Website Impounded | Hacker News Reader

Website Impounded

fitnesssf.com

202 pointsssclafani151 comments

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 software they write for companies, with an easy to install patch that gets released when that company pays it's bill.

If you're out to screw someone over and take their work without paying them, then being deprived of the utility of the unpaid work is the minimum amount of damage you should expect.

"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 and work arrangement. Why was the site up in the first place if he was not paid in full?

"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."

Wow, this is just scary. The work relationship is doomed if the developer doesn't trust the customer or vice versa. If you are in the business of making money through software development, be skilled not only in developing but in assembling contracts and project plans that protect your interests.

"There is pretty standard protocol and work agreements for automotive repair. "

We don't know the specifics of the agreement in question, but there's a general overarching 'protocol' in the services economy - I do work for you and you pay me. If you don't pay me, and your 'protocol' is to ignore my invoices... you reap what you sow.

> 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 violated- that is, when I deliver on my end, and there is a functional site, but they didn't pay.

What I'm saying is, I think you're assuming too much about the nature of how this guy does business. Money isn't about trust, it's about contracts; trust is just what gets the contract signed.

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.

> 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.

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?

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.

Intentionally increasing the attack surface of the product you deliver is not ethical. It's unlikely any developer in the situation you describe has tested the time bomb functionality well enough to exclude the possibility that an attacker could exploit it, either before or after the payment date or the cancellation patch. An aspect of the Hippocratic Oath applies here.

The case described in TFA seems better, since the developer retained possession of legitimate control mechanisms, and used those in technically legitimate ways. (That is, updating the content and functionality served at a URL is a legitimate activity that occurs regularly.) In effect he's more of an unpaid service provider than an unpaid IT contractor in this case. No one would expect their phone to keep working without paying the phone bill, and until he turns over control of the site he should be expected to use that control. It's not like he's using a backdoor here.

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.

This seems much the same as a DRM mechanism on a single-player game that requires a live network connection to phone home to the server. In either case, you have software refusing to function unless its creator gives approval. The only difference is that this is known to the player of the game.

My post was a little more geared towards disputing that the work relationship is doomed if the customer and developer can't trust each other.

I had no intention of endorsing a time bomb approach, but just continued on that theme theoretically.

I thought I had expressed that through the sequence of my statements (assuming a possible case then showing that it is at odds with the trust assertion), but will try to be clearer in the future.

I definitely think there are some good replies to the actual practice of installing a time bomb, especially from pragmatism.

My point is such that a "time bomb" of sorts would not be necessitated if the developer makes sufficient efforts to protect him/herself with good business practices.

That same client who pays on time and upholds his end of the agreement is left at risk through no fault of his own. Just doesn't seem fair in my opinion.

Will a dispute happen even with well authored contracts and business plans? Absolutely, but properly scoping the work, delivering to a schedule and keeping open communication with the client will greatly minimize that risk.

"let's assume no technical knowledge on the part of the customer. Therefore, the time bomb is never discovered"

That is a big assumption to make. Just because the customer is not technical does not necessarily mean that time bomb could not be discovered at some point in future. Probability might be low but you can never be 100% sure.

>Wow, this is just scary.

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

> 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.

Who owns the website? If I asked somebody to do a little work and fix up my existing website, I wouldn't expect them to hold it hostage in a billing dispute. But if they built the whole thing, I don't think I'm entitled to any of it until I pay.

Typically - and I am purposely avoiding too fine a point on this - the copyright remains with the creator until payment occurs. Otherwise no transfer of rights has occurred.

I agree. The worst he should have done: bring the website to the state where it was before he replaced it with his website. Not hold hostage the hosting/domain which I'm sure the client didn't bought from him and if they did, at least the domain name was paid for. So route that into the void if you host it.

> 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.

> 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.

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.

exactly, not warning them.

that's why when i see microsoft 'selling' office to people that are used to buying office and they do not realize they are 'renting' it for a year, i think it should be illegal.

