Slashdot Mirror


Humorously Bad Web Hosting Policies

retard2112 writes "In the Terms of Service for pagecreators.net I found this about halfway through. D. You agree not to post any type of review about Page Creators at any time anywhere on the web. This includes any statement good or bad. You understand you will be held liable for damages of no more than fifty-thousand dollars if a review is found and traced back to yourself. What is up with that?" I ought to make a Slashdot Terms of Service thing like that where I get to hold the dude who posts goat trolls all day from behind a law firm's firewall liable for $50k! Seriously tho', that's pretty nasty. Larry Ellison would be proud.

282 comments

  1. More Info by retard2112 · · Score: 4

    For those who are interested. I originally found the link to pagecreators.net from cruel.com. A collection of horror stories about people dealing with pagecreators.net can be found here. Enjoy!

    --


    Right Now, our government is doing things you think only other governments do.
    1. Re:More Info by jmccay · · Score: 1

      I seriously hope you didn't agree to those terms! You'd be in violation now.

      --
      At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
    2. Re:More Info by theoriginalturtle · · Score: 1
      The FTP daemon's running, too. Their upstream feed is from nac.net, but that's odd, because NAC doesn't show that their service area extends anywhere west of West Virginia. Hmmm, so we're talking interstate wire fraud at a minimum, and mail fraud if any of his billing was done through the mail.

      You gotta hand it to the kid, that WHOIS listing is as pompous as any I've ever seen. Wonder if Paul & Debbie, his 'rents, have big hand-lettered signs taped to all the interior doors of their house...

      NETWORK OPERATIONS CENTER on the bathroom, ADMINISTRATION CENTER on the basement door, BILLING DEPARTMENT on his bedroom door, probably pasted over an old "New Kids On The Block" sticker from 1994. Probably has a Britney Spears poster on the inside, and some old Monogram "Snap-Tite" monster truck kits sitting on the top shelf of his bookcase, which is otherwise loaded with Visa and Mastercard AR summaries...

      Turtle

      --
      ---------------------------------------
      Rotate the pod, please, HAL....
    3. Re:More Info by Jae · · Score: 1

      that's b/c the server is located in new jersey (parsippany to be exact). see my post further down for more info. :)

      --
      -Jae
  2. "ceased to operate"?? by bluebomber · · Score: 4
    From http://www.pagecreators.net/: Page Creators has ceased to operate. Route questions to pcoffice@pagecreators.net.

    Did they just get /.-ed or what?

    -bluebomber

    1. Re:"ceased to operate"?? by ct · · Score: 5
      From Google :

      Google
      cache of their contact us page

      Toll free sales :

      U.S.&nbs p;
      1-877-336-4472

      INTERN. 320-762-7003

      Toll free tech support: 888-382-4994

      Fax US and INTERNATIONAL: 320-762-9060


      Toll Free huh? As in he get's billed for the long distance time?
      I think I have a few sales questions for him...

      -ct



    2. Re:"ceased to operate"?? by GrenDel+Fuego · · Score: 2

      I think he realizes that.
      His point was that toll free calls are charged to the operator of the line. He'll keep calling it, and the guy who owns the line will get charged for the calls.

    3. Re:"ceased to operate"?? by segmond · · Score: 2

      hey, i was wondering if the number will be a scam, as all those free sex lines, please call 1900 blah blah, so i called the 800 number to add a few cents to his bill, but the number is temporarily no longer in service! a phone number, slashdotted! woooo

      happy holidays

      --
      ------ Curiosity killed the cat. {satisfaction brought it back | it didn't die ignorant | lack of it is killing mankind
    4. Re:"ceased to operate"?? by Mr.+McGibby · · Score: 1

      No one answers the sales line.
      No one answers the international sales line.
      The tech support line is Not In Service
      But, the fax line is answering...

      --
      Mad Software: Rantings on Developing So
    5. Re:"ceased to operate"?? by joshsisk · · Score: 1

      YOU IDIOT!
      888 is toll free


      Free phone service? You probably believe in Santa, too. 800,888 and 877 line charges are paid by the holder of the number... in this case, page creators.

      Josh Sisk

    6. Re:"ceased to operate"?? by theoriginalturtle · · Score: 2
      You know, one of the things I used to warn people about in the early days of fax machines was, "if you want your fax to last a long time, under no circumstances should you have hundreds of people send you page after page of 70% gray bars, as this will cause the thermal printhead to overheat and melt, and when it jams, the motor may catch fire and your mom and dad's house will get all stunk up with ozone whiff."

      This is very good advice, it's served me well down the years, and I impart it all to you now.

      Turtle

      --
      ---------------------------------------
      Rotate the pod, please, HAL....
    7. Re:"ceased to operate"?? by Alien54 · · Score: 3
      Well, all I get right now is a grey screen

      but the server still answers up nicely to my ping tool.

      See?

      # - IP address - Host name --- Round trip time
      1 - 209.123.201.131 www.pagecreators.net 152 ms
      2 - 209.123.201.131 www.pagecreators.net 137 ms
      3 - 209.123.201.131 www.pagecreators.net 127 ms

      Maybe their http port crashed. Could somebody check this out?

      ;-)

      But we could always bring it to the attention of their service provider:

      IP block lookup for 209.123.201.131

      whois -h whois.arin.net 209.123.201.131

      Net Access Corporation (NETBLK-NAC-NETBLK02)
      110 South Jefferson Road
      Newton, NJ 07860

      Netname: NAC-NETBLK02
      Netblock: 209.123.0.0 - 209.123.255.255
      Maintainer: NAC

      Coordinator:
      Pavely, Ryan (RP2938-ARIN)
      abuse@nac.net
      800-net-me36 (FAX) 973-590-5080 (FAX) 201-983-0453
      ....
      Record last updated on 10-Sep-1999.
      Database last updated on 27-Dec-2000
      18:20:42 EDT.

      --
      "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    8. Re:"ceased to operate"?? by dogkow · · Score: 1
      As a resident of Minnesota, I think I might pay this guy a visit. Just pull up to his parents house or wherever he lives now and strike up a conversation. He's at least getting a phone call.

      Here this is interesting too: From the site: We have been around since February of 1995. Odd because according to whois, pagecreators.net was registered on 06-Feb-1999.

      --

      It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. --Aristotle

    9. Re:"ceased to operate"?? by dogkow · · Score: 1
      Fax US and INTERNATIONAL: 320-762-9060 Interesting, according to anywho, the fax number is owned by a Rose Johnson:

      320 762 9060 Johnson,Rose 105 Linden Avenue Alexandria, MN 56308-8902

      This is a residential street. Check on google.

      --

      It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. --Aristotle

    10. Re:"ceased to operate"?? by arubenstein · · Score: 1

      Apparently, ou don't know how to read whois information.

      * Reassignment information for this block
      * available at whois.nac.net

      So, with your trusty unix prompt, try:

      helium:~# whois -h whois 209.123.201.131
      NAC-Rwhoisd32 Server Ready - [gold/43] Rwhoisd32 v1.0.25

      Pegasus Web Technologies (NETBLK-NET-D17BC900-24)
      PO Box 577
      Franklin Lakes, NJ 07417
      USA

      Netname : NET-D17BC900-24
      Netblock: 209.123.201.0/24

      Coordinator:
      Silver, Jay network@nac.net
      Phone: (973) 267-4707
      Fax Telephone: (973) 267-9450

      In the future, please look twice.

    11. Re:"ceased to operate"?? by Bluesee · · Score: 1

      It never surprises me that there is a mentality always out there, and especially among computer types, phreaks, and such that gets excited about 'beating the system' by thinking 'radically'; that is, the best way to retaliate is to spam / make massive calls to 800 number / crack the offending organization.

      These tactics are pretty short-lived, and although they may be fun while you're doing it, it almost is guaranteed to backfire and cause negative repercussions.

      The modern equivalent of prank phone calls. But of course, prank phone calls brought about Caller ID.

      --
      SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
    12. Re:"ceased to operate"?? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      hmmmm I dunno....

      Whenever a spammer sends me a spam with a toll free number in it, I always am sure to call it a few times.

      Usually leaving a message saying how much I hate spam and letting them know that I keep track of the companies that spam me, so I can avoid doing buisness with them in the future.

      Then I usually call again and do it 3 or 4 more times, just to use up some more of their voice mail system space and add to the phone charges.

      Noone has complained yet... I think they actually practice what they preach...they just hit delete.

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    13. Re:"ceased to operate"?? by bbchops · · Score: 1

      As is 0800
      The poor cook he caught the fits

      --
      The poor cook he caught the fits
      And threw away all of my grits
  3. Nice site by CoJoNEs · · Score: 1

    Cute, nice timing Slashdot.
    Go to http://pagecreators.net now.
    Page Creators has ceased to operate. Route questions to pcoffice@pagecreators.net.

  4. Gone by Steepe · · Score: 1

    Pagecreators has ceased to operate.. 15 minutes after a bad story? Geeze, thats getting rid of the crap.

    --
    Just three more hours seapeople and you can finally take me away from this crappy God Damned planet full of hippies
    1. Re:Gone by Drey · · Score: 1

      I think he's reading /. because the site's web page is now a single period.
      --

    2. Re:Gone by Electric+Jesus · · Score: 1

      Or, maybe he's clever enough to notice the 40,000 pageviews in the last hour.

  5. Interesting by Sheeple+Police · · Score: 5

    The site is mysteriously down and disappeared. What is funny is that Wired just ran an article on the company (and the teenage owner) at http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,40673, 00.html

    --

    Information is the catalyst for revolution
    1. Re:Interesting by Wiseleo · · Score: 1

      If you take a look at this (from PC/Trinity), behold, you have a signup form on a super-secure server sending plain-text e-mail. Wow, such a great use of SSL ;-)

      form method="POST" action="https://ssl.pagecreators.net/pagecreators. net/secure-application-processor.cgi"

      input type="hidden" name="recipient" value="processing@pagecreators.net"

      input type="hidden" name="redirect" value="https://ssl.pagecreators.net/pagecreators.n et/secure/output.html"

      I still remember an ISP where /var/spool/mail/sales was world-readable.
      --
      Leonid S. Knyshov

      --
      Leonid S. Knyshov
      Find me on Quora :)
  6. Perhaps they don't want to be held to ransom. by Kiss+the+Blade · · Score: 2
    They are a web-hosting company. They are in the media industry. They depend on image, above all. So it is understandable, if a little Draconian, that they wish to control their image to the best of their ability.

    However, while I don't like this policy, I still defend their right to pursue it. If you don't like their policy, don't do business with them.

    There really isn't anything more to be said.

    KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.

    --

    KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
    There is no

    1. Re:Perhaps they don't want to be held to ransom. by b0z · · Score: 5
      However, while I don't like this policy, I still defend their right to pursue it. If you don't like their policy, don't do business with them.

      I'm not sure I agree with that. Sure, I say to not do business with them (especially as it seems they have "ceased to operate) but I am also not sure how legal that is. One thing that the person that wrote this article mentions is fair use, which is protection of the consumers' rights when dealing with companies. Fiar use has been trampled on quite a bit recently by big businesses who like your point of view.

      To take your logic further, if I sell televisions I can put something in a contract for my customers to sign that if they complain about the TV once I get to kill them. This would be illegal, even if noone had bought a TV from me. I'm not a lawyer so I can't give all the correct terms, but you can see that it would be clearly wrong.

      The reason that it is not right, or legal for a company to say you can't review them if you are a customer is that it could infringe on your free speech. There are limits to what you can do against a company. You can't use their logo or give information that may be confidential or proprietary to their business if you agreed not to previously. However, simply saying, "This webhost company sucks ass and gave me bad service" should not be able to get you in trouble. Also, if the company wished, why would they stop at reviews? Wouldn't contacting the Better Business Bureau be considered a breach of the terms of service as well? There are limits set up both ways, to protect the consumer and the businesses. Unfortunately the consumer's rights are going down the toilet as big businesses lie to us and the politicians representing us so they can get more of an advantage to take more of our money.

      --
      Mas vale cholo, que mal acompañado.
    2. Re:Perhaps they don't want to be held to ransom. by EarthQuaker · · Score: 1

      I disagree quite completely that "there really isn't anything more to be said." If you disagree with a bad policy, not only can you refrain from doing business with the company that stands behind the policy, but you can also criticize the company, talk it down, let people know why what they are doing is wrong. This isn't simply an economic question, it's an ethical question, and one needn't make recourse to the tools of economics only when dealing with this sort of thing.

    3. Re:Perhaps they don't want to be held to ransom. by Kiss+the+Blade · · Score: 1
      Your example of a contract empowering a company to extuinguish the lives of its critics is, of course, quite correctly illegal. I must stress that I think that this companies actions are wrong.

      Personally, I am against big government, and I do not want to see issues such as this decided by the government. I would like to see these issues decided by the common sense of the masses. I have faith in the common man, and I am sure that if this company continues in its course, it will go out of business, purely through the pressures applied by commerce & the free market, through the right of the consumer to choose. We can see that it is attracting a lot of bad publicity already here on /. - this will only get worse over time. Every day that it keeps this clause in its contract, it loses a little business.

      This is the right and proper way for this issue to be settled - through the will of the common man, rather than by the dictacts of unscrupulous and inefficient government.

      KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.

      --

      KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
      There is no

    4. Re:Perhaps they don't want to be held to ransom. by tethal91 · · Score: 1

      Exactly, voice is one of the most important tools we have in a (hypothetically)free market. Change comes from not only our dollars, but also what we say. They seem DOA, but pagecreators.com is not the only one out there trying to cajole the naive and the hasty. So speak, loudly. Really, louder. Or, ummm, type loudly. Or something.

      --
      There is no guarantee that the content has been read or understood.
    5. Re:Perhaps they don't want to be held to ransom. by joshsisk · · Score: 1

      This company is not going to be around much longer, so it doesn't really matter. The Wired article linked above mentions that credit card companies are issuing refunds for PageCreators charges... PageCreators' lawyers may be good, but they are not as good as the ones from the credit card companies.

      Josh Sisk

    6. Re:Perhaps they don't want to be held to ransom. by llywrch · · Score: 2

      > They are a web-hosting company. They are in the media industry. They depend on image, above all. So it is understandable, if a little Draconian,
      > that they wish to control their image to the best of their ability.

      Or the guy is taking UCITA out for a spin to see if it will let him run over folks in his state.

      The last thing any person of little to no morals wants is attention brought to her/his activities. This guy, at best, is pushing the envelope of what he can get away with. At worst, it's a clear sign that he's gonna grow up to be another rip-off artist. No wonder his parents have changed their phone number & claim they don't know where he is.

      Geoff

      --
      I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
    7. Re:Perhaps they don't want to be held to ransom. by fishbowl · · Score: 3

      >At worst, it's a clear sign that he's gonna
      >grow up to be another rip-off artist

      He'll have to, if he expects to survive in prison.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    8. Re:Perhaps they don't want to be held to ransom. by Kwantus · · Score: 1
      The reason that it is not right, or legal for a company to say you can't review them if you are a customer is that it could infringe on your free speech.

      I'm not a lawyer either. But as I grasp your 1st amendment, it is at most a protection from limitations on expression being imposed by your governments. It has nothing to say about contractual limitations on expression between private entities. How many times have you seen non-disclosure agreeements successfully nullified on constitutional bases, for instance?

      It's true (I think) that a contract involving illegal activities (eg murder) aren't binding; but it's not at all clear to me that there is anything illegal about this particular contract, or at least this particular clause.

  7. Well your lucky.... by chissad · · Score: 1

    That your not being hosted by these guys because that statement could be construed as a review and you could be liable. Some companies are really dumb and have really dumb lawyers who write that stuff.

    --


    -root is lord.
  8. Pagecreators is a SCAM! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5
    Take a look at this Wired article: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,40673, 00.html

    PageCreators is run by an 18yr old who is scamming people of thousands of dollars, by charging $1/kb of traffic. In some cases, he has falsified logs to show higher traffic. One person had such a small page, that they would have needed over 800,000 visitors to generate the traffic that Page Creators charged their credit card for.

    The punk who runs it has a lawyer (or someone pretending to be a lawyer) who routinely sends threatening letters to sites that post bad reviews.

    1. Re:Pagecreators is a SCAM! by re-geeked · · Score: 2

      RTFA (the Wired article) before you go defending this twerp's right to scam people.

      What we should be holding him up as is an example that hiding ludicrous terms in the fine print doesn't make them legal. And I'm not just talking about the prices here. Fortunately, Minnesota (where PageCreators is based) has a fine set of consumer protection laws that might help here, if it's their jurisdiction. Mebbe if one of the victims was from Minnesota, the attorney general's office might be able to help. Anyone?

      --
      "You can't get something for nothing." - my grandfather, on the stock market and Reaganomics.
    2. Re:Pagecreators is a SCAM! by johnathan · · Score: 2
      Note he is charging $1/kb, and NOT $1/kB... bits versus bytes Using that math, he would only be required to generate 1/1000th of that, or 800, visitors, which is well within the realm of possibility.
      Are you using one of those new computers with 1000-bit bytes? A confusion between bits and bytes could only account for a factor of 8. So he'd need 100,000 visitors in any case, which is still quite high.

      --

      --
      You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
    3. Re:Pagecreators is a SCAM! by tap · · Score: 1
      Last time I checked there were 8 bits in a byte, not 1000. That would be 100,000 visitors, if he is in fact referring to bits, which is still quite a few some guy's worthless homepage.

      The bit quoted in the wired article is:

      Section III.A.3 reads: "In the event you consume more than 30kbp/s of sustained peak traffic within any 24 hour period of time ... a fee of $1 dollar per 1kbp/s will be billed to your account.
      It's not clear to me if that's 30 kiloBITS or kiloBTYES. I'm also not clear on what "sustained peak" is supposed to mean, it sounds like an oxymoron to me. If someone downloads a 1k web page in 1ms, that's a transfer rate of 8000kb/sec. So would they have to pay $8000 because someone on a T3 downloaded a 1k web page once? A normal usage fee for hosting is based on total data transfered, i.e. megabytes, not "sustained peak" rate, kilobits per second.
    4. Re:Pagecreators is a SCAM! by nlaporte · · Score: 3

      Note he is charging $1/kb, and NOT $1/kB... bits versus bytes

      Using that math, he would only be required to generate 1/1000th of that, or 800, visitors, which is well within the realm of possibility.


