How Much Does 'Free' Cost?
Posted by Shane Keats on February 3, 2006 04:12 PM
We are constantly amazed by the ingenuity of online scammers.
Here's one of our favorite examples. Try typing "Firefox" into the search box on Google, Yahoo! or MSN. Now check out the paid advertisement for “FreeDownloadHQ.com." On Google, you should see something like this:
Most experienced Web users know that the best way to download Firefox is to go to an aggregator like download.com or directly to Mozilla. Furthermore, savvy users know the difference between sponsored links and the main organic results to the left and below.
Not so for the casual user. Blame it on them if you must, but studies show that most users don’t know the difference between paid and natural search results. As far as they’re concerned, the highlighted ad is the “first" result.
Clicking that “first" result for Firefox brings you to this website:
In the Orwellian world of dark-alley Internet marketing, the word “Free" in the site’s title generally means you’ll be paying somehow – either with cash or spam or adware on your computer. After all, this “free" site just paid Google top dollar for my click. As always at SiteAdvisor, we ask how someone makes their money if they're paying to attract our business. Read on.
War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery.
Click on “Download" and you’ll enter a dialogue that quickly turns to money.
Yes, FreeDownloadHQ is anything but free. These guys take FREE software and SELL IT FOR $37.95 and then have the nerve to call themselves FreeDownloadHQ! (By the way, they’ll also sell you Internet Explorer, Opera and Netscape and any number of other free software programs.)
Before you blame the poor victims who fall for this scam, take a look at the next screen.
FreeDownloadHQ makes sure you see their big GoDaddy SSL certificate. How reassuring. Here’s my problem with SSL. Consumers have been trained to look for the seal but they haven’t been taught how to interpret it. I suspect that the average user, if he or she even knows what SSL is, thinks the certification is an indication of overall trustworthiness, rather than SSL’s more limited actual promise of encrypting certain communications (but nothing more.)
Typical Internet users see Super Bowl-advertised GoDaddy and they inevitably conclude, “This site must be safe." So FreeDownloadHQ is free loading on SSL, and plenty of others sites do so too. It’s a problem we in the security community created, and it’s a problem we need to address.
Money Back Guarantees
Another nugget awaits in FreeDownloadHQ’s payment screen.
Click “more," and you’ll see a puzzling definition of 100% guaranteed.
If you are within your first 7 days of our guarantee period - you are eligible for a refund of the unused portion of your membership minus a $5.99 fee, which we keep to cover the costs of processing and handling. Please allow a 10 to 15 day processing delay before the funds are returned to your account. (underlining is theirs)
Obviously these guys get a ton of refund requests, given that they are, we repeat, selling a product that is given away free by the manufacturer.
Caveat Emptor?
We’re not the first to discover the scam. Some folks in the blogosphere have caught on too. Brian Ruppert, for example, does a great job explaining FreeDownloadHQ. But read this comment he posted from someone who “bought" Skype for $52 and you realize how easy it is to fall for the scam:
I tried to get Skype through Google engine and before downloading the program I was requested to insert my personal data and to pay $52 by credit card number. I inserted all data as I supposed was for skype subscription but in reality the data inserted and license agreement was for another operator site http://www.freedownloadhq (dot) com (!) When I contacted the manipulation was too late. I tried to contact them directly but it was impossible.
I can't vouch for the merits of the particular case mentioned above. But when you dig a little, you realize just how many people feel victimized by FreeDownloadHQ. And you realize how many people, even techies, fall for it. On TechVibes, "Vancouver's Technology Community," you can find users suggesting FreeDownloadHQ. Even a moderator on TechSupportForum recommends FreeDownloadHQ. This is not a problem restricted to technical neophytes.
How do I know these aren't isolated examples? Well, a good indication of the extent of the problem is that the Firefox community itself is freaking out about it.
