Slashdot Mirror


Pay Or Else, News Site Threatens

WED Fan writes "The North Country Gazette, a news blog, says users who read beyond a single page of an article must pay up or they will be tracked down. They don't have a pay wall. If you go beyond page 1, you owe them. From the article: 'A subscription is required at North Country Gazette. We allow only one free read per visitor. We are currently gathering IPs and computer info on persistent intruders who refuse to buy subscription and are engaging in a theft of services. We have engaged an attorney who will be doing a bulk subpoena demand on each ISP involved, particularly Verizon Droids, Frontier and Road Runner, and will then pursue individual legal actions.'"

549 comments

  1. Clueless by shadowbearer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Somehow I doubt they have the money to prosecute all the slashdotters who will soon be hitting their pages. Just the slashdot effect alone will likely bankrupt them.

      Id10ts.

    SB

    --
    It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    1. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      The newpaper's site (http://www.northcountrygazette.org/) is now throwing up a 403 error. Fastest slashdotting ever?

    2. Re:Clueless by Apothem · · Score: 5, Funny

      Uh oh, I guess I shouldn't have hit refresh 50 times!

    3. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll have a hard time tracking anyone down and suing since they have apparently already been slashdotted/techdirted. Site down.

    4. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      there was some dirt on my screen so I read "I doubt they have the mopey to prosecute..." and I never saw that before, but I thought "cool word, I doubt they have the mopey too"

    5. Re:Clueless by gandhi_2 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Still, sounds better to NPR browbeating.

      "Listening without membership makes you worse than Hitler." --Terry Gross

    6. Re:Clueless by WED+Fan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Is this like you go into the grocery store and eat a few twinkies and the manager bum rushes you and makes you pay? Or, is this like picking up a discarded paper on the ferry and the guy at the news stand demanding you pay him for it?

      --
      Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
    7. Re:Clueless by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 1

      Who needs 4Chan and their DDOS, slashdot is good enough!

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    8. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just refresh the first page. Enough to knock them offline :)

    9. Re:Clueless by uofitorn · · Score: 1

      Citation needed, please. Google returns nothing.

      --
      "What kind of music do pirates listen to?" -Paul Maud'dib
      "Yeeeaaarrrrr n' Bee!!" -Stilgar, Leader of Sietch Tabr
    10. Re:Clueless by funkatron · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or, is this like picking up a discarded paper on the ferry and the guy at the news stand demanding you pay him for it?

      Don't you yank peoples have an equivalent of the metro? A paper that knows what it's worth?

      --
      "Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
    11. Re:Clueless by gandhi_2 · · Score: 1

      I was joking. But only partially so.

      You've never listened to NPR during membership drive season?

    12. Re:Clueless by couchslug · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Just the slashdot effect alone will likely bankrupt them."

      That's horrid! Time to alert 4chan to help save them!

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    13. Re:Clueless by Fluffeh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, in my non-lawyer understanding of the law, it seems that they are offering a contract on the page, which is fine, but that doesn't mean that people have to agree to it. Correct me if I am wrong, but don't both parties have to agree to a contract to make it binding? So, if you don't agree to the contract, you can keep browsing as it is online for everyone to access, or does it mean that you aren't allowed to keep viewing the site unless you agree to abide by the terms they place on the website (purely from a law point of view)?

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    14. Re:Clueless by JohnRoss1968 · · Score: 1

      no its more like what your reading right now....
      ps you owe me $5 for reading this..
      $25 if you reply

    15. Re:Clueless by Captain+Spam · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What I'd like to know is, what is this "Verizon Droids" ISP that they plan to subpeona? I mean, Slashdot readers tend to keep pretty up-to-date on the ISP world, especially with Verizon, and I wasn't aware they were using their license to the term "Droid" to start another ISP. Is this anything like their FiOS service?

      --
      Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.
    16. Re:Clueless by skuzzlebutt · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh, Slashdot...didn't you sillies read their "do not 403 this website" warning?

      SUED!

      --
      My debut novel AMITY now available: http://jeremydbrooks.c
    17. Re:Clueless by S.O.B. · · Score: 3, Funny

      I just read 2 articles. I invite them to hire a Canadian lawyer to come after me.

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
    18. Re:Clueless by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Is this like you go into the grocery store and eat a few twinkies and the manager bum rushes you and makes you pay?

      I would say they are well within their rights to do that.

    19. Re:Clueless by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Sounds fine, just reply with a way to contact you so I can pay you the $30.

      Any response to this message will incur a $300 service charge.

    20. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no analogy will work here unless it involves cars.

    21. Re:Clueless by shadowbearer · · Score: 0, Troll

      That's horrid!

        I don't know. I'm actually finding it rather amusing ;-)

        Everybody gets bit by stupidity at least once in a while. For a clusterfuck of this magnitude takes deliberate, arrogant ignorance.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    22. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They might consider continued browsing to be implicitly agreeing to the contract.

      (of course, IANAL)

    23. Re:Clueless by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm sure this will all end well.
      Or bankruptcy.
      Probably theirs.

      Oh and yes I believe you are correct - a contract is not binding if it has no been signed, or dollars changed hands (like when you buy Windows Seven NT 6.1).

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    24. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quick, light up the 4chan "pwn this fucker" sign.

    25. Re:Clueless by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Only if the store is giving them away. If they wanted you to stay away they would not respond to the requests your browser made.

    26. Re:Clueless by commodore64_love · · Score: 0, Redundant

      FORBIDDEN
      You do not have permission to access http://www.northcountrygazette.org/ on this server.

      Wow that was fast.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    27. Re:Clueless by clambake · · Score: 5, Interesting

      By that same token, you might consider their site offering you a page of data an implicit agreement to YOUR contract (the one that says you own all data that is given to your browser and expect royalties), no?

    28. Re:Clueless by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Citation please.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    29. Re:Clueless by hldn · · Score: 1

      this is like someone putting fliers under your windshield wiper and then asking you to pay for them after you read it.

      --
      http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    30. Re:Clueless by mondoterrifico · · Score: 1

      Umm neither.

    31. Re:Clueless by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      No. It's like you saying to the news stand guy "Can I have a free paper?", him giving you one, and then when you start reading page two demanding that you pay.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    32. Re:Clueless by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Forbidden

      You don't have permission to access / on this server.

      Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
      Apache/2.0.63 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.0.63 OpenSSL/0.9.8e-fips-rhel5 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635 mod_bwlimited/1.4 mod_auth_passthrough/2.1 Server at www.northcountrygazette.org Port 80

      Oh well, you can always copy the url to opera and set it to reload the page every 2 minutes.

      "Database error" "Error establishing a database connection."

      ... oh well ... ... guess not ...

      For those wondering, it's a tarted-up Wordpress blog.

    33. Re:Clueless by tacarat · · Score: 2, Funny

      Absolutely! Just fill out the following N401 form and we'll have it deposited soon.

      Your full name:
      Bank Account#:
      PIN:
      SSN:
      Favorite Dog Food:
      Phone Number:


      To protect all parties involved, please have at least $2,000 in the account so we can verify it's really yours.

      --
      "Common sense will be the death of us all"
    34. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You would not survive the attempt.

    35. Re:Clueless by Hatta · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, it looks like this is just a crazy old lady with a blog. Here's what Encyclopedia Dramatica says:

      June Maxam (b. 1948) is a troll in the classical sense that she's a miserable old hag who lives under a bridge. As co-publisher of the failed Empire Journal, publisher of the failed "Twisted Web" book, publisher of the failed free community newspaper (est. 1981), and now the always failing pay-per-click infested blog North Country Gazette, her expertise in Internet Lawl as resulted in her issuing several baseless cease and desist orders to anyone who dares give her blog free publicity, claiming her site is exempt from all Fair Use laws.

      Maxam swipes news from legitimate sources, rewords them, posts them on her blog, and claims each as her own. She expects people to pay to visit her blog, recently stating that she will sue non-paying website visitors who read more than one post.

      Maxam previously filed a string of failed state and federal lawsuits, and was labeled a "frequent filer" by a Warren County court employee.

      Maxam resides in Chesterbrook, New York, has no friends, is hated and despised by her neighbors, and is known locally as the "Queen Of Foster Flats Road." Maxam feels the need to surround her home in the tiny village with "No Trespassing" signs.

      A Warren County New York law enforcement officer described Maxam to Bad Cop News:

      "Look, that woman says a lot of things, yeah she's a real talker, but it comes down to a lonely old lady with something screwy upstairs sitting in front of a computer, with few friends, making enemies."
       

      The real shocker here is that Encylcopedia Dramatica actually has useful content.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    36. Re:Clueless by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Funny

      I just read about 100 articles.

      Any letters I receive from lawyers will be used to keep warm this winter. Thanks in advance.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    37. Re:Clueless by spisska · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's working at the moment, but every headline is follwed by:

      "This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:"

      The really wonderful thing is that each 'post-protected' message also has buttons to share the link via email/facebook/digg, etc. Fantastic.

    38. Re:Clueless by Firethorn · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'd say it's more like going into a public bathroom and getting a bill when you leave.

      Without a paywall, without something to record that you read and understand their conditions(that you have to pay), they can't charge for serving a webpage.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    39. Re:Clueless by ocdscouter · · Score: 1

      My local-ish station (KQED) doesn't seem to brow-beat as such. They seem to rely on subtle guilting, combined with seductive descriptions of their pledge-gifts.

    40. Re:Clueless by BenSchuarmer · · Score: 3, Funny

      But you can go #1 for free. You only have to pay if you go #2.

    41. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh i get it now. i hate it when they do that!

    42. Re:Clueless by MrLint · · Score: 1

      Have you ever listened to the WAMC pledge drive.. (geographically near the area of this site)? the number of times they repeat their phone number is the stuff of nightmares.

    43. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Getting 503 to the site, but
      http://www.northcountrygazette.org/index.html
      appears to work.

    44. Re:Clueless by rotorbudd · · Score: 1

      "she's a miserable old hag who lives under a bridge"

      Wow, so she's a troll in the "fairy tale" sense?
      Could we get a photo?

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it, but artillery is addressed to " Whom It May concern"
    45. Re:Clueless by aquila.solo · · Score: 1

      You read them? That seems like a masochistic way to obtain kindling; loading the articles should have been enough.

      Alternately: This is /.! You never RTFA, much less 100 of them!

    46. Re:Clueless by mikestew · · Score: 2, Informative

      It was "slashdotted" two days ago when boingboing reported the story. I don't know if it's been a continuous outage, or if it came back up post-boingboing and is now out again.

    47. Re:Clueless by mbone · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I am wrong, but don't both parties have to agree to a contract to make it binding?

      Search on "contracts by adhesion"

    48. Re:Clueless by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Uhh.... don't listen to their station? :D

      Or is it that because they're virtually telling you to not listen (by making it as unpleasant as possible) you feel it's a challenge?

    49. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      No, you are mistaken. Contracts do not have to be signed to be binding (though it helps) with the exception of Real Estate (here in the US). They may not be enforceable, and they will be construed as harshly against the party that wrote the contract as the terms can allow, since they had the power to easily include any specifics they wanted. Whether this sort of contract is actually enforceable as written the courts will have to decide. IANAL, so YMMV.

    50. Re:Clueless by Man+Eating+Duck · · Score: 5, Informative

      So, if you don't agree to the contract, you can keep browsing as it is online for everyone to access, or does it mean that you aren't allowed to keep viewing the site unless you agree to abide by the terms they place on the website (purely from a law point of view)?

      Unfortunately I get only 403 errors. I'd love for them to get my ip address and come after me. Norwegian courts wouldn't be amused with people suing a user for accessing freely available web pages, a court-ordered fine might very well be in order.

      I believe that "North Country Gazette" has been misguided in this case by some consultant who is not worth his salt, but I'll say this anyway: If you publish your material freely accessible on a website listening on www:80, don't expect to successfully prosecute anyone accessing it.

      As for the "contract": If I made a web page saying "Anyone who views this web page legally owes me 100 USD" I think it would be difficult to enforce it in a court of law.

      --
      Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
    51. Re:Clueless by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 1

      A contract is simply an agreement to exchange things of value. It doesn't require paper, signatures, or money. (Well, most. There are some exceptions. Purchase of real estate requires paper and signatures, for instance.)

      Of course, if you want to actually prove what the contract was about, I'd get it written down. If you want to prove it was agreed to, I'd get signatures. If you want to prove something of value was exchanged, money is a good choice. Otherwise suing someone for breach of contract gets really messy.

      You probably could make a legal case for this... But it wouldn't be easy. And I'm pretty sure the lawyer would want the fee up front. (What's the value? How can you prove it was known about and agreed to? etc.)

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    52. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Interestingly enough, your honor, all the IP addresses we subpoenaed were used by the same individual, whose last name we were able to obtain -- a Mr. Proxy. We have yet to confirm Mr. Proxy's first name but are in the process of obtaining a search warrant for his numerous physical addresses. Your honor, Mr. Proxy continues to flagrantly and without compensation, read my client's publicly printed news material. We also allege that Mr. Proxy reads other news sites, blogs, Twitter posts, street signs and even email without a single dollar of compensation being paid to my firm -- er... uh... the RIAA, wait! no... I mean the authors of said writings. In response judge, my client seeks just compensation to be made whole again. We respectfully request your honor, that once Mr. Proxy is located and this societal deviant, this 'illegal word reader' if you will, be brought to swift and fierce justice for his crimes against my client and all of humanity. After lengthy consultation with my client, we conclude the only suitable punishment for such a harsh and hardened criminal as Mr. Proxy, is for Mr. Proxy to provide 'rim jobs' for my client's entire staff. This consists of my client and myself, as I am on retainer with said client."

    53. Re:Clueless by Skal+Tura · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, they got consulted by the MAFIAA :D

    54. Re:Clueless by AusIV · · Score: 1
      I'm definitely not a lawyer, but from a quick look at contracts by adhesion on Wikipedia it doesn't look like this would hold up. One of the components they mention is

      If the term was outside of the reasonable expectations of the person who did not write the contract, and if the parties were contracting on an unequal basis, then it will not be enforceable

      Since a typical user wouldn't expect a site without a paywall to sue them for viewing more than one page, and the user had no say in the terms of the agreement, it sounds like it would run afoul of that element of contracts by adhesion.

    55. Re:Clueless by arth1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oh, I can get to it, but...

      Checking http://www.northcountrygazette.org/sitemap.html "Today's Articles" appear to be from April 2007.

      So, where's the, you know, news?

    56. Re:Clueless by Balthisar · · Score: 1

      Hah! I just loaded about 20 articles from Mexico. Sue me here!

      And tomorrow at work, where my internet is served from HQ in the USA, I'm going to hit it 20 more times. Let's see if she sues a Fortune 8 company!

      --
      --Jim (me)
    57. Re:Clueless by TheEyes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They're just taking the new rulings that EULAs are enforceable to their logical conclusion: that the creator of a contract can essentially "force" the other side to sign a contract by doing something other than actually signing a contract. They will proceed to do what the new copyright trolls have been doing for the past few months: sue hundreds of thousands of people in a single court on the other side of the country, and mail extortion letters to all of them.

      The step after this is for someone to create a page stating, "By reading this, you agree to pay me $100,000," track the IPs, and cut out the symbolic gesture of even trying to make this seem like something other than a court-supported extortion racket.

    58. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have a few in NYC that are on the border of paying us to read them they are so worthless.

    59. Re:Clueless by shougyin · · Score: 1

      Now where did I put all of my X-wifes info at.......I mean...uh...my info at!!!

    60. Re:Clueless by JackCroww · · Score: 1

      Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)

      Sueing is the more preferred form; suing is considered archaic/deprecated. Signature aside, I would not have known English was not your primary language.

      --
      "Ayn Rand is a bloody socialist compared to me." - Robert A. Heinlein
    61. Re:Clueless by Skal+Tura · · Score: 1

      Please send in your paypal address, and i will have the $300 promptly invoiced from your account. Reading this message incurs $600 service charge. If you want to expedite this process, please send the money directly to abc@abc.com, which will incur to an extra 200$ self-service charge. Payment is due 14days from today, and will incur an 15% annual interest if not paid in time.

      Please, enjoy your day!

      Happy doing business with you,
        The MAFIAA

    62. Re:Clueless by glowworm · · Score: 1

      You can go to http://www.northcountrygazette.org/sitemap8.xml and from there access all her articles, she has only forbidden the index.html file.

      --
      Orationem pulchram non habens, scribo ista linea in lingua Latina
    63. Re:Clueless by samson13 · · Score: 1

      You don't have to agree to the contract but it is the only thing that is giving you a copyright license to continue viewing their content.

      Probably the best example of a copyright license for publicly viewable content is the GPL. You don't have to agree with the GPL but you loose lots of rights if you don't.

    64. Re:Clueless by TheEyes · · Score: 1

      Is this like you go into the grocery store and eat a few twinkies and the manager bum rushes you and makes you pay? Or, is this like picking up a discarded paper on the ferry and the guy at the news stand demanding you pay him for it?

      This is like walking past a newsstand, glancing at a headline, then being told you now owe the newsstand $5 or Bubba the Appellate Court Judge is going to garnish your wages.

    65. Re:Clueless by similar_name · · Score: 1

      I wonder if Google will be sued. I imagine they have the pages cached if you searched for a specific phrase from one of them.

      It's hard for the company defend any good faith on its part as it should be easier to put up a pay wall than to hire lawyers and track down IP addresses.

    66. Re:Clueless by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I am wrong, but don't both parties have to agree to a contract to make it binding?

      Search on "contracts by adhesion"

      By not opting out you implicitly agree to the said contract. Which is why automatic opting in should be banned where there is money involved. But we all know that if opting in were the modus operandi, then not many people would opt in. Hence, the forced agreement to pay, just by visiting the site.

      Oh... by the way...everyone who reads this post owes me $100, since you did not opt out before reading this post.
      There, fixed that for ya.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    67. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can /claim/ that by reading it you agreed to the contract.

    68. Re:Clueless by opposabledumbs · · Score: 1

      I'm not a lawyer either, but under our legal system (which is heavily based on the British one) a contract needs to have a meeting of the minds: both parties need to agree on it explicitly, and both parties need to have the same understanding of the implications of it, before it becomes binding. You can't have a contract where information is withheld from one party until after the agreement is made: there can be no "Gotcha" after the fact.
       

    69. Re:Clueless by Majik+Sheff · · Score: 1

      They won't have much luck enforcing anything until they clean the smoking ashes out of the rack space where the server used to be. For an encore maybe we can sick Anonymous on them?

      --
      Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
    70. Re:Clueless by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      ps you owe me $5 for reading this..
      $25 if you reply

      No problem. I'll send the money right out. But I'll need your social security number, date of birth, mailing address and mother's maiden name for tax purposes.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    71. Re:Clueless by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

      > but don't both parties have to agree to a contract to make it binding?

      Contract law varies a bit from state to state. Traditionally, both parties have to agree, but in most consumer relationships the drafter has all the power and can leverage it to change the default rules a bit. That being said, how this comes out will depend partially on what judge gets it and partially on how obvious they make the language in the contract, and partially on the law of the particular state.

      In olden times, there were fairly formal rules about how a contract worked. Today there are still very formal rules, but one of the one's that's been relaxed a bit is the manner in which parties signal consent. The Uniform Commercial Code often governs, and in most states it lets parties signal consent in a fairly wide range of ways. That being said, you'd need to look at the case law of a particular state before knowing whether a particular way worked--if there's a lot of money at stake, always consult a lawyer. They cost a lot, but you pay to make it more likely you're right and less likely you've shot yourself in the foot.