      Ummm...
      Last time I checked, a bit was only 1/8 byte, not 1/1000. By the math, he would still have needed to get 100,000 visitors, which is not within the realm of possibility.

      Anyway, do you actually think that people would pay a lawyer to read every damn click-license that thye come accross on the web. I think not. It seems to me this kid is trying out as much legalese and restrictions as he can, in the hopes that one of his schemes will work and he'll get a bunch of money.

    5. Re:Pagecreators is a SCAM! by Wellspring · · Score: 3

      Not only that, but the terms weren't even in the fine print. Customers complained that the contract mysteriously changed, to add a 'subject to change without notice' and 'price is +$1/kb when usage is above 300kb'.

      In the wired article, most customers didn't read the small print. But those who did, and signed hard copies, report that those clauses weren't on the contracts they signed.

    6. Re:Pagecreators is a SCAM! by ShinGouki · · Score: 1

      please note that bandwidth doesn't only mean web bandwidth. there's other protocols on the net besides http. it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the site was the object of a DoS attack, anon-ftp warez site, cracked and made the launchpad of a DoS attack, or any number of other bandwidth-spiking endeavors.


      -dk

      --
      -dk
      Dream with the feathers of angels stuffed beneath your head.
    7. Re:Pagecreators is a SCAM! by Dredd13 · · Score: 3
      ok, yes, yes, I completely boned the math on that one.

      That'll teach me to try and post intelligently when the Coke machine at the office is broken. ;-)

    8. Re:Pagecreators is a SCAM! by bellings · · Score: 2
      by charging $1/kb of traffic.

      Actually, in section III.A.3, guy is asking for:
      In the event you consume more than 30kbp/s of sustained peak traffic within any 24 hour period of time, for any month, a fee of $1 per 1kbp/s will be billed to your account
      I am completely clueless what a "kbp/s" is, or how "sustained peak traffic" might be measured.

      He may mean something like "an average of 30 kbit per second over a 24 hour period", but that really would mean about 324 megabytes in a 24 hour period. Of course, there's no way to know exactly what he does mean, and he does say "wusage statistics are not accurate enough for you to determine your own total bandwidth", so its not at all clear what tools he's using to measure bandwith, or what exactly they are supposed to measure, or how they measure it.
      --
      Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
    9. Re:Pagecreators is a SCAM! by LAI · · Score: 2
      There's been a lot of talk about kids with guns, and how today's youth has easy access to firearms, and how dangerous this is, and so on.

      I think a kid with a lawyer is much more dangerous than a kid with a gun. Think about it: a young, imaginative mind, thinking up new ways to hack the legal system, with his pet lawyer by his side. I wouldn't want to meet them in a dark alley. At least, if you're being held at gunpoint, you can get away by emptying your wallet. The lawyer/kid combo will empty your wallet and say, "okay, now that that's out of the way, what can I get from you?"

      --
      :eof
    10. Re:Pagecreators is a SCAM! by jburroug · · Score: 1
      I wouldn't want to meet them in a dark alley.


      Actually I'd love to meet this pair in a dark alley, but then again I'm one of those "kids" (22yo) with guns ;-> However I wouldn't want to meet them in a well lit court room.

      --
      "Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut
    11. Re:Pagecreators is a SCAM! by edhall · · Score: 1

      Actually, some larger providers do charge in part on the basis of "sustained peak bandwidth," where the "sustained" part means over a specified time period (five minutes in the cases I'm familiar with). This only makes sense with really big sites that make of a significant fraction of a provider's total capacity. A customer with a high sustained peak bandwidth would force the provider to build out to support that bandwidth to avoid impact on other customers.

      -Ed
    12. Re:Pagecreators is a SCAM! by jeremy+f · · Score: 2

      Heh... the BLaw class I took seems to be paying off.

      If the contract changes, there must be new consideration, roughly defined as a legal benefit and burden for both parties. Since the new terms are not only oppressive, but imply no new benefit to the customers, the new contract is invalid. Not only that, but the customers, because of a change in the terms of the contract, would have to resign the contract if they were to agree to the new terms.

      What he's doing is wrong (fraud), and he can be sued for punitive damages. Think that $76,000 wired mentioned is alot? That's just the tip of the iceburg.

      I.A.N.A. Contract L., so anyone who knows more about this than I please feel free to correct me.

    13. Re:Pagecreators is a SCAM! by Syberghost · · Score: 2

      Not only that, but the customers, because of a change in the terms of the contract, would have to resign the contract if they were to agree to the new terms.

      Has anybody managed to sue eBay for similar terms in their contract?

      -

    14. Re:Pagecreators is a SCAM! by fishbowl · · Score: 2



      >>Not only that, but the customers, because of a
      >>change in the terms of the contract, would have
      >>to resign the contract if they were to agree to
      >>the new terms.

      >Has anybody managed to sue eBay for similar
      >terms in their contract?

      In order to "sue eBay" one would have to have incurred damages. If you haven't been harmed by the terms of the agreement, you cannot sue the other party to the agreement. You cannot file a suit against someone just because you don't like the wording of their contract.

      Also, if it is not legal in whatever jurisdiction a dispute with eBay would be tried, to have such a clause in a contract, that clause (but not the rest of the contract) would be invalid. That would probably have the effect of making any amended-but-not-explicitly-agreed-to contracts inadmissible.

      The problem is, the way they establish their terms, the clause is probably legal. It is in the original agreement that the parties understand that the 30-day-notice of amendment is
      reasonable.

      "We may amend this Agreement at any time by posting the amended terms on our site. Except as stated below, all amended terms shall automatically be effective 30 days after they are initially posted on our site."

      It stands to reason that eBay needs to have a clause like this in the agreement. If something happens, like a law is passed in California affecting online auctions and eBay *must* change their policies, they need a means to do so that is reasonable to all parties, and has been agreed to by all. I believe they have succeeded.

      Comparing eBay's well-written and fair user agreement to the pagecreator.com tripe isn't fair at all!

      Atty: "Your honor, on behalf of my client the defendant, I move for summary judgement in the defendant's favor."
      Judge: "On what grounds do you base this motion, counsel?"
      Atty: "Your, honor, the plaintiff's spelling and grammar are simply atrocious and incomprehensible."
      Judge: "Motion granted. Judgement is for the defendant."

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    15. Re:Pagecreators is a SCAM! by Syberghost · · Score: 2

      People get injunctions to prevent POSSIBLE harm all the time.

      As for spelling and grammar, contracts get nullified over that all the time too.

      There is no meeting of the minds if you write a contract that you intend to say one thing, and I think it says something else because your grammar was bad. Without a meeting of the minds, there is no contract; what you thought you signed and what I thought I signed were two different things, and that's not a contract.

      -

    16. Re:Pagecreators is a SCAM! by HiNote · · Score: 1

      kiloBITS vs. kiloBYTES..

      I think it's BITS, and here's why: First, typically when you are talking about network traffic you refer to kiloBITS. Second, a lowercase 'b' typically refers to bits while an uppercase 'B' typically refers to bytes. (modem speeds are measured in kbps while your hard drives are measured in GB)

  9. SD Effect strikes again by bool · · Score: 1

    Looks like the page was slashdotted already! Sweet sweet vengance.

    ----------
    do { Work(); PayTaxes(); Eat(); Sleep(); } while (alive)

    --

    ----------
    while (alive) { Work(); PayTaxes(); Eat(); Sleep(); }
    Bool
  10. What That Policy Aims to Stop ... by rcade · · Score: 3
    ... are former Page Creators customers who have started sharing stories on this Web hosting site and others.

    --
    Rogers Cadenhead (Web: http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench)
  11. Google Cache of TOS by �nubis · · Score: 4
    1. Re:Google Cache of TOS by Lumpish+Scholar · · Score: 2
      Some interesting things about Google's cached version:
      • The "fifty thousand dollars" penalty is not mentioned (might have been added after the last visit from the Google spider).
      • The bandwidth charge (how the kid raked his customers over the coals) is spelled out fairly clearly. The killer subclause: "You also understand that wusage statistics are not accurate enough for you to determine your own total bandwidth usage, as it does not include the following: e-mail transfer, httpd or ftp downloads from webpage, anonymous FTP downloads, CGI scripts, Real Audio, Real Video, Telnet, and SSH, as well as other items." Translation: We can make up numbers that you can't verify.
      • An anti-spam clause with teeth: "Upon even your first Spam offense your account will be terminated and a maintenance fee of $1000 will be billed to your payment method used upon sign up. This is due to the enormous amount of time it takes to serve spamming victims. If customer paid by credit card, they agree to pay this fee." (emphasis in original)
      • "ALL CUSTOMERS MUST BE AT LEAST 18 YEARS OF AGE" (but doesn't say anything about the management of the company:-)

      P.S.: Someone please tell him "kilobits per second" is abbreviated Kb/s or Kbps but not kbp/s (kilobits per per second?-)

      --
      Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
    2. Re:Google Cache of TOS by technos · · Score: 2

      "ALL CUSTOMERS MUST BE AT LEAST 18 YEARS OF AGE"

      Speaking of which.. How can I agree to his TOS if he is too young to enter into the hosting contract anyway? According to a blurb on the Minnesota Bar Association's page, he is unable to enter into any contracts (His parents may, on his behalf). In addition, he shouldn't be able to charge against your credid card..

      --
      .sig: Now legally binding!
    3. Re:Google Cache of TOS by scoove · · Score: 1

      Sounds like it's time to go after mom and dad for civil charges related to the fraud since they were junior's legal guardians up until recently...

      *scoove*

    4. Re:Google Cache of TOS by fishbowl · · Score: 2

      It should be very easy to find who the parties to the merchant agreement are. Bet you a dollar
      it's one of the parents.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    5. Re:Google Cache of TOS by mutende · · Score: 1
      P.S.: Someone please tell him "kilobits per second" is abbreviated Kb/s or Kbps but not kbp/s (kilobits per per second?-)
      Bzzt, wrong! The 'k' for ``kilo'' is always lowercase ('K' means ``Kelvin''), so it should have been kb/s or kbps.
      --
      --
      Unselfish actions pay back better
    6. Re:Google Cache of TOS by Ronin+X · · Score: 1
      Bzzt, wrong! The 'k' for ``kilo'' is always lowercase ('K' means ``Kelvin''), so it should have been kb/s or kbps.

      Not this again. Things change, especially where technology is concerned. I have seen some sticklers who demand that K=1024x and k=1000x. That's neither here nor there. But common usage is going against you here.

      webcoaches.com disagrees with you.

      Ohio State University disagrees with you.

      ABC Computer Classes disagrees with you. They also go into detail about the 1024K vs 1000k.

      PCToday.com disagrees with you.

      As for my personal opinion:
      Oh COME ON! Do you really think there's any danger of someone getting confused and thinking we're talking about KELVIN BITS PER SECOND? What is that? The heat generated by the bit's friction?

      Oh, and I'll try to refrain from slapping you for that oh-so-superior 'Bzzt, wrong'

      Terms of readership: Any party choosing to read the above informative and insightful* comment will be charged a fee for such life-enriching knowledge of USD $50. Having read the comment, the reader MUST PAY the $50. If after having read and paid, the reader deems that said comment is not worth $50, he/she may file a Claim for Refund. Such claims will require a $30 processing fee and up to 6 (six) months to complete.

      Please remit payment to:
      Insightful Slashdot Comments
      2400 Boston St.
      Baltimore, MD 21204

      * Moderators moderating this post as informative or insightful can arrange to have their readership fee waived by filing a $30 processing fee.

      --
      Ok my karma is maxed out. When do I become Enlightened?
    7. Re:Google Cache of TOS by CommieOverlord · · Score: 1

      Oh COME ON! Do you really think there's any danger of someone getting confused and thinking we're talking about KELVIN BITS PER SECOND? What is that? The heat generated by the bit's friction?

      Been a few years since I've done any physics, but I though Kelvin was just a measure of temperature like Celsius or Farenheit. Nothing specifically to do with friction.

    8. Re:Google Cache of TOS by mutende · · Score: 1
      webcoaches.com disagrees with you.
      Ohio State University disagrees with you.
      ABC Computer Classes disagrees with you.
      PCToday disagrees with you.
      Well, none of them are authoritative sources. However, Bureau International des Poids et Mesures is and I recommend that you check their SI-prefixes page before you start bitching me.
      --
      --
      Unselfish actions pay back better
    9. Re:Google Cache of TOS by Ronin+X · · Score: 1

      I never said anything about 'authoritative'. I said 'things change', 'common usage is against you', and '"Bzzt wrong" is annoying and slap-worthy.

      --
      Ok my karma is maxed out. When do I become Enlightened?
  12. the first rule of Page Creators by Primer+55 · · Score: 5

    is that you don't talk about Page Creators...

    --

    "Watch these suckers jump when I get root." - l33t j03

    1. Re:the first rule of Page Creators by Sc00ter · · Score: 1
      The second rule of Page Creators.

      YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT PAGE CREATORS
      --

    2. Re:the first rule of Page Creators by eudas · · Score: 1

      in fact, rules 3 through 64 are all "you do not talk about page creators." rule 65 is "you do not THINK about page creators"...

      eudas

      --
      Blessed is he who expects the worst, for he shall not be disappointed.
    3. Re:the first rule of Page Creators by retard2112 · · Score: 1
      and of course:

      Rule 66. You do not write about page creators.

      --


      Right Now, our government is doing things you think only other governments do.
    4. Re:the first rule of Page Creators by eudas · · Score: 1

      doh! shh...

      eudas

      --
      Blessed is he who expects the worst, for he shall not be disappointed.
  13. Posted about this already by mgkimsal2 · · Score: 4

    I submitted a story about this last week after the Wired article, but it was rejected. :(

    What I found extremely interesting was that I couldn't find the terms of service anywhere. I actually signed up for an account (old CC number, so it wouldn't go thru) but at no time was I actually even offered the option of seeing what I was agreeing to.

    The Wired article pointed out that for 'unlimited' bandwidth, you were actually charged $1/k for traffic over a sustained transfer rate of .3k/s or greater. Again, couldn't see any TOS to verify this or not, but that's not a whole lot of bandwidth.

    I guess their point was yes, it's unlimited bandwidth, but that doesn't mean you'll only pay $24.95/month (or whatever the rate was).

    I was very surprised the guy lasted as long as he did, charging people THOUSANDS of dollars, then defending himself by saying they didn't 'understand the technical nature of hosting', etc. Wouldn't the banks get suspicious? You have 200 charges of $24.95/month for 18 months, then 3 charges of $10,000, then hundreds more $24.95s. I think that SHOULD raise some eyebrows, just like my CC usage causes calls from the CC company occasionally - "you've never charged anything over $200 in the past 10 years we've known you, and you just charged $10,000 in 5 different states in 10 minutes. Is everything OK?"

    1. Re:Posted about this already by enrico_suave · · Score: 1

      What about this:

      "3. Any CGI script owned and installed by you which has been stuck in memory by error will be charged a $100 management fee for each instance removed."

      "uhm... hello mr. customer, yer quote of the day script hung, so I had to kill it... btw that'll be 100 beans..."

      wtf? Is that a standard practice?

      E.

      --
      Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
    2. Re:Posted about this already by OmegaDan · · Score: 2
      Thats a damn good point! I buy alot of audio equiptment, and everytime I buy anything over 1000$ they bank calls to confirm ...

      One time I spent 1700$ with 8thstreet.com and in 30 minutes both the bank security department and bank fraud department called.

      My only guess would be that he must be familiar with credit practicies, and the recurring charges have something to do with it -- ie after 6 monthly charges they don't check ANY from that vendor ...

      He's also playing numbers -- he probably dosen't expect to collect most of the 10,000$ fees ... but he probably collects a few -- and he's still making 25$ a month from each user when his DSL probably costs him 50$ a month ..

      What disapoints me most is that people are so scared of the legal system that this guy can do this at all ... says more about the legal system then anything else

    3. Re:Posted about this already by fishbowl · · Score: 2

      >What disapoints me most is that people are so
      >scared of the legal system that this guy can do
      >this at all

      The only legal system our friend in Minnesota needs to be scared of is the one that sends you
      to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison for credit card fraud (a federal offense). This isn't going to be a few civil suits from a few people who were overcharged. It should be criminal prosecution for several felonies. I believe our friend is 18. For his parents' sake, I hope
      they are not a party to the merchant agreement
      where they deposit the credit card reciepts.
      If it can be shown that they "knew or should have known" that fraudulent activities were taking place, they might get to go to the little
      room with the metal toilet in the middle of the floor too.

      Credit card companies do not like being systematically taken advantage of. I don't understand what you think this "says about the legal system."

      The system works. It puts people in jail for stealing money from other people.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    4. Re:Posted about this already by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

      I think the point being made was that the judicial system is useless if people lose faith in it. The best laws and the best judges are useless if everyone thinks: "I'm right, but I've been screwed, and if I don't smile and say thank you then they might sue me, too...and I can't afford that!"

      Perception *is* reality.

    5. Re:Posted about this already by 1337d00d · · Score: 1

      hmmm...

      [r00t@localhost r00t]#
      [r00t@localhost r00t]# cd /proc
      [r00t@localhost /proc]# ls | wc -w
      108
      [r00t@localhost /proc]# kill *

      Woohoo, another hundred thousand dollars!


      No, I don't think that that is standard practice.

  14. That's just dangerous... by cmowire · · Score: 1

    That's just dangerous.. :/

    We can't have companies interfering with our fundamental right to gripe! I mean, sure, if somebody's posting stupid rumors about Satan Worshiper P&G People or trying to pull of scams, that's illegal because of Libel and Fraud, but bad reviews are a part of life.