In fact, we wonder why even more people don't fall for the scam. After all, FreeDownloadHQ is everywhere. Type “firefox" into Amazon.com. Along with “Firefox" starring Clint Eastwood, you get a “sponsored" link to our friends at FreeDownloadHQ:
(Side note: It turns out this FreeDownloadHQ ad isn't quite Amazon's fault. Rather, these are ads sold by Google, then syndicated into Amazon's site.)
Where Are the Cops?
When you actually get to the download dialogue, look closely and you’ll see that FreeDownloadHQ is simply directing users to Download.com to get their copy of Firefox, for free of course.
Why hasn’t the FTC shut this site down? And what are users actually paying for? When I first started researching this story, I found this quote on their FAQ:
The software is free. You are paying for the membership to our site that provides you with location, evaluation and/or recommendation of various file sharing programs as well as utilities, online tutorials, online help and support and other tools and services for the lifetime of the membership.
FreeDownloadHQ said it is selling customer service, not software they don’t own. I’m not surprised that Google, Yahoo! and MSN show these ads. They lack the controversial keywords (porn, gambling, pills) that trip the search engines’ best-known filters and rules. As to why the government hasn't done anything, we'll let you draw your own conclusions
(Note: FreeDownloadHQ no longer appears to host a FAQ page. In fact, it appears that they no longer bother to explain what you're paying for at all.)
SiteAdvisor Puts the Red On
Despite the (occasionally available) fine print, users can't and shouldn't reasonably be expected to know about these scams. Nor should users be able to parse the torrent of conflicting messages: “Hey, did you hear about this cool new program? It’s free. Except it’s not really free." “That SSL cert you’re supposed to look for? It doesn’t really mean the product is safe. But don’t download unless the site has one. Why? Don’t ask. Too complicated."
If the government won’t take action, the search engines ignore the issue, and the makers of the software are too busy making real products, where does that leave ordinary users? Well, we know who the winners and losers are:
- Winner: Search engines that get paid for every click on every tricky ad
- Winner: Freedownloadhq, which gets $37.95 selling something they didn’t make
- Loser: Unsuspecting Internet users
- Loser: Creators of great products like Firefox
- Loser: Legitimate Web businesses that suffer when average users lose confidence in the Web
As for SiteAdvisor, we’re adding this scam to our list of practices that will earn a red flag for a Web site. And lest you think this is a small potatoes operation, or limited to a single scam site, try searching for your favorite freeware using our Safe Search annotations. And watch the screen turn red.
Got a new scam you want us to take a look at? Let us know through our feedback link.
Comments
I have trouble swallowing the fact that google actually let people publish any ads as soon as they pay for it. There should be a team responsible to look at the submitted content before putting it online..
I've stumbled on scammers trying to sell UBCD (ultimate boot CD) on ebay yesterday. It appears that some people are gullible enough to actually buy it, and ignore that the application is free. Same thing goes for a few PDFs that can be downloaded freely from certain tech. sites..
Kiltak
[Geeks Are Sexy]Tech. News
Posted by: Kiltak | February 3, 2006 10:16 PM
I just searched for Firefox on Google, and got the exact thing mentioned. I clicked every link for the fun of it, knowing that each click would be money out of the scamming companies' pocket.
If enough people click these scammy links and just leave without taking the bait, these places will start to lose some serious money and disappear pretty quick. May their Google bill punish them for their evil ways.
Vote with your dollar!
Posted by: Ryan | February 3, 2006 10:44 PM
I thought the whole story was pretty bad until you showed how they simply send the unwitting buyer to download.com after the purchase. That made me laugh pretty hard.
In most cases it's not unreasonable to ask for a small fee to cover the cost of distributing software, even free software.
But to have people pay you and then simply send them to someone else who is actually paying the bill to distribute the software is down right wrong.
Posted by: Sean | February 3, 2006 11:02 PM
Great idea Ryan! Let's go and click them into bankruptcy!!!
Posted by: Sascha | February 3, 2006 11:02 PM
Like it or not, Freedownloadhq is doing nothing illegal.