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    72. Re:Clueless by shugah · · Score: 1

      The Internet is public, so It's more like the grocery store owner throws all of his produce out on the sidewalk and then puts up a sign that says "free fruits and vegetables - please take only one!"

      --
      If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
    73. Re:Clueless by kevorkian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ya know .. the NYtimes forced metro north to re-design its recycle bins .. so that people could not pick up a free copy that way ..

      http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/19/nyregion/new-recycle-bins-stop-a-long-habit.html

    74. Re:Clueless by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      They did not have the chance to read and agree. Contract is invalid, you lose. You had at least the opportunity to read the website, this is soemthing that could be argued. Probably lost, but definitely argued.

      And someone modded you interesting???

    75. Re:Clueless by QuantumBeep · · Score: 2, Funny

      Is this like you go into the grocery store and eat a few twinkies and the manager bum rushes you and makes you gay?

      Only in your dreams, mate.

    76. Re:Clueless by icebraining · · Score: 1

      You can still access http://www.northcountrygazette.org/sitemap.html

      I've just DownThemAll'ed all the links, I wonder how much do I owe them? But hey, they can try suing me here in Portugal too :)

    77. Re:Clueless by andymadigan · · Score: 0, Troll

      Sueing isn't a word... suing is.

      --
      The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
    78. Re:Clueless by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

      > If the term was outside of the reasonable expectations of the person who did not write the contract, and if the parties were contracting on an unequal basis, then it will not be enforceable

      Maybe--notably if it's really far outside. "Reasonable expectations" is not something to rely on in court unless you have no actual legal argument. It's like raising your hand and telling the judge it's unfair. Maybe it is--but you need an actual legal theory to rely on, too. "Reasonable expectations" is the kind of argument you throw in at the end in case a judge seizes on it, or if you have nothing else to argue with, but everything I've read or heard says it's a very unfavored argument in most jurisdictions. So a judge may use it to stop truly horrid behavior, but it doesn't have any real argumentative force on its own.

      Contracts of adhesion are scrutinized a little more closely by the court because they're not between co-equal business partners, but they're still contracts. Usually. YMMV from state to state, and check with a lawyer.

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    79. Re:Clueless by palegray.net · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've defined a contract in my user agent string, which is bound to wind up in their logs. It stipulates that every time I successfully load a page (HTTP 200) from their site, they owe me $100 USD. Should they decide to refuse payment, I have no reservations about issuing subpoenas for testimony from those who have administrative access to the logs and collecting what is rightfully mine. Let's hope for their sake that they're retaining their logs; I'd hate to have to have them brought up on charges of destroying evidence.

    80. Re:Clueless by bill_beeman · · Score: 1

      Are we sure that this isn't Darl McBride's new scam after his SCO gig didn't work out so well for him?

    81. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ENCYCLOPÆDIA DRAMATICA LINK MAY BE NSFW IF YOU DON'T USE AN AD BLOCKER!!!

      Lower case to pass the filter because the warning really should be in all caps so people notice it. Stupid slashdot filter. Is this enough to pass the filter now?

    82. Re:Clueless by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Look, that woman says a lot of things, yeah she's a real talker, but it comes down to a lonely old lady with something screwy upstairs sitting in front of a computer, with few friends, making enemies."

      Dear God, someone get that woman a Slashdot account.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    83. Re:Clueless by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      You shouldn't need a copyright license in the first place; they are the one making the copies. You aren't distributing copies or derivative works, or making a "public performance" of the page. No license is required simply to view copyrighted content.

      Since you brought it up, the GPL is not an EULA. You don't need to agree to the GPL just to use software distributed under it. You only need to agree to it if you want to distribute copies or derivative works. Copyright, not the GPL, is what takes away your natural rights; the GPL just gives some of them back, provided you reciprocate.

      The only legal principle I know of which would come close to justifying their response would be harassment, if they specifically asked you to stop sending requests to their server and you continued anyway. However, that generally requires both intent to harass (e.g. a DoS attack) and direct interaction; simply posting arbitrary "terms of service" wouldn't count, particularly since they know very few visitors will ever follow that near-invisible link they buried in the small print at the bottom of the page.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    84. Re:Clueless by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      Is this like you go into the grocery store and eat a few twinkies and the manager bum rushes you and makes you pay? Or, is this like picking up a discarded paper on the ferry and the guy at the news stand demanding you pay him for it?

      Um, neither? I thought it was like ... viewing a web site that doesn't have a pay wall or even require registration.

      But I see how you could have gotten confused.

    85. Re:Clueless by icannotthinkofaname · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh, Slashdot...didn't you sillies read their "do not 403 this website" warning?

      What "do not 403 this website" warning? I couldn't see anything; the page 403'd on me.

      --
      Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
    86. Re:Clueless by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Whoosh!

    87. Re:Clueless by JackCroww · · Score: 1

      Dang; you're right. I always mix those two up.

      --
      "Ayn Rand is a bloody socialist compared to me." - Robert A. Heinlein
    88. Re:Clueless by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We bitch and whine about DRM because "it'll just be broken". So what does someone do? Just ask you not to steal it if you aren't a customer. So then we laugh at their naivety that someone wouldn't just steal it if it's not locked down with DRM.

      Oh silly fickle Slashdot.

      What do you say we reward someone who doesn't burden actual customers with troublesome and self defeating DRM instead of mocking them?

    89. Re:Clueless by hsmith · · Score: 1

      Sucks for her, I charge $5000/page to read blogs. I should send her a bill.

    90. Re:Clueless by hardburn · · Score: 1

      Are they claiming there's a contract involved? Or are they claiming there's a license? There's an important difference.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    91. Re:Clueless by pyite · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't you yank peoples have an equivalent of the metro? A paper that knows what it's worth?

      Yes, it's called (wait for it) Metro.

      --

      "Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman

    92. Re:Clueless by Fluffeh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What do you say we reward someone who doesn't burden actual customers with troublesome and self defeating DRM instead of mocking them?

      This wouldn't be a story if the site had a "Hey, we are struggling financially, and would appreciate if you got a subscription if you plan to read a bunch of articles."

      But it doesn't. It goes from zero to a hundred in one step. "Read on and we are going to sue you!". That's why this is a story, and that is why they are being mocked.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    93. Re:Clueless by shadowbearer · · Score: 0, Troll

        Not at all. From what I've seen of 4chan, it is for the most part naive ignorance, not the sort of arrogant ignorance this represents.

        There are various forms of humour; just because one doesn't pay lip service to some of them doesn't mean that one doesn't understand them.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    94. Re:Clueless by El_Oscuro · · Score: 1

      Where are my mod points when I need them?

      --
      "Be grateful for what you have. You may never know when you may lose it."
    95. Re:Clueless by Thiez · · Score: 1

      That, good sir, is fucking awesome.

    96. Re:Clueless by srivatsanm · · Score: 1

      How is this different from a company offering full functionality software for download on their site - free for personal use vs. paid for business or enteprise use? some software does include licensing/activation code that can technically do just what they are threatening - track IP's and get to them through ISP's. Nobody does this in practice, but the threat implicitly (sometimes explicitly) exists. This newspaper is just taking that precedent one extra step from desktop software to it's online web service, no?

    97. Re:Clueless by djdavetrouble · · Score: 1

      We have a few in NYC that are on the border of paying us to read them they are so worthless.

      an accurate assessment if ever I've seen one! start with the post and daily news.....

      --
      music lover since 1969
    98. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forget that. She should head straight to 4chan.

    99. Re:Clueless by Mistlefoot · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, someone needs to change their browsers user agent string to a EULA.....

      Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:2.0b4) Gecko/20100818 Firefox/4.0b4

      to

      Mozilla/5.0 (EULA; By allowing me to browse your website you agree to allow me to browse your website for free)

      It works just fine.

      If they allow you to browse then they are agreeing to your license agreement AS MUCH AS you are agreeing to theirs.

      Heck, just for fun, add a charge for your viewing the ads on their webpage and bill them.

    100. Re:Clueless by B1oodAnge1 · · Score: 1

      Unless it's an EULA...

      --
      RUGBYRUGBYRUGBY
    101. Re:Clueless by standbypowerguy · · Score: 1

      You can go to http://www.northcountrygazette.org/sitemap8.xml and from there access all her articles, she has only forbidden the index.html file.

      No, I can't. Tried. Every link I hit answers 404. Can you say "Slashdot Effect" boys & girls?

      --
      This isn't the sig you're looking for... Move along.
    102. Re:Clueless by quickOnTheUptake · · Score: 1

      Isn't that basically how all the TOS's on major sites work? By using this site/service you agree to the following.

      --
      Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
      Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
    103. Re:Clueless by random_guy666 · · Score: 1

      Just like I will never attempt to read anything on their site (except to keep clicking next page) I don't read the fliers people put under my windshield wiper. A couple years ago, the flier was sitting on my windshield for 3 days, through rain. It got stuck. It impeded my vision a bit and did not come off completely for a week or so. If I ever catch someone putting another flier on my windshield, I will threaten to sue them for attempted destruction of property and endangering my life, and/or call the police for solicitation if there is a no solicitation sign anywhere nearby. I will proceed to pull all the fliers off everyone's car in the area and stick them on said person's windshield.

    104. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've run into this woman, June Maxam, before. She's been doing this long before these current rulings. Here's some information on her: http://encyclopediadramatica.com/June_Maxam She threatened to sue me but nothing ever came of it. I'd have loved to have seen her in court only to hear the judge laugh her out, except then I'd be out money. She seems to have no clue how corporate networks and IP addresses work and considers a very small number of page hits to be "abusive."

      This really has nothing to do with EULAs and everything to do with her misguided view that she can implement a paywall by simply saying "here's all my content freely accessible, now pay me."

      - Posting as Anonymous Coward only because I don't want to have to waste anymore time with her antics.

    105. Re:Clueless by daveime · · Score: 1

      WHAT, JUST THAT ONE SITE, OF PERHAPS THE WHOLE FUCKING INTERNET ?

      Seriously though, the whole "this should be in caps because it's a warning" ? I'll decide if something is a warning or not, sounds like a lot of alarmist bullshit to me. If something is NSFW, then don't fucking browse it at work ... how simple is that ? In fact, why exactly would ANYONE be browsing that site AT work ? It's not like it's a valuable source of research material for 99.999% of the working population is it ? Perhaps if more people actually WORKED at work, the country wouldn't be in such a goddamn mess ?

    106. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maxam resides in Chesterbrook, New York, has no friends, is hated and despised by her neighbors, and is known locally as the "Queen Of Foster Flats Road."

      There is no Chesterbrook, NY. The address is 7 Foster Flats Road, Chestertown, NY. No signs visible as Google Street View chose to stay on the main road, she'd probably have sued their asses off. But maybe she put up this one :]

    107. Re:Clueless by mywhitewolf · · Score: 1

      i don't think any one would be justified in copying the content on their website and redistributing it. but they are essentially shouting information and then suing people who are listing to too much of it.

    108. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      beat me to it! Fellow Canuck :)

    109. Re:Clueless by sincewhen · · Score: 5, Funny

      Does the 403 page count as my one freebie?

      --
      -- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
    110. Re:Clueless by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      You might snort, but in my view the Metro has better science coverage than any of the non-free papers on the stands.

      Remember that huge star discovered a month or two back? Double page spread, baby!

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    111. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the intent, but the nature of DRM that draws its criticism.

      So your argument fails completely.

    112. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      that's the most fun idea I've seen in years! thanks

    113. Re:Clueless by lonely+old+lady · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm going to sue you!

    114. Re:Clueless by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      So what does someone do? Just ask you not to steal it if you aren't a customer.

      That's not at all what she's asking. She's publishing all her content, for free, with no login or payment or account required to see it. Then she's threatening to sue everyone who actually dares access that publicly-available content. That is contrary to the behavior of any other website on the planet. Name one other site - any site - which lets you view the whole thing for free without restrictions and then attempts to bill you retroactively.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    115. Re:Clueless by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Welcome aboard. You're among peers now.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    116. Re:Clueless by SQLGuru · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that Slashdot will post that very same story tomorrow.......and probably the day after, too.

    117. Re:Clueless by ridgecritter · · Score: 1

      Yes, the law requires three things: Offer, Acceptance, and Consideration. Any of these three missing - no contract.

    118. Re:Clueless by Ritchie70 · · Score: 1

      I get at least two dumped in my driveway every week that I carry directly from the driveway to the recycle bin.

      I don't subscribe, nobody subscribes. They dump them in everybody's driveway.

      There's no way to make them stop. I've considered swearing out a littering complaint with the sheriff but it doesn't seem worth the trouble.

      --
      The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
    119. Re:Clueless by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      What do you say we reward someone who doesn't burden actual customers with troublesome and self defeating DRM instead of mocking them?

      There is a very successful model for this way of doing business, actually; it's called shareware. Hardly anyone gets rich writing shareware, but I know a number of people who have made good money doing it. And the characteristics of shareware that makes its authors money? Well, as a rule, it's fully functional without payment, i.e. not crippleware; and unobtrusive about its demands for money. i.e. not nagware. The less functional and more annoying the unregistered version is, the less likely it is ever to get paid for, especially these days when there are so many choices for almost every category of software.

      Application to the current case is left as an exercise for the reader.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    120. Re:Clueless by Ritchie70 · · Score: 1

      That might be a bit much but you can legitimately request name, address, and SSN. How else can you send a 1099?

      --
      The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
    121. Re:Clueless by northstarlarry · · Score: 1

      ...wouldn't be amused with people...

      One usually says "amused by". The use of "with" is not quite incorrect, but in US English, it sounds a little funny.

      ...available web pages, a court-ordered fine...

      That comma should have been a semicolon, connecting two semantically related but syntactically complete sentences. By way of example, I could have just written: "That comma should have been a semicolon; they are used to connect two semantically related but syntactically complete sentences." If the constructions on each side of the comma are able to stand on their own, separated by a period, then the comma is incorrect.

      I believe that "North Country Gazette" has been misguided in this case...

      Your use of "misguided" in this sentence is, again, not quite incorrect, but a little awkward to a careful US reader. It's a very subtle point, but "misguided" is almost always used with the sense that the entity being guided is also the one doing the guiding. The phrase "has been misguided" reads as "it did, at some point, choose to travel down an improper path, but is no longer traveling that way". So, in fully pedantic mode, I would suggest you use "misled".

      If you publish your material freely accessible on a website...

      This is an improper use of modifiers. The two words "freely accessible" don't quite work together the way that I think you intend them to. I don't know the proper terms in this case, but I'll try to explain the problem. The word "accessible" is an adjective, and can't modify the verb "publish". However, "freely" attaches to "publish", instead of "accessible" as I think you meant it to. It has in some way to do with the semantics of "publish"; you could use "make" in its place and the sentence would work perfectly. Due to its meaning, "make" is capable of taking an adjectival phrase (like "freely accessible") to describe a changed state of its object; unfortunately, like I said, I don't know the terminology for this. Another option is to stick a subjunctive (I think!) verb in there, and make a conjunctive (I think!) phrase, like so: "publish your material so that it is freely available..."

      All that having been said, your English in this post is very good. It is certainly at or above the level of the majority of educated native English-speakers in the US. (It is also without any doubt more than acceptable for an internet forum post.) Would that I spoke a second language as well as you... Anyways, well done! I hope that you find my grammar pedantry helpful.

    122. Re:Clueless by hrimhari · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wow! This might actually work!

      --
      http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
    123. Re:Clueless by northstarlarry · · Score: 2, Funny

      Also, I hope your .sig was serious or I'm going to feel like a real ass...

    124. Re:Clueless by mysidia · · Score: 1

      If I made a web page saying "Anyone who views this web page legally owes me 100 USD" I think it would be difficult to enforce it in a court of law.

      It wouldn't, unless you ensured that you conspicuously provided access to the terms before the user was allowed to download the page.

      Specht v. Netscape

      Contracts that lack competent parties, a mutual assent meeting of minds, or consideration, are not binding.

      There is nothing about using a web browser that provides that the viewer is a competent party. Mutual assent is a big issue, with displaying any sort of 'term' after a web page has already been loaded.

      It's not reasonable to expect a visitor will not load multiple pages, especially if they are going through search results and find multiple links -- they may not even know the multiple links point to pages on the same web site, until after they visit them.

    125. Re:Clueless by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 3, Funny

      I hear the Juan Williams dartboard is bringing in the scratch!

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    126. Re:Clueless by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

      The newpaper's site (http://www.northcountrygazette.org/) is now throwing up a 403 error. Fastest slashdotting ever?

      It's loading here, but every single post after 8 AM this morning is marked:

      This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

      Not the best way to bring people to look at your site, I think.

    127. Re:Clueless by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Many places allow you to board a train, without having to pass through a ticket gate or anything. However there are notices posted on the platform that you must carry a valid ticket for your ride, and that you may be fined if you do not.

      When you board this train without ticket, and you are caught, you will be fined. And a defence in the lines of "there were no barriers to entry, just some notice/contract about having to pay that I don't agree to" won't keep you off the hook.

      Silly as their method seems to me, this web site may indeed very well be within their rights.

    128. Re:Clueless by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      Which is also the free-pass on getting out of the requirement of consideration, which tends to prevent blatantly and absurdly one-sided contracts.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    129. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Links to articles on the main page seem to be password protected now, however this sitemap file gleaned from their robots.txt has plenty of unprotected articles for the curious. http://www.northcountrygazette.org/sitemap8.xml

    130. Re:Clueless by Dodgy+G33za · · Score: 1

      So, if I were to encode something that has copyright associated with it, say the lyrics to happy birthday, into my user agent string, I guess that would make any site that I went to liable for copying said copy written material.

    131. Re:Clueless by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      ... that the creator of a contract can essentially "force" the other side to sign a contract by doing something other than actually signing a contract ...

      I guess the jokes on them. Outside of the US, EULA's are pretty much unenforceable. Then again, I suppose people could start sending them bills for any non-requested data(such as from ad servers, and associated farms). I'm sure that would go over well.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    132. Re:Clueless by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      At the risk of a downmod, I'd say they are -- taking it anyway, FWIW. I've always maintained 99% of the whining here, claiming backups and whatnot are impinged, are just facade for people not wanting to have problems trading around .mp3s. And now, movies.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    133. Re:Clueless by Phoobarnvaz · · Score: 1

      Uh oh, I guess I shouldn't have hit refresh 50 times!

      I guess I shouldn't have spoofed their IP and read 100 years of the news on their site in the past 25 years. My bad.

      --
      Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia. - Charles M. Schulz
    134. Re:Clueless by Myopic · · Score: 1

      You are right. Both contracts are worthless, because neither of them meet the requirements for a legal agreement. Neither contract is any more valid than the other; they are both exactly equally unenforceable and nonbinding.

    135. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

        Somehow I doubt they have the money to prosecute all the slashdotters who will soon be hitting their pages. Just the slashdot effect alone will likely bankrupt them.

        Id10ts.

      SB

      just wait until 4chan gets ahold of this

    136. Re:Clueless by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      moopie schmoopie

    137. Re:Clueless by Sean+Hederman · · Score: 1

      Well, it doesn't have to be a signed offer, nor does there have to be money changing hands. Those just make it easier to prove that there was a contract. Technically there must be an offer and an acceptance. Well, sometimes not even that, just evidence that you appeared to accept the contract would be sufficient. So, if I threw up a warning on the page stating that everything past page 1 was to be paid for, and then you scrolled past page 1, you would have entered into a binding contract with me, as long as I had proof that the warning was displayed and that you "accepted" it by moving past page 1.