    I mean, think about what would happen if every piece of review hardware for the computer mags and sites came with a TOS agreement that dictated that you couldn't write a unfavorable review of the piece of hardware. A good review wouldn't mean anything.

    Now, I suspect that a good lawyer could get you out of the TOS's review clause. But your average pissed off customer makes a lot less legitimately than he does illegally, where the problem then lies.

    Let's just hope that nobody else gets such bright ideas.. :/

    1. Re:That's just dangerous... by NecroPuppy · · Score: 2

      I mean, think about what would happen if every piece of review hardware for the computer mags and sites came with a TOS agreement that dictated that you couldn't write a unfavorable review of the piece of hardware. A good review wouldn't mean anything.

      No... A good review would mean that it was good. Something that would get a bad review, as determined by the lawyers, no doubt, would get no review at all.

      Think about it... Your favorite PC mag would have as one of their cover lines -

      "The top 5 video cards whose reviews we could print!"

      You'd look inside, find out that the card you were looking at wasn't listed, and not buy it, as obviously there were 'issues' with it, and the review couldn't be printed.

      Personnally, I think that any company that has to resort to those kind of tactics to keep away bad press has larger issues to worry about.

      --
      I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
    2. Re:That's just dangerous... by Your+Login+Here · · Score: 1

      For that to work, you would have to assume that a given computer magazine has reviewed every single card on the market.
      Each month they would have to print a list of all the cards they have printed reviews of, as well all the cards that had shipped at press time. Otherwise if they didn't get an early Geforce Ultra, you would have to assume that there were problems with it since it was on the market.

  15. PageCreators has bigger problems than bad TOS by conform · · Score: 3

    The company's Terms of Service are likely just fallout from their other problems. Wired reported last week that the BBB is mad at them for persistent reports of fradulent charges. It's my guess that they are just trying to do damage control. Though it certainly seems unlikely that they will obtain any benefit for it.

    In a similar note, the last company I worked for had as part of their NDA a nondisparagement clause. "You agree not to talk smack about The Company, its business practices, its officers, etc etc". Anybody know how enforecable such an agreement is, especially for people who are no longer with the company? Seems questionable to me.

    1. Re:PageCreators has bigger problems than bad TOS by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 1

      I think that any NDA that uses the term 'talk smack' is questionable.

      Dancin Santa

    2. Re:PageCreators has bigger problems than bad TOS by llywrch · · Score: 2

      > Anybody know how enforecable such an agreement is, especially
      > for people who are no longer with the company? Seems questionable to me.

      It's in proportion to just how much money the company has. If the company is Microsoft, & you signed an NDA concerning anything with them (the caterers for billg's wedding had to sign an NDA -- sheesh!), they might hunt you down to the ends of the earth, find you, & send you to the jail of their choice.

      If you're the teenage scumbag of this company, who's on the run from the credit card companies, the BBB, & some less-than-motivated state & federal law enforcement officers, you might get a call from his lawyer on your answering machine -- if the scumbag happened to make his monthly payment -- in cash.

      Geoff

      --
      I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
  16. Another *interesting* point in their TOS by �nubis · · Score: 5

    From Pagecreator's TOS:

    C. Copywritten Files
    1. Files found on Page Creator's servers which are found to be copywritten will be removed and the account cancelled immediately without prior notification to the customer. All copyright owners will be notified accordingly.

    Notice how they don't say anything about only removing files that illegally violate copyright! Any piece of work is immediately copyrighted when the author creates it. This means that each and every page that is on Pagecreators site should be removed according to their TOS. (The funny thing is that it looks like they've complied with this by taking down their entire site.) ;P

    1. Re:Another *interesting* point in their TOS by mapinguari · · Score: 1

      I wonder what the legality of a term like copywritten is. It's obvious that he meant copyrighted, but how would a court of law interpret a contract with such terms?

    2. Re:Another *interesting* point in their TOS by compwizrd · · Score: 1

      And notice the _$1000_ dollar penalty for your first spamming.

    3. Re:Another *interesting* point in their TOS by Erasmus+Darwin · · Score: 2
      This means that each and every page that is on Pagecreators site should be removed according to their TOS.

      It gets even worse: According to the TOS, they can seize your domain name for *any* violation of the TOS.

    4. Re:Another *interesting* point in their TOS by fishbowl · · Score: 3

      Does it really say "copywritten?"

      Verbatim? That won't stand up to any courtroom
      scrutiny! "Copywritten" means "written by a professional writer for advertising or publicity copy".

      "copyright" or "copyrighted"means the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, and sell the matter and form (as of a literary, musical, or artistic work)

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    5. Re:Another *interesting* point in their TOS by fishbowl · · Score: 3



      >I wonder what the legality of a term like
      >copywritten is. It's obvious that he meant
      >copyrighted, but how would a court of law
      >interpret a contract with such terms?

      Depends on the state. In Texas, a judge would,
      or would direct a jury to, strike that clause from the agreement and not consider it germane
      to the case.

      One invalid clause in a contract does not invalidate the contract, only that one clause.
      That means for instance, if a landlord has put something illegal or unenforceable in the lease,
      it doesn't mean you don't have to pay rent or change the smoke alarm battery, etc.

      On the other hand, if it were "obvious" in intent, and the parties both agreed that the
      word "copywritten" was construed to mean "copyrighted", then the clause could stand.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    6. Re:Another *interesting* point in their TOS by schon · · Score: 1
      Actually, my favourite part is this: (from section III of the TOS)
      2. We do not monitor traffic until you surpass the specified amount with your package at the time of purchase in one months period of time.


      Besides the horrible grammar, they're saying that they don't monitor you until after you've exceeded some amount.. but how do they know that you've exceeded your limit unless they're monitoring the traffic?

      I'm guessing that the 18-year-old CEO is a high-school dropout..
  17. Question by KPU · · Score: 1

    Did the policy say anything about a fine for slashdotting? Will I receive a bill for visiting their site?

    1. Re:Question by canning · · Score: 1

      what site?

      --
      I love the smell of Karma in the morning
  18. Good reason for not working with kids by NineNine · · Score: 1

    That's a great reason for not doing business with little kids. Speaking of which, aren't the /. guys just kids, too?...

  19. Pursuit of happiness != pursuit of criticism by Rares+Marian · · Score: 1

    Right to pursue? Where?

    Exactly what right do they have to shut people up? Where is that a right?

    There is no right to looking good in the eye of your beholders. Sorry. Check out China.gov or something to that effect. It has a capitalist economy I'll give it credit for that, but it's still a communist, repressive government, mostly because of convenience.

    --
    The message on the other side of this sig is false.
    1. Re:Pursuit of happiness != pursuit of criticism by Kiss+the+Blade · · Score: 1
      I'm sorry, but they are a commercial company and they have the right to put these terms in their contract. In fact, guess what! They already have. So QED on that one, I'm afraid.

      As I've already said, if you don't like it, get your website hosted elsewhere. Its your choice - don't bleat on that your rights to free speech are being compromised when you had a choice of whether to sign the contract or not. Don't like it? Don't sign.

      KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.

      --

      KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
      There is no

    2. Re:Pursuit of happiness != pursuit of criticism by deanc · · Score: 2

      Actually, contract law does not give carte blanche to companies to have whatever "terms of service" they wish. Examples:

      (a) Your employer may not offer you a job for less than the minimum wage

      (b) Your landlors may not rent you an apartment in the northeast without working heat

      The example here may be an example of a "shrinkwrap" license that we all know and love. Shrinkwrap licenses may be determined to be unenforceable and invalid. That may end up being the case with PageCreators. We shall see.

      -Dean

    3. Re:Pursuit of happiness != pursuit of criticism by fatphil · · Score: 1

      Doesn't the US consitution disallow states from "impairing the obligation of contracts".
      i.e. a state can't stop someone from having to fulfill a contract?
      Not American, and not a lawyer, so the details may be lost on me.

      FatPhil
      -- Real Men Don't Use Porn. -- Morality In Media Billboards

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    4. Re:Pursuit of happiness != pursuit of criticism by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

      There is also a principle that reads roughly: "there is no such thing as an illegal contract"...just as there is no such thing as a lawful order to commit an illegal act. One can mark words on a piece of paper, sure. But if said "contract" relates, say, to selling drugs at specified prices to certain pushers then it ain't no contract, its just a piece of paper with marks on it.

  20. Like Oracle and MS by mgkimsal2 · · Score: 1

    Not too dissimilar to the charges that MS and Oracle licensing (and probably others) prohibit publication of benchmarks without prior written approval.

    I've not gotten all the way thru my MS SQL7 license to know if it's completely true or not, but it wouldn't suprise me at all. This type of 'agreement' doesn't seem too far out of the norm, or at least where the norm may be soon.

    "You can only do business with us as long as you don't ever tell anyone at all anything about us, our products, our service or what we do." Seems to cover most of the bases... :)

  21. Ladies and gentlemen... by TheLocustNMI · · Score: 2
    Page Creators has ceased to operate. Route questions to pcoffice@pagecreators.net.

    The first ever Slashdotting that has resulted in complete and total collapse of a company.

    Oooh! Gotta go report it at FuckedCompany!

  22. From an earlier Wired story by Mtgman · · Score: 4

    Geoff McCabe, a 32-year-old jewelry designer from Seattle, wanted a cheap place where his wife could post a few photos online. He found Page Creators with a search engine, and signed up for an "unlimited" package advertised at $15 a month. For a few months, he was billed as expected. But then, last November 13th, he received a three-line invoice from Page Creators by e-mail:

    "Usage: 9057kbp/s, Debited: $9057, Due $0. Please let us know if you have any questions about these charges. Thank you for your business!"

    His wife e-mailed the company to let them know there had been a mistake.

    Page Creators responded that the charges were in accordance with the contract "$1 per 1kbp/s" in "usage."

    McCabe ran the traffic tracking program provided for the website. He couldn't make out anything about Kbps, but he did see that the site had received a grand total of 48 hits all year.

    After subsequent requests for clarifying documentation failed to bear fruit, the McCabes informed Page Creators that they had disputed the charge with their credit card company and threatened to report the company for fraud.

    PC's response:

    "Do as you wish, we have proof of your usage and will take it to the maximum extent needed. Check with the Attorney General of Minnesota, you will see our point. We will also provide Visa/MasterCard with the proper documentation. There is a fee of $150 per disputed charge which will be handled in small claims court in Minnesota. We will immediately file claim for suit if you dispute these charges with your credit card company."

    Others report receiving similar threats of litigation when they questioned charges.

    McCabe was incensed.

    "This kid literally dared me to call the attorney general because he thinks he's untouchable. I've now made it my personal hobby to get him brought to justice."

    ...

    Travis Gochenaur, a 23-year-old from Wisconsin who says Page Creators attempted to hit him with over $7,000 in illegitimate charges, wonders why the company hasn't been shut down. Last April, Gochenaur signed up for PC's "monthly special" that offered Web hosting for just $200 a year. In June, Gochenaur says he received a cryptic "invoice" from Kruchten saying he was being charged $1,000 for .8 Kbps in bandwidth overuse. He disputed the charge with his credit card company and cancelled his card.

    "It felt like there was a little kid using my credit card like a candy jar," he said.

    After gathering his evidence, Gochenaur called the Alexandria police and sent them his evidence. Eventually, they informed him that they were passing the case on the state attorney general. Four months later, he can't believe that Page Creators is still operating.


    So Wired couldn't touch them. But fifteen seconds into their Slashdotting, they're off the web and probably going to be sucessfully sued by the people whose webpages they are no longer able to serve. Interesting.

    Steven

    --
    -- I have marked myself unwilling to moderate-- I don't have other accounts to artificially inflate the karma of
    1. Re:From an earlier Wired story by canning · · Score: 1
      Debited: $9057, Due $0.

      Is there anyway we could arrange for that guy to fill out my Mastercard form?

      While we're at it, he may as well teach me how to not max it every month.

      --
      I love the smell of Karma in the morning
    2. Re:From an earlier Wired story by bellings · · Score: 1

      Usage: 9057kbp/s

      Holy shit. If that means 9057 kbit / second (instead of the nonsensical 9057 kbp/s), this site managed to fill about 5 T1 lines.

      --
      Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
    3. Re:From an earlier Wired story by linuxmop · · Score: 1

      (Tip: it was bull.)

    4. Re:From an earlier Wired story by Bystander · · Score: 1
      In order to be enforceable, a contract must first have a clearly defined meaning. The term "sustained peak bandwidth" without further clarification has no unambiguous interpretation. If you're only looking at peak bandwidth, for how long must the peak value be maintained in order to reach the level of being sustained? The terms of service never defines this period.

      In one sense, PC is correct in stating that customers signed up for terms of service for which they had insufficient technical understanding. No one should ever agree to pay for a service based on usage using a metric over which they have no practical control. Using the peak bandwidth metric allowed PC to increase the amount owed to them by simply serving a single page at a faster rate in any one-month period, which adds nothing to the quality of service they are providing to their customers. That would be equivalent to a gas station periodically charging double the going rate for gas because their pumps would occasionally fill up people's cars faster than normal without being asked to. Obviously, the terms of service were deliberately written to provide PC with the opportunity to collect extraordinarily high fees from customers just about any time they wanted to.

      PC should get punished for writing a deceptive contract to take advantage of customers. The customers should also get some of the blame for failing to make sure they actually read and understood the terms of service they were agreeing to.

    5. Re:From an earlier Wired story by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

      So Wired couldn't touch them. But fifteen seconds into their Slashdotting, they're off the web and probably going to be sucessfully sued by the people whose webpages they are no longer able to serve. Interesting.

      Indeed. Very interesting. Almost makes you stop and think...

      ;=)

    6. Re:From an earlier Wired story by bellings · · Score: 2

      fifteen seconds into their Slashdotting, they're off the web

      How could they be slashdotted? They're capable of serving out pages at over 9,047 kbp/s!

      --
      Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
    7. Re:From an earlier Wired story by Mtgman · · Score: 2

      and that's just one guys page. That's without even borrowing bandwidth from any other user's accounts. Damn, I want a DSL line like THAT one.

      Steven

      --
      -- I have marked myself unwilling to moderate-- I don't have other accounts to artificially inflate the karma of
  23. An RBL for NetPirates by Zecho · · Score: 2

    Hanna said that if they had any more problems with Page Creators, Registrars wouldn't do business with them any longer.


    Wouldn't it be cool if we could blacklist people like this to the extent that they could never do business on the net again? Never register a domain, never host another page.. haha would serve people like him and those damn Microsoft nazis right. "What MS is charging $800 bucks for Windows 3000? Eh put 'em in the list!"
    Ahh visions of heaven dancing through my head

  24. Re:You mean this goat troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Bravo!!! An ON-TOPIC, relevant goat sex link!

    I kiss you!

  25. We'd be in trouble... :) by MeltyMan · · Score: 1

    I certainly hope that no-one in here has agreed to that license!

    --
    "Ummmm..." ...The programmer's "Om."
  26. Manipulating his customers not to tell? by CiXeL · · Score: 2

    Between the accusations of fradulent charges and the TOS it sounds like a sickening child molestation technique or something. Don't tell anyone about my fradulent charges to your card or bad things will happen sounds alot like Don't tell your parents what i did to you or bad things will happen. sick sick sick.

  27. Pagecreators.net's Service Agreement by Maldivian · · Score: 5

    Here it is, since they have slashdotted and closed down :)