The GPL allows anyone to sell open source software, as long as the code is available on request.
this site does provide a service, where to get the software; and they are chargin for this service.
Unknowing consumers, who may be use to paying for sotware, are paying for this knowledge.
I dont' like this site, I don't like how they make money, but as long no law is broken, nothing can be done.
Posted by: knubie | February 3, 2006 11:10 PM
Perhaps nothing legally can be done, but just because something isn't illegal doesn't make it right nor ethical.
What they do is decieve people into giving them money. It's a scam, and you can't claim it's anything else.
Posted by: cbreaker | February 3, 2006 11:34 PM
I'm with Sascha. Unforunatley, they aren't doing anything illegal.
It would be cool to build a Firefox extension that alerted people when they visited a site that's on a "scammers" database. If you allow anyone to submit sites (given some safeguards, of course), this could actually be a very effective method.
Posted by: Allen | February 3, 2006 11:43 PM
knubie, it's not a GPL issue-- they aren't repackaging Fx, just selling a list of links to Download.com.
The issue is that they are big-time scammers.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 3, 2006 11:49 PM
Type Firefox into Google and then click the links. Make them pay for the clicks.
Posted by: Tim | February 4, 2006 12:05 AM
I just wonder how much money they've made (stolen, rather).
Posted by: Amir | February 4, 2006 12:10 AM
Another such scam is irs.COM which charges $3 via credit card to attempt to download an IRS Form W-9. This happened to someone close who didn't realize the irs.gov has all forms on-line.
Posted by: Henry | February 4, 2006 12:13 AM
It is true that they are providing a service in directing users to the downloads for software. It's obvious that the service is not worth the cost, and that they are taking advantage of people who have limited experience on the internet. Unless the are being outright fraudulent, such as by taking your money and not providing the software, it's not illegal.
Think about a website like VersionTracker. They charge people money to redirect them to software downloads. VerstionTracker does provide free service, and they do also manage an index that allows users to search for software. You can get all of the same software without paying VersionTracker anything. So, is VersionTracker scamming? Of course not. This FreeDownloadHQ site is providing a similar service, although in a somewhat misleading manner and with less value to the user.
Slimey? Yes. Illegal? No.
Posted by: Bob | February 4, 2006 12:13 AM
$37.95, if anything, is a reasonable price for a valuable lesson. The only thing that these guys are doing that I disagree with is that they don't have a statement that comes up after you pay that says "OMG LOL You just paid for free software you moron. ROTFLMAO PWNED N00B."
Posted by: BeatNik | February 4, 2006 12:44 AM
yeah guys, committing click fraud is the answer to every problem on the internet. lets do it. cheating the system rules!
Posted by: jason | February 4, 2006 12:58 AM
No more a scam than ipods that are made in taiwan at a cost of $3.56. You can get same ipod with taiwanese brand name for $9.99
Posted by: dfd | February 4, 2006 01:21 AM
Just keep clicking on those scammy ads when you see them especially when they're on blogs you like.
Call it click fraud, I call it protecting Firefox against fraudsters.
Posted by: Andrew | February 4, 2006 01:33 AM
YES, THIS IS ILLEGAL:
Because there is no consideration, which would allow for a proper contract.
The "service" of redirecting to Firefox is NOT VALID CONSIDERATION. The specific reason for this is that there is nowhere they expressly state: "FOR $X WE WILL TELL YOU HOW AND WHERE TO DOWNLOAD FIREFOX", instead implying "For $X you can download Firefox from us" which is very different.
NO CONTRACT MEANS FRAUD, SO IF YOU FELL FOR THIS SCAM, TELL YOUR CREDIT CARD COMPANY AND FILE A DISPUTE NOTICE.
Posted by: abscissa | February 4, 2006 02:50 AM
I clicked on their ad.. go to amazon.com and search for firefox, then click on there ad again.
Posted by: chris | February 4, 2006 04:15 AM
Is 12dailypro a scam?