    138. Re:Clueless by pegdhcp · · Score: 1

      Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

      I wonder what is their payment rate for the ErrorDocument itself... Which probably contains more useful data than "original" pages themselves.

    139. Re:Clueless by rjch · · Score: 1

      Search on "contracts by adhesion"

      A contract by adhesion really only means it's non-negotiable - that doesn't mean that consent isn't required. They may be relying on the contract being taken as a shrink wrap contract, but their enforceability is highly debatable.

      To me, this would seem to be a case of complaining that someone has been reading your mail when it's been pinned to a notice board on your front fence. If they want to put a pay wall into effect, then they can go right ahead (and probably loose most of their readership in the process). Otherwise my response would be to point out that they're literally leaving themselves open.

      Since I haven't seen how the site was presented before this story was posted, I can't comment as to how legitimate a "shrinkwrap" contract might be. If there's a big "WARNING" page that you have to click through to access articles, that's one thing. If they rely on "fine print" that you have to go looking for, I'd suggest the shrinkwrap argument would be baseless.

    140. Re:Clueless by cinderellamanson · · Score: 1

      I just checked my retrograde archival machine and it looks like this is part of the pre-emptive settlement, however the argument on slashdot will largely revolve around whether or not the follow up article was a dupe - this apparently starts a huge flamewar because everybody a) has a different answer for why the article is a dupe and b) is damn well right, cause they have read this story before in one form or another a thousand times.

      The real kicker here is that the slashdotters should have read the article and the article's protagonists would benefit from knowing that the percentage of the Internet using this model is them.

      Finally, the eventual appearance of lawsuits like this are not always as misguided as they seem, a legal definition of the difference between traffic and an attack might be helpful for the purchasers.

      --
      Hey buddy, can i bum a karma? ~}CinderellaManson{~
    141. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're just taking the new rulings that EULAs are enforceable to their logical conclusion: that the creator of a contract can essentially "force" the other side to sign a contract by doing something other than actually signing a contract. They will proceed to do what the new copyright trolls have been doing for the past few months: sue hundreds of thousands of people in a single court on the other side of the country, and mail extortion letters to all of them.

      The step after this is for someone to create a page stating, "By reading this, you agree to pay me $100,000," track the IPs, and cut out the symbolic gesture of even trying to make this seem like something other than a court-supported extortion racket.

      Gives me a great idea. I'm going to print one of those labels on a shirt and sue everybody who reads it and doesn't pony up the dough!

    142. Re:Clueless by pegdhcp · · Score: 1
      Moderation issue aside, the combined form of these two posts reminded me some business opportunity.

      I hereby declare that

      1) My company(tm) is producing methane laced air (we reserve the right to use whatever sources we see fit)

      2) My company(tm) pumping our products into a global and publicly accessible distribution channel (that is the wind currents passing over my home town, think deeply before making "breaking the wind" jokes)

      3) You as the reader, read this declaration and agree that you owe My company(tm) 1 Euro per unit usage. 1 unit usage is 20 breaths. If you use more than 2 units per minute a 50% over use fee would be applied to your account.

      4) If you continue to use our product after reading this agreement, this will mean that you are in agreement with conditions set in this agreement.

      5) As a promotional offer to /. users for a limited time our price is discounted at 10% for users agreeing this declaration thru /.

      6) /. management has agreed (by reading this very sentence) to inform My company (tm) about all users who has agreed (=read) this declaration.

      7) All users and resellers of our product hereby agrees that they are not going into market as competitive producers against My company (tm). In order to ensure product safety and quality, such producers agree that they will perform rigorous quality control on their own product and inform My company (tm) by weekly production reports. A 60% marketing fee and a 30% distribution channel fee will be billed these producers. They can keep remaining 10%

    143. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then, they have got all the attention they needed right now. I never knew and probably never would have known that such a site existed. Now thanks to us. they get hits in thousands.

      Mission accomplished !!!

    144. Re:Clueless by mysidia · · Score: 4, Funny

      Surely you could do better...

      Mozilla/5.0 (EULA; For the privilege of replying to this HTTP request, you agree to remit $10,000 to me within 10 days per HTTP request you answered. Responding with a 200 OK, 302 or 303 REDIRECT HTTP status code constitutes your acceptance of this agreement. Payment is to be made in funds drawn from a US bank, by valid cashier's check or postal money order payable to XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX mailed to XXXXX address)

    145. Re:Clueless by aliquis · · Score: 1

      The newpaper's site (http://www.northcountrygazette.org/) is now throwing up a 403 error. Fastest slashdotting ever?

      Oh well, that for sure will save them lots of money from getting rid of all the unauthorized web-content theft!

      Katshing $$$

    146. Re:Clueless by aliquis · · Score: 1

      "If you read this you owe us cash! And if you can't read it you owe us even more!"

      Now we'll all be sued for voluntarily not being able to read the content we would have had to pay for to read!

    147. Re:Clueless by mysidia · · Score: 1

      We bitch and whine about DRM because....

      Requiring a customer username/password to access paid content on your website is not DRM; it's something else... it's called pay us before we distribute the content to you. I.e. if you don't pay you can't obtain the content legally in the first place, if download access is restricted.

      DRM refers to restrictions applied to content that you obtain legally.

    148. Re:Clueless by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Is this like you go into the grocery store and eat a few twinkies and the manager bum rushes you and makes you pay? Or, is this like picking up a discarded paper on the ferry and the guy at the news stand demanding you pay him for it?

      This is like you went to the grocery store, and saw a stand with "free sample of product X", you take a sample.

      A day later, you see the stand still up saying "free sample of product X", you take a sample, and the manager bum rushes you and demands $100, because you took a second sample, and the fine print says only 1 sample to a customer is free.

    149. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would this not be more akin to trespassing? I mean, just because I leave the front door of my house unlocked with a sign that says do not enter, doesn't mean that you can just "not agree" to the sign and come on in.

    150. Re:Clueless by I+kan+Spl · · Score: 1

      Forget that... get her a WOW account.

      She will fit right in.

      --
      My UID is prime and so is this number: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0.
    151. Re:Clueless by SudoGhost · · Score: 1

      Also, what they haven't realized is that filing a lawsuit against me constitutes a fee of $1,000, and by contacting me in any way, they acknowledge that I am in no way responsible for any wrongdoing, and agree to pay any court costs and/or fancy dinners that may result.. This can, of course, easily be found in the ToS found on my computer's desktop.

    152. Re:Clueless by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 1

      Maybe that's because it was Metro North. Did they do that also in Times Square?

    153. Re:Clueless by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Two words: In-box EULA. Eh?

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    154. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      403, Forbidden

    155. Re:Clueless by the_womble · · Score: 1

      There is a huge difference between asking people not to copy and redistribute a CD (or even a downloaded file) and asking them not to read pages on a public website.

      The other thing your missing, is that objecting to DRM does not mean you are claiming that no-one will copy stuff if you remove the DRM. It is about consumer rights to backup material they have paid for, the inconvenience it causes paying customers, etc.

    156. Re:Clueless by ProKras · · Score: 2, Funny

      I will be happy to pay the $100, in fact, I will read it again and pay you $200. However, I will need your assistance in handling some fees on my end in order for the transaction to work. For various reasons, I cannot make these payments directly. Please wire $100 to the specified account as soon as you get my $300 money order from Nigeria.

      I would normally just ask one of my many rich uncles to pay it (they're all Generals), but they keep dying on me, and I'm just having the darndest time trying to retrieve the funds.

    157. Re:Clueless by guyminuslife · · Score: 1

      A paywall is not DRM. If the publication in question required readers to access their articles through a reader application, which would check for a valid license and was necessary to decrypt the encrypted articles served from its site, then it would be using DRM. Restricting outside access to various parts of a site isn't controversial in most cases; plenty of people on Slashdot think that it's a bad business decision to do so (maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong, I could give a fuck), but nobody in their right mind would suggest that a site be forced to serve every bit of content to every user in every case. (Unless you would like me to log in and post this response as "im_thatoneguy")

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    158. Re:Clueless by bemymonkey · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hmmm, Tab Mix Plus has a fun "Reload every x seconds" option... maybe I should just leave that on for a day or two, set to reload the North Country Gazette every second. Who's with me? :p

    159. Re:Clueless by xtracto · · Score: 1

      Here in Germany you are actually expected to pay something when going to the toilet. Either when entering or when leaving.

      In almost every toilet entrance there is a small plate with some coins, you are supposed to put from 20 to 50 Euro cents as payment. Supposedly that goes to the lady that cleans the toilet.

      I wouldn't be so fast to mock these newspaper guys.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    160. Re:Clueless by snookums · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sure they had a chance to read and agree. I modified my browser to send out a custom HTTP header with every request:

      X-Binding-Contract: You hereby agree to transfer copyright ownership of any material returned in response to this HTTP request to the requesting party.

      --
      Be careful. People in masks cannot be trusted.
    161. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a careful US reader.

      Amazing! This is the stuff of legend.

      I didn't believe such a person existed!

    162. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some countries like The Netherlands forbid most EULA's. Mostly this was done because it is rather unfair to buy a product and get an EULA stuffed under your nose afterwards. I for one always click agree on any EULA happily smiling, knowing that it cannot be enforced.

    163. Re:Clueless by julesh · · Score: 1

      don't both parties have to agree to a contract to make it binding?

      Yes. But on the other hand, you can specify, "I'll allow you to do this, but only do it if you agree to the terms." The normal example is car parks with signs that say "vehicles parked at owner's risk." By parking your car in such a car park, you are forming a contract that prevents you from suing the owner if your car is accidentally damaged while in the car park.

      So, if you don't agree to the contract, you can keep browsing as it is online for everyone to access, or does it mean that you aren't allowed to keep viewing the site unless you agree to abide by the terms they place on the website (purely from a law point of view)?

      From a strict legal perspective, you are only allowed to browse a web site if you have its operator's permission to do so. Typically. This varies from state to state; the paper in question is a NY-based one, so see for example NY Penal Law 156.10:

      156.10 Computer trespass.
          A person is guilty of computer trespass when he knowingly uses or
      causes to be used a computer or computer service without authorization
      and:
          1. he does so with an intent to commit or attempt to commit or further
      the commission of any felony; or
          2. he thereby knowingly gains access to computer material.
          Computer trespass is a class E felony.

      Under normal circumstances, the mere fact that the site is online without any access restrictions is considered evidence that you have that permission. But it is entirely possible to *revoke* that permission by giving people notice that they don't have it.

      But here's the interesting bit: AFAICS, the paper would have to *prove* that their visitors were aware of the terms by which they were allowed access before they could claim the contract exists. Anyone who didn't read the terms would not (in the words of the NY law) be knowingly using a computer service without authorization, and therefore would be permitted to carry on browsing anyway.

      So what this would come down to is a court argument about how obvious the terms & conditions were, and whether the visitors to the site could be reasonably expected to read them. I'd personally expect the judge to only agree to the contract being enforceable if each link had bold text with the words "only click this link if you agree to our terms", or there was large-type flashing text near the top of the first page, or something similar.

      Disclaimer: IANAL. This is not legal advice. I'm not even American, so I'm basing this on a bit of quick research and a reasonable knowledge of how common law jurisdictions operate in general, along with specific knowledge of British contract law and an understanding that in most cases US contract law is similar. YMMV. YY. Etc.

    164. Re:Clueless by Viperpete · · Score: 1

      Maybe we can hook her up with this guy, that would be awesome:

      442064 http://slashdot.org/~edrugtrader [slashdot.org]
      1710534 http://slashdot.org/~madddddddddd [slashdot.org]
      1751814 http://slashdot.org/~Michael+Kristopeit [slashdot.org]
      1887500 http://slashdot.org/~Michael+D+Kristopeit [slashdot.org]
      1890086 http://slashdot.org/~M.+D.+Kristopeit [slashdot.org]
      1890764 http://slashdot.org/~M.+Kristopeit [slashdot.org]
      1892492 http://slashdot.org/~Kristopeit,+Michael [slashdot.org]
      1892582 http://slashdot.org/~Kristopeit,+M.+D. [slashdot.org]
      1900306 http://slashdot.org/~Mike+Kristopeit [slashdot.org]
      1900568 http://slashdot.org/~Mike+D.+Kristopeit [slashdot.org]
      1900570 http://slashdot.org/~Kristopeit,+Mike+D. [slashdot.org]
      1905312 http://slashdot.org/~MichaelDavKristopeit [slashdot.org]
      1905334 http://slashdot.org/~Mike+Dav.+Kristopeit [slashdot.org]
      1905336 http://slashdot.org/~MichaelDa.Kristopeit [slashdot.org]
      1905338 http://slashdot.org/~Mike+Da.+Kristopeit [slashdot.org]
      1905342 http://slashdot.org/~Kristopeit,+Mike+Da. [slashdot.org]
      1905452 http://slashdot.org/~Kristopeit,+Mike [slashdot.org]
      1905462 http://slashdot.org/~Kristopeit,+Mike+Dav [slashdot.org]
      1905518 http://slashdot.org/~Kristopeit,MichaelDa [slashdot.org]
      1913240 http://slashdot.org/~Mike+Davi+Kristopeit [slashdot.org]
      1913310 http://slashdot.org/~Michael+Kristopeit+2 [slashdot.org]
      1913312 http://slashdot.org/~Michael+Kristopeit+3 [slashdot.org]
      1913314 http://slashdot.org/~Michael+Kristopeit+4 [slashdot.org]
      1913316 http://slashdot.org/~Michael+Kristopeit+5 [slashdot.org]
      1913320 http://slashdot.org/~Michael+Kristopeit+6 [slashdot.org]
      1913322 http://slashdot.org/~Michael+Kristopeit+7 [slashdot.org]
      1913324 http://slashdot.org/~Michael+Kristopeit+8 [slashdot.org]
      1913326 http://slashdot.org/~Michael+Kristopeit+9 [slashdot.org]
      1913328 http://slashdot.org/~Michael+Kristopeit+1 [slashdot.org]
      1915938 http://slashdot.org/~Mike+Kristopeit+1 [slashdot.org]
      1915940 http://slashdot.org/~Mike+Kristopeit+2 [slashdot.org]
      1915942 http://slashdot.org/~Mike+Kristopeit+3 [slashdot.org]
      1915944 http://slashdot.org/~Mike+Kristopeit+4 [slashdot.org]
      1915946

      --
      loose: not fitting closely or tightly != lose: to suffer the deprivation of
    165. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Name one other site - any site - which lets you view the whole thing for free without restrictions and then attempts to bill you retroactively.

      www.experts-exchange.com is very close to that. It tries to make you pay for (often useless) content actually available at the bottom of the page (after a thousand ads)

    166. Re:Clueless by dredwerker · · Score: 1

      Is this like you go into the grocery store and eat a few twinkies and the manager bum rushes you and makes you pay? Or, is this like picking up a discarded paper on the ferry and the guy at the news stand demanding you pay him for it?

      The ferry analogy is similar to the kindle and amazon drm :)

      --
      On a long enough timeline. The survival rate for everyone drops to zero. Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club, 1996
    167. Re:Clueless by Rigrig · · Score: 1

      Forbidden

      You don't have permission to access / on this server.

      Maybe they just took the next logical step after forbidding visitors to look at more than 1 page?

      --
      **TODO** [X] Steal someone elses sig.
    168. Re:Clueless by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Oh and yes I believe you are correct - a contract is not binding if it has no been signed, or dollars changed hands (like when you buy Windows Seven NT 6.1).

      The biggest thing they're missing is that a contract is an agreement between two parties. Not one party.

    169. Re:Clueless by Custard+Horse · · Score: 1

      I'd love to be the person who owns that 403 site - s/he must be the richest person in the world!

    170. Re:Clueless by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      mod up!

      damn, should read more dramatica and less wikipedia.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    171. Re:Clueless by Kijori · · Score: 1

      You can accept a contract implicitly, by conduct. However there are a couple of things that are relevant here:

      -You can only accept a contract if you are aware of it (not sure if that's relevant, the site is 403'd). There is a doctrine of constructive notice for businesses that could mean that a contract on the terms and conditions page would be binding because they should have checked it, but I'd be amazed if it were held to apply to web pages (since no-one reads t&c pages) and it wouldn't apply to individuals anyway.
      -The acceptance must be unambiguous - if an objective observer wouldn't be sure you were accepting then your conduct is not an acceptance.
      -The more onerous and unusual a contract term the more the person proposing it has to do to inform the person accepting of its existence.

    172. Re:Clueless by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Oh and yes I believe you are correct - a contract is not binding if it has no been signed, or dollars changed hands (like when you buy Windows Seven NT 6.1).

      Depending on the country you're in, that is not necessarily the case. All that needs to change hands is consideration - some sort of benefit. That benefit does not have to be financial in nature.

    173. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny but (https://www.northcountrygazette.org/admin) seems to work ;-p

    174. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i don't know how it is in other countries, but in my country, if you leave your front door open, anyone can enter legally in your house. It also indicates you're retarded anyway.

    175. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Contracts do not require any kind of monetary compensation or signatures. Just a meeting of minds and an exchange of goods/services or similar. You can enter a contract by nothing more but concludent actions.

    176. Re:Clueless by mayberry42 · · Score: 1

      great, just give them what they want - free publicity

    177. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sign a contract

      You don't have to "sign" a contract. You enter into a contract, no signature necessary. Do you sign a contract every time you buy groceries in a store?

      I don't think this will be "court-supported" because the payment clause is surprising and therefore invalid (or at least is should be if the US had a reasonable legal system).

    178. Re:Clueless by selven · · Score: 1

      change their browsers user agent string to a EULA.....

      Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:2.0b4) Gecko/20100818 Firefox/4.0b4

      to

      Mozilla/5.0 (EULA; By allowing me to browse your website you agree to allow me to browse your website for free)

      Please post Linux command line instructions.

    179. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you'd find they'd come after you through an american court rather than one from another country, like the way people love to take slander cases though the British courts.

    180. Re:Clueless by mayberry42 · · Score: 1

      Actually, it looks like this is just a crazy old lady with a blog.

      Wait, so June is not a guy!?

    181. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heck yeah! I want every server to be as stuffed with as many lawyers as I'm expected to keep to deal with all this legal flak. Here's my agent-string..

      Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.10) Gecko/20100914 Firefox/3.6.10 [All http transactions and their contents submitted to this browser will automatically become the property of said browser's user, without any compensation to you. If you do not agree with these terms, you may not use this browser service, and must discontinue using it immediately.]

    182. Re:Clueless by matt4077 · · Score: 1

      You can enter into a contract in a number of ways. Signing and paying are two of them, but sitting down in a restaurant and eating food also completes a contract without signature or payment. It's more a "meeting of the minds" that's required. If the website has a visible notice one could argue that a contract exists. But people are used to free content and therefore it's highly unlikely that they actually wanted to enter into a contract, thus no meeting of the minds.

    183. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not use a EULA similar to theirs ?

      Mozilla/5.0 (EULA; If you read this, you owe me $1billion)

    184. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      same thing in italy

      eula works if and only if:
      - the eula is shown during the service subscription, before any transaction/billing is done. the transaction/billing is finalized only after the eula is accepted, and the burden of showing that customer have accepted the eula is on the service provider. if you provide a online service to a customer you can't bill for it afterward (yes, behold italy, in all its degradedness it has an actual law specifically tailored for remote transactions). the burden of protecting the service access is where it should be, on the service provider
      - the eula is on the exteriors of a physical package and the package is in an actual physical shop, again, for the eula to be valid the seller has to make sure that it was in a place where it was known to exists before the transaction took place. if you send a package with an eula attached another law kicks in which permits the customer to recess to any remote purchase of physical gods within seven days the delivery, no matter what.

