Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Website Impounded

fitnesssf.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 156 posts

Re: Website Impounded

#81

Post by npsimons »

ultramundane8 wrote: post #48
greaterweb wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If you take your car to the shop and can't pay for the work to be done, they put a mechanic's lien on it, and impound the car until the work is paid for. This is no different from that method, which is totally legal." There is a big difference, actually. There is pretty standard protocol and work agreements for automotive repair. This developer may have exposed himself to a level of risk based on his own contracts a…

So let's say that the customer always pays on time and the developer did build this sort of time bomb. (And let's assume no technical knowledge on the part of the customer. Therefore, the time bomb is never discovered.) Are you saying that the relationship was negatively affected? I would claim that the developer could mistrust the customer without elsewhere mistreating them.

There are way, way, way too many ways for this to go wrong. What if you are indisposed (in the hospital, dead, etc) when it comes time to apply the patch? What if an attacker finds the security hole and exploits it before you apply the patch? And don't tell me this isn't a security hole (eg, a backdoor), because it could easily be or become one. Knowingly delivering compromised software is flat out unethical and borders on vigilantism and/or fraud. I don't condone one party failing to hold up their end of the deal when the other party has, and I don't think that "defacing" a website that someone doesn't legally own (they haven't paid for it) is wrong, but putting time bombs in software should never be done.

Re: Website Impounded

#82

Post by greaterweb »

duaneb wrote: post #69
greaterweb wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If you take your car to the shop and can't pay for the work to be done, they put a mechanic's lien on it, and impound the car until the work is paid for. This is no different from that method, which is totally legal." There is a big difference, actually. There is pretty standard protocol and work agreements for automotive repair. This developer may have exposed himself to a level of risk based on his own contracts a…

> This developer may have exposed himself to a level of risk based on his own contracts and work arrangement. Why was the site up in the first place if he was not paid in full? I mean, I'm a small fish compared to this guy, but I always have the site up and running before hand. Most of the time, I just outright buy the domain and transfer domain rights. This is exactly the kind of thing I do when the contract is viol…

I was a small fish as well for many years, 5 as a freelancer and 5 as a small business owner. We all have to take those risks initially when getting started, "I can build you a site that looks like this for this much money!" But we concede those risks when we do so.

In all of my years I have only taken 2 sites down for non-payment. That was the extent of it though, no payment, no site. I personally would never feel comfortable using a clients domain as my own platform to state my side of the story, it's just not appropriate in my opinion.

I want to support fellow designer and developers but in this case I just can't blindly do so without hearing both sides on this or a bit more detail from the developer. The developer has posted little more than invoices were unpaid and he's shutting down the studio like P-Diddy. For all we know through his own initiative he exceeded the agreed scope of work and wants to be paid for it.

Maybe more information can be surfaced and we can rally behind this guy. Until then I've got to stay neutral and look at things objectively.

Re: Website Impounded

#83

Post by dhimes »

duaneb wrote: post #69
greaterweb wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If you take your car to the shop and can't pay for the work to be done, they put a mechanic's lien on it, and impound the car until the work is paid for. This is no different from that method, which is totally legal." There is a big difference, actually. There is pretty standard protocol and work agreements for automotive repair. This developer may have exposed himself to a level of risk based on his own contracts a…

> This developer may have exposed himself to a level of risk based on his own contracts and work arrangement. Why was the site up in the first place if he was not paid in full? I mean, I'm a small fish compared to this guy, but I always have the site up and running before hand. Most of the time, I just outright buy the domain and transfer domain rights. This is exactly the kind of thing I do when the contract is viol…

This developer did expose himself to a real risk, and one he probably didn't even think of: that little site, which is essentially a text message, is driving my Chrome instance crazy. WTF did he code into it? Would I hire him?

Re: Website Impounded

#84

Post by jstalin »

dfxm12 wrote: post #79
jstalin wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might not realize that just sending an email to a design company saying "Please design us a web site and we'll pay you $500" creates a contract (assuming the design company responds and says "ok!"). I doubt the design company would have gotten started without any kind of price term being set.

I know this is the case if both parties are in the US. However, these are two parties from two different countries, each with different laws and jurisdictions. Do you know enough about contract laws in the US and Germany to assert this as the truth?

Well, it would be hard for the German company to claim there was no contract when they're trying to collect on it. As for US law, yes, there is enough there for a contract to be formed.

Additionally, the CISG may apply if the contract was for goods as opposed to services. Both the US and Germany are signatories. So that poses a good question - is web and graphic design a service or are they selling you the final product as a good?

