Voice version out

Author:Jeremy Bowers
Posted:9/14/1999; 9:15:07 PM
Topic:New Third Voice version out
Msg #:11014
Prev/Next:11013 / 11015

Since Dave seems to be at least keeping tabs on this topic...

Third Voice has now released a version of it's product for Netscape. As you can see from the page I've created here, describing how Third Voice for IE work, the old version functioned by dynamically modifying the page being viewed to include the additional content they wanted to add. Obviously, for Netscape this doesn't work.

This brought up the question of whether a derivitave work (amoung other things) was being created. Practically speaking, I think (personally) it was pretty clear one was, but from a technical viewpoint, things weren't so clear.

Now, in order to add the capability to Netscape, they have the user download a proxy server, much like Junkbusters. This server (executing on the 'client' machine... dang this terminology gets confusing sometimes!) downloads the page, makes the modifications, and then presents that page to the user.

Holy cow.

It now appears that anybody who wants to (as Third Voice has no particular status) can present a proxy server for download, intercept any of your pages they choose, and make arbitrary modifications along the way (as, again, there's nothing particularly special about this application). If this wasn't interesting enough the first time around, and this still doesn't interest SOMEBODY, I am going to be floored.

To head off the only objection I can think of, "What of Junkbusters? Why is it OK and not Third Voice?", my answer is that I have never considered "removal" to be as bad as modification.

My final answer may be that Junkbusters is not permissible either; it's just never annoyed anybody enough to make it lawsuit material. (This is somewhat backed up by the quotes I've seen from people such as Doubleclick.net saying that the blockers aren't big enough to worry about yet, and the people blocking aren't likely customers anyhow.)

Referencing my earlier post about how I've been taking to thinking of these issues... the ultimate in interfering with communications is a proxy server, either on their end or offerring one for the user.

(If you don't find this disturbing at all, could you please tell me why not? This is honest... I don't understand. Am I being too idealist?)

(And please forgive the tone of the post; I try not to be too preachy, and stick with the facts, but this is a challenge.)

There are responses to this message:

This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:52:36 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.