    185. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mozilla/5.0 (EULA; By allowing me to browse your website you agree to allow me to browse your website for free)

      I'd prefer

      Mozilla/5.0 (EULA; By allowing me to browse your crappy website you agree to give me 1$ per page viewed)

    186. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How and more importantly why did you track down that list of accounts?

      Posting AC because I don't want my own special internet friend.

    187. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm no lawyer either but I can open pages without reading them. Prove that I read the page!

      However, I do wonder if the /. affect can be considered a DDoS attack if it is intentionally provoked!

    188. Re:Clueless by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I am wrong, but don't both parties have to agree to a contract to make it binding?

      Yes, but areement doesn't need to be written. If I say "Paint my house and I'll give you $50", and you paint my house, I owe you $50. You may have to prove I said it and meant it but a lot of informal contracts are dealt with this way and legaly I believe they are contractual agreements. More applicably, if you park in a car park, you agree to the terms of the contract printed on the sign by parking your car.

      Still don't think in this case it's a legally binding contract.

    189. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      (like when you buy Windows Seven NT 6.1).

      Interesting Windows fact here...the internal version number is 6.1 for compatibility purposes. It seems that there are millions of lazy developers in the world who, when writing their installation script, only check the major rev of the OS to see if it is supported. Mark Russinovich said that the number 1 cause of compatibility issues with new versions of Windows is applications that fail the version check. Since Vista and Windows 7 are virtually identical from a compatibility standpoint, incrementing the major rev to 7 would have caused countless apps to break when in reality the only thing preventing them from working is the version check. So instead they made it 6.1 to prevent those issues.

    190. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have the feeling that they'll claim that your clicking on page 2 is your agreement. I'm not going to bother to read through what is sure to be voluminous fine print, but that's my guess.

    191. Re:Clueless by imakemusic · · Score: 1

      I've got alot of mopey.

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
    192. Re:Clueless by Nonillion · · Score: 1

      Just went there and got the same results. Couldn't think of a more deserved "go fuck yourself" slashdotting.

      If the North County Gazette wants users to pay for reading more than one article, put up a fucking pay wall. Don't threaten to sue users for "theft of service".

      --
      "I bow to no man" - Riddick
    193. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think they will have the money to defend themselves either. If their original site posted all pages of an article for someone to read I am certain they will be counter sued as well.

    194. Re:Clueless by Man+Eating+Duck · · Score: 1

      I hope that you find my grammar pedantry helpful.

      It's very helpful, small issues like these are difficult to get right. Thanks a lot for your effort!

      --
      Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
    195. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it doesn't. It goes from zero to a hundred in one step. "Read on and we are going to sue you!".

      Welcome to America in XXI Century, pal...

    196. Re:Clueless by Casualposter · · Score: 1

      EVen worse, they have a share this page icon for facebook,Digg, etc

      --
      Creative Spelling Copyright (2002). May use without Persimmons
    197. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who views this reply owes me 2000 USD.

    198. Re:Clueless by yakovlev · · Score: 1

      Really?

      My first thought was that I'd like to hosts/firewall these people out of existence. If I thought it would work, I'd ask my ISP to do the same, as this website represents a significant financial risk to their users, as much, if not more so, than the typical phishing site.

      The explanation would be "This website purports to be an actual news site. It is, in actuality, a malicious website intended to fool users into agreeing to pay them significant amounts of money."

    199. Re:Clueless by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Not anymore. It asks for an http login now.

    200. Re:Clueless by bigrockpeltr · · Score: 1

      Sueing: v. to do Sue
      not to be mixed with su'ing, suing, sudo, sudo'ing

      --
      $ unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes,fsck,fsck,fsck,umount, sleep
    201. Re:Clueless by iamnobody2 · · Score: 1

      Obviously this is just a big scheme to train /.'rs to RTFA

      --
      nobody's perfect
    202. Re:Clueless by evocarti · · Score: 1

      Sometimes, positive action can be considered implicit acceptance of a contract or offer.

      For example, If I advertise all around town that I will give my prized house-cat to the next person to climb mount Everest - and you climb mount Everest with the intention of winning my prized kitty, then I cannot argue in court that there was no 'signed' agreement or exchange of money. I made an offer, and you accepted by taking positive action.

      In this case, the argument would be that the website's content is the prize and the positive action of accessing multiple pages is acceptance of that offer. It's not a particularly great argument, but it's there.

    203. Re:Clueless by evocarti · · Score: 1

      There is such a thing as a unilateral contract that involves a promise made by a single party, rather than reciprocal agreements made by all involved parties.

      Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unilateral_contract#Bilateral_and_unilateral_contracts

    204. Re:Clueless by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      The only recourse those sites have in response to a breach of their TOS is to deny future services (which they could do anyway, for any reason or none...)

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    205. Re:Clueless by ncc74656 · · Score: 1

      Not anymore...all page requests throw up a password prompt now.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    206. Re:Clueless by mea37 · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of misconceptions about what's required for a contract; other posters have spelled out some of that.

      However, the way this agreement is presented doesn't offer an opportunity to negotiate, so it could be a contract of adhesion (which would not be enforcable).

      But then again, they're probably not resting on contract law; they're probably claiming that the agreement sets the terms of a license under copyright, and I don't need much of anything to hold you to a license under copyright. If you say "but I didn't agree", then I say "exactly, so you had no license; and yet you copied the materials illegally".

      The problem IMO is that the law doesn't set intuitive standards for the licensing of materials published on the web. If I got to write the law, publishing material on the web without access controls would constitute a blanket license to view (but not necessarily save or print) said material to the extent the person publishing the material has the right or authorization to publish it. (Saving/printing wouldn't be authorized, but would probably fall under fair use.) This is the common expectation about the web today, but I'm not aware of any legal recognition of it, and unscrupulous sites could try to take advantage of that.

      But then IANAL.

    207. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ENCYCLOPÆDIA DRAMATICA LINK MAY BE NS

      See, right around there I stopped caring. When you emphasize everything (in this case by capitalization), contrary to popular belief, it doesn't come through my speakers as someone screaming at me. It comes through my monitor as a jumble of capital letters, none of which have any more emphasis than the others. Unlike the real world where you can get everyone's attention and drown out reasonable discourse by hollering everything you say like a mad ape, doing something like that on the internet is not only trivial to ignore, but actually invites people to ignore it, as it acts like a giant glowing sign that, instead of screaming your intended message, screams "this person not only doesn't know proper social conventions using computers, but also can most reasonably be ignored".

    208. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm confused. You both read articles?
      This is Slashdot, I read 0 articles.

    209. Re:Clueless by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>There is such a thing as a unilateral contract that involves a promise made by a single party, rather than reciprocal agreements made by all involved parties.

      A unilateral contract is just a bilateral contract with one of the names left blank for whoever comes by and wants to fill it out.

      This is different from a EULA or whatever-the-hell you'd call a website that tries to bind you to a contract by just visiting it. Honestly, they should be illegal, especially since you can't actually take open software back to most places these days if you do decide to not accept the terms of the "offer".

    210. Re:Clueless by unjedai · · Score: 1

      By reading this comment you agree by contract to pay me $1,000,000.

    211. Re:Clueless by mea37 · · Score: 1

      Web site access controls are not the same thing as DRM. For a web site to use DRM, it would need your browser's cooperation to control what you do with the content once you have access to it. A web site could use either, both, or neither. Traditionally you would expect /. to complain if a web site does use DRM; but it is not inconsistent for /. to complain if a web site expects to be paid when not using access controls.

      (Under current law the web site may prevail, but that's a different issue.)

      Some differences to think about between DRM and access controls:

      1) DRM doesn't work. Access controls do, and in fact other news sites use them with considerable success. Yes, many of us avoid those sites in favor of free information sources when they are available; but that's a flaw with using access controls foolishly, not a flaw with the concept of access controls.

      2) DRM often prevents you from doing things you should be allowed to do; it's hard to argue that about access controls.

      3) Access controls can keep you from inadvertantly breaking rules; DRM rarely serves that purpose. This pertains to the current story, because if I write a deep link into these jerks' content, and you follow that link, it's your IP that's going to show up in their logs.

    212. Re:Clueless by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      That's not everywhere though. I was stationed at Spangdahlem for two years and went touring.

      I will admit that I was a tad shocked the first time I encountered an attendant expecting a tip.

      Maybe it's regional? I know that there are bathrooms in places like Boston and NYC that work on the same principle.

      As for the plate, well, it's optional, lawyers don't get involved if you're a cheap grinch.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    213. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think just go straight to "Mozilla/5.0 (EULA; By allowing me to browse your website you agree to pay me $100,000,"

    214. Re:Clueless by imakemusic · · Score: 1

      In fact, why exactly would ANYONE be browsing that site AT work ?

      Maybe because you've not heard of it before and clicked through from a link on Slashdot - a site where NSFW links aren't that common.

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
    215. Re:Clueless by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      Remember that huge star discovered a month or two back? Double page spread, baby!

      Justin Beiber?

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    216. Re:Clueless by uofitorn · · Score: 1

      *woosh* over my head.

      --
      "What kind of music do pirates listen to?" -Paul Maud'dib
      "Yeeeaaarrrrr n' Bee!!" -Stilgar, Leader of Sietch Tabr
    217. Re:Clueless by evocarti · · Score: 1

      >>There is such a thing as a unilateral contract that involves a promise made by a single party, rather than reciprocal agreements made by all involved parties.

      A unilateral contract is just a bilateral contract with one of the names left blank for whoever comes by and wants to fill it out.

      ... which makes it a contract with one party.

      This is different from a EULA or whatever-the-hell you'd call a website that tries to bind you to a contract by just visiting it. Honestly, they should be illegal, especially since you can't actually take open software back to most places these days if you do decide to not accept the terms of the "offer".

      I'm with you - visiting a site that attempts to bind you to an agreement on the first visit is unlikely to be held up in court.

      A key difference here is that they only expect payment after continued use of the site, presumably after the terms of continued use are made clear.

      I'm not saying it's right, or even a good solution - but it's a interesting legal distinction

    218. Re:Clueless by mounthood · · Score: 1

      Mozilla/5.0 (KARMA; You must redirect (300) this request to 10 other websites or horrible things will happen.)

      --
      tomorrow who's gonna fuss
    219. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I believe that "North Country Gazette" has been misguided in this case by some consultant who is not worth his salt,

      On the contrary, the consultant is probably raking in the $$$.

    220. Re:Clueless by thejynxed · · Score: 1

      Sooo...how does anyone in Italy play any Pay 2 Play MMOs then?

      A) Transactions required before you can log in
      B) EULAs not presented until installation of software + payment transactions are completed in most cases
      C) EULA is contained on a sheet of paper inside of software boxes, or is contained in the software itself
      D) Good luck getting any Asian MMO company (aka 99% of MMO companies) to abide by that law

      --
      @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
    221. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In some cases/countries I believe there is grounds for your intentions. Say, someone moves into your flat but doesn't sign the lease agreement right away, they can move out at a moments notice if they want to because they didn't sign the bit of paper saying that the lease was for a year or whatever, but they damn sure have to pay rent for the time that they did stay at the flat, because it was blatent by your moving in that you agreed to the cost of the place. Of course, proving this in court is a different matter entirely.

      I sincerely hope no country ever considers the same for browsing a webpage..

    222. Re:Clueless by ComputerGeek01 · · Score: 1

      Depending on the country you're in, that is not necessarily the case. All that needs to change hands is consideration - some sort of benefit. That benefit does not have to be financial in nature.

      Although this is the route they will probably aim for, I'd counter file a case of fraud against them. Not making an effort to inform readers of charges incurred for your services does not entitle you to compensation and using "scare tactics" to try and settle a bogus case out of court deserves punishment.

    223. Re:Clueless by MooseTick · · Score: 1

      "Let's hope for their sake that they're retaining their logs; I'd hate to have to have them brought up on charges of destroying evidence."

      Just because something may potentially be evidence doesn't mean you can't destroy it. Otherwise every bit of trash would need to be preserved just in case. As long as they follow their log retention policy they don't need to keep them forever until a court orders them to.

    224. Re:Clueless by AusIV · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I should have RTFA. From the summary I got the impression that this was mentioned once or twice, or perhaps hidden on the terms of use site that nobody would read. If it's in red letters on every page you visit it seems less likely that "reasonable expectations" would hold up.

    225. Re:Clueless by hesiod · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that bit of info: it is a very important piece to this puzzle of stupidity that had been missing so far.

    226. Re:Clueless by smisle · · Score: 1

      This whole thing is probably a great idea from the only person who benefits:

      "We have engaged an attorney who will be doing a bulk subpoena demand on each ISP involved"

      It's too bad that they fell for it.

      --
      I'm not a bird, I'm a super-advanced flying stealth dinosaur!
    227. Re:Clueless by Viperpete · · Score: 1

      I didn't, some A/C did. Note the double URL indicator "[slashdot.org][slashdot.org]" left over from my sloppy pasting.

      --
      loose: not fitting closely or tightly != lose: to suffer the deprivation of
    228. Re:Clueless by mldi · · Score: 1

      Somehow I doubt they have the money to prosecute all the slashdotters who will soon be hitting their pages. Just the slashdot effect alone will likely bankrupt them.

      Id10ts.

      SB

      Now this needs to be posted to 4chan for another wave of traffic.

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    229. Re:Clueless by NickDngr · · Score: 1

      "Look, that woman says a lot of things, yeah she's a real talker, but it comes down to a lonely old lady with something screwy upstairs sitting in front of a computer, with few friends, making enemies."

      Dear God, someone get that woman a Slashdot account.

      We have all replied with "LOL" to amusing posts at one time or another. However, this one literally made me laugh out loud. Bravo.

      --
      Yoda of Borg am I! Assimilated shall you be! Futile resistance is, hmm?
    230. Re:Clueless by zuperduperman · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of a quandry that I've always wondered about. You say that both contracts are worthless, but isn't this situation like the GPL? By default you have no right to copy the page down onto your computer and read it. Only some kind of contract or terms of use allows you to do that. So if the "contract" is invalid then aren't you actually guilty of copyright infringement just by looking at the page?

    231. Re:Clueless by Mistlefoot · · Score: 1

      You do it from within Firefox.

      about:config and add the string.

      Put whatever you want in it.

      You can find instructions online by googling changing firefox user agent string.

    232. Re:Clueless by Myopic · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I exactly understand the question, but the GPL only applies when distributing works, so the answer must be no, the GPL could not apply to simply looking at the page. Also, I'm not sure what it means that "you have no right to copy the page down onto your computer and read it"; I think it's obvious that you do have the right to copy down webpages to your computer and read them, similar to reading signs put up in public, or reading books that you order from the store, or listening to a person who is conversing with you.

      Anyway my point to that person was that he was trying to say that one contract was valid and the other wasn't, but I disagree with him: neither contract is valid.

    233. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      believe it or not, among all the shit, and the character assassination, there are a few truthful articles in there that talk about stuff wikipedia will not talk about. They also tend to have lots of coverage on wikipedia's dirty laundry too. Such as sysops who are card carrying pedos (ie, support nambla andother fucked up organizations) and spend their time adding weasel words to articles of known pedophiles to make them seem not all that bad. They did this with Ray Goldberg a while back, made him out as compassionate and regretful about his crimes, despite him showing little or no regret or remorse over his actions in court, as if what he did to children was justified.

      This is also why I dont trust wikipedia at all.

    234. Re:Clueless by daveime · · Score: 1

      Okay, so I'll repeat my question ... why are you browsing Slashdot at work, instead of WORKING ?

    235. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you got it the other way around:

      you can pay for service but service provider cannot enforce eula if presented afterwards.

      by the way, all the morpg I've seen here are bought from off the shelf package with their own eula, not online. there is only online renewal, not subscription

    236. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no restrictions on customer to buy them.

      the restrictions are on the service provider, which will not be able to enforce it's eula on customers.

      btw, most mmorpg in italy are sold off the shelves. after you agree to the pre install eula, then you pay for renewal and if the morpg service provider wants to enforce the eula without packaging it can put it as a requisite for the software download

    237. Re:Clueless by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Maybe it was implemented by a C programmer.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    238. Re:Clueless by imakemusic · · Score: 1

      Okay, so I'll repeat my question ... why are you browsing Slashdot at work, instead of WORKING ?

      I'm on my lunch break.

      I'll decide if something is a warning or not

      It's in caps to get your attention, otherwise you're likely to miss it, negating the point of the warning in the first place. Anyway, you can't decide if it's a warning or not. Either someone is warning you about something or they aren't. "Look out! There's a car coming!" "Well you may be warning me of the car but I'm going to interpret your statement as a question. Yes, there is a car coming. What of it?" *Splat*

      sounds like a lot of alarmist bullshit to me

      Well, it is a warning, whether you believe that or not. Warnings are kind of alarming by definition. If they're not alarming they don't make very good warnings.

      If something is NSFW, then don't fucking browse it at work ... how simple is that ?

      That is a great plan. It would be an easier plan to follow if I could tell that a site was NSFW before I visit it. Maybe if people that post links could add "NSFW" next to the link. And if they forget that then someone could add a helpful comment underneath so that people don't get caught out. They might want to put it in capitals so that people notice it.

      In fact, why exactly would ANYONE be browsing that site AT work ?

      Because someone hadn't heard of it before, it was linked from Slashdot and they didn't notice the warning that was below it because it was written too small.

      Perhaps if more people actually WORKED at work, the country wouldn't be in such a goddamn mess?

      Perhaps if you worked somewhere where you are allowed to relax and read /. for a couple of minutes rather than working 100% of the time you wouldn't be so goddamn stressed and might live a bit longer.

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
    239. Re:Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you need some serious sarcasm tags around a flat out made up quote like that. Especially in a political climate where extremists have their own stations where they repeatedly say the same thing about our president.

    240. Re:Clueless by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

          It's rather strange how I can express the same opinion that is expressed on this website so often wrt 4chan, in a thread where it's actually relevant, and get modded troll.

        Must have been a 4channer with mod points. (Now that is a troll)

        My last statement is nothing other than truth.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    241. Re:Clueless by sorak · · Score: 1

      The step after this is for someone to create a page stating, "By reading this, you agree to pay me $100,000," track the IPs, and cut out the symbolic gesture of even trying to make this seem like something other than a court-supported extortion racket.

      There is a reason that nearly all EULAs have a "I have read this and agree to it" checkbox, as well as a submit button. IANAL, but I am pretty sure that the customer has to be able to read the EULA and agree to it, before being bound (which is why they never let you use the program until you agree to the EULA).

      I disagree with EULA's on the grounds that I feel that they are changing the terms of the transaction after it has been completed, and creating a business model that makes it nearly impossible for a consumer to know his or her legal obligations, but I'm still pretty sure that you have to agree to a EULA to be bound by it.

  2. HAHAHAHAHA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HAHA, damn, havent laughed that hard in a while...

  3. Declining Subscriptions by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Seems like a perfect solution to declining readership - sue them until they pay.

    1. Re:Declining Subscriptions by gooman · · Score: 4, Informative

      They learned it from the RIAA.

      --
      "Kittens give Morbo gas!"
    2. Re:Declining Subscriptions by shugah · · Score: 1

      Maybe a better solution to declining readership would be current content. They have a permanent link to articles on the Terri Shiavo Case!