    SERVICES AGREEMENT I. Mission Statement A. Page Creators provides Internet World Wide Web page hosting. Page Creators has certain legal and ethical responsibilities regarding the use of its servers and equipment involved in these services. B. Page Creator's general policy is to act as a provider of Internet presence. Page Creators has specific ethical concerns regarding the use of its computers as detailed below. C. Page Creators guarantees to respond to any and all e-mails regarding any question or problem you have with our service no later than 36 hours after said e-mail is sent. This guarantee does not apply to lost deliveries due to outside network problems. II. 99.9% Uptime Guarantee A. Service Level - Page Creators endeavors to have the content of your web site available for http access by any part in the world 99.9% of the time. B. Coverage - This 99.9% uptime guarantee applies to any Page Creators client in good financial standing with Page Creators at the time of a service outage. C. Credits 1. In the event that your web site is not available for more than 99.9% of the time, Page Creators will give you a credit on the following month's service fee as follows: a. For any shared hosting client, such credit shall be retroactive to the first day of the month in which the access was denied, and shall be as calculated below and as measured 24 hours a day in a calendar month, with the maximum credit not to exceed the monthly service charge for the affected month. Page Creators offers this guarantee to every month-to-month customer. b. Monthly Uptime Credit. 95% to 99.8% shall govern a 25% credit. 90% to 94.9%% shall govern a 50% credit. 89.9% or below shall govern a 100% credit. 2. In order for you to receive a credit on your account, you must request the credit within ten (10) days after you experienced the down time. a. Your request must be made by sending an electronic mail message to noc@pagecreators.net. b. For security purposes, the body of this message must contain your account user name, the dates and times of the unavailability of your web site, and such other customer identification requested by Page Creators. 3. Credits will be applied within ten (10) days of your credit request. As a courtesy to our month-to-month customers, an in-house credit to your account shall be your sole and exclusive remedy in the event of an outage. D. Restrictions on Credits - Credits shall not be provided to you in the event that you have any outage resulting from the following: 1. Scheduled maintenance as posted from time to time at Page Creators; 2. Your behavior or the performance or failure of your equipment, facilities or applications; 3. Circumstances beyond Page Creator's reasonable control, including, without limitation, acts of any governmental body, war, insurrection, sabotage, embargo, fire, flood, strike or other labor disturbance, interruption of or delay in transportation, delay in telecommunications or third party services including backbone provider, DNS propagation, domain name registration / transfer, failure of third party software or hardware or inability to obtain raw materials, supplies, or power used in or equipment needed for provision of your web site; or 4. A client breaking any item in Page Creator's this agreement causing a machine to fail as a result. III. Miscellaneous Provisions A. Acceptable Bandwidth Use and Unacceptable Overuse Clause 1. Bandwidth is a term used to describe the total traffic your web site and other services associated with the use of your website consume. 2. We do not monitor traffic until you surpass the specified amount with your package at the time of purchase in one months period of time. This does not apply to provision III, A, 3. 3. In the event you consume more than 30kbp/s of sustained peak traffic within any 24 hour period of time, for any month, a fee of $1 per 1kbp/s will be billed to your account via the payment method used upon sign up. 4. You agree to pay Page Creators this $1 per 1kbp/s fee for bandwidth overages and you understand this fee is not refundable under any circumstance. 5. WARNING- You also understand that wusage statistics are not accurate enough for you to determine your own total bandwidth usage, as it does not include the following: e-mail transfer, httpd or ftp downloads from webpage, anonymous FTP downloads, CGI scripts, Real Audio, Real Video, Telnet, and SSH, as well as other items. 6. If you have any questions on this policy, contact us prior to signing up. 7. All customers who occur bandwidth overages will be e-mailed a receipt regarding the overages to the e-mail address provided upon sign up. 8. Client paying by credit card will be billed prior to invoice being sent. 9. Clients paying by credit card agree to accept charges for bandwidth overages. B. Background Running Programs 1. We may allow programs to run continually in the background. These are considered on a one-to-one basis and an extra charge will be incurred based on system resources used and operational maintenance needed. 2. You must notify Page Creators prior to the installation of any background running programs. The final consent and total fee must be arranged. C. New Domain Name Registration 1. The customer who registers for services is the legal owner of any domain name registered. 2. Page Creators reserves the right to seize any domain name at any time for the following reasons: a. Placing dispute with customer's credit card institution on any payment debited by Page Creators; and b. Violation of any provision of this service agreement. D. Disk Storage 1. The intention of Page Creators is to provide a large space to serve web documents, not to provide an off-site storage area for electronic files. 2. All (90%) of your web pages must be 'linked' with files (.gif, .jpeg, etc.) stored on Page Creator's server. 3. Web sites that are found to contain no html documents, or a large number of unlinked files, are subject to warning, suspension or cancellation at the sole discretion of Page Creators management. 4. Any customer who violates Page Creators' Policies in abusing disk storage will be billed $1 per 10MB in one months period. E. CGI Scripts 1. Each account comes with its own cgi-bin. You are free to use any CGI scripts you wish. 2. Page Creators reserves the right to disable and or remove any CGI script that affects normal server operation without prior warning. 3. Any CGI script owned and installed by you which has been stuck in memory by error will be charged a $100 management fee for each instance removed. VIII. Conditions A. Any provision of this contract which is broken will result in immediate account termination. B. Payment Policies 1. 30 day guarantee applies to month-to-month customers only. a. Setup fees not refundable. b. Guarantee does not apply to overages of any kind. c. Resellers do not receive a refund. 2. All accounts are set up on a pre-pay basis. a. Super, Super Plus, and E-Commerce plans have a setup fee of $25 dollars unless you are a Page Creators customer and are opening another account. b. E-Commerce Pro service plan has a setup fee of $100 dollars. c. NT Pro service plan has a setup fee of $40 dollars. 3. All pricing is guaranteed for the term of pre-payment. 4. Page Creators reserves the right to change prices at any time, unless other terms have been agreed upon in writing signed by management of Page Creators. 5. Any account not brought current within one week (7 days) of e-mail notices or exceeding this time frame in any way is subject to suspension or cancellation. 6. The customer is responsible for all money owed on the account from the time it was established to the time that the customer notified Page Creators via provision VIII, D, 1-5, to request for termination of services. 7. All payments are to be made and are charged on your credit card (if applicable) in U.S. currency. 8. Page Creators will bill each client an extra $50 for every returned check and $25 for each wire transfer received. 9. Accounts not bought up to date will be submitted to a collections agency if overages are owed. C. Cancellation 1. Page Creators reserves the right to cancel service at any time for any reason without liability. 2. Any violation of policies which results in extra costs will be billed to customer (i.e. transfer, space, etc.). This billing will be on the original credit card (if applicable) as originally submitted at time of order with the approval of you by signing this agreement. 3. All clients who wish to cancel must do so at pagecreators.net/cancel. Page Creators DOES NOT accept cancellation requests via e-mail, phone, or other method of communication. For security reasons, we require a faxed or mailed request provided by us after submitting the online cancellation form. 4. Clause VIII of this agreement shall remain in full effect even after full account cancellation has been completed and confirmed via electronic mail. 5. A fee of $200 will be applied to your account if Page Creators does not receive proper cancellation request yet you move your site to another provider. This fee is not refundable. You give Page Creators authorization to charge your credit card this amount (if applicable payment method). 6. Once an account is cancelled and customer notified by electronic mail, customer understands that all material stored including but not limited to email will be lost. Customer can not hold Page Creators liable for any lost information the customer failed to back up. V. Method of Payments A. Credit Card Payment - You understand that all account sales are final. you further understand that unfounded disputed charges will result in a $50 merchant processing fee and a $100 account research fee. B. Check Payment - Accounts are set up only upon receipt of payment and this signed agreement. Any check that is returned to Page Creators is subject to a $50 returned check fee and $25 processing fee. You understand that all account sales are final. C. Wire Payments - Any wire received from customer of Page Creators will be subject to a $25 wire processing fee. Advanced notice to sales@pagecreators.net must be received. Page Creators must pre-approve any request made. You understand that all account sales are final. VI. Prohibitions A. Server Abuse 1. Any attempt to undermine or cause harm to a server, or customer, of Page Creators is strictly prohibited. 2. Page Creators will strongly react to any use or attempted use of an Internet account or computer without the owner's authorization. Such attempts include but are not limited to "Internet scamming" (tricking other people into releasing their passwords), password robbery, security hole scanning. 3. You understand that any unauthorized use of accounts or computer, whether or not the attacked account or computer belongs to Page Creators, will result in action against the attacker. Possible action include warnings, account cancellation, and civil or criminal legal action, depending on the seriousness of the attack. B. Unsolicited E-Mail (spam) 1. Unsolicited commercial advertisements are not allowed in e-mail, and will likely result in account cancellation. Commercial advertisements are unwelcome in most Usenet discussion groups and on most e-mail mailing lists. Inappropriate postings may result in account cancellation. See the newsgroup or mailing list's charter for whether advertising is allowed or not. 2. "Spamming," or sending a message to many different off-topic newsgroups, is particularly unethical and will be treated as such. Sending a message, especially an advertisement, to more than five or six recipients, is by itself spamming unless the individuals have specifically requested to be added to a mailing list on that topic. E-Mail is a person-to-person medium, not a broadcast medium. 3. Upon even your first Spam offense your account will be terminated and a maintenance fee of $1000 will be billed to your payment method used upon sign up. This is due to the enormous amount of time it takes to serve spamming victims. If customer paid by credit card, they agree to pay this fee. C. Copywritten Files 1. Files found on Page Creator's servers which are found to be copywritten will be removed and the account cancelled immediately without prior notification to the customer. All copyright owners will be notified accordingly. 2. In addition, a management fee of $500 per copywritten file will be billed to the customer's method of payment upon sign up. If you paid by credit card you agree to accept this/these debits. 3. This includes but is not limited to, files with the extension .zip, .exe, etc. 4. Page Creators will be the sole arbiter as to what constitutes a violation of this provision. D. IRC -We currently do not allow IRC or IRC bots to be operated on our servers. If one is found to be operating, it will be removed and your account terminated without prior notice to you. E. Chat Rooms 1. Due to the large amount of bandwidth and system resources used by chat rooms, you understand that you are not allowed to install your own chat room without first approving it with the Page Creators support team. The Page Creators support team can be reached at support@pagecreators.net. 2. Parachat chat rooms are acceptable and do not apply to this rule. They may be installed without prior approval from Page Creators. 3. If you have any questions concerning whether your proposed chat room is a parachat chat room, contact Page Creators prior to installation. F. Abuse of SMTP Mail Server 1. We do not allow clients to send more than 2000 pieces of electronic mail per day. If you do send more than this amount, your account will be suspended for network abuse. 2. If you are sending legitimate electronic messages and they total more than 2000 per day your account will be moved to a special server that is specifically designed to handle high volumes of email. You will be charged $50.00 per month and a setup fee of $50.00 in addition to your regular hosting charges if your account is moved to this server. Please contact noc@pagecreators.net to have your domain moved or initially installed on this special server. The maximum allowable electronic messages per day on this special server is 20,000 at the price above. 3. You may contact Page Creator's sales department to work out a contract for additional e-mail at a price to be determined by Page Creators. VII. Lawful Purpose A. Page Creators reserves the right to refuse service to anyone. B. Customers may only use the Page Creators server for lawful purposes. C. Transmission of any material in violation with Federal, State or Local regulation is prohibited. This includes, but is not limited to, copywritten material, material legally judged to be threatening or obscene, and material protected by trade secrets. The designation of any materials as such described above is left entirely to the discretion of Page Creators management. D. Regardless of the place of signing this agreement, the client agrees, for purposes of venue, this contract was entered into Douglas County, City of Alexandria, State of Minnesota, and any dispute will be litigated or arbitrated in this jurisdiction. VII. Indemnification A. You agree to defend, indemnify, save and hold Page Creators harmless from any and all demands, liabilities, losses, costs and claims, including reasonable attorney's fees asserted against Page Creators, its agents, its customers, officers and employees, that may arise or result from any service provided or performed or agreed to be performed or any product sold by you, your agent, employee or assign. B. You agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless Page Creators against liabilities arising out of but not limited to: 1. Any injury to person or property caused by any products sold or otherwise distributed in connection with Page Creator's server; 2. Any material supplied by you infringing or allegedly infringing on the proprietary rights of a third party; 3. Copyright infringement; or 4. Any defective products sold to customer from Page Creator's server. IX. Disclaimer A. Page Creators is not responsible for any damages suffered by you or your business as a result of services we provide. B. Page Creators makes no warranties of any kind, expressed or implied, for services we provide. C. Page Creators disclaims any warranty or merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. This includes loss of data resulting from delays, non-deliveries, wrong delivery, and any and all service interruptions caused by Page Creators and its employees. D. Page Creators reserves the right to revise its policies at any time without notice. It is the customer's responsibility to monitor pagecreators.net/contract for policy changes. E. All Sub-Networks and resellers of Page Creators must adhere to the above policies. F. Failure to follow any term or condition will be grounds for immediate account deactivation without refund. ALL CUSTOMERS MUST BE AT LEAST 18 YEARS OF AGE

    --
    Trust the source!
    1. Re:Pagecreators.net's Service Agreement by Monte · · Score: 2

      2. We do not monitor traffic until you surpass the specified amount with your package at the time of purchase in one months period of time. This does not apply to provision III, A, 3.

      Um, how do you know if someone has surpassed the "specified amount" unless you measure that amount?

      This whole TOS is just whacky-screwball-zany. And I love the part about credits when people don't get 99.9% uptime... since the site is slashdotted, I guess some credits are gonna roll, huh? Lessee, 0.1% of a 31 day month would be, umm, less than 45 minutes. How long has it been down?

    2. Re:Pagecreators.net's Service Agreement by Maldivian · · Score: 1

      Oh but this would fall under scheduled maintance :)

      --
      Trust the source!
    3. Re:Pagecreators.net's Service Agreement by Robert+S+Gormley · · Score: 2
      We do not monitor traffic until you surpass the specified amount with your package at the time of purchase in one months period of time. This does not apply to provision III, A, 3.

      Which begs the question, how do they know if you've surpassed the amount allowed, if they don't start monitoring until you surpass it? A little chicken-and-egg? :-)

      --

      Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.

  28. Another thing that will never stand up in court. by wackysootroom · · Score: 3

    That's about as reasonable as a Click-Wrap license that I have recently encountered. "By opening this package you agree to be bound by the license found on the media enclosed". The license was on the CD-Rom and you have to open the package to view it. so much for freedom of speech and freedom to choose.

  29. This is potential fun... ;) by bero-rh · · Score: 4

    Slashdot admins: How much will you pay me for not doing an Anonymous Coward posting with a full review of Page Creators and dropping them a note? :> I'll probably do the same thing for any other website allowing comment posting...

    (This business idea has been patented with little trouble; as long as I use lynx (and the keyboard), I don't violate the infamous one-click patent...)

    --
    This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
    1. Re:This is potential fun... ;) by Kiwi · · Score: 3
      Bero, Amusingly enough, pagecreators.net is running RedHat:

      $ telnet pagecreators.net
      Trying 209.123.201.131...
      Connected to pagecreators.net.
      Escape character is '^]'.

      Red Hat Linux release 6.1 (Cartman)
      Kernel 2.2.12-20 on an i686
      login:

      Somewhat ironic.

      - Sam

      --

      The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.

    2. Re:This is potential fun... ;) by Drey · · Score: 1

      I think the fact that the machine's name was "cartman" speaks volumes...
      --

    3. Re:This is potential fun... ;) by Binestar · · Score: 1

      Actually... redhat's 6.1 release was called cartman. The computer name isn't listed there until you login.

      --
      Do you Gentoo!?
    4. Re:This is potential fun... ;) by sjmurdoch · · Score: 1

      Cartman is the codename for the version of Redhat (perhaps RH 6.0, maybe 6.1) not the name of the machine. Anyway you shouldn't give away the version of the OS then you make it easier for script kiddies to download the right scripts, or for hackers to know which vulnerabilities to exploit.

      --
      Steven Murdoch.

      --
      Steven Murdoch.
      web: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/sjm217/
    5. Re:This is potential fun... ;) by eudas · · Score: 1

      i thought "cartman" was the name of that version of RH linux.

      eudas

      --
      Blessed is he who expects the worst, for he shall not be disappointed.
    6. Re:This is potential fun... ;) by Phroggy · · Score: 2
      Slashdot's position is that they are not responsible for your post, and they do not exercise editorial control over any posts. Andover has lawyers. They stood up to Microsoft, they can stand up to an 18-yr-old. :-)

      Good idea, though. ;-)

      --

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    7. Re:This is potential fun... ;) by Phroggy · · Score: 1
      No you shouldn't, but then, the people who would consider the security ramifications of that sort of thing usually run better distributions...

      --

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    8. Re:This is potential fun... ;) by sjmurdoch · · Score: 1
      To be fair to Redhat, it can be a good, secure server if properly set up, but probably the first step in doing so is to disable telnet.

      Has anyone tried logging in as 'guest' with no password. I wouldn't put it past them :-)

      --
      Steven Murdoch.

      --
      Steven Murdoch.
      web: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/sjm217/
    9. Re:This is potential fun... ;) by phutureboy · · Score: 1

      No you shouldn't, but then, the people who would consider the security ramifications of that sort of thing usually run better distributions...

      Or at the very least don't enable telnet...

      --

    10. Re:This is potential fun... ;) by Fishstick · · Score: 3

      >you shouldn't give away the version of the OS then you make it easier for script kiddies...

      Someone pointed out that all of the machines in the domain appear to be running default-install 6.1 release with all the default services enabled.

      This has to scream 'crack me!' If he doesn't bother turning off telnet or at least customizing the welcome message, there's little doubt he has kept up with security patches.

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    11. Re:This is potential fun... ;) by Drey · · Score: 1

      Ah, my bad. I'm of the SuSE persuasion myself.
      --

    12. Re:This is potential fun... ;) by jellicle · · Score: 1

      Go for it. VA Linux has a couple of under-employed lawyers for just such contingencies.

      Really, don't sweat it. The guy's obviously a low-grade scammer. He's only dangerous if he has your credit card number, other than that, he isn't going to make trouble for anyone.

  30. Re:Slashdotters should take responsibility by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
    its getting harder and harder to pick out the 70% insightful comments because of the surrounding 30% of spammers, trolls, zealots, right-wing lunatics, etc.

    Hey, don't forget us left-wing lunatics too. B-)

    Anyway, Slashdot provides a means to help you do just that: set your threshold higher.

    Perhaps Andover should investigate mandatory registration for slashdot posters.
    Set your threshold to "1" and you won't see AC posts (except those very few that get modded up).

    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  31. Uhhh ... by Vassily+Overveight · · Score: 2
    I'm sorry, but they are a commercial company and they have the right to put these terms in their contract. In fact, guess what! They already have. So QED on that one, I'm afraid.

    Sure, you can put any nonsensical thing you want into a contract. It doesn't mean that such terms are enforceable. I could insert terms into a contract that give me the right to administer a severe beating to any signing party who pisses me off, but guess what would happen if I demanded a court enforce that? I'd like to see this company just try to get one of their $50,000 judgements for the simple act of posting a review on the net. The velocity with which it was tossed out of court would create quite the breeze.

    --

    "If I have seen further than other men, it is by stepping on their glasses." - Michael Swaine

    1. Re:Uhhh ... by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 2
      It may be unenforceable, but -- given that you've "agreed to the terms", it essentially puts you on the defensive, instead of them. If you go to court, the initial question is probably going to be "you agreed to it, so why should we ignore it", rather than "Are they trying to fleece you?".

      All of a sudden a probable slam-dunk becomes quite non-trivial.

      IANAL -- but I like pissing them off.
      `ø,,ø!

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    2. Re:Uhhh ... by Ronin+X · · Score: 1
      Oh! Well in that case the terms of readership (posted immediately below) may be of interest to you.

      Terms of readership: Any party choosing to read the above informative and insightful* comment will be charged a fee for such life-enriching knowledge of USD $50. Having read the comment, the reader MUST PAY the $50. If after having read and paid, the reader deems that said comment is not worth $50, he/she may file a Claim for Refund. Such claims will require a $30 processing fee and up to 6 (six) months to complete.

      Please remit payment to:
      Insightful Slashdot Comments
      2400 Boston St.
      Baltimore, MD 21204

      * Moderators moderating this post as informative or insightful can arrange to have their readership fee waived by filing a $30 processing fee.

