

A Tour Of A “Pay to Download Firefox” Site - robin_reala
http://www.gerv.net/hacking/pay-download-tour/

======
jasonlbaptiste
Ever wonder how to put yourself closer to the front of the line to hell? This
is a good article to read if you're interested.

I'm all for capitalism and making money, but this is just wrong. Sure you can
say, well people are dumb enough! Yeah, most people are dumb, but that doesn't
mean you go ripping them off.

~~~
lionhearted
> I'm all for capitalism and making money, but this is just wrong.

I think this a problem that people have - they (somehow) equate
corruption/taking advantage of people/kickbacks with "capitalism". This is not
the case - I've spent some a bit of time in more socialist and communist
countries, and these things seem to happen even more there. People trying to
take advantage of others happens regardless of economic or political systems.

~~~
netsp
The premise of capitalism (especially capitalism as moral philosophy) is that
if two parties come together & a transaction occurs, both walk away better
off. Otherwise the transaction would not occur. Therefore, it cannot be
considered immoral.

Protection against corruption/taking advantage is built in. Don't like it?
Don't buy it.

~~~
lionhearted
Sort of agree with you - actually, I completely agree with you, just I was
originally making a slightly different point.

The point was that this interaction wasn't a feature of "capitalism" - it
wasn't a free and honest exchange. The seller here was pretty clearly trying
to deceive and cheat people. This happens under all sorts of economic and
political systems.

But here's some examples - it wasn't just selling something for more than the
market rate. The seller is clearly trying to deceive/misinformative/cheat
people. If you look in depth at the screenshots, it wasn't "borderline", it
was pretty egregious:

The URLs and advertisements all list free download and don't make it clear
that they're not officially with Firefox.

They change and mix up the pricing right next to each other, it's designed to
look confusing:

"Get 3 years... only £9.98 per year"

"Get 2 years... only £0.99 per month"

Then there's this doozy:

"Signup now and join the millions of users that download files on the
internet"

The order page (second to last image) says on the header, "Download FireFox
3.5 Instantly!" without explaining that the 76 pounds they're charging isn't
for Firefox, it's for some membership support something-or-other.

It's like when people put ads for fake things on Craigslist. This particular
instance probably isn't criminal, but it's really toeing the line on fraud -
I'm pretty sure if anyone was refused their money back and went to small
claims, they'd get their money back plus damages.

But again, this isn't a "capitalism" thing. Under theocracy, churches used to
take money to help get your dead relatives into heaven faster. People pay
large money in Africa and Eastern Europe to be smuggled across borders. Lots
of bribery necessary to get things done in corrupt countries, or to have a
shot to get into a Communist/Central run business or education system, where
it becomes all about who you know instead of the more objective free
enterprise exchanges.

Is what's going on here bad? Yes, definitely. Is it "capitalism"? Oh hell no.
It's corruption and fraud. Humans sometimes try to cheat each other, again
regardless of the economic and political system in place.

~~~
netsp
I think this is a feature (or bug) of capitalism. Capitalism (or socialism for
that matter) is a hard to use term. No one agrees on its real meaning. Free is
definitely a premise. Honest, I'm not sure. I think many free marketers argue
that honesty is one of the emergent qualities of markets.

There is a capitalist core though. I think that core says that the non-market
system (governments, societies, etc.) need to make sure that things are free.
Emergent order will take care of the rest. Incentives & feedbacks will make
sure (via the mechanism described above) that transactions are profitable for
all parties, that they are safe & that they are otherwise ethical. Honesty is
usually included in this.

Again, when I say 'usually included,' it's hard to nail down what I mean. Most
people have obviously never considered this particular aspect. They use think
in more general terms. But the Capitalism-as-philosophy guys (Libertarians in
the US, Austrian-schoolers or Liberals some other places), would consider
honesty as something that emerges, part of capitalism.

------
blhack
I wish that firefox _would_ start charging. Something like a $100 for a 1000
seat license or something similar.

Why?

Because when I go to one of my bosses and say "I think we try and transition
away from IE. Here, this is Firefox, it is free and it is wonderful", their
reaction is "Free?!" and visions of shitty freeware from the 90s fill their
heads.