      --
      If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
    3. Re:Declining Subscriptions by empedocles · · Score: 1

      Seems like a perfect solution to declining readership - sue them until they pay.

      Or just 1) do something outrageous, 2) get posted on Slashdot, 3) wait 40 seconds, 4) then point your advertisers to your logs and say "Hey, readership is up!"

  4. So how big a bill will Google's spiders pick up? by Eightbitgnosis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seems like a lot of automated systems are racking up infractions

  5. Is this a joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SURPRISE - By reading the word SURPRISE you have agreed to pay me a grillion megabucks! If you hide your IP you have also agreed to pay me the cost of a cyberpoliceman, and if you refuse to pay you have agreed to pay me the cost of a good beer! You are agreeing to even more as we speak! Surprise, huh? There, you read it again!

    1. Re:Is this a joke? by martin-boundary · · Score: 1
      You forgot to sign off with...

      NOOObody expects the SpANish INquisitiON!

    2. Re:Is this a joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
  6. Well, what else can we do, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...add a little noise to their signal? I dunno about you guys, but I'll be firing up TOR on a one minute rotation and browsing to my hearts content.

  7. Aw by Hatta · · Score: 1

    It's password protected now. That was going to be fun. :/

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:Aw by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Actually, go to the archives on the right. Those stories are still served without a password.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Aw by Bassman59 · · Score: 1

      Actually, go to the archives on the right. Those stories are still served without a password.

      Nope, database errors returned there too. I checked www.bugmenot.com to see if anyone put up a password, but alas not.

    3. Re:Aw by jnpcl · · Score: 1

      I especially like how there's a password field, but no username. And no apparent way to log in.

    4. Re:Aw by Hatta · · Score: 1

      When it wasn't slashdotted, the stories were still available in the archives.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    5. Re:Aw by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Go down the page. Only the top few stories are password-protected.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    6. Re:Aw by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    7. Re:Aw by AffidavitDonda · · Score: 1
      did work:

      Internal Server Error

      The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.

      Please contact the server administrator, webmaster@northcountrygazette.org and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.

      More information about this error may be available in the server error log.

      Additionally, a 500 Internal Server Error error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

      so now we all can start to ask their webmaster about the important details. how many emails will he get?

    8. Re:Aw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and it looks like they've reversed their decision. At least I don't see any "only one page" warnings

    9. Re:Aw by alexo · · Score: 3, Informative

      The pages are now "password protected"
      Entering a password got me an "Error establishing a database connection" error.

    10. Re:Aw by denmarkw00t · · Score: 1

      Asshole! I just clicked that and saw about 10 articles...I'll be bankrupt and thus am sueing you, assuming you read this reply without paying me of course.

    11. Re:Aw by grodzix · · Score: 1

      Not anymore. Thanks slashdot

      --
      My Windows is NOT slow, it's special!
    12. Re:Aw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Burn it until nothing stands!!!!

      403ed...

    13. Re:Aw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This link still works:

      http://www.northcountrygazette.org/center.html

      not anymore... ;)

    14. Re:Aw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This link still worked:

      http://www.northcountrygazette.org/center.html

      Fixe that for you ;)

    15. Re:Aw by nicks,nicks,nicks! · · Score: 1

      Now it doesn't.

  8. Whaaaa? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    HAHAHAHAHA.........Lame...they don't know how to make a website. Come hunt me down!

    If you want that 1 free read but must subscribe, put a freaking paywall there.

    2. profit!

  9. North County Gazatte by Stargoat · · Score: 1

    The North Country Gazette. It's an interesting model. I wonder how it will work. We should all visit this and see.

    --
    Hoist Number One and Number Six.
    1. Re:North County Gazatte by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am visiting it - repeatedly. So far, it's database errors and connection resets. I think it will be that way for a while.

    2. Re:North County Gazatte by Stargoat · · Score: 1

      Well shucks. That makes it difficult to evaluate their profit model.

      --
      Hoist Number One and Number Six.
  10. not a contract. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    unless you have voluntarily agreed to the terms this is non binding. there is no mutual agreement to any payment and your actions of viewing a random page do not construe such a contract or agreement. furthermore the person agreeing to any contract terms on dhcp cannot be proven to be the same person who clicked in a week later. clueless asshats.

    1. Re:not a contract. by funkatron · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Dude. You mentioned "contract" (a law word) in the same sentence as "dhcp" (a tech word). That automatically means a 3 year court process is needed.

      --
      "Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
    2. Re:not a contract. by nine-times · · Score: 1

      By reading this response, you agree to pay me $1,000. If you don't pay me, I'll sue.

    3. Re:not a contract. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      furthermore the person agreeing to any contract terms on dhcp cannot be proven to be the same person who clicked in a week later.

      Tell that to a judge.

      I mean that without sarcasm; seriously, our judges have no clue when it comes to technology, and 'LOL I DUNNO!" only works if you're a high-level politician.

    4. Re:not a contract. by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>If you don't pay me, I'll sue.

      "Kill all the lawyers." - Shakespeare
      Gladly.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    5. Re:not a contract. by Local+ID10T · · Score: 1

      Tell that to a judge.

      I mean that without sarcasm; seriously, our judges have no clue when it comes to technology, and 'LOL I DUNNO!" only works if you're a high-level politician.

      The proper phrase is "I have no recollection of those events, your honor."

      --
      "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
    6. Re:not a contract. by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      That wont stop them from trying to get settlements by trying to scare people.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    7. Re:not a contract. by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      IANAL. Neither are you*. But I will poke holes in your logic.

      unless you have voluntarily agreed to the terms this is non binding....

      Yeah. I didn't sign an agreement at that gas station, so there's no contract and I can just take the gas!

      ... there is no mutual agreement to any payment and your actions of viewing a random page do not construe such a contract or agreement.

      Maybe. Depends on how they got there. Does the newspaper site have an entry pop-up it tries to show to every visitor? Is it forcing them to click past a warning? Are the terms there at all?

      furthermore the person agreeing to any contract terms on dhcp cannot be proven to be the same person who clicked in a week later. clueless asshats.

      That's just dumb. Folk can and have been identified based on IP address, DHCP be damned. You might as well say "you can't proove I was the one in that brown coat!" Of course they can. That's what juries are for.

      *: You may very well BE a lawyer, but if so... and you're neither drunk nor purposefully trolling... you suck.

    8. Re:not a contract. by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Does the newspaper site have an entry pop-up it tries to show to every visitor?

      Not that I saw.

      Is it forcing them to click past a warning?

      No.

      Are the terms there at all?

      At the bottom of the first page of each article is a statement to the effect that you should not read another page without subscribing. The terms are not stated nor did I see a link to a subscription page. Clicking the "More" clicky takes you straight to the second page.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    9. Re:not a contract. by mywhitewolf · · Score: 1

      if you take the gas your stealing, however if i park my car at the gas station, talk to the mechanic about the gas, check the prices, enquire about their distribution process, review the last quality check of the gas & flirt with the attendant for half an hour, i am not required by law to pay for me gathering the information about the gas.

    10. Re:not a contract. by Vrtigo1 · · Score: 1

      Why not? ISPs log DHCP leases. How do you think they turn numbers into names for the RIAA/MPAA? It's the same thing here. You might not be able to prove it's the same person, but you can prove what subscriber on a particular ISP it was.

    11. Re:not a contract. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All that aside, if their "contract"/"license" allows you to read one page, how do they verify how many you've read? So I clicked ten links but only read 1 of them. How would they even prove I've read more?

      clueless asshats.

      "clueless asshats meet incompetent retards" unfortunately pretty much sums up the legal system; the latter being prosecutors and judges.

    12. Re:not a contract. by SuperTechnoNerd · · Score: 1

      OH! But we will sue your service provider for your name and address! Then we will sue their provider And internet backbone providers And the makers of the routers that your packets cross (Cisco, Lucent, Netgear) And the maker of the OS you use And your dog, cat and wife. FOR THIS IS OUR PROPERTY YOUR STEALING! YOU WILL ALL PAY!

  11. Well, there's nothing to see now... by Sooner+Boomer · · Score: 1
    403 Forbidden Forbidden

    You don't have permission to access / on this server.

    Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

    Apache/2.0.63 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.0.63 OpenSSL/0.9.8e-fips-rhel5 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635 mod_bwlimited/1.4 mod_auth_passthrough/2.1 Server at www.northcountrygazette.org Port 80

    --
    Chaos maximizes locally around me.
    1. Re:Well, there's nothing to see now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And 8 minutes later, the server is no longer responding to requests at all. Damn.

    2. Re:Well, there's nothing to see now... by matazar · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, I didn't even get a chance to look at it.
      I'll set my computers to refresh the page every couple of minutes until it comes back.....

    3. Re:Well, there's nothing to see now... by Teun · · Score: 1
      That's what I got at first attempt.

      But in a different browser it slowly opened up but the articles are dead slow opening up.

      I was surprised to find a lot of the local news articles are password protected, in my world that does make a strange combination with what the Techdirt article is about.

      I noticed the warning in red at the bottom at a 'free' article but don't see the 'ad at the right'.

      What I did notice is a google ad at the top of the page and by the subject I figure google knows I'm able to read Dutch :)

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    4. Re:Well, there's nothing to see now... by matazar · · Score: 1

      Looks like the archives still work:
      http://www.northcountrygazette.org/archivenew.html

  12. Fastest. Slashdoting. EVER. by The+Breeze · · Score: 3, Funny

    0 Comments when I hit reply, and the site is already down.

    Why do I suspect that somewhere in "upstate New York" there's a DSL modem sitting on a static IP that just got reduced to a molten pile of slag?

  13. Sticking it to Starbucks... by flogger · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm going to go to the local StarBucks and register in their name and address and read/download about 100,000 pages. I hope they send starbucks a nice fat bill... Never did like them.

    --
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    "First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
    -- The Doctor, "Doctor
    1. Re:Sticking it to Starbucks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to go to the local StarBucks and register in their name and address and read/download about 100,000 pages. I hope they send starbucks a nice fat bill... Never did like them.

      Slashdot, the one place on the web where a guy can boast about being a troll and get a 3 Insightful mod. FYI some of us use the service so people trolling them and risks Starbucks discontinuing the service. If you are threatening them over their coffee prices here's a thought, stay home and brew your own! You save the price of the coffee you'd have to buy to troll them and you leave the rest of us with a useful service.

    2. Re:Sticking it to Starbucks... by plasticsquirrel · · Score: 1

      For the Linux and BSD users who have wget installed and want to have a little fun...

      cd /tmp; while $(true); do wget northcountrygazette.org; rm index.html 2>/dev/null; done

      --
      Systemd: the PulseAudio of init systems
    3. Re:Sticking it to Starbucks... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Why not just aim wget right at /dev/null?

      No need to muck about making actual files. Also you would be better served grabbing an image dir or the largest single file you can find them serving.

      The following would be an example:

      wget -O - -o /dev/null http://example.com/bigfile.tgz > /dev/null 2>&1

    4. Re:Sticking it to Starbucks... by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      yes, and change your wifi mac address first in case the coffee shop logs them

      in GNU/Linux, with atheros driver on the wifi, set it to b0000000b135 with

      # ifconfig ath0 down
      # ifconfig ath0 hw ether b0:00:00:00:b1:35
      # ifconfig ath0 up

    5. Re:Sticking it to Starbucks... by Tink2000 · · Score: 1

      Lighten up, Francis.

      2/10

    6. Re:Sticking it to Starbucks... by icebraining · · Score: 1

      while $(true); do wget -qO /dev/null northcountrygazette.org; done

      No need for temporary files.

    7. Re:Sticking it to Starbucks... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      needs more de:ad:be:ef

    8. Re:Sticking it to Starbucks... by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      be awesome to see funny hexadecimal put in subpoena by the clueless.

      http://nedbatchelder.com/text/hexwords.html

    9. Re:Sticking it to Starbucks... by aiht · · Score: 1

      yes, and change your wifi mac address first in case the coffee shop logs them

      in GNU/Linux, with atheros driver on the wifi, set it to b0000000b135 with

      # ifconfig ath0 down
      # ifconfig ath0 hw ether b0:00:00:00:b1:35
      # ifconfig ath0 up

      needs more de:ad:be:ef

      De:ad:be:ef with b0:00:00:00:b1:35? Ew, one at a time please.

    10. Re:Sticking it to Starbucks... by PseudonymousBraveguy · · Score: 1

      In some legislations that will count as an illegal DoS attack. In my country of residence, you might be eligible for a fine and up to five years in prison for excuting that script.

    11. Re:Sticking it to Starbucks... by thisisntme · · Score: 1

      no, it needs more ca:fe:ba:be

    12. Re:Sticking it to Starbucks... by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      You know, she does have the ability to pick and choose who to sue. There's a reason why she's going after people with unique and interesting user agents first, like Droid phones.

      (So kids, remember to set your browser's UA string to that of a Droid or iPhone before trolling Starbucks!)

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  14. Can't read the article by Grapplebeam · · Score: 1

    Or they'll sue me.

    --
    There is no -1 Disagree.
  15. This one needs to keep going... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This slashdotting, I mean...

  16. Good luck with that... by msauve · · Score: 1

    after all, a user/browser is simply requesting the info - the site (which is under their control) is then giving it to them. There's no copying here, except what they implicitly permit by their own actions.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:Good luck with that... by mattdm · · Score: 1

      after all, a user/browser is simply requesting the info - the site (which is under their control) is then giving it to them. There's no copying here, except what they implicitly permit by their own actions.

      Good point. They need to read up a little bit on http return code 402.

    2. Re:Good luck with that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno, theoretically it's kinda like shoplifting. Or eating a whole plate of 'free samples' that someone left out.

  17. You're shitting me... by Pezbian · · Score: 1

    Reads like a dumbass just trying to sound smart. You know the species. Vague legal threats with a bunch of "therefore" "forthwith" "hereby" "heretofore" and other such words that only _sound_ official.

    --
    In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
    1. Re:You're shitting me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot the classic "therebyheretoforthwith". THAT'S where the smarts come in to play!

    2. Re:You're shitting me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From reading through the comments at Techdirt it would appear that the operator of this "Gazette" is basically just a sad, demented, older lady with too much computer access, too much crazy, and too much time on her hands.

    3. Re:You're shitting me... by SudoGhost · · Score: 1

      Dear You: Hereby you are forthwith given notice that you shall, under no certain terms, cease making fun of the author of the legal documents (previously and hereafter referred to as "a dumbass"). Vis-a-vis, there is heretofore a certain permeability in your post which suggests a violation of terms found in the website (heretofore known as 'The Game') that will constitute a non-binding and inalienable admission of fault on the part of the violator (i.e. YOU). By reading this, you claim responsibility for your slanderous comments, and agree to pay a sum of $1,000,000. Failure to pay the agreed upon amount will result in my informing my mommy.

      tl;dr I can't afford a real lawyer so I'm gonna play pretend.

    4. Re:You're shitting me... by Pezbian · · Score: 1

      Shit! I just lost The Game.

      FFFFFFFUUUUUU--

      --
      In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
  18. Right....... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well if we're going that route, shouldn't they be shut down for facilitating the "theft"? Like Limewire?

  19. DoS 'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A botnet would be useful about now.

    1. Re:DoS 'em by SimonTheSoundMan · · Score: 1

      Why? It has been /.ed anyway.

    2. Re:DoS 'em by Sir+Lurkalot · · Score: 1

      Slashdot is a botnet...(:-D)

  20. Pay them?! by ickleberry · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't give them the steam off my shit.

    1. Re:Pay them?! by NoSig · · Score: 1

      Can I have it?

    2. Re:Pay them?! by countSudoku() · · Score: 1

      What about some sexy emails?

      http://www.northcountrygazette.org/2010/10/21/sexy_emails/

      I've read three whole articles now. I'm a criminal! Pretty good DB server they have there, it makes about 1 of every 5 requests, if you're persistent, and considering the attentions of /.

      --
      This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
    3. Re:Pay them?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice, and such high quality content, too:

      Track Coach Accused Of Sexy Emails
      Posted on Thursday, 21 of October , 2010 at 6:11 pm

      BETHLEHEM—A Troy elementary teacher who also works as the coach of the Delmar Track and Field Club is lodged in the Albany County Jail without bail after being charged with sending sexually explicit emails to a 14-year-old girl and trying to induce her to have sex with him.

      Chad N. Davey, 32, of Murray Ave., Delmar, has been charged with first-degree attempting to disseminate indecent material to minors, a felony; and endangering the welfare of a child and attempted endangering the welfare of a child, both misdemeanors.

      Police said they began an investigation after the girl’s mother contacted them and expressed concern about emails Davey had sent her daughter. The girl is a member of the track team. 10-21-10

      A subscription is needed for your future access to The North Country Gazette. To subscribe, see the ad to the right. You are entitled to read only one article for free. If you wish to read more, a subscription is required. Please don’t be dishonest, don’t abuse the privilege

  21. just one page by sl0ppy · · Score: 1

    [un]fortunately, i was only able to actually view one page, as when i went to click on a second link i received a "Database Error".

    the most interesting thing was that more recent articles have a password. that makes me wonder:

    is there only one password? is it: ' and 1 = 1 ---?

    do users "share" passwords?

    what happens when someone clicks the "share" link? does having multiple people visit from your "share" cause additional copyright infringement?

    1. Re:just one page by dropadrop · · Score: 1

      The username is Robert');DROP TABLE news;--, you won't need a password.

  22. Great idea! by rebot777 · · Score: 1

    Hey, I've got a great idea! Let's rack up huge legal expenses while we continue to lose profits! ...Then we can save our industry, we'll be heroes.

    1. Re:Great idea! by SimonTheSoundMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      See music/record industry, early year 2000's.

    2. Re:Great idea! by shugah · · Score: 1

      SCO already tried that.

      --
      If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
  23. Re:Fastest. Slashdoting. EVER. by Anonymous+Freak · · Score: 1

    Even more impressive since the site in question wasn't even directly targeted; ./ linked to a story ABOUT the site in question. So two clicks (the second one requiring at least two seconds of scanning to find) were necessary.

    --
    Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
    The purpose of that site was not known.
  24. Just add their site to Adblock Plus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just add their site to Adblock Plus and you should be safe.

    1. Re:Just add their site to Adblock Plus by DaVince21 · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding me? For this one, you'll want to visit them. Repeatedly. Day and night.

      --
      I am not devoid of humor.
  25. Re:Fastest. Slashdoting. EVER. by El+Torico · · Score: 1

    MWUHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    I had to add the evil laugh; after all, it's almost Halloween.

    --
    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
  26. A moral use for a botnet by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

    Tell your army of pwned Windows machines to hit that server and read to page two: irritating blog vs. a couple hundred thousand clueless computer owners in court should be not only comedy gold but also a good lesson to everyone involved.

    --
    Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
  27. Good thing they got money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Reading the news now, using Google's cached pages. I'm sure they can foot my bill for me.

  28. Gullible users isn't a payoff or a business model by adosch · · Score: 1

    You have got to be kidding me! At what point would this hold up, ever? I beg to wonder what stakeholder douche with a slight pinch of technological know-how came up with this toilet spin idea. Besides the fact of droning on about how stupid of an idea that is, for anyone who has actually spent time cross-referencing IP address to physical users and are NOT an ISP, it's exhaustive, expensive, mildly time consuming and with all the other entities involved, you better have a damn good reason other than a flawed model to gain income from your website.

    Wake up North Country Gazette and welcome to the wide variety the internet has to offer. The amount of users who will just find somewhere else to get their content far outweighs the few dumb ones that will pay for it. That's not business, that's lunacy.