      --
      Ok my karma is maxed out. When do I become Enlightened?
    3. Re:Uhhh ... by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 2
      Coming under the terms of the pagecreators conditions would have required someone to wilfully engage the company in a support contract in the face of their "unreasonable terms". This is a bit different than accidently reading your request, or even the infamous shrink-wrapped post-purchase bring back the package and just try and get a refund after you've opened the box contracts. It gives these people a bit more of a defence, should you take them to court. In other words, a judge is far less likely to give you summary (quick) judgement. The fact that you might succeed after a long, drawn out battle is pretty much irrelevant.

      One of the tactics of a good scammer is to muddy the waters enough that a legal attack would get mired down in the details. (This would include things like making your teenaged son the front man for the operation. [anybody have any details on the parents??]). It raises the cost of the battle beyond the probable returns -- this would prevent an actual pursuit by anybody who's not more interested in revenge than getting his/her money back (happily, there appear to be a couple of victims like that in this case).
      `ø,,ø!

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    4. Re:Uhhh ... by Vassily+Overveight · · Score: 1
      One of the tactics of a good scammer is to muddy the waters enough that a legal attack would get mired down in the details.

      The terms of the 'contract' provide that the scammer can demand $50k. For them to get it, they'd have to come after you, which means you're the defendant. The battle would cost them a great deal, and the outcome would be uncertain at best. It would have to be an act of revenge more than an attempt to collect actual damages, and I'm pretty confident that a judge would toss it on first amendment grounds anyway.

      --

      "If I have seen further than other men, it is by stepping on their glasses." - Michael Swaine

  32. From the Wired article posted above.. by X-Dopple · · Score: 1

    In June, Gochenaur says he received a cryptic "invoice" from Kruchten saying he was being charged $1,000 for .8 Kbps in bandwidth overuse. He disputed the charge with his credit card company and cancelled his card.

    ----

    WOW, this kid must be getting rich. $1000 for .8 Kbps bandwidth overuse? I'm surprised that the cops aren't busting down this kid's door for credit card fraud.

    1. Re:From the Wired article posted above.. by travisg · · Score: 1

      Actually it wasn't even 'overusage' I was to get 25 gigs a month, never even used a full gig of bandwidth...E-mail sent to me is exactly as follows 'came about an hour after I demanded a refund for a previous overcharge Page Creators did to my account' Quote: CGI new.cgi redirection service: Sustained .8Kbps sustained, CPU usage consistant 2%. Total charges debited to your account $1000 USD.

  33. Route questions to ... by Vassily+Overveight · · Score: 1
    From the site: Page Creators has ceased to operate. Route questions to pcoffice@pagecreators.net.

    I suggest that we all take them up on their admonition to route questions to that email address. In fact, I have, oh, a couple of hundred questions that I'd like answered. I've always wanted to know the capital of North Dakota for example.

    --

    "If I have seen further than other men, it is by stepping on their glasses." - Michael Swaine

    1. Re:Route questions to ... by TWTCommish · · Score: 1

      Bismark. You didn't know that? ;) You're right: I'm *THIS* close to setting up a simple PHP script to email the little punk a few hundred times...that'll show him.

      --
      Is this thing on?
  34. Slashdot better watch out by AintTooProudToBeg · · Score: 1

    Don't want to be slapped with a $50,000 charge for this story which could be interpreted as a negative review!

    1. Re:Slashdot better watch out by Robert+S+Gormley · · Score: 1

      Unless slashdot is hosted there, and agreed to the TOS, they don't exactly have anything to worry about :)

      --

      Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.

  35. Re:Interesting.... by ShinGouki · · Score: 2

    it hasn't ceased operations, that "error" message is actually his page.

    other sites on the same machine are operating perfectly (try woodyrussell.com)


    -dk

    --
    -dk
    Dream with the feathers of angels stuffed beneath your head.
  36. $1 per every hour that has 30kb/s peak usage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    hmmmm, what if some university student w/access to an oc3 decided to look at every pagecreaters.com website? in 15 seconds? 24 times a day? i bet the teenager used a local university line and just accessed the pages from the schools fat pipe across town to his server.

  37. Re:Slashdotters should take responsibility by re-geeked · · Score: 1

    "Hey, don't forget us left-wing lunatics too."

    He was correctly assuming that we're part of the 70% insightful :-)

    --
    "You can't get something for nothing." - my grandfather, on the stock market and Reaganomics.
  38. Re:Interesting.... by Zecho · · Score: 1

    Counter on that page read 728 when i got to it.. let's see what it looks like in five or ten minutes

  39. Oooo, very cute by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 3
    II d: Essentially, they make all this fuss about 99.9 uptime guarantee and credits for you if they fail to do that, and then it says right there in plain language, "Credits shall not be provided to you in the event that you have any outage resulting from the following: 1. Scheduled maintenance..."

    So their doing of scheduled maintenance makes you not qualify for credit :) tres cute :)

    1. Re:Oooo, very cute by Jeff+Mahoney · · Score: 3
      Personally, I like this phrase: 2. Your behavior or the performance or failure of your equipment, facilities or applications;

      So, if you piss them off (like keep calling for tech support, as mentioned in one of the complaints), they can just shut off your service, and it doesn't get covered by the 99.9% agreement.

      Cute.

      -Jeff

    2. Re:Oooo, very cute by $FFh · · Score: 1

      So, how long will it be until they have to credit everyone's accound because of the /. affect?

    3. Re:Oooo, very cute by whoop · · Score: 1

      Bah, uptimes with any service like this are basically translated to, "If we're down, there's a 99.9% chance it's not our fault so you can't use it against us."

      More noteworthy, especially concerning issues of domain ownership on Slashdot over the years, is the new domain registration section:


      C. New Domain Name Registration

      1. The customer who registers for services is the legal owner of any domain name registered.

      2. Page Creators reserves the right to seize any domain name at any time for the following reasons:

      a. Placing dispute with customer's credit card institution on any payment debited by Page Creators; and

      b. Violation of any provision of this service agreement.


      Heh, so cross them in any way and your domain is theirs.

  40. $1/kb/sec.... NOT $1/kb... big diff! by John_Booty · · Score: 2
    Note he is charging $1/kb, and NOT $1/kB... bits versus bytes

    No. He's charging $1/b/sec, NOT $1/kb. Big difference! :)

    From their TOS, cached on Google:
    3. In the event you consume more than 30kbp/s of sustained peak traffic within any 24 hour period of time, for any month, a fee of $1 per 1kbp/s will be billed to your account via the payment method used upon sign up.

    http://www.bootyproject.org
    --

    OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
    1. Re:$1/kb/sec.... NOT $1/kb... big diff! by John_Booty · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you meant $1/Kb/sec, not $1/b/sec.
      LOL. Yes. :-)


      http://www.bootyproject.org
      --

      OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
  41. hmm by Scoria · · Score: 1

    It looks like you guys hurt their feelings. :P Their website now says they have shut down.

    --
    Do you like German cars?
    1. Re:hmm by Scoria · · Score: 1

      err.. oops.. I didn't notice it had already been posted... Sorry.

      --
      Do you like German cars?
  42. Suspiciously in the TOS by KPU · · Score: 2

    From section III of the TOS: "5. WARNING- You also understand that wusage statistics are not accurate enough for you to determine your own total bandwidth usage, as it does not include the following: e-mail transfer, httpd or ftp downloads from webpage, anonymous FTP downloads, CGI scripts, Real Audio, Real Video, Telnet, and SSH, as well as other items." Check the spelling of usage. Notice how this protects the charges. I've never seen Telnet or SSH take up more than 1 kbps, unless port forwarding is on. Anyhow, how do they calculate bandwith usage? Do they use usage statistics?

    1. Re:Suspiciously in the TOS by schon · · Score: 1

      Check the spelling of usage.

      I did - he spells it the same way you do..

      total bandwidth usage

      Unless you mean how he spells wusage, which is the name of a web log analyzer/grapher (and is also spelled correctly, although not capitalized.)

  43. Re:Slashdotters should take responsibility by vaginux · · Score: 2

    There are bigger fish for Taco to fry...

    for instance, the so called 'slashdot effect' is dangerously similar to the DDOS attacks of recent occurance. Couple this with the large number of "dot comms" that are imploding left and right, and considering the notion that during this startup lifecycle phase many of these companies fall into the hands of the mean green litigating machine that the money and lawyers are eager for, it is a wonder that we don't pick up more lawsuits over toppling these medium sized servers.

    This story is a perfect example, a foul EULA, obviously crafted by an aggressive attourney, their hatred of negative press and a slashdotting of their service, it seems obvious that trouble is near. One quick glance at the referer data will make it all so clear even to the simplest fool: slashdot causes server outages when they post a story. Couple this with the editorial shortcommings and faulty reporting standards so prevelent on slashdot, and the case of negligence that could ensue would be entirely reasonable. WATCH OUT TACO, THEY ARE COMING TO GET YOU.

    :::

    --

    :::
    Vaginux.
    "eat me".
  44. Fraud detector (patent applied for) by pongo000 · · Score: 4
    [//c](04:11pm)%cat tos.html | tr -sc a-zA-Z0-9\$ '\n' | sed -n -e 's/\(\$[0-9]\)/<BR>&/p'
    $1
    $1
    $1
    $100
    $25
    $100
    $40
    $50
    $25
    $200
    $50
    $100
    $50
    $25
    $25
    $1000
    $500
    $50
    $50
    1. Re:Fraud detector (patent applied for) by rjamestaylor · · Score: 1

      Heh. Cute. And, true.

      --
      -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
    2. Re:Fraud detector (patent applied for) by pongo000 · · Score: 1
      For the purists out there, [0-9] should be modified thusly:

      [0-9]+

      Seems as if the lame excuse for cut and paste functionality under a DOS window running cygwin bash failed to copy it correctly.

      Believe me, I didn't search and copy for the numbers manually...

  45. New web host for Mass. software firm... by tenzig_112 · · Score: 1
    You wonder if it was just one outage too many...

    "I'm sorry, it seems that someone who shares the mySQL server with you sent a bad query that brought down the whole thing."

    [sound effects of various guns cocking] "Okay. Well, let me know as soon as we're back up. We have a business to run, you know."

    Frank's Pagan Holiday

    is the site still up?

  46. this kid is living....... by canning · · Score: 2

    the American dream. I mean he's making alot of money, has no boss. There is the issue about breaking the law but that's just a minor detail. After all, the law is a grey area anyway.

    --
    I love the smell of Karma in the morning
  47. I almost forgot... by Scoria · · Score: 2

    (Sorry for all the posts, seriously) I wonder what the bill would be if the site was slashdotted...

    --
    Do you like German cars?
  48. MPAA, RIAA Claim Credit for Pagecreators Contract by Saint+Aardvark · · Score: 5
    NEW YORK (AP) - The Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America held a joint news conference today to announce that, as "proof of concept," they had drafted the Terms of Service contract for Pagecreators.net.

    The TOS agreement, which forbids any criticism of the webhosting company, was hailed by Jack Valenti as "a sterling example of the bold future available to all content providers."

    "It was a long shot actually," said Valenti. "We were getting pretty pissed off about all the flak we were getting about DeCSS- and Napster-related lawsuits, and so we were just blue-skying one day about what to do. The idea came up, and since everyone was coked up at the time we just went with it, you know? We found a pissant little webhosting service, offered the contract, and waited to see how far it would go."

    "We had no idea it would be so successful," he added. "But we're definitely happy it did."

    A spokesman for the two agencies would not speculate further on where the agreement might be used next. When asked just how far punishment for criticism would go, he replied cryptically, "Just watch us."

    Free Software Foundation programmer and founder Richard M. Stallman could not be reached for comment. Said a source close to him, "He's desperately grepping all the click-wrap agreements on his hard drive."

  49. hahahah by Jae · · Score: 2

    this is too damn funny. i used to work for the company that hosted (sorry, not gonna mention this b/c i know they read this site) this box. (they offered co-lo services as well as web hosting services, and this was a co-lo box.)

    this guy was a fucking idiot! he had no place in at all running a linux box, let alone a web hosting business. i can't begin to even recall how many countless hours i spent fixing his scripts, programs, etc etc b/c he was too dumb to figure it out and i was "required to" by my job. (i fucking hated that w/ a passion - i can't stand it when i have to clean up other ppl's fuck-ups).

    i'm surprised that it actually took this long for this to come up. i remember getting phone calls from his customers where i worked complaining about his service and the fact that he was never there.

    ahh - if only this had happenned to the company i worked for. they are as big a set of idiots (well, most - i don't want to lump everyone into that category) as this guy is.

    --
    -Jae
  50. /.'d by ServZero · · Score: 1

    Good for slash dot I'm tired of having half the web companies run by 12 year olds who think they should be able to scam every last person out of every last dime they have. Now if we could only get rid of those "get paid to surf" companies where 98.34% have no intention of paying there users.

  51. Contracts and government by the+red+pen · · Score: 2
    • ...I do not want to see issues such as this decided by the government. I would like to see these issues decided by the common sense of the masses.
    This is a great idea!

    Unfortunately, we need a way to distill and enforce this common sense. Sure, "market forces" seem like a tempting answer, but market forces only reflect the common sense of the market, not the commoen sense of the masses. As others have pointed out, a killer-for-hire service may be supported by the marketplace, but is obviously against the "common sense of the masses."

    Maybe we could elect representatives who would be answerable to various segments of the population. These representatives could be granted enforcement powers -- powers they hold only as long as they stay in office, something they can only do by faithfully representing the "will" of their segment.

    We could call it "Democracy."

    Actually, on second thought, it wouldn't work. It would require the constant participation of the population, obviously too much to ask. Instead, the "masses" will call for some kind of new system that promotes their interests but doesn't require any effort from them whatsoever. They'll get what they deserve, at that point.

  52. The kid is editing as we read... by DC2001 · · Score: 2

    A few minutes ago I saw the note to contact pcoffice@... etc... Upon reloading it to show a co-worker, the page is now gone. Luckily, that email address is still here on /. so I can still get my questions answered!

    --
    ** http://www.stinkingloser.com **
    1. Re:The kid is editing as we read... by Phaser777 · · Score: 1

      We probably slashdotted his email server... Hehehe. He deserves it.

  53. index.html has now been changed to a . by jesseraf · · Score: 1

    I wonder if that is a reference to /. Cheers

  54. Have you ever printed a Software License? by Mtgman · · Score: 2

    The things are huge. If a consumer picked up a copy of a software license at their local Best Buy and read it before they bought it, no one would ever buy software. Now we can simply click right through those annoying legal things and play our games. It's one of the worst things happening in computing today and I hope it's legality is finally decided on. I'm pretty sure how it will turn out.

    Steven

    --
    -- I have marked myself unwilling to moderate-- I don't have other accounts to artificially inflate the karma of
  55. Credit cards are the key to scams ... by NoCreditCards · · Score: 5

    Has anybody noticed how credit cards lend themselves so easily to all kinds of monkey business?

    Whenever you give your credit card number, you're handing over your wallet and telling the merchant to go ahead and serve himself. Although the credit card companies pretend that they regulate the merchants making charges, the scope for monkey business is astronomous.

    The most dangerous merchants are, surprisingly, the bigger ones, like telephone companies and other utilities, and these are pushing for everybody to use credit cards.

    I'm trying, however, to stop using credit cards altogether.

    Since I live in Europe, and I'm quite lucky that most European consumers (and most smaller merchants too, because all transactions are registered, and handed down to the tax authorities) share this deep resentment for credit cards with me.

    The more people use credit cards, the more I will be forced to use a credit cards. In the end, I'm not even going to be able to get a phone service, unless "I hand over my wallet".

    Therefore, I would like to urge everybody to refrain from using credit cards as much as you can.

    1. Re:Credit cards are the key to scams ... by The+Welcome+Rain · · Score: 2

      It wasn't so long ago that Slashdot had an article on one-time credit cards. I don't know if this is the best answer to the problem of fraudulent use or overcharging, but it is one solution.

      --

      --
      Some keywords for the NSA in the Lord of the Rings universe: One Ring bind find Sauron quest Nazgul freedom
    2. Re:Credit cards are the key to scams ... by Mr2001 · · Score: 1
      Nonsense. The only thing safer than paying by credit card is paying with cash.

      If you pay with a check or debit card, the money goes straight out of your account into the merchant's pocket. Want to dispute the charge? Talk to your bank and see if you can convince them to a) give you a credit, and b) investigate the claim on their own to try to get their money back.

      Every time you write a check, you're giving someone all the information they need to draft more checks on your account. At work we take orders with 'check by phone' all the time, with no signature required.

      But when you use your credit card, not only are you protected by law from fraudulent charges, but the credit card company is happy to cancel charges - it means less money they have to pay out.

      ]$`};L(;/proc);[I(;];<C{;};1S[;`\/while=1E1L[`\p roc{>=

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    3. Re:Credit cards are the key to scams ... by the+red+pen · · Score: 2
      • "Check by phone"? What sort of crap is that? I'm glad there is no such thing in my country!
      I'm sure they'll have it in your country, too, as soon as they have phones.
  56. Poor wee thing by Zemran · · Score: 1

    The web site is now completely blank. Those nasty /.ers have obviously started to flood his mail account out of existance as well. Poor wee chap was simply trying to follow in Bill Gates footsteps and he gets picked on by those horrid chaps that are equally as nasty to dear Bill.

    Shame on you...

    --
    I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
  57. Running redhat 6.1... by Drakantus · · Score: 2

    telnet pagecreators.net

    Red Hat Linux release 6.1 (Cartman)
    Kernel 2.2.12-20 on an i686
    login:

    Not that it means anything. Just something I noticed while trying to find anything except the ceased to operate notice.

    --
    I love going down to the elementary school, watching all the kids jump and shout, but they dont know I'm using blanks.
  58. learn, learn, learn! by segmond · · Score: 5

    what to learn from this is never to use your CC for business on the internet. Yes, call me paranoid, what I did instead was open a checking account and got one of those bank cards that can be used as a CC, anytime I want to do a business on the internet, I just deposit an amount, and do it, if anyone ever tries to commit fraud with my card, the will at most get away with $100...