Re: Website Impounded

#85

Post by thisisdallas »

rglover wrote: post #46

Hand down my favorite phrase from our contract: At the designated point in the project and after final payment has been received, we will present you with all files pertaining to your project.

Exactly.

I have something along the same line in my contract. I never give the client all the files or set up the site until I have been paid in full. I regularly send them updates, screenshots and allow them to test out sites on the dev server but I never give them a finished product without being paid in full. Before I start, there is a 50% retainer. After the design is completed the client pays 25% of the total. After the development is completed they owe the final 25% and once they pay their last invoice they get the final product. With this system, I have never had a problem. That's not to say it's perfect but I do believe it's a great way to handle payments.

Re: Website Impounded

#86

Post by duaneb »

greaterweb wrote: post #82
duaneb wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This developer may have exposed himself to a level of risk based on his own contracts and work arrangement. Why was the site up in the first place if he was not paid in full? I mean, I'm a small fish compared to this guy, but I always have the site up and running before hand. Most of the time, I just outright buy the domain and transfer domain rights. This is exactly the kind of thing I do when the contract is viol…

I was a small fish as well for many years, 5 as a freelancer and 5 as a small business owner. We all have to take those risks initially when getting started, "I can build you a site that looks like this for this much money!" But we concede those risks when we do so. In all of my years I have only taken 2 sites down for non-payment. That was the extent of it though, no payment, no site. I personally would never feel c…

> I personally would never feel comfortable using a clients domain as my own platform to state my side of the story, it's just not appropriate in my opinion.

I would agree about this-I just throw up a site that looks OK with the company's contact information on it, or just take it down entirely.

Re: Website Impounded

#87

Post by tzs »

zdw wrote: post #35

I don't see the problem with this. People deserve to be paid for the work they do, and time they expend, which is irreplaceable. If you take your car to the shop and can't pay for the work to be done, they put a mechanic's lien on it, and impound the car until the work is paid for. This is no different from that method, which is totally legal. Similarly, I've met software developers who set timebombs in custom softwa…

> If you take your car to the shop and can't pay for the work to be done, they put a mechanic's lien on it, and impound the car until the work is paid for. This is no different from that method, which is totally legal.

The former is legal because it is specifically authorized by law. For example, here in Washington mechanic's liens are specifically authorized and regulated in the Revised Code of Washington chapter 60.04.

Unless website impounding is explicitly authorized and regulated in law, then you can't accurately say it is no different than a mechanic's lien.

Re: Website Impounded

#88

Post by kibibu »

jstalin wrote: post #71
zdw wrote: post #35

I don't see the problem with this. People deserve to be paid for the work they do, and time they expend, which is irreplaceable. If you take your car to the shop and can't pay for the work to be done, they put a mechanic's lien on it, and impound the car until the work is paid for. This is no different from that method, which is totally legal. Similarly, I've met software developers who set timebombs in custom softwa…

If you don't pay the mechanic, the mechanic doesn't get to put a sign out front saying "BOB DOESN'T PAY HIS BILLS. HE'S IMMORAL!"

At the tiny webshop/webhost I used to work at, we would just switch to a plain white page with a header saying "please contact accounts@host". Embarrassing enough to push for payment, but visitors needn't necessarily assume foul play.

Enabling people to save face is important - I doubt these fitness guys are going to be particularly cooperative after being shamed.

Re: Website Impounded

#89

Post by mxxx »

etchalon wrote: post #10
seyfarth wrote: post #6

This is unprofessional.

And yet so very, very awesome.

absolutely. i used to dream about doing something like this to asshat clients i had when i was starting out.

it's kind of like the designer equivalent of quitting your desk job by kicking your monitor onto the floor and walking out giving everyone the finger. XD

Re: Website Impounded

#90

Post by Dylan16807 »

greaterweb wrote: post #43
zdw wrote: post #35

I don't see the problem with this. People deserve to be paid for the work they do, and time they expend, which is irreplaceable. If you take your car to the shop and can't pay for the work to be done, they put a mechanic's lien on it, and impound the car until the work is paid for. This is no different from that method, which is totally legal. Similarly, I've met software developers who set timebombs in custom softwa…

"If you take your car to the shop and can't pay for the work to be done, they put a mechanic's lien on it, and impound the car until the work is paid for. This is no different from that method, which is totally legal." There is a big difference, actually. There is pretty standard protocol and work agreements for automotive repair. This developer may have exposed himself to a level of risk based on his own contracts a…

>Wow, this is just scary.

It depends on how it's implemented. There's nothing wrong with the shareware model, surely?

Post reply on HN