"time bomb and genuine advantage or how microsoft is selling Office at staples nowadays is not!" What do you mean?

microsoft is selling it's subscription model version of office, along with other software that is not subscription based.

so basically they are making people believe they are buying office when they are renting it for a year.

>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.

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.

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.

Cryptography to the rescue! Years of research and expenditure on DRM says it should darn well be possible. It might also be possible to break it, but just imagine the irony of someone who refused to pay bills for contracted software dev work from one company, trying to hire a team to crack the DRM from the previous contractor?

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...

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!"

Actually, I see this quite often at shops all over. One posted the full name and amount of unpaid bills on their very large outdoor sign. Others post pictures of bounced checks. If the mechanic is the shop owner, he can do what he wants with his property.

And as far as I'm concerned, this applies to the web, too. If the web designer still owns the domain and server, go ahead and deface it to their hearts' content. If the client owns that stuff, however, the unpaid designer should just take back their work and let the client deal with the blank website.

I can say from experience that a blank website is very effective in getting a stubborn client to pay. Defacing them is probably taking it too far though, and I don't see how it could be more effective.

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.

If you don't pay the mechanic, you don't get your car. If you don't pay the webmaster, you don't get your website.

I recently saw a truck with (nice, magnetic?) signs on the doors warning other drivers not to do business with a local mortgage company and calling them out for bait-and-switch tactics. It seemed pretty effective.

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 yourself by getting some of the money up front or as defined project milestones are met. And final delivery/live site should be held until final payment is received.

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

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?

My suspicion is that this is being done because it's international. If Fitness SF is as I suspect in San Francisco while the developer is in Europe, collections will be a real headache. Sue? Sure, probably where you are, probably win. Then collect from the European presence of a California fitness club. I see a potential disconnect.

Sue in California? How much is THAT going to cost someone based in Europe?

And really, what recourse does Fitness SF have either? If they sue him, maybe they win. Maybe that makes it hard for him to come to the USA. Is that a problem for him? Can they legitimately go after him vs his company (and vice versa). It's a no-win situation all around.

I'd say that the big lesson to be learned from this is that international customers pay up-front and with a deposit if you're going to allow things that increase the price (e.g. rush changes). For most things there's not usually a good reason to add the expense and complication of 12-hour time differences and international borders unless you're planning up front to make legal recourse difficult.

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?

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.

Design is a global market to a large extent, there is no reason why they should choose a local one.

There's plenty of reasons to choose local though:

1. Keep money in the local economy. 2. Build a local network. 3. Have face to face meetings to get your ideas across more quickly - whiteboarding, seeing facial reactions to comps, hands-on testing, etc.

I've done remote work, and I've done work with clients in my local area. There's reasons for both, but most clients I work with want local, or at least want the ability to meet face to face on occasion. The few that didn't want to (or even declined attempts to meet f2f) either skipped out on their bill, or were wanting extremely commodity services (install wordpress on my server, fix this javascript error, etc).

Especially if they planned from the beginning not to pay.

That is a very good point. I feel badly for the developer. Losing 6 months of work must be a shocking ordeal. I recently had a client not pay me for half of month of work, and that was a bit of shock to my finances. I do think the developer is right close the site till they are paid. For the most part, lawsuits don't work in these situations -- the expense of mounting the lawsuit, and the risk that it might drag on for months or years, means that is often better to simply move on focus on new things. But it is still a sad experience. I wrote about my own experiences here: http://www.smashcompany.com/philosophy/a-sad-time-at-kaching... For me, because I am in New York and they are in San Francisco, and the amount of money is fairly small, it doesn't make sense for me to waste any time pursuing it.

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.

They exist and are called "law firms."

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 and venues.

To me, this is childish and an attempt at trying the easy way out of a situation.

Always have contracts, always get paid in installments. If you cannot get those things from clients, then you do not want them as clients.