    --
    ------ Curiosity killed the cat. {satisfaction brought it back | it didn't die ignorant | lack of it is killing mankind
    1. Re:learn, learn, learn! by NineNine · · Score: 2

      A. That's complicated and a pain in the ass. B. You're not liable for credit card fraud. It's a US Law. C. You ARE liable for fraud when you use your bank card. D. Whenever you use a bank card, you lose interest because your money is deducted from checking instantly.

      Bank cards are BAD ideas. They were introduced so that banks didn't have to be liable, and so that they could get their hands on your money instantly, without letting you learn the 1 months' interest.

    2. Re:learn, learn, learn! by JasonCarlSmith · · Score: 2

      For the folks in the US (and probably elsewhere) federal law protects consumers from fraudulent credit card transactions as long as the customer notifies the credit card issuer within a reasonable period of time (don't remember the exact details). Now that wouldn't necessarily work in this case.

      While the idea of a dedicated debit card account isn't bad (to be convenient you would have to have some kind of automatic transfer set up if you will be getting recurring charges), it is generally a spectacularly bad idea to use a normal (your main) debit card account. Fraud on a credit card is a hassle but you aren't out any cash immediately. Fraud on a debit card is a nightmare until the bank decides to credit it back. Same goes for ACH transactions.

      JCS

    3. Re:learn, learn, learn! by Gill+Bates · · Score: 2

      My VISA provider recently began offering a 'one-time-use' CC#. I haven't used it yet, but it works by going to their web site, getting an authorized number and then using that number for your online purchase. It's only good for one use and posts to your normal CC bill at the end of the month. Seems like the way to go, if you're paranoid about such things.

    4. Re:learn, learn, learn! by shyster · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, a lot of banks will go ahead and "loan" you the money to cover an otherwise bounced transaction, and every bank that I know of will charge you bounced fees (btw $25-$30) for everything that comes in and doesn't get paid. This would include fraudulent charges, since they don't know if the charges are legit or not. Of course, you get the added benefit of their bank charging them, as well. If you then have another checking or savings account with the same bank, they can hold or use that money to bring your internet only bank account out of negative balance.

    5. Re:learn, learn, learn! by shyster · · Score: 1
      Except for the fact that a lot of banks take it upon themselves to "loan" you the money (if it's a somewhat trivial amount, say a $125 charge on your account that has $100 in it), charge you the bounced check fee of $25-$35, then continue to bounce checks against your account as more (perhaps fraudulent, but the bank doesn't know this) charges roll in, racking up even more NSF fees. Now, the crook has got his cash, and you're out the original cash, plus your NSF fees. Even if you're bank bounces the first charge, you'll still be hit by the NSF fee(s).

      And, if you've got a checking/savings account at the same institution, they can pull the money from that account to bring your "Internet-only" checking account out of negative balance. Which, of course, cause your legitamate checks to bounce off your regular account. Which, of course, causes more NSF fees, not to mention the bounced-check charge whoever you wrote the check to is going to charge you. And, don't forget the late-payment fee as well, since your bank took it's sweet-ass time (7-10 days is common) notifying you things are going to shit. And let's hope that these fees aren't tacked onto a credit card that's already precariously close to it's credit limit, cause then you've got an overlimit fee as well.

      Sure, if it's a "legitamate" "mistake", instead of fraud, you can get the money credited back to your account from the original charge. But, you're going to be SOL on those NSF fees.

      A friend of mine had an account with AOL (don't ask me why, it's not important to the story). AOL decided one day to charge him BY THE MINUTE, instead of his usual $19.99/unlimited plan. When you sign up for AOL, they want a Credit Card # to automatically bill you. He used his Visa Check Card. They charged him for something like $250.00. He had it in his account, and the charge went through. Of course, that money was already earmarked for other checks that he had written but that were currently in the float. The bank processed his checks (as they are wont to do) from highest dollar amount down. This caused almost all of his checks to bounce (since they process the check for $4.95 last, the NSF fees up to that point have caused his account balance to drop below $4.95, earning them yet another NSF fee), earning him a negative balance. Him, still oblivious, thinks he has plenty of cash in his account. He goes to the ATM, withdraws $20. ATM gives it to him, no complaint. His bank charges another NSF fee. In the next few days, a few of the checks are repushed thru. They bounce again, more NSF fees. A week later, notices start rolling in. The creditors who received the bounced checks start to tack on their bounced check fees. He finally gets wind of the situation, sorts it all out, and gets on the phone. AOL apologizes, agrees to refund his $230...the next billing cycle. Bank refuses to refund ANY NSF fees. And of course, other creditors refuse to refund anything as well. Bottom line, I think it cost him > $500 to claw his way out of that mess.

      The solution? PRE-AUTHORIZED charges. Meaning, in order for you to get money out of my account or credit card, I must first place a call authorizing you to get xx.xx amount of dollars on December xx, 2000 payable to xxxx Company, Inc. If it's not pre-authorized, it's summarily refused. Recurring monthly charges are authorized for $xx.xx on the xx day of each month to xxxx Company. If you don't pick it up then, you don't get it. Call me and we'll arrange something.

  59. How by Negadecimal · · Score: 1
    This guy is charging based on the rate of data transfer (i.e. kilobit/second). There are two ways to sample and charge for bandwidth use: instantaneously (the area under a time vs. rate curve -- or total data over the number of seconds in a billing period), or incrementally (testing once every minute or so and charging for each rate over the limit).

    It sounds like this guy is using incremental charges for people to be racking up these charges. That would mean that customers get penalized for downloading the same data in less time (i.e. better client connections)...

    But how often would he have to sample the rates? Would you be charged for every minute you're over the bandwidth limit? He either has to make that clear in the "contract" or his methods won't hold up in court. And if he's using instanteous charges after all (as every other ISP does), a judge can demand his logs...something that would definitely favor the customers.

  60. This is meaningless! by LoRyder · · Score: 2

    This entire contract is meaningless.

    Section 1 and the uptime guarantee can be thrown out entirely. 99.9% over what period of time?? Generally, Uptime guarantees are yearly, but this must be stated. And then further reading provides that he is not responsable if A) There is Scheduled Maint. B) The downtime is due to a "Third-Party Hardware or Software" problem. OS crash?? Not our problem. Blown power supply?? We can't be held responsable. Heck, he's not even on the hook to refund your money if they cut his power off for non-payment.

    He does not define the parties involved. "You" as it is used denotes noone. And "We"?? No corporate name that you are entering an agreement with??

    • (Police: Did you get the name of the mugger?
    • Victim: Yes, his name was "me".
    • Police: "Me"??
    • Victim: That must be his name, he said "Give "me" all your money!"
    3. Credits will be applied within ten (10) days of your credit request. As a courtesy to our month-to-month customers, an in-house credit to your account shall be your sole and exclusive remedy in the event of an outage.

    The above section states that if you are MtM, and your site is down for an entire month (for resons not shot down earlier) you will recieve a credit fo the next month of crappy service only. No refund check would ever be cut. This is courtesy.

    Anyone who signed this deserves to lose their second car.....

    Hmmmmm..... Maybe I should get into web hosting.....

    ~Hammy

    --
    ----- "A people that would sacrifice rights and freedom for a bit of safety deserve neither freedom nor safety."
    1. Re:This is meaningless! by fishbowl · · Score: 2

      >Anyone who signed this deserves to lose their >second car.....

      Did anyone ever, in fact, "sign" this contract?

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  61. Larry Ellison by sjmurdoch · · Score: 1
    Larry Ellison would be proud.
    What did Larry Ellison do, have I missed something?

    --
    Steven Murdoch.
    --
    Steven Murdoch.
    web: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/sjm217/
    1. Re:Larry Ellison by baywulf · · Score: 1

      "Larry Ellison would be proud.

      What did Larry Ellison do, have I missed something?"

      For one thing, Oracle charges for their software based on the total Mhz of your processors. For example, if you had a database server with 2 500 Mhz processors, you would be charged 2*500*C (where C is some $/Mhz value.)

  62. Has any lawyer ever done this before? by Pollux · · Score: 5

    Check this out from the TOS:

    IX. Disclaimer

    D. Page Creators reserves the right to revise its policies at any time without notice. It is the customer's responsibility to monitor pagecreators.net/contract for policy changes.


    Excuse me? It's my responsibility to monitor changes in a contract? BZZZZ! Wrong. You sign and agree to a contract, that's legit. But to create a clause that says NOT ONLY that the contract can be modified without notice BUT ALSO that one must adhere to the contract reguardless of whether or not the participant/s agreed to it without proper closure is not legal BY ANY MEANS.

    One signs the TOS agreement. Legal. TOS agreement modified. Legal. Direct or written notification of change in TOS. Legal. (Why do you think banks, insurance agencies, credit card companies, and all other businesses write letters to you giving "Notification" over some business transaction?) If participant is not happy with TOS modification, the service can be terminated. Legal. But to modify a TOS without express notification to participants is not.

    No doubt this is a scam.

  63. ATTENTION MODERATORS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Moderate the above jerk down to (-1, Troll) immediately or I will subpoena Slashdot for a list of all Slashdot users with moderation points .. and I'll sue each of you for $50,000!

    -- The Owner Of PageCreators.Net

    1. Re:ATTENTION MODERATORS by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 2

      I would have moderated the post(item 172) up as funny (people need to read it). Unfortunately, my moderation points evaporated over the Christmas holidays.
      `ø,,ø!

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
  64. Page Creators really did go after critics! by Lumpish+Scholar · · Score: 2

    The original critical Web page hosted by Mindspring pointed to another page on AdWanted, which shut down the review on threat of lawsuit (but at least pointed to the current location on Geocities).

    --
    Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
  65. The second rule of Page Creators... by toneduff · · Score: 3

    This guy not only is a scam artist but is also clueless when it comes to running a server. All of the servers listed in the domain of pagecreators.net has telnet access open. Here's the telnet banner: Red Hat Linux release 6.1 (Cartman) Kernel 2.2.12-20 on an i686 login: Looks like he's running a standard redhat install with the standard services running. I'm suprised someone hasn't compromised his setup yet.

    1. Re:The second rule of Page Creators... by happystink · · Score: 1
      pretty unbelievable that noone has broken in yet, yeah. I mean, with master hackers like you who can grab a login prompt and paste it into slashdot, my god, he's lucky his car even still works. What's next, posting his whois info in a display of master hax0ry?

      sig:

      --

      sig:
      See the "..for smart people" banners Wired runs here? Look elsewhere guys.

  66. pagecreators.net been hacked? by wamckee · · Score: 1

    There home page consists of a "." character. That's it... me thinks they been hacked.

    1. Re:pagecreators.net been hacked? by angry_clown_penis · · Score: 1

      If you're going to hack his page at least make it say "/."

    2. Re:pagecreators.net been hacked? by mikemsd · · Score: 1

      Lol, I guess someone took your suggestion. Look at the page now =)

  67. If you move out we'll slam you with another bill by Aquafina · · Score: 4

    From their TOS:

    5. A fee of $200 will be applied to your account if Page Creators does not receive proper cancellation request yet you move your site to another provider. This fee is not refundable. You give Page Creators authorization to charge your credit card this amount (if applicable payment method).

    HAHA that's the funniest piece of crap I've seen in a long time. Not even aitcom nor 9netave can beat that!

  68. curiouser and Curiouser by Sir_Dill · · Score: 1

    Did a little digging on pagecreators.net...
    a whois on them produces the following:
    Registrant:
    Page Creators (PAGECREATORS3-DOM)
    1213 Lark Street
    Alexandria, MN 56308
    US

    Domain Name: PAGECREATORS.NET

    Administrative Contact:
    ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT (AD9930-ORG) ADMIN@PAGECREATORS.NET
    PAGE CREATORS
    1213 LARK STREET
    ALEXANDRIA , MN 56308
    US
    888-960-1387 Fax- 320-762-9060
    Technical Contact:
    NETWORK OPERATIONS CENTER (NO1334-ORG) NOC@PAGECREATORS.NET
    PAGE CREATORS
    1213 LARK STREET
    ALEXANDRIA , MN 56308
    US
    888-382-4994 Fax- 320-762-9060
    Billing Contact:
    BILLING DEPARTMENT (BD2588-ORG) BILLING@PAGECREATORS.NET
    PAGE CREATORS
    1213 LARK STREET
    ALEXANDRIA , MN 56308
    US
    888-960-1387 Fax- 320-762-9060

    Record last updated on 03-Nov-1999.
    Record expires on 06-Feb-2001.
    Record created on 06-Feb-1999.
    Database last updated on 27-Dec-2000 05:02:56 EST.

    Domain servers in listed order:

    NS1.PAGECREATORS.NET 209.123.201.128
    NS2.PAGECREATORS.NET 209.123.201.130

    When I look closer at the DNS servers....I get this curious information:

    Net Access Corporation (NETBLK-NAC-NETBLK02)
    110 South Jefferson Road
    Newton, NJ 07860

    Netname: NAC-NETBLK02
    Netblock: 209.123.0.0 - 209.123.255.255
    Maintainer: NAC

    Coordinator:
    Pavely, Ryan (RP2938-ARIN) abuse@nac.net
    800-net-me36 (FAX) 973-590-5080 (FAX) 201-983-0453

    Domain System inverse mapping provided by:

    NS1.NAC.NET 207.99.0.1
    NS2.NAC.NET 207.99.0.2
    NS5.NAC.NET 207.99.5.190

    I am not that familiar with DNS practices out there in the real world but IMHO it appears that they don't even host thier own website and that Net Access Corporation may be the ones supplying this little twirp with bandwidth and DNS. Perhaps one of the more savvy slashdotters out there could clear this up for me and others watching...

  69. *** Where he lives *** by 109+97+116+116 · · Score: 3
    I just drove through here 18 hours ago...

    His fax number listed on whois.net reverse lookup is registered to:

    Rose Johnson

    105 Linden Ave

    Alexandria, MN 56308

    Phone: 320-762-9060

  70. Slashdot's "Terms of Existence" revealed... by GeneralEmergency · · Score: 1

    SLASHDOT.ORG TERMS OF EXISTENCE (TOE)

    As a web netizen, you agree not to engage in any of the following activities:

    1. Being an obnoxious Dick, Jerk, Wank, Weasel or other odeous creature engaging in human, elder, animal, bandwidth or customer abuse.

    FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THESE TERMS WILL RESULT IN REPEATED SLASHDOTTINGS UNTIL YOU CAN NO LONGER AFFORD THE BANDWIDTH.

    You have been warned.


    "A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --

    --
    "A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
    GeneralEmergency
  71. Re:I worked at a place like that... by cymen · · Score: 1
    Warning: Failed opening '/var/www/www.adv-computer.com/modules/module.list .php' for inclusion (include_path='/var/www/adv-computer.com/include:. ') in /var/www/adv-computer.com/include/module.php on line 6 Warning: Cannot add header information - headers already sent by (output started at /var/www/adv-computer.com/include/module.php:6) in /var/www/adv-computer.com/include/shared.php on line 66

    That's great!

  72. burlee.com has something very similar by heff · · Score: 1

    burlee.com is even worse, if you read the fine print on their unlimited space and transfer plan you really end up getting only about 14 megs and 3 gigs of bandwith. They scammed me with this (250 for one month of hosting) and many others (at least 3 that I know of) for over $1,000 each for one month of hosting. They try to redefine the term unlimited and are a major scam.

    --

    --

    |-_-| . o O ( bEef!)

  73. This is typical by mentin · · Score: 1

    This is a typical licence agreement. Similar terms can be found for example in Oracle (and MS) SQL licence - you are forbidden to post any benchmarks or comparisons or product reviews without approval from appropriate company.

    --
    MSDOS: 20+ years without remote hole in the default install
  74. it would be funny except it doesn't make sense... by dynamo_mikey · · Score: 2
    You don't get it, the bit about not posting a review of Page Creators is in the terms of service (TOS), and since slashdot has not agreed to the TOS, it doesn't have to abide by them. The folks who agreed to them are the people who paid $15 bucks a month or whatever to have their web page hosted. Catch my drift, snowflake?

    dynamo

  75. Re:Another thing that will never stand up in court by vees · · Score: 3

    so much for freedom of speech and freedom to choose.

    Such as the freedom not to buy it in the first place? (checks) No, you've still got that. Vote with your wallet.

    --

  76. Wait A Sec... by vergil · · Score: 2
    Scanned through the above TOS, and I don't see any clause purporting to restrict negative reviews. Is it possible that the above TOS, and the TOS that spawned this /. article are different?

    I wouldn't be surprised, esp. since it appears that pagecreators fails to date their EULAs, and feels that is the user's responsibility to look for changed contractual provisions.

    If anyone has the full text of the pagecreators EULA that contains the clause attempting to constrain negative reviews, please post it or email it to me. I'm collecting egregious EULAs/ TOS's for a page on UCITA.

    Thanks.
    Sincerely, Vergil
    Vergil Bushnell

  77. Re:Slashdotters should take responsibility by blazer1024 · · Score: 1

    But part of being insightful is understanding multiple perspectives. If you lean to much much to either direction, your vision can become clouded. I prefer those who are centered and balanced.

    After all, if you have but one wing, you cannot fly

    But really, I enjoy watching and getting into debates with either side. People fascinate me.

    On the other hand, TOS contracts bug me. (My random attempt at keeping this post on the story topic? :)

  78. quite professional by MarNuke · · Score: 1
    From the wierd story:
    "The company's website looks quite professional."

    hmm.. ok..
    tip tap... www ...tappy tip... pagecreators ...click tip tap... .net... ENTER!
    .
    WHAT IN GOD CREATION IS THIS CRAP!!!!?!!
    --
    MarNuke
    1. Re:quite professional by Evaner · · Score: 1

      It's a dot. A professional dot.
      ----

      --
      Toora Loora Toora Loo Rye Aye
  79. No signature? No problem.... by angry_clown_penis · · Score: 1

    I don't hesitate at all to use credit cards over the 'net. Reason being that any charge without a signature on file can be disputed. I once had a problem with a hotel room upon arrival and decided not to stay. They previously had my credit card number from when I made my reservation over the 'net. The bill came, I got charged and I called Visa. My only question to the credit card company was "Can you produce my signature?" No signature, no problem (at least for me), no charge.