Posted by: Onadette Coleman | February 4, 2006 04:33 AM
This wouldn't stop people falling from the scam, but would certainly be useful once they had. The default page in Firefox should mention something about Firefox being free, in big large letters. There might actually be people using firefix and still unaware they they have been scammed!
Posted by: Ben | February 4, 2006 06:02 AM
The funny thing is that the site isn't even SSL.
Posted by: damneinstien | February 4, 2006 06:38 AM
Reminds me of the whole Luxuriosity office suite debaucle that was really just a bunch of open source stuff the guy was charging for...
Posted by: Jesse Gardner | February 4, 2006 08:42 AM
Oh and about the redirecting to download.com...can't they (download.com) block this site?
Posted by: Crickey | February 4, 2006 09:57 AM
Out of curiosity, could the Mozilla Foundation sue these guys for misuse of the Firefox name, which is a registered trademark?
Posted by: Onager | February 4, 2006 10:04 AM
Andrew above posts innacurate information regarding the application of Contract Law to this situation:
In the United States at least, a lack of consideration merely means that no legally binding contract has been formed. It does not mean that the exchange or transaction is "illegal."
When a transaction has occurred without a legally binding contract (as in this situation, potentially), the only result is that neither party can bring a lawsuit demanding that the other perform what they promised.
That is all! It is entirely legal for people to perform transactions without valid contracts, it is just not very smart.
If a court were to decide that a contract existed here, the victim may be able to get their money back by claiming that their assent to the terms was acheived by fraud and deceit.
Posted by: Jeff | February 4, 2006 11:55 AM
One more thought to make this a little more realistic:
It is unlikely that any lawyer would ever take a case over $37.00, unless enough people were "scammed" such that the suit could bring them all in and be handled as a class action.
Posted by: Jeff | February 4, 2006 11:57 AM
are those clicks on google ads that there paying for unique to every IP address or not? i mean, if i click 50 times on a ad, do they pay for 50 clicks or 1 click?
Posted by: Reuven | February 4, 2006 03:20 PM
Onadette Coleman: Yes, any "get rich quick" scheme should be considered a scam. I have never heard of any exceptions.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 4, 2006 03:42 PM
Hey, go fuck yourself.
This is what free software is about. Read the GPL before you go whoring yourself on digg.
Posted by: geppy | February 5, 2006 12:06 AM
I find it very sad that someone is that patetic...
Posted by: Ivan Minic | February 5, 2006 11:38 AM
It's terrific news, it's scandalous!
Posted by: shyboy | February 5, 2006 04:58 PM
Here he is, possibly a PO Box as there are a few businesses at this address:
7 Petworth Road
Haslemere, Surrey GU27 2JB
United Kingdom
Registered through: GoDaddy.com (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: FREEDOWNLOADHQ.COM
Created on: 06-Feb-05
Expires on: 06-Feb-06
Last Updated on: 08-Apr-05
Administrative Contact:
Software Ltd., Xtreme XtremeSoftwareLtd@gmail.com
7 Petworth Road
Haslemere, Surrey GU27 2JB
United Kingdom
0000000000
Technical Contact:
Software Ltd., Xtreme XtremeSoftwareLtd@gmail.com
7 Petworth Road
Haslemere, Surrey GU27 2JB
United Kingdom
0000000000
Domain servers in listed order:
NS13.ZONEEDIT.COM
NS17.ZONEEDIT.COM
Posted by: HERE HE IS | February 5, 2006 08:54 PM
So can anybody figure out how much freedownloadhq is paying Google and other search engines for ads?
How much click-fraud would it take to outweigh what one or two idiots that need to learn basic netiquette paid?