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.

I did some work for a family member and their business partners, at a time when they were in great financial straights, and eventually got stiffed by them (the partners outweighed the family member -- no problem with the latter).

Get paid in a timely fashion!

If this is somehow "inconvenient" for the other party... they are already not valuing your contribution. Walk away.

Trust your intuition, too. If something "feels off", it probably is. I had that feeling early on, with those partners. I stayed in it for the sake of the family member (no regrets, from that perspective).

P.S. To clarify, they pulled through and ended up doing ok. At which time, they stiffed me. It was not a matter of their failure.

I wouldn't change anyone's website to say they haven't paid a bill. It won't let you collect any easier and you might get sued and lose.

At some point you have to say no more work until we get settled up to this point.

I suspect he has given up on collecting.

Agree entirely with this.. often i take 30% up front, 30% when prototyped, and final 40% payment upon delivery

Can you live on 60%? That is, how hard is it if a large customer decides to ignore that last payment?

Then it doesn't get delivered.

EDIT: Having the "finished" site on a test host (or even just a temporary DNS name) until the final payment seems like a shrewd move. The work is complete, but if you don't get final payment it doesn't go live.

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.

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."

I do empathize with this guys position but he is way out of line here. There is an implied risk in doing business, be it freelance or trough a traditional business.

Your first line of defense would be a solid contract and a fairly decent deposit. If you lead with a strong reputation clients will have no problem making the investment with you. If you lack the experience and reputation, maybe you shouldn't be getting involved in projects like this that leave you at risk.

Next would be proper project planning and _clear_ delivery milestones that have payments associated with them. It is not wise to put yourself in a situation where you lead with design and development and receive the bulk of payment when the project is complete. Without a clear project plan and deliverables scope creep can introduce itself and you can wind up eating the cost of additional work to satisfy the client. And even then you are still crossing your fingers the check will come before the next "quick update."

The problem I have with what the developer has done here is that he has abused his position to leverage a client's domain to support his view of the situation. We don't know the clients side and they are left without a voice here.

The developer may very well be the victim here but I've got to believe it was his business practices that made him vulnerable here.

Well, the client did go through the trouble of deleting their facebook pages that the site linked to.

So they did have a voice but took a knife to their own larynx instead of telling their side of the story.

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 ignoring the invoices. "

That a pretty aggressive play in words. I suspect if he is really looking for "justice" he'd gain a lot more support in exposing the entire situation, not just some pretty screen shots and shouting about unpaid invoices.

I for one am genuinely interested in learning more about this, both sides preferably.

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.

You may be right, it may be exactly what he wanted to happen.

The trouble I have thus far is the information is insufficient to make a fair determination of who is right and who is wrong. People are having knee-jerk reactions and harassing the gym without fully knowing the story, and yes, that is truly unfortunate.

If you are ready to close the case on this one simply by a developer claiming he wasn't paid, well, you may wish to rethink your logic with that one.

Has anyone vouched for the credibility of this developer? Have more details surfaced as to the extent of the invoice dispute? Without those answers it's unfounded to hold anything against this gym solely based on the developers claims that he wasn't paid.

Yeah, you're right, we don't necessarily know the details, but if I were the gym owner and I felt like I was in the right, I'd stand up for myself rather than cower, close down all my Facebook pages to not face criticism, and tell everyone my site was hacked. That's really the single biggest reason I think the gym is most likely in the wrong.

I can empathise with this a lot, but would not recommend going this far, if nothing other than for your own reputation and professionalism. Other clients could see this without fully understanding the situation, potentially losing business.

In previous cases ive been involved in, taking down the site sending in debt collectors is often the easiest and cleanest method of getting back your money.

" if nothing other than for your own reputation and professionalism"...

And the professionalism of fitnesssf - of not paying their vendors - gets swept under the rug for dozens of other vendors to have to discover on their own, individually, in silence. Great.