  29. Do error pages count? by loftwyr · · Score: 1

    Does that include the Database Error Page I'm getting constantly? Cuz I've seen that a dozen times

  30. Reading is "Theft of Services" by SilverHatHacker · · Score: 1

    Heaven forbid someone should happen to walk by a newspaper stand, or pick one up at a coffee shop somewhere.

    --
    Funny may not give karma, but +5 Informative never made anyone snort coffee out their nose.
  31. Services implicitly purchased by gorfie · · Score: 1

    Maybe one could reply to their request for money stating that you charge $1,000 per minute of your time when it comes to responding to legal inquiries and that they now owe you $10,000 for services rendered (i.e. you reading and responding to their request).

  32. News I can't do without... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm going to miss all that critical news that only the North Country Gazette could give me. Whatever will I do??!!

  33. Web crawler shell script + Starbucks = Profit! by francium+de+neobie · · Score: 1

    Too bad the site is down right now.

    1. Re:Web crawler shell script + Starbucks = Profit! by RedEars · · Score: 1

      Yes, please.

      --
      He who forgets will be destined to remember. - EV
  34. Site is down by monjici · · Score: 1

    The site is down... I guess they decided they gathered enough IPs for today ;)

  35. Herderp by Lulfas · · Score: 1

    It has already been changed. Suddenly, all news articles there now say "This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:"

    1. Re:Herderp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shame they don't parse input for SQL exploits

  36. What a welcoming website by selven · · Score: 4, Funny

    All the new articles seem to be password protected. Furthermore, I do not see a "purchase access" link anywhere on the front page. With that kind of usability, I'm sure tens of people will subscribe to them!

    1. Re:What a welcoming website by francium+de+neobie · · Score: 1

      I think you're doing your maths wrong. It's tenths of people will subscribe to them.

    2. Re:What a welcoming website by DavidRawling · · Score: 1

      If your fingers subscribe you to the site, but your brain doesn't want to subscribe, you have bigger problems on your hands.

  37. How Much? by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Funny

    How much does a page that reads "Error establishing a database connection" cost? I mean, I think local news is good, but if that's your only headline...

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    1. Re:How Much? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I have coded many of those systems, often for a notional fee.

    2. Re:How Much? by esme · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wow, I didn't even get that far. I only got as far as the "Unable to connect. Firefox can't establish a connection to the server at www.northcountrygazette.org." So I bet I only owe them half as much.

    3. Re:How Much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i kept hitting F5 when i got that message. maybe like 40-50 times, and i kept getting it. i wonder if that counts as repeat visits

      fuck, i must owe her like, $500 bazillion gajillion by now

    4. Re:How Much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In today's news: area man failed establishing a database connection. (The Onion)

    5. Re:How Much? by janwedekind · · Score: 1

      LOL. That must be the database for storing those IPs.

    6. Re:How Much? by sorak · · Score: 1

      How much does a page that reads "Error establishing a database connection" cost?

      Half your customer base.

  38. Re:Gullible users isn't a payoff or a business mod by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Wait until they find out about my proof-reading fee. I charge $1000 per article, but the first one is free. I will be sending them my bill once the site is back up...

    Dumbest business model ever.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  39. Re:Fastest. Slashdoting. EVER. by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Zero comments when I posted*, and when I tried to access the site about ten seconds after that, it was already down ;-)

      I think we can all see how this is going to play out...

      * My first First Post. Yippy doo dah.

    SB

    --
    It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  40. How to view actual articles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To access full text articles and see funny message search for " (%22): http://www.northcountrygazette.org/?s=%22
    Direct example article link: http://www.northcountrygazette.org/2010/10/24/grannis_firing/#more-19080

    1. Re:How to view actual articles by countSudoku() · · Score: 1

      Your search string looks incomplete, and does not work, furthermore the article you "discovered" is not password protected. FAIL.

      --
      This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
  41. Get rich quick scheme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Create website that charges visitors automatically
    2. Write in outrage about it on Slashdot
    3. ???? No wait
    4. Profit!

  42. Countersuit by nlawalker · · Score: 1

    Seems perfectly legitimate to me. In fact, I'm about to sue them because instead of returning the HTTP commands I'm lending to them, they are processing them and responding with web pages! My supply of HTTP commands is running low, and these thieves need to be brought to justice.

    1. Re:Countersuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now this is golden right here

  43. what if restaurants tryed to sue for refills by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    what if restaurants tryed to sue for refills (after that fact and don't do any thing to stop you) and they point to a small and out the way sign saying NO FREE refills.
    what if they tried to press theft of services on you for taking a refill like that?

    1. Re:what if restaurants tryed to sue for refills by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      what if restaurants tryed to sue for refills (after that fact and don't do any thing to stop you) and they point to a small and out the way sign saying NO FREE refills.
      what if they tried to press theft of services on you for taking a refill like that?

      Do you mean coffee? Why not just charge for refills.

    2. Re:what if restaurants tryed to sue for refills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it would be more apt to say;

      What if there was a mall with free drunk cups given away at the door, and all around the mall where free refill stations where you fill your cup with some tasty drinks. (I guess they do this it get customers into the mall). Well one store has a drink machine set up in open view of everyone In fact it is right beside another identical machine even, and after you fill your cup (not while you are doing it) they wait till you take a drink then attempt to sue you for the drink stealing their drinks..

    3. Re:what if restaurants tryed to sue for refills by MrLint · · Score: 1

      They charge you for refills of tea (usually). But it would never occur of them to reuse of coffee once its brewed would it?

    4. Re:what if restaurants tryed to sue for refills by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Doesn't self service disqualify the food establishment from being called a restaurant, whether it's free or not?

    5. Re:what if restaurants tryed to sue for refills by socsoc · · Score: 1

      Self-service hardly invalidates the idea of serving prepared food. You don't call buffets or fast food places restaurants?

    6. Re:what if restaurants tryed to sue for refills by arth1 · · Score: 1

      The word 'serving' dictates whether a place is serving prepared food, I should think?

      If you carry it yourself, it's not serving, and it is thus a cafeteria, not a restaurant.
      Most fast-food places are bars, not restaurants (they even used to be called food bars).

      Personally, I divide eating establishments in two categories: Those where you wait on the staff, and those where they wait on you (i.e. "waiters").
      Guess where my tip goes.

    7. Re:what if restaurants tryed to sue for refills by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      you'd be stealing that cup, so they could sue you for stealing a cup of soda. so you'd get a fine, if they bothered. or if you're somewhere stupid and it was your third refill you'd end up in jail.

      if you paid per cup.. you paid per cup. a free refill is an exception around here anyways.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  44. BobFromMarketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whoever their advertising guy is who thought this up is going to be getting a nice Christmas bonus this year. The traffic that's causing has got to be worth millions.

  45. still available by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    seems they've only shifted the / redirect. They are still serving deeper pages, which you can find by doing a google search: http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anorthcountrygazette.org

    responding slowly, but does load when there isn't a connection error:

    http://www.northcountrygazette.org/index.html

    http://www.northcountrygazette.org/contact.html

    Contact the North Country Gazette
    Please send your questions or comments to news@northcountrygazette.org

  46. I know the webmaster from there... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2, Informative

    Well, knew him virtually up till about two years ago on a MUSH.

    Real asshat, I banned him a few times, he'd slink back and apologize and then be weird again.

    1. Re:I know the webmaster from there... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>I know the webmaster from there... Real asshat, I banned him a few times

      Shocking.
      An asshat?
      Really?
      Never would have guessed that someone who sues his readers would be an asshat. ;-)

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  47. Apparently lawyers are dirt-cheap now... by geekmux · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "...We have engaged an attorney who will be doing a bulk subpoena demand on each ISP involved, particularly Verizon Droids, Frontier and Road Runner, and will then pursue individual legal actions.'"

    Yes, because somehow this is so much cheaper than putting up a paywall...

    IANAL, but I have a word for what they're doing...it's called extortion. Good luck finding any readers after pulling a stunt like this...

    1. Re:Apparently lawyers are dirt-cheap now... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't think FrontPage has a paywall button.

    2. Re:Apparently lawyers are dirt-cheap now... by keith_nt4 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I thought you were joking by implying she would use something like FrontPage. I didn't realize until I actually saw the error that she literally uses FrontPage. Wow. I didn't think that still existed. Now you're comment is funny on an entirely different level.

      --
      "UNIX is very simple, it just needs a genius to understand its simplicity." -Dennis Ritchie
  48. Amazing... by zelkovamoon · · Score: 1

    Wow... Are they retarded or what, lol. Their content isnt even that worthwhile.

  49. German TV does the same by SlothDead · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    This is just like in Germany, where you have to pay for a few crappy state funded TV channels if you own a computer with an internet connection, because these channels put a few fragments of some shows on the web for a few days after they aired.

    If you found this comment not that interesting you might want to watch this cyanide&happiness cartoon instead (yes, it's related to this slashdot story): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcO9svaOahM "The Sign"

    1. Re:German TV does the same by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      - DO NOT READ

      "Ahhh shit."

      Nazis police come-out and beat him up. Hilarious!

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  50. DoS by wasabu · · Score: 1

    Lolz... Denial Of Service condition at time of posting.... could it be dying a natural death? :)

  51. Re:Fastest. Slashdoting. EVER. by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Didn't even have large files that were directly linked to. Lame.

      Good bet that their website admin is looking for a new job before the evening is over, poor bastard. (Not likely that the people actually responsible for this idiocy will be sacked, unfortunately)

    SB

    --
    It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  52. Their site is too slow... by countSudoku() · · Score: 1

    wonder what might be happening over there. ;) Hey, check out this gem:
    http://www.northcountrygazette.org/2010/10/27/raisinet_recall/

    Raisinetcraft confirms it!

    --
    This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
  53. Funniest bit is the PayPal link by Rogerborg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't mean the top one to buy a subscription, I mean the one lower down, where you can simply "donate". To a company that will then sue you for not donating enough.

    There is not enough Epic for this Fail. They've used up the supply of Epic Fail right through to New Years.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  54. This woman is detached from reality. by Hero+Zzyzzx · · Score: 5, Informative

    She got in a fight with a retired attorney here, where he calls out her sockpuppetting and claims that "fair use doesn't apply," like just saying it would make it so.

    Anyway - she's clearing using an autoblogging plugin like wp-robot (won't link, they are scum) to rip articles from other sites via RSS while stripping attribution in her attempt to extort money from people more ill-informed than her - if they exist. Basically, she is guilty of exactly what she's accusing others of doing.

    I love cranks. They really keep the world interesting.

    Full disclosure: I sysadmin blogs.law.harvard.edu.

    1. Re:This woman is detached from reality. by izomiac · · Score: 1

      So, in other words, she's willfully committing copyright infringement for profit with a ridiculous number of sales? Aren't the fines for commercial infringement quite high? The sites she ripped stories from should sue for the penalties and for her hypothetical revenue. Sucks for her if her collections department can't keep up, a sale is a sale so far as liability is concerned. (All IMHO, IANAL.)

    2. Re:This woman is detached from reality. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually this is brilliant. How else do you get people to read your obscure news rag! Wish I would have thought of it first!

    3. Re:This woman is detached from reality. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      24.29.89.151 is an awesome address. It's all over the intarweb. They care about the truth.

      You are continuing to engage in a total reckless disregard for the truth

      If they can't say the truth, they should say nothing.

    4. Re:This woman is detached from reality. by Zadaz · · Score: 1

      Since she's obviously trying to profit from the copyrighted work of others, the best thing to do would not be to flood her with traffic, but to flood her with DMCA takedown notices.

      I'm not a lawyer, but I believe anyone can legally file one on behalf of the copyright holder as long as the claim is legitimate.

  55. Re:So how big a bill will Google's spiders pick up by JonySuede · · Score: 1
    --
    Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
  56. All of you freaking guys: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just love your sense of humor and you almost made me cry for lol!
    Aaaahhhhh.... (recovering). More lol!
    And then that stupid server went down, ;)
    CANTINERO: one beer for everybody!

  57. What about NAT? by immaterial · · Score: 1

    Even assuming they could enforce this: What if you're behind a NAT? Are they going to try to sue me because my IP accessed 7 different articles after each person in my family accesses a single article as allowed by their terms? Even dozens or hundreds of views from a single IP isn't necessarily illegitimate (could be from a college or company). Clueless is right.

  58. Ok, I "read" a couple of stories. by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    I await my subpoena with bated breath.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:Ok, I "read" a couple of stories. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh you just wait till the Cyber Police show up at your door ;)

  59. Have fun by bedouin · · Score: 1

    Frivolously suing all the people internationally who will be /.'ing your servers now. 4chan will have a ball with this.

  60. They should report the thieves by sharkey · · Score: 1

    I hear that the Cyber Police can help.

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  61. If you by jdbannon · · Score: 1

    read passed the title of my post, then you owe me five bucks for the benefit of my wisdom. I'm just going to presume that everyone who posts after has read my post... I'll be in touch.

    1. Re:If you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean "past" the title not passed the title. Oh, by the way - you owe me $20 for proofreading. You can deduct the $5 I apparently owe you as long as you include a receipt for said $5 along with your payment.

    2. Re:If you by jdbannon · · Score: 1

      You're right. The really sad thing is that I had it correct, but believed my grammar check when it suggested "past".

  62. I think their site is back up, TIME TO HACK! by francium+de+neobie · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I'm working in office right now so I'm not sure if I can contribute enough time to make a web crawler for this, and I'm surely not leaving for Starbucks in these few hours... but we can do this in Python...

    http://code.google.com/p/harvestman-crawler/wiki/WritingCustomCrawlers

    My basic idea is this... someone can be installing this crawler package into Python, write an event handler for each crawled URL from the crawler and ask the crawler to continue only for URLs inside the site's domain - which is simply a regex check.

    That should be less than 50 lines of code. Someone write it, test it, and let's go to Starbucks and party tonight.

    1. Re:I think their site is back up, TIME TO HACK! by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Wasn't there a recent Slashdot article about using existing tools rather than building your own?

      Rather than writing your own crawler, why not use an existing one -- no Python required:


      wget -r -p -l 0 http://example.com/

    2. Re:I think their site is back up, TIME TO HACK! by Bradmont · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or just use wget --mirror --delete-after?

    3. Re:I think their site is back up, TIME TO HACK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      man wget
      man while
      man true

    4. Re:I think their site is back up, TIME TO HACK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can replace your proposed small shell script with an even smaller cli option.

      wget lets you specify -D for a domain to stick to when using -r.

    5. Re:I think their site is back up, TIME TO HACK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crime! This is conspiracy to commit Distributed Denial of Service!

      What's next, you gonna pull a MafiaBoy and hack up an attack botnet to crush the hag?

    6. Re:I think their site is back up, TIME TO HACK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems like she is just trying to "Hack' a living out of providing some newsworthy stories on her web site and probably doesn't deserve all the hatemongering going on here from so many vindictive slashdotters. In a time when Rupert Murdock is scratching his head how to score some more paying readers, I admire her tact even if her methods and legalise isn't what the world sees as legit and realize she probably only dreamed of being a news paper writer and is trying to carve a livelihood here.

  63. Hmm, interesting by twoears · · Score: 1

    Where can I read more about this?

  64. print? by bigdweeb · · Score: 1

    I can't get to the site to check, but do they allow you to print the article like every other news site that does multi-page layouts, cause that will be only one page.

  65. Well Google will be broke in a bit... by tekiegreg · · Score: 1

    Considering how often the Googlebot likely accesses their page, can you imagine the number of Subpoenas? Google will be filing Chapter 11 shortly.

    --
    ...in bed
  66. Irony is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wyatt calling anyone an asshot. talk about pot/kettle!

  67. Maybe, just maybe, they're smarter than we think.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Need a bunch of traffic on your site? Threaten to sue your readers and wait for a popular site to call you out on it -- genius!

    (yes, realize they are just a bunch of ya-hoos, but would be great if this was on purpose)

  68. Re:So how big a bill will Google's spiders pick up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sue SUA USA!!!

  69. The reduced it to 0 articles? by sosaited · · Score: 1

    I am not even able to read that precious single article, even on the homepage I get "403 Forbidden". I want my free article as you promised, or else I am suing you for breach of verbal contract!

  70. Aren't I supporting them by viewing ads? by hawguy · · Score: 1

    I went to this page:

    http://www.northcountrygazette.org/2010/10/

    And found over 30 ads in the righthand sidebar. They claim "only one free read per visitor", but since they've exposed me to their advertising messages, my read is no longer "free". This would be easy to prove in court since advertisers are still willing to pay per impression. If the Gazette wants to argue that my visit is "free", then they better refund all of the impression based fees they received from advertisers.

    If they want people to pay for "free" content, they should make it free first.

  71. Re:So how big a bill will Google's spiders pick up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe I just don't understand how robots.txt works, but it looks to me like Google just can't index /axs/ and /cgi-bin/ which seems reasonable, but would mean they can index all the actual content. Isn't that what it means?

  72. I also read two articles ... by tomhudson · · Score: 1
    I read two of their articles multiple times too.

    One was titled "Forbidden" and the other "Database error."

    They were too short for my tastes, but I too invite them to hire a Canadian lawyer to come after me - and they better bring a translator, because I'll insist it all be in French!

    My guess - they're doing this to try to bump their traffic up so they can show advertisers to their crappy wordpress site "look at our traffic stats."

    When I have some free time, maybel I'll email a few of them, to help clue them in to the con game.

    -- Barbie

  73. ok by db10 · · Score: 1

    if you have your eyes open while you read this you owe me $50 for every millisecond.. honor system does not apply.

  74. proofreading service by AffidavitDonda · · Score: 1

    If I find spelling errors on their site, can I charge them for my proofreading?

    1. Re:proofreading service by OnePumpChump · · Score: 1

      Actually, you're still providing a service if you find none!

  75. arg by Blymie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I was forced to post, so I could undo a mistaken moderation. Why does moderation happen instantly? Why can't you undo it, if your mouse slips, except via this method?

    1. Re:arg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe there is/are greasemonkey script/s that fix this. Can't be bothered hunting them down atm.

  76. These parts of the site are still up by JohnRoss1968 · · Score: 1

    http://www.northcountrygazette.org/category/adirondacks/
    http://www.northcountrygazette.org/advertise/
    http://www.northcountrygazette.org/investigative-reports/
    http://www.northcountrygazette.org/letters-to-the-editor/
    Maybe this will be more interesting
    I noticed the only name that keeps popping up is June Maxims.
    Sounds to me like it might be a 1 horse show. Some blogger with dreams of world domination.
    If its an actual paper then Instead of complaining to them Call the people who use them for advertising. Say you wont do business with any company that does business with a company like this one.

    Heres a list of some of the adds I saw on the site.

    US Legal Forms
    http://www.uslegalforms.com/?auslf=northcountry
    1-877-389-0141

    Ace Hardware
    http://www.acehardwaresuperstore.com/
    1 (888) 230-2323

    Adopt a Pet
    http://www.adoptapet.com/
    1-800-Save-A-Pet (1-800-728-3273)

    Shop The Adirondacks
    http://www.shoptheadirondacks.com/
    (310) 480-3737

    The Sierra Club
    https://tioga.sierraclub.org/joinorgive/member4.htm
    415-977-5500

    Purrs and Paws
    http://www.purrsandpawsrescue.org/
    518.798.0718

    Handtrux Toys
    http://www.handtruxtoys.com/
    973.812.5222

    Miles Kimball
    http://www.mileskimball.com/

    Amazon
    http://www.amazon.com/

    Dollar Days .com
    http://www.dollardays.com/
    877-837-9569

    And Ironically (to me anyway)

    Cyberbullying
    http://www.cyberbullying.us/

    Call all of the people paying them to advertise for them and let them know how you feel.