(Every browser should have a page explaining basic netiquette and alerting people to scams like this before people can actually browse the net)
Posted by: Anonymous | February 6, 2006 07:08 PM
LOL
if they're too stupid to visit the manufacturers website and figure out that the software is free then they should pay for it
LOLLOLLOLLOLLOL
Posted by: john long | February 7, 2006 12:41 PM
that's what you get for using Firefox, idiots
Posted by: burn the fox | February 12, 2006 05:41 AM
"People want to be fooled; fool them" this english interpretation of old latin proverb(saying).There are suckers in this world who will suck anything you throw at them. They deserve to be screwed for being so ignorant. LOSERS
Posted by: bravefart | February 12, 2006 08:50 AM
I knew I had a reason for never downloading programs except from the creators actual site... and here it is...
I don't even use downloads.com except to -search- for programs. On occasion programs have been submited to downloads.com NOT by the owner, with an attached virus/spyware/whatever...
Posted by: Conquester777 | February 13, 2006 09:27 AM
Although I will not deny that this is not morally right, it is fair game in all of the aspects I can see.
Now if they somehow lied to the users about what they were purchasing, when they purchased it (does it tell them they are buying firefox?) then I would say it was definately out of the question.
Bottom line: Don't get pissed because you didn't think of it first or that you aren't getting the money.
Posted by: Brent | February 14, 2006 01:15 AM
Now I will not deny that this is morally wrong, but the fact of the matter is that unless they say they are selling firefox or selling internet explorer, there is nothing wrong here.
If they clearly state (and users are dumb enough to ignore) that they are paying for the services of listing and reviewing downloads then I don't see what we are pissed at here.
Bottom line is that you shouldn't get pissed just because you didnt think of it first.
Posted by: Brent | February 14, 2006 01:17 AM
You won't have much of a criminal case here...
BUT, where are the companies like Download.com suing these scammers? It would be easier to make this a civil case than a criminal case.
The article section "where are the cops?" seems to think that the government (FTC et. al.) has the talent and manpower to do something about stuff like this. Anytime the gov gets someone trained up, those people move to the private sector, like siteadvisor etc.
Posted by: anon | March 7, 2006 12:01 PM
These are the kind of people that really just tick me off. They take advantage of people who aren't what you might call computer-savvy. And the fact that they don't even host these downloads on their servers also ticks me off even more.
Posted by: Jared Schwager | March 12, 2006 09:12 PM
hey, burn the fox, don't forget they make you pay for IE and Opera too
Posted by: Sam | March 31, 2006 08:47 AM
I'll bet the licensing infro from Firefox specifically does not allow you to "re-sell" it - has anyone pointed this out to Mozilla? And asked them? Or Opera?
Posted by: jbelkin800 | May 19, 2006 08:29 PM
I tried accessing the FreeDownloadHQ website but because I run a HOSTS file manager program (HostMan - www.abelhadigital.com)the website is blocked.
My point is, maybe HOSTS file blacklists should be included with any decent Antivirus/Spyware software to block access to all these scam /ad sites.
Now I realise that this may sound like an infringement of civil liberties with the blocking of certain websites, but my belief is that the uneducated need to be protected from themselves.
For example, here in the UK, it is compulsory that seatbelts are worn in cars and that crash helmets are worn on motorbikes. If you think about it, whose the one that gets hurt in a crash? The one not wearing the seatbelt or crash helmet. Therefore, it should be down to personal choice, but it isn't.
Somethings have to be made compulsory to protect the less educated. Maybe the blocking of certain websites should be made much easier for the less well educated.
If the HOSTS file method is used as a blocking medium, the more savvy computer user can easily unblock the site if access is required. Thus its not an enforced block by the ISP or Government.
I personally use the HOSTS file method to block all of the damn advertising sites and have never had problems with spyware, popups and all the other paraphenalia that goes with surfing the web. Oh and the otherthing is, surfing is a hell of a lot faster as well!
Posted by: Paul | July 24, 2006 07:28 AM
Well I just went to there site and it appears they also are not accepting new members, freedlhw is not allowing members! I used my psp to gather this information lol. There site is not very user frendly But they do state at the bottem CLEARLY that they give links to dl's not packadages.
Posted by: goodman84 | February 10, 2007 12:10 PM