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

111–120 of 156 posts

Re: Website Impounded

#111

Post by mekoka »

rickdale wrote: post #17

I am sorry, but this guy is way out of line here. Legally I have no idea, but morally, I do. I mean, go to the place and talk to someone. Or take down the site. Don't start a campaign for your feelings. edit: On second thought I was eating a restaurant when their televisions turned black and the screen came up with a pay your bill now notice. Every screen in the restaurant. So I guess maybe this is the tactic.

Saying that he's out of line or amoral implies that you have an intimate understanding of the situation and that you've weighted that he doesn't have the moral grounds for doing this, which you might agree is disputable.

In my opinion, the only reason this tactic is not recommendable is that it's not deemed acceptable practice from a professional standpoint, and I believe that this is mostly a cultural thing. Everybody says it's wrong, so it must be wrong.

Think about it, if tomorrow all service providers developed a mindset where this kind of shaming in an attempt to collect from deadbeat clients became standard practice, nobody would be advising against it anymore. This is consistent with a lot of everyday nonsense that pass for acceptable, just because that's just the way things have always gone.

I'm not convinced that there aren't places in the world where this is seen as perfectly ok and maybe even expected.

Re: Website Impounded

#112

Post by [deleted] »

joshcrews wrote: post #38

Freelancers and agencies: consider having all work prepaid. Your fears may say that clients won't go for it, but they are going for it with other agencies/consultants, and in other professions this is a mainstream way of doing business. Government and huge corporate sales might not go for it, but you should be adding a 0 to the end of your price quotes to them as compensation.

[deleted]

Re: Website Impounded

#113

Post by j_baker »

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…

I don't see what you're saying. No one credible would say that people don't deserve to be paid for their work. However, there's a proper way to go about getting that payment. Defacing their website is not the answer. Without even getting into the legalities, do you really want to send the message "I'm a vindictive asshole" to potential clients?

Re: Website Impounded

#114

Post by aaron695 »

dzlobin wrote: post #101
DanBC wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Similarly, I've met software developers who set timebombs in custom software they write for companies, with an easy to install patch that gets released when that company pays it's bill. Not paying your bills is not legal, and the designer has a legal option. Putting a timebomb in the software is also not legal, and probably a criminal offence in some places.

Can you provide a source for your last point there?

I also have read about people being charged/sued over this but Google hasn't helped me remember the case. It was a delivery company from memory.

But in general if you are putting things into the product outside of the contract you must see how this as a legal issue?

Also see why no Easter Eggs -http://blogs.msdn.com/b/larryosterman/archive/2005/10/21/483...

Re: Website Impounded

#115

Post by gcb0 »

logn wrote: post #107
DanBC wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Similarly, I've met software developers who set timebombs in custom software they write for companies, with an easy to install patch that gets released when that company pays it's bill. Not paying your bills is not legal, and the designer has a legal option. Putting a timebomb in the software is also not legal, and probably a criminal offence in some places.

Taking someone to small claims court over state lines is exceedingly difficult, let alone in another country. How is a "timebomb" not legal? I think Microsoft call its version of this "Genuine Advantage". And the shareware community calls this a Trial Period.

That's a very good point.

Things like those should be Illegal.

Not the 'time bomb'/"genuine advantage' but the fact that people lie to you during the sale.

a Trial Period is explicit. Renting is explicity. time bomb and genuine advantage or how microsoft is selling Office at staples nowadays is not! it's criminal and devised to take money out of the likes who still pay AOL on top of Cable for Internet.

Re: Website Impounded

#116

Post by artursapek »

DanBC wrote: post #110
DoubleCluster wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Providing a time-limited version for testing certainly is legal. Just make sure your client knows this and it's in the contract. Display a notice like "Note: this beta version of the software will not run after 1-4-2013".

Well, that's just a time limit and obviously there's nothing wrong with that. But the concept of a time bomb is that it's hidden and can cause harm at some point. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_bomb )

Exactly. If the client was warned, removing the time bomb from the code wouldn't be hard.

Re: Website Impounded

#117

Post by lanstein »

minusthebrandon wrote: post #45
fencepost wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Editing on a phone is quirky, so further detail: the AdWeek profile lists him as being in Germany. Also, of all the cities in the USA, Fitness SF was unable to find a designer they liked in San Francisco ? Please.

They probably couldn't find a designer in SF that charged LESS than the designer in Germany. A company that doesn't pay invoices tends to go for the cheapest option.

Why would they care?

Re: Website Impounded

#118

Post by oijaf888 »

chc wrote: post #58
mgkimsal wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And 'legal' protection means waiting years in courts, then potentially years more to collect on that judgement (assuming you actually win). I don't know the story behind this, but they may have already waited months before taking this sort of action. And as someone else said - really? An SF-based company contracted with someone in Germany to do their website? Seems to be they were doing this on purpose, to avoid payi…

Does small claims court really take years? I haven't needed to directly interact with it before, but that was not my impression from acquaintances who have to go there quite often.

Also would he have to file it in Germany where he is located or in SF where the client is? If its in Germany how does he enforce a judgement?

Re: Website Impounded

#119

Post by d23 »

tzs wrote: post #87
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…

> 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.

Morally I can.

Re: Website Impounded

#120

Post by gallerytungsten »

logn wrote: post #107
DanBC wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Similarly, I've met software developers who set timebombs in custom software they write for companies, with an easy to install patch that gets released when that company pays it's bill. Not paying your bills is not legal, and the designer has a legal option. Putting a timebomb in the software is also not legal, and probably a criminal offence in some places.

Taking someone to small claims court over state lines is exceedingly difficult, let alone in another country. How is a "timebomb" not legal? I think Microsoft call its version of this "Genuine Advantage". And the shareware community calls this a Trial Period.

>Taking someone to small claims court over state lines is exceedingly difficult, let alone in another country.

Taking someone to small claims court over state lines is not difficult at all. You simply serve the suit by certified mail. However, collecting on the suit, once you win a default judgment, can be difficult.

Post reply on HN