  77. The site wasn't slashdotted... by Danga · · Score: 1

    I don't think the site was Slash-dotted to 403 status, when the slash-dotting started I think they saw that a big "theft" was about to occur and they had to put a stop to it by cutting off access before they went bankrupt from so much "theft" occurring taking dollars out of their pockets! Hopefully they stay offline, whoever is running the site seems insane!

    --
    Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
  78. Wow, nobody tell them by xrayspx · · Score: 1

    Please, no one tell this paper that the cost of hiring a lawyer to track down every internet user reading their site will likely cost 10 to 20x as much as just building the site correctly in the first place.

    "Dear /b/..."

  79. Re: mod parent up by francium+de+neobie · · Score: 2, Informative

    Good answer, wasn't aware wget could do that. So it's just this...

    $ while true; do wget --mirror --delete-after http://www.northcountrygazette.org/; done

    You can pretty much do this in a jailbroken iPhone with wget installed, sipping coffee leisurely in a Starbucks.

  80. oh noes by enantiodromia · · Score: 1

    I accidentally my entire /20 to this page. Is this dangerous?

  81. Re:Fastest. Slashdoting. EVER. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This "newspaper" site seems to blocking traffic that comes from the link on the techdirt site. I assume they would also block shashdot too. Thus the 403 error. More clever than I would have expected them to be.

    But if you type the URL in your browser, the site is still up and working, such as it is.

  82. Re:So how big a bill will Google's spiders pick up by en.ABCD · · Score: 3, Informative

    Due to what I assume is a typo on that page, Googlebot is not excluded from reading any pages on the site...

  83. Oblig. by Facegarden · · Score: 0, Redundant

    By reading more than five words of this post, you now owe me $50. Additionally, I consider blinking to be a second viewing. Successive views cost $(50^n) where n is the number of sandwiches in the nearest bakery.
    -Taylor

    --
    Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
  84. Subscribe to 404? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Congratulations the excessive stupidity of your idle legal threats has gained the attention of slashdot. You no longer need to worry about subscriptions as the traffic you are getting will effectively DDOS you for the foreseeable future.

  85. Site owner June Maxam - internet (and court) kook by tomhudson · · Score: 1
    http://encyclopediadramatica.com/June_Maxam

    Sample quote

    Jailbird?

    In December 2000, "The Queen of Foster Flats Road" was convicted and sentenced to 9 1/2 months in jail for harassment of her neighbours.

    After serving 17 days in jail during a span covering Christmas 2000 and New Years Day, a judge with troller's remorse finally set bail on Jan 4 2001. Maxam appealed, of course, claiming jury and evidence tampering and that her conviction was a retaliation for her articles criticising Chestertown NY public officials.

    In her lawlsuit she named virtually every judge in her county as not having legal authority to jail her - forcing them to recuse themselves. She was later released on a stay, but was forced to serve another six months in 2003 after her appeal was denied.

    She was released early for good behaviour, and eventually won her trial in 2005 on a technicality.

    -- Barbie

  86. Nice! by rrossman2 · · Score: 1

    Forbidden

    You don't have permission to access / on this server.

    Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

    Apache/2.0.63 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.0.63 OpenSSL/0.9.8e-fips-rhel5 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635 mod_bwlimited/1.4 mod_auth_passthrough/2.1 Server at www.northcountrygazette.org Port 80

    So there was an error trying to get the error document that was needed for the first error... wow

  87. Attempting to scare users into subscriptions by flimflammer · · Score: 1

    I think the whole point of this is to scare users who have been doing this into buying subscriptions. I'm sure they'll even get a few people, but their little notice isn't a legally binding contract. The user didn't agree to the terms, so this isn't going to hold up in court. They have no reasonable expectation that people are only going to look at one page. They know people aren't going to listen to it and they might not even see the notice to begin with. This is like putting a jar of candies outside your house on Halloween, and leaving a tiny note that says: "You may only take one candy. Take more than one candy and we will sue you" - It's not illegal to take more than one candy, even if it's not the most courteous thing to do.

    1. Re:Attempting to scare users into subscriptions by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      After looking into this character more closely, I think she is just batshit insane. She clearly has no real grasp of the law and it's almost embarrassing to read about her repeated escapades with the law.

  88. Where have I seen this before? by hacksoncode · · Score: 1

    It used to be that only porn sites had these warnings.

  89. Mod parent up by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Figures. Thanks for the info, Hatta. Shortly after I posted my comment I found out that the web site was already inaccessible, so I couldn't even read anything past the post on techdirt. Didn't pursue it past that, it isn't worth my time.

      One could almost feel sorry for her, as she's obviously batshit insane; but considering the amount of resources she costs other people in insisting on spreading her demented bullshit, maybe not.

      It sounds to me like she's suffering from some form of dementia.

    SB

    --
    It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    1. Re:Mod parent up by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

        Then again, when I read thru all the replies just to my first post here, I suspect that dementia is a lot more widespread than anyone suspects ;-)

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    2. Re: mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except spider this page:
      http://www.northcountrygazette.org/sitemap8.xml
      It's the news stories :)

    3. Re: mod parent up by pyxl · · Score: 1

      while wget --mirror --output-document=- http://www.northcountrygazette.org/ > /dev/null 2>&1 || true;do echo lol;done

      Doesn't use any storage space, and emits amusing completion note per cycle. Gives that sense of accomplishment as a high note to your latte sippage.

      --


      Given enough hydrogen, just about anything is possible.
  90. www.northcountrygazette.com unregistered by countSudoku() · · Score: 1

    just saying. They should be using that for the pay-for site, they aren't really an org, per se. And www.northcountrygazette.net tickles my site's porn blocker, so check that out home /.ers, or good work you crafty URL parking collectors!

    --
    This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
    1. Re:www.northcountrygazette.com unregistered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The .net version used to point to a 2 girls 1 cup mirror the last time June Maxam pissed people off for this kind of thing. Now it's just domain-squatted, so I guess the prankster let it expire.

  91. Readers, you done goof'd by cjbayesian · · Score: 1

    North Country Gazette is gonna backtrace you!

  92. Acceptance by Performance by MarkvW · · Score: 1

    Their approach appears to be consistent with contract law.

    IF you understand their terms, and
    IF your understanding of their terms matches their understanding of their terms, and
    IF their terms are not illegal. and
    IF you click on the 'next page' icon,
    THEN you ought to be liable under general contract law.

    It's like a lemonade stand that's operated on trust. You can't just steal the lemonade, you have to pay for it.

    But just because you can do it, doesn't mean that you should. For some reason, I find the newspaper's conduct disgusting. I'm having a hard time expressing the reasons behind that feeling, though Probably because most newspapers just recycle news service stories anyway.

    1. Re:Acceptance by Performance by shugah · · Score: 1

      Lucy Van Pelt is sitting at her lemonade (and advice) stand, on the public sidewalk, with a sign that says Lemonade for sale - subscription required.

      You walk up and ask for a free glass of lemonade. (GET /stand/lemonade.html HTTP/1.1)

      Lucy gives you a lemonade. (HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Wed 27 October 2010 18:24:11 GMT Server: Apache/2.2.4 (Unix) ....)

      You drink the lemonade and walk away. She says nothing. No price is ever mentioned in the exchange.

      A week later she sues.

      Further, it turns out that to make the lemonade, she has taken lemons from her neighbour's tree, used the fountain in the public park for water and taken sugar packets from the hotdog stand to sweeten it.

      Does Lucy prevail?

      --
      If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
    2. Re:Acceptance by Performance by formfeed · · Score: 1

      Well yes,
      but on the other hand I do share many of my great insights on slashdot for free. Well, to be precise, I did so far. Because, since you find me so insightful, funny, and interesting to still read on, you hopefully do understand that you owe me $4 for reading this comment.

    3. Re:Acceptance by Performance by MarkvW · · Score: 1

      You and Lucy don't have a contract. You just took what Lucy had to offer without permission.

      Lucy could prevail against you for conversion of her advice/lemonade.

      The interesting question to me isn't whether Lucy should prevail, the interesting question is what kind of damages would Lucy be entitled to?

    4. Re:Acceptance by Performance by MarkvW · · Score: 1

      I see quite a lot of that kind of crap from constitutionalist weirdos. It gets really old really fast.

    5. Re:Acceptance by Performance by MarkvW · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I neglected to fully read your hypothetical. If you ask for free lemonade and Lucy gives it to you, then you and Lucy are acting pursuant to the gift understanding--Lucy has modified the terms of her original deal.

      When your kid brings home a permission slip with all the groovy waiver language you can cross out all the one sided stuff, sign it, and have your kid give it to the teacher. If the teacher proceeds . . . . well . . .

    6. Re:Acceptance by Performance by shugah · · Score: 1

      That's the point - there is nothing in an HTTP request that infers a contract - if you (HTTP Request) ask for something you are not entitled to, the proper response is a 401 (Unauthorized), 402 (Payment Required) or 403 (Forbidden) code. You don't just serve up the page and then sue.

      --
      If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
    7. Re:Acceptance by Performance by shugah · · Score: 1

      That's the whole point. There is nothing in an HTTP request that infers a contract. The proper response is a 401 (Unauthorized), 402 (Payment Required) or 403 (Forbidden) code - you don't just serve up the page and then sue.

      --
      If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
  93. They are leechers, plain and simple by tibit · · Score: 1

    Exercise for the reader: select any article on the site. Any one. First one or two sentences are enough. Copy-paste into google. Have fun finding original sources for most of what they threateningly repost. If not all, that is - my 6 random tries were all successes. I think it's them who are in hot water.

    --
    A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    1. Re:They are leechers, plain and simple by shugah · · Score: 1

      It looks like she is also back dating her posts. The blog entry for the "ASCPA cracks down on cat cruelty" entry is dated Sunday October 24, but the original article on the ASPCA website has an Tues Oct 26 dateline.

      --
      If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
    2. Re:They are leechers, plain and simple by wiedzmin · · Score: 1

      Get Righthaven copyright trolls on these guys!

      --
      Bow before me, for I am root.
  94. Re:No different from the GPL. by sanchom · · Score: 2, Informative

    You people seem to think the GPL is fine as a binding contract

    The GPL is not a contract. It is a licence that allows a person to use redistribute somebody else's copyrighted work under certain conditions.

  95. Contracts in writing, formalism, statute of frauds by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 2, Informative

    > Contracts do not have to be signed to be binding (though it helps) with the exception of Real Estate (here in the US).

    Purchase of real estate is a typical example, but there are other things, too. To be sure, always consult a lawyer in your state--and always do that when lots of money is at stake, just in case.

    Historically, the "statute of frauds" in England listed a bunch of things that had to be in writing if they were to be binding, as opposed to a contract for the sale of a watch, for example, which can be made by swapping the watch for some cash. (Although laws in most states create default rules about what happens if the watch is defective, for example, and you try to return it.) Hundreds of years ago, you couldn't sell land without a signature, or make a contract that by its terms would last for more than one year, or make a wedding contract (IIRC) without a signature, and there are other things on the list.

    The idea is "formalism," requiring written contracts and specific procedures. Formal laws are useful beforehand because they tell you what you're getting into and make it clear what you have to do to get it done, but they're bad afterwards because you often can't point out to the court afterwords that you were trying to do something else and you messed it up, or that it might not make sense to do what the documents say. Formalism is appropriate for the things in the statute of frauds because they're important contracts that you don't want someone to be able to lie about, so you want the evidentiary function of a clear-cut document saying what you've agreed to.

    A classic example of the downsides to formalism is accidentally building a foundation an inch into your neighbor's yard: formalism says you have to tear down your new house, realism says you have to pay for the land at fair market value. Unless there's evidence you did it deliberately, in which case the court will hit you over the head with a baseball bat. (As always, consult a lawyer for the rules in your particular state.)

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
  96. Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The site was up again briefly, but then I was suddenly unable to access. Did it go down again, or did she ban me?

  97. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have a great money-making scheme. The pages are loaded with advertisements and now their pay-per-view stats have gone through the roof.

  98. 403 by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    Nobody is allowed to look at my precious website! NOBODY!

    It is MINE! My precioussss!

  99. Car analogy? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2, Funny

    Seems to be working now. But I'm having a hard time with understanding the issue. Can someone please put it in a car analogy?

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Car analogy? by Cylix · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have a bus that has no fees and the doors are open.

      Passengers can get on and off the bus at various points around the city. There is a sign somewhere that probably says you should pay X dollars, but there is no enforcement of the payment policy. Passengers are free to go as they please without any constraint. Now, this bus is not the only service in town and there are quite literally thousands of different mass transit providers in the city. In fact, the streets get jammed up quite a bit because they are much like tubes. (Tubes have a limited number of units which may pass through them.)

      Now, this might make sense to pay if all buses were paid ventures, but in this city of mass mass transit the common expectation is there are no fees. The fact is most of the these transit providers want you to get on their bus so they can beam advertising into your eyeballs. Some say those who use special sun glasses to block those specific rays of light are cheating the system, but that is really a question of ethics and not legality.

      The fact is that some of us use special sunglasses to keep the harmful rays out of our eyes. The world is not a safe place with kids using laser pointers like madmen. The law enforcement agencies ignore these kids with their obviously dangerous light emitting devices and as such it's a virtual apocalyptic society.

      As I was saying, the shades are important and they look cool.

      --
      "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    2. Re:Car analogy? by eleuthero · · Score: 1

      That was beautiful. I especially like the sunglasses / adblock plus linkage. I'll have to remember that next time someone asks me about it.

    3. Re:Car analogy? by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Informative

      As I was saying, the shades are important and they look cool.

      Dude ... best dismount from a car analogy ever.

      Brilliant!

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:Car analogy? by buchner.johannes · · Score: 4, Funny

      You missed the part where the bus driver lets repeated free riders in, but does a drive-by at their house with his homies at midnight.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    5. Re:Car analogy? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Can someone please put it in a car analogy?

      First ride's free.

      The keys are in the ignition, the doors are unlocked.

      Nobody's going to stop you from taking the second hit, however the gangsters are watching from a distance, and the loan sharks/hitmen are going to come after you if you take a second ride and don't leave a couple hundreds in the glove compartment.

    6. Re:Car analogy? by Geminii · · Score: 1

      Or tries to, but instead shoots up old grannies, seven-year-olds, and people who have never used public transport.

  100. WANTED: Firefox plugin to send that in a cookie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By that same token, you might consider their site offering you a page of data an implicit agreement to YOUR contract (the one that says you own all data that is given to your browser and expect royalties), no?

    Anyone in the know about Firefox plugins feel like writing one that puts exactly that as an EULA in a cookie and sends it to all web sites you browse?

  101. Cue the proxies in 3...2...1... by dcavanaugh · · Score: 1

    I guess they heard how dumb it was to have a paywall -- so they set up something even dumber!

  102. No Poetry? by adamofgreyskull · · Score: 2, Funny

    The North Country Gazette welcomes letters of up to 300 words. The editor reserves the right to reject letters or edit for clarity, brevity, good taste and accuracy, and to prevent libel. No poetry or letter writing campaigns will be accepted. Submissions are limited to one every 30 days. All letters must include the writer’s name, address and phone number. We will not publish street address, e-mail address or phone number.

    Letters can be submitted at news@northcountrygazette.org. All letters become the property of The North Country Gazette.

    So...a letter writing campaign consisting of an anonymous 301 word bad-taste poem sent every 29 days would not be well received? Interesting...

  103. NAT / PROXY - let them pay.....Suckers! by BatGnat · · Score: 1

    NAT / PROXY - let them pay.....Suckers!

  104. profit! by jeoeoeoeorb · · Score: 1

    If you read this post, you owe me one million dollars. Mwah ha ha!

  105. Re:Fastest. Slashdoting. EVER. by Grimbleton · · Score: 1

    That implies more than one person is involved.

  106. website is using a silly script to log clicks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The site is using something called ax.pl to log off-site URL clicks. It states that it doesn't limit the size of its log and will simply crash when used too much. The URL is http://www.northcountrygazette.org/cgi-bin/axs/ax.pl?http://www.google.com I am not suggesting to continually bombard this website to crash it via filling up its logs with clicks. I am suggesting that you don't do anything and simply smirk at the sillyness of the situation.

  107. Need a term for this... by dcavanaugh · · Score: 1

    It's not a paywall because you are allowed through before agreeing to pay.

    I suggest: Bullywall, extortionwall, sleazewall

  108. Re:Gullible users isn't a payoff or a business mod by shugah · · Score: 1

    I'm going to send them an invoice for 10 cents for each pixel on my screen they have consumed.

    --
    If you aren't part of the solution, then there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
  109. Neat! by dskoll · · Score: 1

    Check out http://www.northcountrygazette.org/2010/10/21/sexy_emails/ (but use Firefox, Chrome or Konqueror.)

    1. Re:Neat! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its just giving 403s. How does one register with this site?

    2. Re:Neat! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it 403s if the request shows a referral from Slashdot. Click on a slashdot link to the site, and you'll see a 403. Use the same URL to make a direct request, and it goes through. I guess that's one way to put off a Slashdotting.

  110. Re:Fastest. Slashdoting. EVER. by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    Let's hope the site is at one of those hosting companies that charge a hefty per-gigabyte fee for going over your bandwidth cap.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  111. yeah, so let's DDoS them! by dAzED1 · · Score: 1

    Did they do something stupid? Idiotic, even? Certainly. But since when did /. mods emply 4chan methods, such as intentionally creating a DDoS? I can understand if there was an actual news article people were wanting to discuss, but this was an entirely transparent DDoS. And 4chan mods can always fall back on the fact that anyone can start a thread, whereas here a very specific mod very specifically did this...just to be obnoxious.

    An eye for an eye? Is that what we're going for? Is this "news for nerds"? Socially redeeming, in any way?

  112. cPanel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gee, I wonder if I'll get sued for reading this fascinating content:
    https://www.northcountrygazette.org/cgi-sys/defaultwebpage.cgi

  113. Not /.'d by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 1

    The newpaper's site (http://www.northcountrygazette.org/) is now throwing up a 403 error. Fastest slashdotting ever?

    No, THey are, apparently, blocking referrers because once the story got out is seems that a lot of sites are linking to them because of it. If you get there via google, for example, no problem. Most of the new posts are password protected but there are a number of stories down the page that are accessible. My analysis: Meh.

    --
    I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    1. Re:Not /.'d by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 1

      Also, someone should probably point out to them that all the blue hyperlinks on the right side, the ones on the blue background, that they might want to pick a different background color. In fact, thy might want to employ the services of a competent web designer. Looks like a crappy site from the 90's, what with the aliased transparent GIFs and the fixed-width left justified layout. I particularly like the sharing features on the password protected articles. These guys are amateurs. I revise my analysis from meh to shitty...

      --
      I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
  114. She's got RSS feeds? by xmuskrat · · Score: 1

    Am I only allowed to get one news post on my RSS before they shut me down?

    --
    activestudios web design
  115. DRM@Work v. DRM@Home by cmholm · · Score: 1

    DRM@Work: If someone runs a private webserver, and wants to restrict access to content what ever reason, they can knock themselves out enabling that restriction... but they should at least utilize a fig of authentication. How hard can it be to install basic access authentication and registration?