In order to keep us geeks happy, they could offer a source distribution that
needs to be compiled or has some trivial dependency that needs to be
installed.

~~~
amalcon
The problem is that, as soon as they start charging, they open themselves up
to liability. That's actually exactly what your bosses want: someone to take
the liability.

~~~
inklesspen
Does Microsoft take liability for any of their software?

The Windows XP EULA states "Except for any refund elected by Microsoft, YOU
ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ANY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES, if the Software does not meet Microsoft's Limited Warranty, and, to
the maximum extent allowed by applicable law, even if any remedy fails of its
essential purpose."

It goes on to state that the only remedy offered is your money back. Mozilla
also offers your money back, all $0 of it.

~~~
KiwiNige
And yet all Software needs to be upgraded before Microsoft stops "supporting"
it. In 10 years of using their software in the industry I have never had any
actual support from Microsoft.

~~~
gaius
I bet you've applied a service pack or a hotfix tho'.

------
jacquesm
"New computer users should find our services valuable, and a time saver. If
you are an advanced computer user, you probably don't need our services. "

I think they missed making that more clear, suggested rewrite:

"Clueless newbies we like to rip off, everybody else is a waste of our
bandwidth, so go away"

Euclidinvestments/Cardtransaction.com, the company behind all this is based in
the UK:

    
    
       Saphie Number One Limited (Reg 91918)
       26 York Street                       
       London,  W1U 6PZ                     
       United Kingdom    
    

They ought to lose their merchant account, considering how hard it can be for
legit businesses to get one I find it hard to believe that these scammers
manage to hold on to theirs.

~~~
joeythibault
Actually, it's not that hard to get a merchant account considering their site
is very straight forward. They list their address, the site has a secure cert
and numbers to the tech support. It's all the things that companies like
Auth.net ask for.

That being said, my computer raises all sorts of red-flags when I go to the
site.

Now, I just wonder how good their customer service is, 'cause if clueless
newbies fall for the trap, the least they could do is to support them as they
figure out how to turn their computers on, explain what a browser is and what
they should click to access the internet...

They do claim to answer every call in 90 seconds (800 978 7657) and I was
talking to someone within about 30 seconds.

~~~
jacquesm
You wouldn't want someone to miss out on clicking that final submit button.

They're scammers, pure and simple, they should have no right to a merchant
account. I don't even much care if it is legal or not, legal does not always
mean 'right' and in this case 'legal' might be clearly 'wrong'.

VISA et al make lots of value judgments as to which customers can have
merchant accounts and which don't.

So in this case they can make that judgment too. Especially the 'upsell' on
the last screen off-center is the mark of the real scammer. There was a time
when a company called IBill would facilitate this kind of junk, they crashed
because of it (and several other good reasons besides, but that's another
story, the $1 fake transactions to dillute the chargebacks had a lot to do
with it too), if assholes like this can't get merchant accounts then life will
be better for all of us.

Not that long ago we applied for a merchant account to sell 2nd hand CDs and
we were turned down, in spite of being a perfectly legit business. These jerks
being able to operate their scam seriously pisses me off.

~~~
joeythibault
It's a sad state when legit businesses get denied yet scammers make it through
several "hoops" (getting a certificate/getting a merch account). Try and try
again...we worked with RBS world services and they were really helpful in
getting things squared away (they even provided sample sites and pointed out
where ours was lacking). It's often a very simple thing that flags their "risk
management" department (these are the simple things that the scammer in
question did correctly).

------
nazgulnarsil
all the moral righteousness is pretty funny/sad at the same time. they're
charging for access to their call center basically. I don't really see
anything wrong with that.

the beauty of capitalism is that no one (even you smart geeks) gets to decide
what the price of things are. you live and die by consumer demand.

~~~
turkishrevenge
"all the moral righteousness is pretty funny/sad at the same time. they're
charging for access to their call center basically. I don't really see
anything wrong with that."

Really? Despite the fact that what the site in question is doing is blatantly
predatory in nature? I would be willing to wager that it heavily depends on
the naivety of new (read: probably elderly) computer users in order to make
money. If you're fine with this, I don't know how you could justify such a
position.

