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

131–140 of 156 posts

Re: Website Impounded

#131

Post by homosaur »

wonderyak wrote: post #105

This is probably as good a time as any to rehash Mike Montiero's talk 'Fuck You, Pay Me' http://vimeo.com/22053820 I've been instructed to do things like this by past employers and I've never been comfortable with it. There are other avenues to persuing payment for services than defacing someone's property (assumption on my part, admittedly) and creating a firestorm of hatred to be imposed upon them in other mediums…

Oh yeah, it would be sooooo much better for a small business to spend possibly thousands and thousands of dollars on a judgement that will never get paid. But you are right about installments. I have a very specific set of language in my contracts regarding payment and deliverables. And if they stole my code which this guy claims, well, I'd probably pull something like this before bothering to spend thousands of dollars on a wasted legal battle.

Re: Website Impounded

#132

Post by homosaur »

greaterweb wrote: post #76
gdiaz wrote: post #70

Looks like they took all their fitnesssf facebook pages down. https://www.evernote.com/shard/s15/sh/d1096855-0c3a-4ed6-a87... lots of people telling them to pay their invoices. And the owner trying to do damage control by telling people their website got hacked.

This is an unfortunate side effect of what this developer has set in motion. I don't know enough about either side to make a determination of who is right or wrong, but neither do the people harassing this business on Facebook. From his Behance page: "Half a year's worth of work, weeks of waiting on end because they couldn't find the fingers at the end of their arms and in the end they try to screw me over by ignorin…

No, I don't think it was an unfortunate side effect, I think it's exactly what he wanted to happen. I know if I were a customer at that gym that I would never be back if someone was trying to screw with my industry. I'd also tell everyone I ever knew not to go there.

My guess is that this was not the method of first resort.

Re: Website Impounded

#133

Post by Zak »

tptacek wrote: post #127
d23 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Actually you cannot. Even if, like me, you can see the justification for disabling the site a deadbeat client asked you to build, you cannot logically say that retaining possession of a car is the same thing as taking someone's online presence and turning it against them as a debt collection mechanism.

Putting up a notice on it makes it different, but if the developer simply disabled it, I don't see much difference.

Re: Website Impounded

#135

Post by logn »

gcb0 wrote: post #115
logn wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Genuine Advantage and related DRM philosophical issues aside, I don't see a problem with deactivating a product designed on behalf of a client who hasn't paid. Not warning them is tricky (and not sure if it even serves a purpose), but even if they sue you, just file a counter-suit for an unpaid invoice.

Re: Website Impounded

#136

Post by jonathanjaeger »

ams6110 wrote: post #130
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…

Time spent on collecting is also irreplaceable. I do a bit of freelancing, and honestly if the amount due were anything less than a few thousand dollars I'd probably just write it off, or sell the invoice to a debt collector for whatever fraction they would pay. I can make more money working for other clients in the time I would spend on collecting a small debt. For something more substantial, you need to protect you…

Debt collecting isn't the same across countries though, so it could be tougher depending on where and whom you're operating with.

Re: Website Impounded

#137

Post by gnu8 »

evilduck wrote: post #126
gnu8 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If only there was some sort of a company that could try to collect on unpaid bills in exchange for a fee...

You'd only receive a fraction of the amount owed by selling the debt to a collections agency.

Better than none, and you don't have to put any further unpaid time into pursuing payment, so your loss doesn't increase.

Re: Website Impounded

#138

Post by pseudonym »

lanstein wrote: post #117
minusthebrandon wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because cheaper designers and developers are the ones that underrate themselves, usually because they're newer to the business and think it's pretty cool that they can get anything for what they're doing.

Which means they're less likely to be jaded, have up-front fees, verbose contracts and installation payments. As is obvious, in this case, when he talks about having 6 months of unpaid work.

Re: Website Impounded

#139

Post by rglover »

nwh wrote: post #128
thisisdallas wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. A…

On a fairly regular basis I see print jobs being requested that have watermarks of the designer over it; clearly the client hasn't paid and is going to print with the low quality proof. It's weird that people believe it to be acceptable.

This works out in the end, really. It's a shame, but it's a hell of a great indicator for who to avoid. If I had to guess, the justification in their mind is that they still get the work. Though in reality, they're just painting a sign on their forehead that reads "I'm clueless."

Re: Website Impounded

#140

Post by snowwrestler »

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.

I think a "time bomb" would be legal if it disclosed in advance, in the contract language, and the client is aware of it before signing on the dotted line--as is the case with Genuine Advantage and shareware trial periods.

If it is hidden in the software without telling the client, it's a defect at best.

Edit to add: The nature of the relationship might matter too. There is a difference between a software purchase agreement, and a consulting "work made for hire" contract.

Post reply on HN