  80. Re:MOD that up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Hahaha. You're such a pathetic fuck that your gf left you, and the best revenge you can come up with is to ftp to his web site?

    Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

  81. Copyrighted? by sharkey · · Score: 1

    It appears that their Error Documents are copyrighted, as they have been pulled as well. This is their Monthly Special page: https://ssl.pagecreators.net/pagecreators.net/secu re/openaccount/standard/special.shtml

    Monthly Special, heh. I've heard it called Aunt Flo, the Monthly Visitor and the Cardinal, but that's a new one on me. Sounds like a sale on tampons.

    --

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  82. abuse@nac.net by vovin · · Score: 1

    Sometimes you have to go to the up stream provider to have satisfaction.

    Net Access Corporation (NETBLK-NAC-NETBLK02)
    110 South Jefferson Road
    Newton, NJ 07860

    Netname: NAC-NETBLK02
    Netblock: 209.123.0.0 - 209.123.255.255

    Maintainer: NAC

    Coordinator:
    Pavely, Ryan (RP2938-ARIN) abuse@nac.net
    800-net-me36 (FAX) 973-590-5080 (FAX) 201-983-0453

    Domain System inverse mapping provided by:

    NS1.NAC.NET 207.99.0.1
    NS2.NAC.NET 207.99.0.2
    NS5.NAC.NET 207.99.5.190

    ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK ARE NON-PORTABLE

    * Reassignment information for this block
    * available at whois.nac.net

    Record last updated on 10-Sep-1999.
    Database last updated on 27-Dec-2000 06:32:21 EDT.Registrant:
    Page Creators (PAGECREATORS3-DOM)
    1213 Lark Street
    Alexandria, MN 56308
    US

    Domain Name: PAGECREATORS.NET

    Administrative Contact:
    ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT (AD9930-ORG) ADMIN@PAGECREATORS.NET
    PAGE CREATORS
    1213 LARK STREET
    ALEXANDRIA , MN 56308
    US
    888-960-1387 Fax- 320-762-9060
    Technical Contact:
    NETWORK OPERATIONS CENTER (NO1334-ORG) NOC@PAGECREATORS.NET
    PAGE CREATORS
    1213 LARK STREET
    ALEXANDRIA , MN 56308
    US
    888-382-4994 Fax- 320-762-9060
    Billing Contact:
    BILLING DEPARTMENT (BD2588-ORG) BILLING@PAGECREATORS.NET
    PAGE CREATORS
    1213 LARK STREET
    ALEXANDRIA , MN 56308
    US
    888-960-1387 Fax- 320-762-9060

    Record last updated on 03-Nov-1999.
    Record expires on 06-Feb-2001.
    Record created on 06-Feb-1999.
    Database last updated on 27-Dec-2000 18:23:10 EST.

    Domain servers in listed order:

    NS1.PAGECREATORS.NET 209.123.201.128
    NS2.PAGECREATORS.NET 209.123.201.130

  83. Yeah, but... by thex23 · · Score: 1
    I kinda think that if anybody was out of line and tried to shut down Slashdot, there would be some mysterious and completely untraceable attacks launched on the parties involved.

    Then there would be a "it's not our fault, we don't condone, we implore the parties responsible, blah blah blah" statement from Slashdot.

    But by that point, people might start to get the point that you can't stop a determined and capable population of geeks with threats of litigation. At some point, lawyers will be pissing themselves at the thought of incurring the Wrath of A Thousand Cruel and Faceless SysAdmins.

    Forget Fight Club. Terrorism doesn't require explosives. Just maniacs with a common goal.

  84. Interblaze = pagecreators ? by Choron · · Score: 1
    Apparently, their "lawyer", or the kid that pretends to be so, succesfully threatened a few review sites, such as the one on hostglobalhost.com.

    Some reviews are hopefully still alive, and well, here are a few I found (courtesy of Google):

    - hostsearch.com
    - wuli.com
    - And on the Worst hosts list, it's on the top !

    Also, take a look at this site : interblaze.com, and look at the contact address : (support@pagecreators.net), and the cancel URL (http://www.pagecreators.net/cancel). Better stay away from interblaze too !!

    Here's their DNS records :
    Registrant:
    INTERBLAZE ENTEEERTAINMENT (INTERBLAZE3-DOM)
    740 BLUE MOUNTAIN ST
    COQUITLAM, BC V3J4S4
    CA

    Domain Name: INTERBLAZE.COM

    Administrative Contact, Billing Contact:
    MCLELLAND, GAVIN (GMD98)
    INTERBLAZE@HOME.COM
    INTERBLAZE ENTEEERTAINMENT
    740 BLUE MOUNTAIN ST
    COQUITLAM BC, V3J4S4
    CA
    604-9373162
    Technical Contact:
    Network Operations Center (NO326-ORG)
    noc@PROPAGATION.NET
    Propagation Networks
    1851 Central Drive Suite 110
    Bedford, TX 76021
    US
    800-605-5438 Fax- 888-242-7554

    --
    "Naughty, naughty, naughty, you filthy old soomka !"
  85. They were not /.-ed by Drone-X · · Score: 1

    I read all these claims here that they got /.-ed.

    This is just more proof that most slashdotters can't read as their homepage obviously says . and not /.

    *sigh*

  86. Good reason not to have automatic charging. by Restil · · Score: 2

    The same goes with automatic bank drafts. For those that were being charged exorbant amounts, you never really know what you're paying for sometimes. At least when what you're purchasing is a one time purchase, if they continue charging you afterwards, its most definitely theft. But when they're allowed to charge you monthly, and there's some fine print buried in a contract somewhere that lets them get away with murder by charging you excessively every month, you will have to go to a lot of trouble to recover the funds.

    If you're going to pay recurring charges, pay them monthly by check or money order or pay a year in advance if its cheaper or more convienent. But don't supply your credit card for automatic debits, and DEFINITELY don't do it with your bank account. Even if the company you're dealing with is honest, that doesnt' mean they can't make mistakes.

    -Restil

    --
    Play with my webcams and lights here
  87. Cute... by Sc00ter · · Score: 4
    I just got this back from sales...

    ------------------

    Sure you are.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Travis Roy
    To:
    Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 4:40 PM
    Subject: Terms of service request

    Can you please send me a copy of your terms of service. I'm looking for a web provider.
    --

  88. Why is this Offtopic ? by Flabdabb+Hubbard · · Score: 1

    Crack headed moderation rears its head once again.

  89. Site down, so CALL HIM!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5

    The owner of Page Creators' name is Bryan Kruchten. His company, according to the Minnesota Better Business Bureau, does nothing but scam the hell out of its clients. It's interesting to see that he hasn't been shut down yet.

    Since his page is somehow down now and it seems that he doesn't answer email, I looked him up. If you're as angry as I am, send him a note, or give him a call. He's listed under his parent's number (he's only 18)

    Kruchten Paul & Debbie... (320) 762-0538
    1213 Lark St Alexandria MN 56308


    Be nice though.

  90. no, it wasn't. by MoldyZero · · Score: 1
    wasn't "hacked" (you sound like an AOL user)
    and it wasn't cracked either.
    looks like the site shut down because of some serious heat they are getting into.

    ----------------
    I am Moldy.

    1. Re:no, it wasn't. by BluSkreen · · Score: 1

      If one were to want to do this, one would either turn off Apache, flush the router, or otherwise deny access to the network or server. The usual ports are still open (no firewall or secure shell, huh kid?), 21, 23 25 and 80, all still up and accepting connections.

      Server is still running, it's just a page with single dot. Every request returns the dot. Would have been easier to turn off Apache, or take that domain from httpd.conf.

      Chances are pretty good, he got defaced though I think that anyone defacing it would have left a bolder message, or more likely, he's got no clue how to on how to be a pro sysadmin.

      Dave

  91. Re:My summary of Slashdot by Flabdabb+Hubbard · · Score: 1
    I've spent two years reading slashdot, now,

    Is that elapsed time, or did you take a break to go to the bathroom ?

  92. That could be very dangerous. by TheFlu · · Score: 5
    As another poster mentioned, I believe you would be much worse off using the bank card method, because of liability issues. With a credit card, it's pretty easy to protect yourself from fraud. If your card gets stolen or used improperly, all you are liable for is $50.00 maximum usually. However, with a bank card, there are more stipulations to the $50.00 limit, so if you were charged $7000 and you only had $100 in the bank, this could possibly put a serious hurting on your credit rating. I've enclosed some relevant laws I found on this site.

    • The Equal Credit Opportunity Act says that you can limit your risk when your credit card is lost or stolen and that you can correct errors without damaging you credit rating.
    • The Fair Credit Reporting Act sets the procedure in clearing and correcting the errors on your credit record.
    • The Fair Credit Billing Act sets up the procedures for creditors to promptly correct the billing mistakes. It allows you to withhold payments on defective purchases and limits the risk of your lost or stolen credit cards. The law defines a billing error as any charge: -- for something you didn't buy or for a purchase made by someone not authorized to use your account; -- that is not properly identified on your bill or is for an amount different from the actual purchase price or was entered on a date different from the purchase date?
    • Truth In Lending limits your liability in Lost or Stolen Credit Cards. You do not have to pay for any unauthorized charges made after you notify the card company of loss or theft of your card. So keep a list of your credit card numbers and notify card issuers immediately if your card is lost or stolen. The most you will have to pay for unauthorized charges is $50 on each card.
    • The Electronic Fund Transfer Act provides protection for ATM, debit or check cards. Your liability for an unauthorized withdrawal can vary: -- Your loss is limited to $50 if you notify the financial institution within two business days after learning of loss or theft of your card or code. -- But, you could lose as much as $500 if you do not tell the card issuer within two business days after learning of the loss or theft. -- If you do not report an unauthorized transfer that appears on your statement within 60 days after the statement is mailed to you, you risk unlimited loss on transfers made after the 60-day period. That means you could lose all the money in your account plus your maximum overdraft line of credit. (Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 1993)

    Penguins with perfect credit ratings. The Linux Pimp

    1. Re:That could be very dangerous. by Suppafly · · Score: 1

      However, with a bank card, there are more stipulations to the $50.00 limit, so if you were charged $7000 and you only had $100 in the bank, this could possibly put a serious hurting on your credit rating No, if you got charged $7000 with a bankcard and all you had was $100 in the back the person trying to charge you would get a transaction denied message much like if you try and charged over your credit limit.. bank cards wont let you charge more that what you have in there.. thats why I use mine instead of checks.. the bank will happily try to cash a check over and over if you don't have any money and then charge you each time they try and cash it and can't.. with a bank card if the money isnt there it says so and you have to pay some other way or not pay.

    2. Re:That could be very dangerous. by SeanNi · · Score: 1

      Not always. I thuink it may depend on the bank. I know this because I got stung. My card was used illegitimately to purchase about $500 more than I had in my account (perhaps because I had been using it for online purchases; I don't know where they got the number). Result? My balance went about negative $500. I tried to call the bank and sort it out, when I found out (about a month later), but they had already closed my account due to this, and wouldn't reverse everything. So I had no more account and my credit rating took a big hit.

      Unfortunately, I didn't have much recourse due to the fact that I am in Canada, and my account is (er, was) with Bank of America (making it easier to do US transactions). The laws are horrendous for dealing with trans-border finances like that, and it was easier (and probably cheaper) to just swallow the loss and kill my BA account. Now I just have my Canadian VISA account for doing anything online, which I have learned has much better protection.

      --
      It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
      - Sean

      --
      It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
      - Sean
  93. It's like 8:15 EST--- by ellem · · Score: 1

    This guy still has telnet open.

    Shouldn't someone help this guy out?

    --
    This .sig is fake but accurate.
  94. All hosting vendors do this. by SPYvSPY · · Score: 1

    Qwest, Global Crossing, UUNet, Digex...all of them.

    1. Re:All hosting vendors do this. by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 2
      Yes, it's perfectly sensible to say it doesn't apply if you CLAIM outage which is actually scheduled maintenance.

      That's not what this says. This says if you HAVE any outage you get no credit. I'd be inclined to take it literally: words like 'any' are peculiarly potent things in a contract. I read this as saying, if there is ever scheduled maintenance you're out of luck: you have outage as a result of scheduled maintenance, hence you get no credit.

      Granted, there are much better reasons to slam this loony scam artist kid, but perverse contractual terms are sort of a hobby of mine and I love the twists in logic that you find :)

  95. kbp/s by Tilps · · Score: 1

    hmmm let me see

    kilbits per per second ... per inverts the following so ... thats kilobit-seconds...

    hmmm how to measure this ...
    since its over any given 24 hour period, I guess we start our graph (to maximise scam value) of kilobits (total) vs time whenever we get a hit. The area on this graph will be the kilobit-seconds. For simplicity assume this is the only hit in 24 hours, and that the hit downloads a measly 10kb, now kilobit-seconds for the 24 hour period are... 10*60*60*24 or 864100

    Now under the TOS you are over the 30 kbp/s limit... and are up for... close to a million dollars in charges...

    Lucky this guy doesnt really understand his own scam. :P

    --
    Sigs are for wimps. I am proud to be one.
  96. Re:Privacy and Hypocrisy by BluSkreen · · Score: 1

    The kid is a thief and a liar......he deserves whatever he gets.

    Dave

  97. Get em back - really /. them. by Xerithane · · Score: 2
    while ( lynx -dump http://pagecreators.net ) do
    echo "."
    sleep 1
    done

    He still will have to pay for his bandwidth too.

    --
    Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
  98. Ahem... RURAL MINNESOTA!?!?!? by tomcrooze · · Score: 1
    This boy lives in "rural Minnesota", for crying out loud. According to Wired, he's been running his "business" from his parents' home. His parents' home? Jesus...

    "You will not find a better price for the features anywhere -- we guarantee it or we will give you one full year of hosting completely free! We have never given out one free year. Think you've found a better deal? Send us an email."

    I wonder why he hasn't given out one free year, probably because the customers were so fed up in the beginning that they got smart and left.

  99. What a coincidence! First hand with pagecreators by cr@ckwhore · · Score: 1

    This is very bizarre... I just ditched a domain I had hosted with pagecreators, but found myself having to be very careful because of silly clauses like the one that states a penalty will be charged if I change my DNS records on my domain! Theres another clause that states pagecreators can change the agreement at any time! Since that itself is in the agreement, it can be compared to shooting yourself in the foot.

    I had to jump through hoops to cancel my account... including signing papers and faxing documents, etc... all this in fear thay they might nail me with one of their silly large $$ charges.

    A little research turns up the real deal about pagecreators. It's ran by a kid, that only recently turned 18, who is more of a scam artist than businesman. Its too bad because a lot of people are getting hurt by this guy. This guy even has a hard core lawyer at the age of 18... barraged by lawsuits.

    --
    Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
  100. terms of service... by crashnbur · · Score: 1

    I think I speak for a fairly large portion of the /. population when I ask, "Who really reads those things anyway?" I guess this is evidence that perhaps we should at least skim through... Maybe. Sometimes. Or just doin't use Page Creators' service...

  101. Looks like he Jumped to a new site by Tadghe · · Score: 1

    Check this:

    http://www.interblaze.com

    Guess who is the support for this site?
    support@pagecreators.net

    Guess where the cancellation policy for this site is at? yup pagecreators.net/cancel

    now take a look at the whois....strange...

    --
    Bugs Bunny was right.
    1. Re:Looks like he Jumped to a new site by rick446 · · Score: 1

      At a site mentioned in the Wired article, I found the link to Trinity Host website. Looks like another incarnation of PageCreators. They even suggest you "contact" them (with a non-working link) for questions about PageCreators.

      --
      http://pythonisito.blogspot.com/
  102. 1-888-960-1837 *ring* -- Sorry... by Evaner · · Score: 1

    ...the number you have reached is not in service. Please check the number and dial again. This is a recording. *beep* *beep* *beep* *beep* *beep* (ad nausem) ...then again, it could be because I'm in Canada, but it's still funny.
    ----

    --
    Toora Loora Toora Loo Rye Aye
  103. sorry by Lord+Omlette · · Score: 1

    to be the ignorant one here, but can someone explain what this code does? it's modded funny, and i hate it when i don't get the joke =(
    --
    Peace,
    Lord Omlette
    ICQ# 77863057

    --
    [o]_O
    1. Re:sorry by FooBarson · · Score: 1

      Ahem.... (reading from the corrected version)

      % cat tos.html | tr -sc a-zA-Z0-9\$ '\n' | \

      translate any characters other than "a-z" (case-insensitive), "0-9", and "$" to newlines -- I.e., split everything up onto its own line.

      sed -n -e 's/\(\$[0-9]+\)/<BR>&/p'

      Then "grep" for dollar amounts, outputting them with HTML <br>'s so that they can easily be pasted into the /. form.

      Fraud detector (patent applied for)

      The joke is that there are a lot of dollar amounts mentioned in the TOS, which makes it sound a little fraudish. He wrote a shell pipeline to automatically extract dollar amounts from a document, which will give an indication of how much the author is interested in money.

      FWIW, this could also be expressed as:

      perl -ne 'print "\n<br>$1" while /(\$\d+)/g' tos.html

      Which does the same thing but without the extra steps.

      - Dr. Foo Barson, professional joke explainer/ruiner.

  104. MSN, Yahoo - All have the same TOS change policy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3

    If this term is a scam then most internet companies use the same scam of assigning you the responsibility of checking for modifications to the agreement and that your continued use is your consent to the changes.

    I've included excerpts from yahoo and msn but you can find the others by clicking on the TOS link that are at the bottom of most major internet sites

    MSN:

    MODIFICATION OF THESE TERMS OF USE
    Microsoft reserves the right to change the terms, conditions, and notices under which the MSN Sites/Services are offered, including but not limited to the charges associated with the use of the MSN Sites/Services. You are responsible for regularly reviewing these terms and conditions and additional terms posted on particular websites. Your continued use of the MSN Sites/Services constitutes your agreement to all such terms, conditions, and notices.
    Yahoo:
    1. ACCEPTANCE OF TERMS
    Welcome to Yahoo!. Yahoo provides its service to you, subject to the following Terms of Service ("TOS"), which may be updated by us from time to time without notice to you.