"the beauty of capitalism is that no one (even you smart geeks) gets to decide
what the price of things are. you live and die by consumer demand."

Except of course, in situations of monopolies, combines, and cartels (and
their respective subsidiaries and holdings), which is how the capitalism you
speak of works in the 21st century.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
monopolies only happen because of government enforcement. no price fixing has
ever been maintained in history that was not supported by the government. If
you have a counter example I would love to hear it because I have done
considerable searching on the subject. you're talking about corporatism, plain
and simple.

as far as being blatantly predatory, unless the site actually lies there isn't
a problem. if telling half truths is morally wrong then you have some bigger
demons to grapple with than someone selling firefox (car industry, fashion
industry, healthcare industry, it never ends).

~~~
turkishrevenge
"monopolies only happen because of government enforcement." Yes, except when
the government breaks 'em up. Trust-busting, anyone? See Standard Oil, or for
that matter, the Sherman Antitrust Act. I'm really sick of this hearing this.
It's like the unabated capitalism of the 19th and 20th centuries never
occurred.

You talk as though the government arbitrarily picks which corporate entities
will become powerful monopolies and which will fail. Last time I checked, the
market--that mystical thing people like you so dutifully worship--renders such
judgment. What you perceive should is some kind of government patronage,
usually at the level of individual politicians, that allows a monopoly
situation to arise in the first place, is actually corporate interests
intervening in political life for the purposes of fostering a monopolistic
agenda and practice. Look at any political campaign. Where does much of the
funding come from? Why do corporate interests fund both parties? Simple, to
gain a political foot-in-the-door, so to speak. Hell, look at many government
advisorial position. Most are occupied by former (although still share
holding) CEOs. And corporate directorial boards? They contain former
politicians, many with considerable ties to political figures holding office.

"as far as being blatantly predatory, unless the site actually lies there
isn't a problem. if telling half truths is morally wrong then you have some
bigger demons to grapple with"

Your cavalier attitude toward this kind of behavior is sickening, at best. If
you feel exploitation in any form is justified, then you will have to deal
with whatever comes your way, chief.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
please educate yourself before spouting off
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil>

as for exploitation: I am an aware consumer, and everyone else should be too.
relying on mommy regulation agency to protect people leads to corruption, or
are you unaware of how many deaths are caused by the FDA?

~~~
turkishrevenge
The article proves my point. What if anything are you trying to get at?

Apparently, you've never heard of the Pure Food and Drug Act either, or why it
was created, given the presence of adulterants common in goods at the time.
People like you don't want to understand--rather, you'd like to adhere to your
flawed worldview. There's no sense in arguing with people like you. I hate to
say this, but it needs to be said: you're an idiot.

------
prpon
"Once you submit your order for Membership, it is nonrefundable. Only in cases
of fraud will the payment be refunded. This policy is in place due to an abuse
of credit card chargebacks and theft of information. All requests for refunds
due to fraud MUST be made in writing and physically mailed to
freedownloadzone."

What they are doing at freedownloadzone is exactly that "theft of information
and abuse of credit cards".

------
matthijs
There are so many of these sites, the shortest url I know involved in this is
tv.org ( <http://tv.org/join.php> ).

Credit card companies block sites like allofmp3.com but still help these kinds
of scammers. As soon as they start blocking/refusing these kind of sites it
gets a whole lot harder for them to scam people...

------
wallflower
Can't Firefox block the referrer? This seems to be up there with scamming
senior citizens.

~~~
wizard_2
You get an escalating war that way with out actually fixing the problem.
They're better off warning users on download.

~~~
wallflower
Good point. I guess the only real solution may be for Mozilla to try to
compete against these unethical advertisers by spending dollars on advertising
from these same smaller search engines, emphasizing "Free"

> These sites get their custom through advertising. We and the major search
> engine providers do a reasonable job of keeping these people's adverts away
> from our trademarked terms and keywords but we can't be everywhere, and they
> can often be found on smaller search engines.

------
tphyahoo
kill it with fire.