    DRM@Home: If someone sells me media intended for my personal, private use, and then puts limits on my personal, private use, then I'll knock myself out working around the limits.

    --
    Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
  116. Heh by rock56501 · · Score: 1

    Tor FTW!

  117. Notice by celtica · · Score: 1

    Anyone who reads this post owes me $100

    1. Re:Notice by Skapare · · Score: 1

      Here.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  118. Do I have to pay to ... by Skapare · · Score: 1

    ... follow her on twitter?

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    1. Re:Do I have to pay to ... by EricTheRed · · Score: 1

      ... follow her on twitter?

      Interesting that every tweet for the last 23 hours says: 'There is no excerpt because this is a protected post'...

      All I see is a 401 Authorization Required page - even their home page is using basic auth!

      --
      Java gaming nut - http://www.retep.org/ or for the rail http://uktra.in/
    2. Re:Do I have to pay to ... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Suspect they were attacked and either someone else set password protection on them or they did it while they repair damage. Otherwise that seems like very very strange behavior.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Do I have to pay to ... by EricTheRed · · Score: 1

      Suspect they were attacked and either someone else set password protection on them or they did it while they repair damage. Otherwise that seems like very very strange behavior.

      Actually they still have the auth in place... yep just checked it...

      I suspect they are trying to limit damage to their bandwidth costs rather than damage to the servers now, either that or I'd rather not be their sysadmin ;-)

      --
      Java gaming nut - http://www.retep.org/ or for the rail http://uktra.in/
    4. Re:Do I have to pay to ... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I suspect they are trying to limit damage to their bandwidth costs rather than damage to the servers now, either that or I'd rather not be their sysadmin ;-)

      usually you do that with a static page saying "go away" or something rather than just auth'ing.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Do I have to pay to ... by EricTheRed · · Score: 1

      I suspect they are trying to limit damage to their bandwidth costs rather than damage to the servers now, either that or I'd rather not be their sysadmin ;-)

      usually you do that with a static page saying "go away" or something rather than just auth'ing.

      Thats what you or I would do...

      --
      Java gaming nut - http://www.retep.org/ or for the rail http://uktra.in/
  119. What's the problem here? by Vrtigo1 · · Score: 1

    I'll admit, I didn't read the article, but from the summary I don't see a whole lot wrong with what she's doing. Moronic, yes, but legally unsound...I don't think so. If you click through to an article on her site and on that page it says that by clicking through to another page you agree to purchase a subscription, then I'm not sure why everyone thinks there's some sort of legal problem with this. Electronic signatures are just as enforceable as their paper counterparts, and like it or not, that text would qualify as a contract that you agreed to by clicking through. This has been upheld numerous times on sites where the TOS is just a link in the site's header or footer, I think they call it clickwrapping? Users would say, "well I never read the TOS", and the judge says "sorry, it was available to you, guess you shoulda read it".

  120. or ... by Skapare · · Score: 1

    ... write on her wall?

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  121. Brilliant advertisment ploy. by Kaenneth · · Score: 2, Funny

    How many hits did they sucker you guys into giving them?

  122. Profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work for an ISP. We charge to respond to subpoena requests (yes, even for law enforcement). When the site comes back up I'll hit it enough to raise our EPS.

  123. Re:No different from the GPL. by PitaBred · · Score: 4, Informative

    The difference with the GPL is you can download and use it to your heart's content. The GPL GRANTS you rights to redistribute the stuff, rights you otherwise wouldn't have under normal copyright law.

    The GPL is a PERMISSIVE license. This thing is a RESTRICTIVE license, and it's applied retroactively. Neither of which happens with the GPL.

    Next time you go to court, represent yourself. The Internet needs a laugh.

  124. Re:So how big a bill will Google's spiders pick up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their robots.txt disallows indexing from a lot of spiders. Weird.

  125. Still get in here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.northcountrygazette.org/2009/02/12/home-care-agency-chief-accused-of-embezzling-900k/

  126. Re:Fastest. Slashdoting. EVER. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good bet that their website admin is looking for a new job before the evening is over, poor bastard.

    Things like this always make me wonder if the poor bastard involved is a /. reader, and how he feels. Not that I am advocating sympathy for this idiotic idea or its implementers.

  127. Passwords are a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To all of those that noticed that there are passwords: The passwords don't exist if you access the articles through the archives.

  128. Re:Fastest. Slashdoting. EVER. by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Lesson learned? Indeed.

      @ Grimbleton: Ultimately there is only one person involved, the one who made the decision to do it this way.

      SB

    --
    It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  129. The one word answer: by dcavanaugh · · Score: 1

    wget

  130. Other people have tried this by MarriedGeek · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of Rick Sutcliffe's Modula-2 site where he claims a viewing price on a publicly viewable website. http://www.arjay.bc.ca/Modula-2/Text/index.html

    --
    sig = null;
  131. what the FUCK!? by atari2600a · · Score: 0

    If their servers hadn't already been DDoS'd (whether by us or by anon), I would use all my processing power to post URL's to trollface on every article.

  132. Better Off Dead... by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Johnny: I want my two dollars!

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  133. Intriguing! by RautenkranzMT · · Score: 1

    North Country Gazette uses Google AdSense, as well as several competing ad providers, which violates the AdSense terms of service. I feel, as a conscientious citizen of the internets, that I am honor bound to report it to their Violations department.

    --
    The cow goes "tink"
  134. Wow! it is only 2010 by Provocateur · · Score: 1

    Begun, the Droid Wars have.

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  135. Elementary Principles of a Contract by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately, common law, including the Restatement of Contracts (Second) requires that a "meeting of the minds" take place in order to form a binding contract. In order for such a "meeting of the minds" to occur, each side must have been provided the ability to review, consider, and agree to any applicable terms and conditions. Absent "assent" or "agreement" there can be no "meeting of the minds" and thus no contract can be formed or enforced. If I can access your content freely, without action indicating my assent to your terms, then you may not enforce such terms against me. Waiver and estoppel need not even be introduced in such context - this is a situation in which every 1L across the U.S. has been tested, and the bottom line is: go fuck yourself, you may not enforce against me an agreement to which I did not agree (the cunning use of flags aside).

    Seriously, grow up. Hire an attorney if needs be, preferably one that graduated from an accredited institution (not a CA non ABA school or Wal-Mart U) and you will win attorneys fees as well as damages (as may be warranted in your case).

    The above is not legal advice, just the rant of an anonymous poster who may or may not be a licensed member of the bar of any state.

    And, just like your valet and such, I have a sign that says I am not liable for homicide, malpractice, theft, loss, or nuclear holocaust. Because there is a sign, it is enforceable in a court, right?

    GROW UP.

  136. Here is/was a link by flyingfsck · · Score: 1
    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  137. Re:No different from the GPL. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm fine with people not bound by the GPL when using my programs. Then they are bound by copyright, which means they have to delete their unauthorized copy of the program.

    Now isn't that fun.

  138. Re:Fastest. Slashdoting. EVER. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can see the flames from here..
    I gotta contact my operatives over at 4chan..

  139. Free advertisement by dominious · · Score: 1

    For the first minute I was happy to see the slashdot effect on this site, but on second thought isn't this just a way to get advertisement? I mean how ridiculous can they be?

  140. They suck by killmofasta · · Score: 1

    127.0.0.1 northcountrygazette.org
    Bye!

  141. Free! by xenobyte · · Score: 1

    If you put it on the Internet, it's free - or will be soon enough... Stop thinking you can make money from things that should be free.

    --
    "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
  142. more cluelesss Re:Clueless by leuk_he · · Score: 1

    the 404 also has an error now:

    Forbidden

    You don't have permission to access /sitemap8.xml on this server.

    Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

  143. Dear northcountrygazette by da5idnetlimit.com · · Score: 1

    You may not have noticed, but my HTTP request encapsuled a link to my EPLA (End-Provider Licence Agreement) that resides on my HDD under c: (or /home/$user, for you linux geeks)

    This EPLA describes the rules governing the sending of your IP packets to MY computer and gives a formula to account for eyeball time allowed to your packets and the just compensation I should receive for your use of eyeball and brain time (standard time-sharing agreement).

    It grants you a non exclusive right to my eyeballs, and excludes any right you might think you have to present me with advertisement without proper compensation for my eyeball/brain time.

    To make it simple there is a mandatory 50/50 share for any advertisement revenue derived from my eyeball time, plus a one-off, annual fee of 5000$ for non exclusive access to my eyeball.

    Another 5000$ fee is mandatory for the implementation and maintenance of the eyeball-to-brain connection, and has to be paid in full before sending me any IP packets and / or advertising.

    We are currently gathering IPs and computer info on persistent intruders who refuse to buy subscription to my eyeball and eyeball-brain connection, and are engaging in a theft of eyeball and brain services. We have engaged an attorney who will be doing a bulk subpoena demand on each ISP involved,..

    If you want to stop the legal proceeding, please kindly forward your money to me.

    Regards,
    Da5id

    --
    It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
  144. Re:No different from the GPL. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, "we people" think that the GPL doesn't need to be a binding contract. Try reading it, it even says that it is not a contract, and you do not need to accept it.

    Most people use GPL'ed software without even realizing that the GPL exists. They haven't accepted anything. They just download the software, install it and use it. Of course the site they downloaded it from needs a distribution license, and the GPL is such a license. Not a contract. No accept needed, you can distribute if you want to, or not distribute if you don't want to.

    Now, some people seem to think that the GPL requires you to distribute source to any modification you make to a program. Not true. The GPL simply allows you to distribute the modifications WITH source, but NOT WITHOUT source. Same thing? Not at all. You can make all the changes you want to, provided you don't distribute them. Or you can distribute them without source PROVIDED you have a license to do so (the GPL doesn't give you permission to do this).

    You could even distribute without a license. In that case the GPL doesn't come into play at all, and so it cannot tell you to provide source code. Distributing without a license does not fall under the GPL, it falls under copyright law. Copyright law requires no signature. However, it is not a binding contract, it's a law. A contract is a two way deal. "If you do that, I'll do this". A law is one way. "Do this or else..."

    Conclusion: No signatures are needed, because no contract is needed. And no contract is needed, because the GPL doesn't put up any demands. It relies on the restrictions put up by copyright law.

  145. Summer Glau, is that you? by nhaehnle · · Score: 1

    This is the first time I've seen something like this in reality. I am in awe. (And yes, I realize that the two scenarios are not exactly the same, but still...)

  146. I also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    invite them to hire a Canadian lawyer to come after me.

    Good thing I live in Spain...

  147. Re:No different from the GPL. by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

    If I click on your sig, are you going to sue me?

  148. Such a lovely 403 by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

    Do I owe them money for this "access forbidden" ominous warning?

  149. Forbidden by viper2110 · · Score: 0

    When I try to access http://www.northcountrygazette.org/ I get Forbidden You don't have permission to access / on this server.

  150. This is legit by Combatso · · Score: 1

    According to section 416.8 of International Blog-Law, any contract written in Comic Sans on a blog is automatically agreed to and enforceable in a court of Blog-Law

  151. Wow by banetbi · · Score: 1

    And I thought Rupert Murdoch was crazy, these guys take the cake.

  152. Next time you go to court, represent yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.judicialaccountability.org/articles/maximoathproject.htm

  153. As of 1300 GMT, I get a login prompt.. by RealGene · · Score: 1

    Authorization Required This server could not verify that you are authorized to access the document requested. Either you supplied the wrong credentials (e.g., bad password), or your browser doesn't understand how to supply the credentials required. Additionally, a 401 Authorization Required error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. Apache/2.0.63 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.0.63 OpenSSL/0.9.8e-fips-rhel5 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635 mod_bwlimited/1.4 mod_auth_passthrough/2.1 Server at www.northcountrygazette.org Port 80

    --
    Mission: To provide products that consume time and energy as entertainingly as permitted by the laws of thermodynamics.
  154. And now it's password protected. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...can't get on the site now without a username and password. Good riddance.

  155. Taking a page from the RIAA... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Bulk subpoena's for John Does is a stupid state that allows for it and then changing states to sue it.

    Oh USA your so funny it makes me sad.

  156. Readme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for reading this, you owe me £10, cash is fine, thanks

  157. Problem solved in their minds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They solved their problem. Now you have to logon to even reach the page.
                                                                                                    The server www.northcountrygazette.org at admin requires a username and password.

    Warning: This server is requesting that your username and password be sent in an insecure manner (basic authentication without a secure connection).

    1. Re:Problem solved in their minds. by Anonymous+Freak · · Score: 1

      If you hit "Cancel" enough, you get a page with just headlines, and a password prompt below each headline to read the article.

      Yup, their website is about to die to to COMPLETE lack of usability.

      --
      Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
      The purpose of that site was not known.
  158. So, this is a DMCA question by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

    Does ignoring a threat count as circumvention?

    --

    Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
  159. It must be working, the numbers are going up by oh-dark-thirty · · Score: 1

    401, 402, 403, and now 404...

  160. I wish I had a botnet... by undecim · · Score: 1

    I wish I had a botnet, just to make several thousand IPs visit the site. It wouldn't take long for them to catch onto the fact that it's a botnet, then they wouldn't be able to tell who the humans are.

    In the meantime, I'm going to plug their article links into some cheap PPC sites. That should keep them busy.

    --
    The Internet has given stupid people the resources of intelligent people.
  161. It's The Law by jman.org · · Score: 1

    You are not allowed to read the next sentence in this comment.

  162. Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    From a strict legal perspective, you are only allowed to browse a web site if you have its operator's permission to do so.

    This is far more important than contract law for this. Federal law also has the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. 1030 et al) which makes it similarly illegal to access a computer without authorization. There has been a lot of debate as to whether or not this law can make terms of use for websites into binding rules with criminal enforcement without any need to be a successful contract. It seems to on its face, but I can't remember how the case law goes on this. IIRC, it hasn't really been tested before.

    Of course, the big problem in both a contract and computer fraud action is claiming damages. In both cases, civil actions are limited to economic damages, which will be hard to argue for mere access to a website.

    (I am also not a lawyer, by the way.)

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    1. Re:Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by julesh · · Score: 1

      Federal law also has the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. 1030 et al) which makes it similarly illegal to access a computer without authorization.

      I've only scanned this law briefly, but it appears to me to only apply to computers which are owned by the federal government or certain financial institutions, or other computers that have government-classified information on them. Did I miss something?

      But the main point is that if there is a law that prevents access without authorization, and you need to accept the terms of the contract to get that authorization, you can't just say you don't accept the contract and access anyway. If accessing were not an offence of any kind, then there that would be an option, but as it is, it isn't.

      Of course, the big problem in both a contract and computer fraud action is claiming damages. In both cases, civil actions are limited to economic damages, which will be hard to argue for mere access to a website.

      This is true. The choice isn't pay up on the contract or be sued; the choice is pay up on the contract or be potentially prosecuted for unlawful access, and probably get a slap on the wrist nominal fine, none of which goes to the operator of the computer, who can't show any actual damages and therefore can't actually sue you for anything useful.

    2. Re:Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      I've only scanned this law briefly, but it appears to me to only apply to computers which are owned by the federal government or certain financial institutions, or other computers that have government-classified information on them. Did I miss something?

      Yep. Not that I blame you. The statute is convoluted as hell for something that only takes up a single section. The definition you gave is one of a "protected computer" under 1030(e)(2)(A). Now look at the other definition under 1030(e)(2)(B): a computer "which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States."

      That's basically every computer anywhere in the US and most outside of it by modern interpretations of interstate commerce. Try to think of a computer that doesn't in anyway communicate or have any direct or indirect impact on commerce across state lines.

      Sometimes I really wonder why the people who draft legislation go to all the trouble to narrowly and specifically list off a few things they care about and then place the "oh yeah, and everything else too" clause after when just the latter clause would do.

      But the main point is that if there is a law that prevents access without authorization, and you need to accept the terms of the contract to get that authorization, you can't just say you don't accept the contract and access anyway. If accessing were not an offence of any kind, then there that would be an option, but as it is, it isn't.

      You got it in one.

      The choice isn't pay up on the contract or be sued; the choice is pay up on the contract or be potentially prosecuted for unlawful access, and probably get a slap on the wrist nominal fine, none of which goes to the operator of the computer, who can't show any actual damages and therefore can't actually sue you for anything useful.

      Got it again. Of course, the difficulty there in forcing your contract on people who haven't done much in the way of damages is in getting a prosecutor's office to actually prosecute for you. Without large damages or a very large public profile, this is nigh-impossible, so the problem of whether the CFAA provides criminal penalties to breaking contracts of adhesion is mostly theoretical and untested.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    3. Re:Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by julesh · · Score: 1

      Here in the UK it's possible to prosecute a criminal action without the involvement of the crown prosecution service; AIUI you approach a judge, provide evidence that a crime was committed and show that you have enough evidence to secure a conviction, and the judge will commence the prosecution if he is satisfied with your evidence. Is this not possible in the US?

    4. Re:Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      Here in the UK it's possible to prosecute a criminal action without the involvement of the crown prosecution service [...] Is this not possible in the US?

      Mostly no. In the US, we moved away from private prosecutions to entirely public prosecutions around the 19th century. The process is now almost entirely removed from consideration of the victim as opposed to society as a whole, which has led in recent decades to a large pushback via victim's rights legislation.

      Apparently though, you can still do this in Virginia at least, but I have no idea how this works. (I only found this out by double checking myself with a search.) Some other states allow the prosecutor's office to "delegate" to a private prosecutor, but I also don't know how this works. It's very unusual at least.

      At any rate, the blog covers New York news, and I doubt that New York would be a state which would retain rules on the books for private prosecutors. New York is a former Dutch colony, and the rest of America got the entire idea of public prosecutors from those colonies. Then again, I am not a lawyer, and I don't live in New York, so I may not be qualified to comment.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  163. How many browsers pre-fetch URI/pages? by niftymitch · · Score: 1
    How many browsers pre-fetch URI/pages?
    i.e. the browser may without your intent or knowledge prefetch data that you never see.

    And spam bots and more could hide URLs to such a site not unlike one pixel display of images and more. Perhaps hidden in a CSS.

    --
    Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
  164. Site still down as of 2010-10-28.... by macraig · · Score: 1

    The site was effectively offline when I first saw this article yesterday, and as of right now the site is still dead; a server answers and demands a username and password (which might be "password", hmmm?).

    Serves them right, I think. Somebody's learning a lesson, all right, and it's NOT the "intruders".

  165. They're back up - but with a nasty paywall. by Anonymous+Freak · · Score: 1

    When you load any page, it does an HTML login request, and goes to a 401 if you don't login.

    For the home page, it does a whole bunch of login requests, and if you click cancel on each, you finally get their homepage.

    A homepage where all new stories since yesterday require a password.

    And even dopier, EVERY SINGLE STORY has a "Tweet this/Post to Facebook/Digg/Del.icio.us" set of links! Uh, if you don't want people to get to it, why do you provide that crap?!?!?

    --
    Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
    The purpose of that site was not known.
  166. Re:No different from the GPL. by kungfoofairy · · Score: 1

    The GPL is a PERMISSIVE license. This thing is a RESTRICTIVE license, and it's applied retroactively. Neither of which happens with the GPL.

    GPL is a non-permissive copyleft license. GPL does not permit you to distribute copies under a more restrictive license. MIT and BSD licenses are examples of permissive (copyfree) licenses.

  167. Re:No different from the GPL. by PitaBred · · Score: 1

    The GPL gives you rights you don't have otherwise. It's not trying to take away rights you already have. That's what is meant by "permissive" vs. "restrictive".

    Don't be stupid.

  168. I'd better archive this website before I read it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0