    ...

    21. NOTICE
    Notices to you may be made via either email or regular mail. The Service may also provide notices of changes to the TOS or other matters by displaying notices or links to notices to you generally on the Service.
  105. Call me mad ... by zxSpectrum · · Score: 3

    ... but I found this part of their contract as a rather good contract clause:

    3. Upon even your first Spam offense your account will be terminated and a maintenance fee of $1000 will be billed to your payment method used upon sign up.

    If just every company could have that kind of spam policy, I would feel rather happy

  106. Any of their sites still up? by mgoyer · · Score: 1

    Are any of the sites hosted by Page Creators still functioning? Matt.

  107. What I think should happen by cecil36 · · Score: 1

    I think that the lawyer who wrote the TOS should find an unusual way to either kill himself or remove himself from the gene pool. That way, we can honor him with a Darwin Award.

  108. I got screwed by them by tuck167 · · Score: 1

    Yeah i paid a huge amount for nothing... I didn't file a complaint... I think more people should do business like me with crappy companies.. Because well i can't find anything to do with all my money so running into a stupid overcharging company every once in a while does good for me...

    --
    Sorry i can't spell i'm only 10...
  109. ^^^ Please MOD THIS UP (should have myself) ^^^ by TomatoMan · · Score: 1

    This is really amazing: the MSN terms of use do say this. Too bad I spent my mod points modding down some idiot troll in another thread.

    MSN says they can change their policies any time they want without notifying you, and that your continued use of the system constitutes your agreement to be bound by their changes whether or not you're aware of them. This insanity has got to stop. Boycotting the gazoonga-services like Amazon and MSN and whoever else is trying to pull this shit is such a pain in the ass, but it looks like we really have to.

    I continue to be amazed that "agreements" like this can be legally binding at all. Has anyone tried to contest something like this? Is it enforceable? Most federal judges won't enforce non-competition clauses in the tech industry (so an older /. story went) because they're absurd; these "agreements" strike me as way beyond absurd.


    TomatoMan
    --
    -- http://frobnosticate.com
  110. Re:Slashdotters should take responsibility by CommieOverlord · · Score: 1

    Hey, don't forget us left-wing lunatics too. B-)

    There's no such thing as left-wing lunatics. Anyone who disagrees with us is just simply insane.

  111. Complete access to his web tree by jachim69 · · Score: 1
    check out https://ssl.pagecreators.net/pagecreators.net/BACK UP_AS_OF_122700
    Looks like he backed everything up before he made the "." changes.

  112. He is 18 by linuxluser · · Score: 1

    According to the Wired article, he's 18.

  113. Re:Slashdotters should take responsibility by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1

    This story is a great example of a foul EULA, but it is obviously not written by a lawyer.

    --
    Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
  114. Backup Was Made by canowhoopass.com · · Score: 1

    It would appear pagecreators.net made one last backup before bowing down for the mighty /.

    http://www.pagecreators.net/secure/BACKUP_AS_OF_12 2700/

    Among the files is a small core dump and a very interesting automated cancellation email which starts off with the following:

    --------------------

    We have received your notice to CANCEL your account with Page Creators.

    Thank you for your business!

    Please print this. You must submit this form to cancel your account. If we do not receive this form via fax or US Mail, you will continue to be billed and you will be responsible for the charges. We will not cancel your account and release your domain if your account has an unpaid balance or billing in dispute.

    --------------------

    Great! Even after acknowledging you want to quit, they will still continue charging you until you send written notice. I am sure they weren't so picky when people wanted to join.

    -
    Rod!

    1. Re:Backup Was Made by canowhoopass.com · · Score: 2

      Doh... the address didn't translate so well. Try heading here.

      http://www.pagecreators.net/secure/

      --
      Rod!

  115. The clause about "background scripts" was stolen by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 2

    The clause about scripts running in the background was stolen from another web-hosting company - WestHost. It's not just similar - it's identical letter for letter!

    From the WestHost TOS:
    (http://www.westhost.com/policy.html)
    "We may allow programs to run continually in the background. These are considered on a one-to-one basis and an extra charge will be incurred based on system resources used and operational maintenance needed."

    From the Page Creators TOS:
    (Google cached version)
    "We may allow programs to run continually in the background. These are considered on a one-to-one basis and an extra charge will be incurred based on system resources used and operational maintenance needed."

  116. Has ./ been served? by 'jeffers' · · Score: 1

    Have you yet recieved a lawsuit from lawyers, for running this story? it it a negative story? hah

    --
    Jeff Eidsness Site Manager - http://thatcalendarplace.com
  117. They're kids for crying out loud by CBravo · · Score: 1

    You are not getting it. They are talking about themselves, the five year old kiddies... Not about the website. They are nearly six though :-)

    --
    nosig today
  118. New policy by SnapperHead · · Score: 1
    If you respond back with bad comments on any of my posts. I will fine you $5,000. If you moderate this or any of my posts down, that will be a fine of $10,000. If you don't moderate this or any of my posts up, thats a fine of $20,000.


    until (succeed) try { again(); }

    --
    until (succeed) try { again(); }
  119. .xxx by mrBlond · · Score: 1

    I remember reading a free hosts' rules a couple of months ago - it went something like this:

    "The following are not allowed:
    5) No pornography"
    --
    mrBlond

    --
    CowboyNeal for president!
    "Hit any user to continue."
  120. Holy COW!!!! (And a fun story.) by syncsync · · Score: 1

    This is a DIRECT quote from their Terms of Service:

    "III.A.3 In the event you consume more than 30kbp/s of sustained peak traffic within any 24 hour period of time ... a fee of $1 dollar per 1kbp/s will be billed to your account."

    Story Time! Gather round, Kids!

    One day you find a picture of some guy opening his mail and screaming in horror. Ha ha! That's a funny picture. You get out Gimp and make his eye bulge out a little more. Ha ha! Now it's really funny!

    Looks like a good day to put up a web site, so you buy an unlimited account for $40. Thanks, Page Creators, that's quite a bargain!

    You don't have time to write any content, so you just put your funny picture of the man opening his bills and screaming there for now, and you go to have a beer and some pizza with a friend.

    While you're away, you tell your friend about your funny picture. He dials up with his 28.8 modem and looks at it. Ha ha! That person opening his bills and screaming in horror is pretty funny! Luckily, his 28.8 modem doesn't exceed Page Creators generous bandwidth peak bandwidth limit. He sends his friend a link to your funny pictures and you go back to building him a couch using empty beer bottles and a hot glue gun.

    Meanwhile his friend, who has a good 56k modem, looks at your funny picture. Ha ha! That picture sure is funny! Oopsie, but now our peak bandwidth is OVER the generous limit set by Page Creators, and they are forced to bill you $26. He emails a friend about your funny picture.

    His friend has 750k DSL and she surfs through once. Poor Page Creators is forced to bill you $720 for the month. She sends an email to a friend.

    Oh, no! Her friend is a bored person whose business has a T1 and they're looking at the picture on your website!! This is gonna run you $1,410 this month. Her friend sends a link to a friend.

    You're still emptying beer bottles so they can be added to the couch, so you don't know that her friend is also at work, but HIS company has a T3! This costs you $44,970. It's OK, you can still sell a kidney and come out of this a few bucks ahead...

    ...but OH NO!! The friend has a friend who works at MCI and has a PC sitting on the same OC3 as your web provider! HE looks at the picture the instant before you're able to remove all the files from your site! Damn you, section III.A.3! You've just been nailed for $154,970!

    Your site becomes wildly popular. You put a UGO banner over the funny picture of someone opening their bills and screaming, and it makes you $5000 a month due to all the hits. This amounts to about 3% of your web hosting bill.

    You sell your house, your car, a kidney, a lung, both of your children, and everything you own, but you still come up short a few months down the road. You are tracked down by Page Creators' goons and killed horribly.

    The end.

  121. Conditions added after sale by yerricde · · Score: 1

    Such as the freedom not to buy it in the first place?

    Does not apply. The return policy does not allow "unbuying" what has already been bought without prior knowledge of the terms.


    Tetris on drugs, NES music, and GNOME vs. KDE Bingo.
    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  122. Re:Slashdotters should take responsibility by quantum+bit · · Score: 1

    Hmm, not quite... Remember the recent poll asking about browsers? And a lot of slashdotters were using Internet Explorer...? Well, IE5 and higher doesn't send the referer field if it's from a different domain. So they'll have no idea where it came from...

  123. Re:Another thing that will never stand up in court by shyster · · Score: 1
    How many people actually take the time to read through TOS/Click-thru/Shrink-wrapped licenses? It doesn't do most people any good, anyway, as most have been crafted by a lawyer skilled in legalese. Unless you have a lawyer attached to you to translate this crap to you, then, yeah, you've got a chance of being screwed!

    We just all hope that by only doing business with "reputable" companies, it won't be us. But, was anybody else surprised about the Yahoo! and MSN TOS? Modifiable at any time, with no notice?!? WTF?

    I think the real issue is that companies are allowed to come up with these things in the first place. I think all TOS/agreements/contracts/etc. should have to be provided in plain English that the common, reasonable man can understand without having a damn dictionary and logic book by his side. And, if said agreement goes over 1/4 of a page for something that should be relatively simple (like a web-hosting contract) then ther should be a summary page.

    Let's face it, we're all being fleeced (yes, even /. geeks like us fail to read and comprehend TOS's at some point, I'm sure), it's just a matter of what company is going to take advantage of it. I'm pretty sure MSN and Yahoo! aren't going to start charging $10/page view, but they sure as hell seem to be able to! (For registered members, at least)

  124. They're back! by hyperizer · · Score: 1

    According to Web Hosting Monitor, Page Creators has reincarnated as Trinity Host. So post a new article CmdrTaco and we'll Slashdot them again...

  125. Hey kids! by Sc00ter · · Score: 1

    https://ssl.pagecreators.net/pagecreators.net/BACK UP_AS_OF_122700/secure/output.html
    --

  126. Amen to that... by Interrobang · · Score: 1

    I noticed this problem too, most recently when I tried to get an ISP here in Toronto *without* a credit card. I can't imagine what kind of a market it is where businesses can actually say NO to potential customers who want to give them cash in hand...and yet, I kept hearing, "We don't accept payment except by credit card," and I kept saying, "I don't have a credit card. Can I just come to your office and give you cash up front?"

    I finally found an ISP that would let me pay cash. They got bought out, and now the new provider is losing 1/2 my e-mail messages, and I can't log on from home for shxt.

    Any suggestions, Slashdots & Slashdaughters?

    1. Re:Amen to that... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      >> I can't imagine what kind of a market it is
      >> where businesses can actually say NO to
      >> potential customers who want to give them cash
      >> in hand...

      Never tried to rent a car, have you? You CANNOT
      rent a car for cash...

      Chris Mattern

  127. PageCreators back in Business by Akunin · · Score: 1

    Looks as if he may be starting up again, under a new name:

    http://www.trinityhost.com/

    Note that nearly all of the links are disabled at this time.

    A-

    1. Re:PageCreators back in Business by Miguelito · · Score: 2

      Damn.. how sad, he even forgot to edit all the html on his main page.

      The bottom paragraph of the trinityhost.com page is :
      We have been around since February of 1995, our track record is proven. We're committed to customer service. You are going to get the best available; we guarantee it! We take care of our clients...PERIOD. Questions about Page Creators? ASK US !

      And the ASK US is a link to itself.... LAME. He might've been using loopholes and getting cash in a way that seemed smart, but he's obviously not the brightest guy out there.

      I could've done better using vi and doing a :%s/Page Creators/Trintyhost/g

      --
      - My favorite error message: xscreensaver, running on an old Sparc 5 w/ 8bit color: bsod: Couldn't allocate color Blue
    2. Re:PageCreators back in Business by gcochran · · Score: 1

      Actually, just do a view source in your browser and search for pagecreators.net. It appears all over the place. This is for sure the new name for what used to be pagecreators.net!

  128. Freedom of speech by BlueHexahedron · · Score: 1

    Surely this is unconstitutional? Denying freedom of speech and all that? But conversely, they could also claim that any negative comments about their company would be defamatory. Where does one draw the line?

    1. Re:Freedom of speech by BluSkreen · · Score: 1

      Got nothin' to do with the US Consititution, or the Bill of Rights, for that matter.

      Those are to protect citizens from the government, not each other.

      Dave

    2. Re:Freedom of speech by BlueHexahedron · · Score: 1

      Understood, thanks for setting me straight. So now there's no hope. I am giving up with computers, and I am going into the litigation business.

      We are proud to say that we don't innovate, we just steal everyone's ideas, AFTER making sure we have good lawyers.

  129. Reviews by dtobias · · Score: 1

    One place for any disgruntled PageCreators customers to go violate their terms of service and face a lawsuit is Epinions; they have a section for reviewing them at: http://dtobias.epinions.com/inet-Web_Hosting-All-P age_Creators

    One bad review is up there already. Though, other review sites have actually yanked their entire sections about this provider in response to threats of suits by Page Creators' lawyers. Spineless bastards...


    --Dan
    --
    --Dan
    Web Tips
  130. Ceased to operate, but has moved by dswensen · · Score: 1
    According to this site, http://www.geocities.com/hostingmonitor/:

    "Attention: Page Creators, INC ceased to operate, and has been moved to Trinity Host LLC since December 27, 2000. However, a back-up version of Page Creators Site can be found at http://www.pagecreators.net/secure/BACKUP_AS_OF_12 2700/"

    http://www.trinityhost.com/

    "Trinity Host, LLC? This site looks remarkably similar to the famous Page Creators, INC, even the Customer Raves are similar (at least one of them is the same, the author can only remember one because the same customer has joined to the authors' victims list) and both companies share the same toll-free number 1-877-336-4472 (Of course, nobody answers this phone). The author was told that PageCreators' clients now belong to this company (LLC, Page Creators probably needs this). The hosting package is also very similar. It is too early to draw any conclusion yet because this site is not even complete, but we are going to watch this company."

    Maybe this one should get /.ed too. heh.

    1. Re:Ceased to operate, but has moved by verbatim · · Score: 1

      What gets me is this claim:

      We have been around since February of 1995, our track record is proven.

      Now there are 2 problems with this statement:

      The results of your whois search are as follows:

      - Whois Information for trinityhost.com :
      Internet Domain Registrars WHOIS Server v.1.3

      Registrant:
      Trinity Host, LLC
      3010 Hennepin Avenue, S.
      Minneapolis, MN 55408
      US
      (PH) 320-762-9134

      Domain Name: TRINITYHOST.COM

      Administrative Contact:
      Host, LLC, Trinity (TRHO16)
      admin@trinityhost.com
      3010 Hennepin Ave. S. Suite 609
      Minneapolis, MN 55408
      US
      (PH) 320-762-9134

      Technical Contact:
      (same as admin)


      Billing Contact:
      (same as admin)

      Registration Date: 09-Sep-2000 02:43:57
      Expiration Date: 09-Sep-2002 02:43:57

      The other problem I have is that the site is not navigatable - you can't DO anything but call them. Something tells me that if they have been around since 1995, they'd have a bit of a better website.

      And take a look at this:

      That's right, sign up before DECEMBER 1st and get 50% OFF , on the first and on all your future months

      He didn't even REGISTER the domain name before december 1st. Besides, 50% of $6,000 is still $3,000... too rich for my blood ;-).

      verbatim

      --
      Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
    2. Re:Ceased to operate, but has moved by fendel · · Score: 1
      Just FYI... that 320 area code is not the area code for Minneapolis; if that office really were on Hennepin Avenue it'd be 612.

      It's the area code for Alexandria, MN.

      Not like we really needed MORE evidence, but what the heck, I live in Minneapolis.

  131. Parents responsible? by big_cat79 · · Score: 1

    I've been wondering. Aren't parents responsible for what there children do when they are under 18? I know if a 16 year old is in a car accident and is sued, the parents are on the hook for the money. Does this mean that the parents will be responsible for the fraud before he turned 18 (if he has been running the site that long?) Did they even know he was doing this scamming?
    BigCat79

    --

    BigCat79

    "The dead have risen and are voting Republican!" --Bart Simpson
  132. The power of the /. effect by attercoppe · · Score: 1

    Yes, it does; or rather, I have very recently thought about something similar: see my article about this. I have submitted it as well, so mayhaps we'll see it on the front page soon!

    --
    Hardware Geeks Do It With The Covers Off!
  133. This is too funny by Scoria · · Score: 1

    Direct quote from TrinityHost.com:

    "You will not find a better price for the features anywhere we guarantee it or we will give you one full year of hosting completely free! We have never given out one free year. Think you've found a better deal? Send us an email consumers@trinityhost.com" Uh oh, looks like someone needs to proofread. ;)

    --
    Do you like German cars?
    1. Re:This is too funny by Scoria · · Score: 1

      Oops, I misread it, and I posted it, so I'll respond with another witty comment so this has a little value (I apologize): That one free year of hosting isn't much of a value after you're billed $50,000 on your VISA.

      --
      Do you like German cars?
  134. Re:WARNING: PAGECREATORS.NET NOW A GOATSE.CX REDIR by nutsy · · Score: 1

    If it was that at any time, it certainly isn't now. I just checked and the front page is just a single period.

    Mind you, that doesn't mean it won't be changed again...

  135. Rent a car?! I laugh in your general direction... by Interrobang · · Score: 1

    No, I never have. What would I need a car for? I don't drive & have no license, and live in a city with some of the best public transit in North America!

    Interrobang, better late than never.

  136. Re:WARNING: PAGECREATORS.NET NOW A GOATSE.CX REDIR by Grahf666 · · Score: 1

    A single period? I see "/." Which, incidentally, is what has been happening to him. Of course, I bet the site is hosted on cable, so I'm not surprised. ;)

  137. BAHAHAHA by SnapperHead · · Score: 1
    If you look at the site these days, it went from . to ./

    hehehe


    until (succeed) try { again(); }

    --
    until (succeed) try { again(); }