"Professionalism" really has to work both ways. If you want me to treat you professionally, treat me professionally. What lines does someone have to cross before they lose that professionalism from you? Financial abuse? Emotional abuse? Verbal abuse? Physical abuse?

"Other clients could see this without fully understanding the situation, potentially losing business."

There's not that much to understand. What's easy to understand is that if you don't pay your bills with developer X, they will take public action against you. If you're the type of person who plans on skipping out on bills, you may avoid developer X. I think developer X would be thrilled to have potential 'business' like that self-select out of his customer base. I know I would be.

While I can understand the frustration, I would argue that professionalism does not have to work both ways. If your client acts unprofessionally, you should still act professionally. Try conventional ways to reclame the what you are owed and if all else fails, take the site down - possibly with a small notice that says something like "Site offline until payment in full".

What OP did is illegal in many countries in Europe and from what I understand probably in Germany as well. It doesn't matter if the statements are true, it's still defamation. http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stg...

Furthermore, we have to remember that we are only hearing one side of the story. I believe it...tentatively.

Have you got a plain english source for the "defamation even if true" claim? I know that truth is certainly a defence against defamation in the UK, which has a well deserved reputation as an easy place to sue for defamation.

Can this be done easily from a different country - as this is the case here?

That web designer turned a contract issue into a potential tortious interference issue -- against him.

Is the claim here really tortious interference? Or is it conversion? Or something else? Taking down a deadbeat client's website if they're entirely in breach of the contract that created it seems like it would be reasonable, but I agree that hosting a new website in its place to broadcast a grievance is probably a bad idea.

I had fairly complicated Python and C code I'm reviewing coming out of my ears so I did some research on this to clear my head. I couldn't find any solid answers. I'd be interested in hearing one from a lawyer, because this comes up on HN every now and then.

Back to code review for me. Wish me luck.

Conversion might work too. Of course, any suit would probably go after them using as many legal theories as possible. Tortious interference comes into play when you are purposely trying to interfere with someone else's business arrangements, either those already existing or those expected to occur. There's a difference between taking someone's site down for non-payment and putting up a statement saying that X Company doesn't pay its bills that X Company has bad morals. Corporate defamation would be another that I would add to the list.

Of course, then there's the practical reality of suing a company in Germany from SF.

"Corporate defamation would be another that I would add to the list."

It's not defamation if it's true of course.

Is the idea here tortious interference w/o contract, with the designers interfering with business relationships between SF Fitness and their customers? That makes more sense.

In a perfect world, there would be clauses in the contract explaining what happens when there is a failure to pay.

Of course, we have no idea if there even is a contract.

There certainly is a contract, even if it was oral, the question is what were the terms of the contract. Likely there were no terms dealing with what happens if there is no payment.

Do you know for a fact? This is a San Francisco based company working with a German company. If they were both US based, you'd be correct for sure.

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?

Thankfully, he's in Europe, so there's really no way that'd affect him.

I think it's a brilliant move on his part; it'll likely cost the customer at least some business, and I love seeing deadbeats humiliated.

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.

Why not? If after repeated attempts they're not paying them, they should do anything they legally can.

It's morally wrong not to pay your bills. If they are being shamed, tough luck. Pay the one you owe money to.

I absolutely agree. I've been in this position as a frontend dev many, many times. And that's WITH a decent contract, no bad gut feeling, great communication throughout. Ultimately, I can't control whether a client feels like paying my invoice or not. I commend this developer, he's done something I've always wanted to do.

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.

At what point do you stop providing the service (or allowing the deadbeat client to continue to get the benefit of the previously provided service)? 1 week? 1 month? 1 year?

The TV signal issue - how many "you didn't pay" emails and phone calls and written bills did they get before it was turned off? And consider this - if the TV just went dead, people would be calling/complaining "my service is dead!" This is a faster way of telling them why it's dead. The fact that someone was broadcasting to their customers was their own fault if they got embarrassed by it. I would hazard to guess they were probably only licensed for one set, and they were splitting/copying the signal to multiple TVs as well.

"go to the place and talk to someone"

Dev in Germany, Company in San Francisco.

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.

That wouldn't work for me as a client: I've dealt wit scummy freelancers, too.

You could consider going through an agency- one that offers the ability to (1) escrow money, (2) keep a written record of agreements, and (3) provide mediation. There are costs to this, but, at least until you trust each other, they may be the way to go.

I have everyone prepay me for Rails development. I think the reason it's not an issue is that they've worked with bad freelancers, and people that drop the ball, flake out, stop answering emails.

They don't want that so bad that they will prepay me because they believe I'm not going to do that to them, they really want me to do their project, and so prepayment is a non-issue.

Edit: I haven't asked for $30,000 in advance before; more like 20 hour blocks of time, or thirds of projects paid in advance

OK- a deposit I fully agree with. But when I have prepaid (or paid the last installment before receiving the final code) I've been burned. In fact, a freelancer owes me some code as we speak that I will never see- but I don't really care because, surprise surprise, his code sucks too and I've someone else re-doing it.

In fact, maybe that's a better bellweather: look at samples of code. The more professional it looks, the more professional I can expect the interaction to be. Seems reasonable- what do you think?

We actually do all 3 of these things at matchist (http://matchist.com/talent). Not because we only deal with scummy clients or developers, but because it makes both sides feel comfortable and then they can simply concentrate on the project at hand, instead of worrying about somebody running off with the money.

I might use your site then. I've used vworker (but dropped them when they sold to freelancer) and found a quality guy there. I'm using elancer now with mixed results. I don't think the guy I had trouble with was scummy, just not very good (but thinks he is) and unprofessional in his manner. I paid him in full- even sent him a bonus in the middle when I realized the problem was harder than I anticipated, but never got anything usable from him.

We're big on having only professional mannered, well communicating talent.

Archived the source for when this inevitably is reverted: https://gist.github.com/anonymous/4955465

The page embeds http://clients.frankjonen.com/fitnesssf in a frame.

Did you consult an attorney before doing this? I'm curious what the ramifications are. Back in my boutique days, we were stiffed several times, but I never wanted to pull a stunt like this for fear of legal retribution.

Instead, I hired some very good collectors, and had a stipulation in my contract that the customer was required to pay collection fees for invoices over 60 days late.

This resulted in my company getting paid in full all but twice.

Ah, I'm not the one who did this; and as an American, I never would--easier to resolve it more traditionally. However, the client being American and the firm being European, I can see how this became the option of choice.

That seems a little prejudiced. I know Americans who would do this. That doesn't make them less American. I know Germans who wouldn't. That doesn't make them not German. No generalizations, thank you.

Might be mis-reading, but I took his comment to mean just that it would be harder for an international company to resolve this through the court system here in the US (and thus other approaches become more attractive).

I was referring to the fact that the contract was international, not to the nationalities of either party.

It's not a generalization. He's saying that since he's American, he's "local" and can challenge it in American courts, while the firm who built this site is European and cannot (as easily). It's much more difficult for a European to sue an American company for failed payments.

Good man i like it. If you let them go they will never learn

Developers look up extortion in the dictionary ... We're new to it, though. If we had more experience...

This is unprofessional, this is going to be a nightmare for the developer and probably wont result in him getting paid. It's not the right thing to do.

I agree with most of the other comments here, but I'm still impressed. It's always fun to see someone really going for it.

Anyone doing this has generally already resigned themselves to not getting paid for the job.

This is a great idea. Those who write, "go to small claims court" don't know what they're talking about. In small claims you may win your case, but that does not mean you can collect your money. Collection efforts must then commence; working from another country makes collection impractical. More importantly, this matter points out that a web site is a valuable asset which can be levied or seized for failure to pay a debt generally. So if I buy a car, sue the dealer in small claims court and win, I can seize the dealer's web site and sell it (or hold it) as compensation. A world of possibilities.

Ouch - this seems like an overly emotional approach to an obviously worrying problem, and I do sympathise with the guy - I imagine if I were in the same position then this would make me feel good, for about 6 hours.

Then I'd realise that I was possibly being a dick and just a blank page with "Please contact accounts@host" as kibibu said would have done (and not pissed anyone off too bad).

I applaud them or this. This is exactly what happened to me, only worse. I worked day and night, at times driving for 4 hours to the ACT to get to client sites. For absolutely nothing. I didn't get paid. There was no point pursuing it in the courts, and frankly I don't want to live a bitter life.

But these people are scum. Good on them for showing them up.

Fitnesssf took down their Facebook pages.

Checkout http://www.zencash.com to help avoid this issue.

Also see http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/agency-replaces-clients-websit...

This is unprofessional.

I would suggest that what the original customer did was theft. They would still be reaping the profits of their thievery had not stopped it.

Legality is the hard part, which is likely why this company went the way it did. Most people would prefer a 'This site is down due to non-payment' or a 'we are down'.

That's trying to swim upstream without a paddle, this is slippery enough without trying to on the right side.

I have no pity for fitnesssf, but that doesn't mean that the creator's actions are okay. (I'm not sure they aren't okay, either.)

Do remember, they are in a foreign country. Have you tried to sue someone outside of your country? It's not cheap nor easy.

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

From the developer or the client? I have little sympathy for clients who are given countless opportunities to pay their bills and yet keep ignoring them.

I feel unless you are an expert in law, debating the legality of this pointless.

What I am interested in is what the site used to look like. Anyone got screenshots or a cache link?

I don't get it. A legally binding contract was signed before they took on the job, right? Doesn't that offer legal protection?

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 paying. I had a similar situation with someone in NYC who didn't pay - found out later his company had a habit of doing this to small contractors out of state - you're telling me you can't find a web developer in NYC?

In my case, yes, I sued - drove to NYC and filed a suit. It's been 4.5 years, and I still don't have a court date.

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.

"small claims" generally only deals with issues under $5000

Ah, I think around here it's $10000, but you're right that it looks like $5000 is normal. Good point.

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?

It's not small claims unless this consultant did something wrong.

A contract is kind of like a speed limit sign. It may specify behaviors that are in violation, but it has no power on its own to enforce itself. About all it's really good for is to describe for a third party--a judge--the agreement between the signatories at the time they executed the contract.

Even if one party to a legally binding contract sues another for failure to discharge his contractual responsibilities, and convinces a judge that a remedy is in order, there's still no guarantee that they'll ever see the responsibility discharged or the remedy paid.

In other words, getting a judgment in your favor is easy; getting a collection from the offender is a whole 'nother thing.

Yeah if you can't collect your invoice then collecting your judgment might also be a challenge. Unfortunately there is no real property involved to which a mechanic's lien could be attached. This is probably the best thing this guy could have done short of getting paid up front, or setting up some sort of escrow.

Assuming you can afford a lawyer. In this case, the developer's apparently in Europe, making that even more difficult.

Ah thank you. I live next to Germany (Holland) and know the German developers to be very stict, precise and 'grundlich' and to have an insurance against legal costs. Looks like the one thing they forgot was to stop working after they didn't get paid the first time. They trusted the client and got taken to the cleaners. I understand why they took the website / domain down. At least now everyone knows about it and it's the only thing left... Not professional no, but understandable.

What did the site look like before? Can't find anything in the Wayback Machine.

They posted some screenshots (along with some ranting) at http://talent.adweek.com/gallery/Fitness-SF-Website/7075381

Google's cached image for this website shows this: http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/6597/fitnesssf.png

That's too bad, their SOMA location is the only good gym in the city.

I like the background color.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com