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.'"

32 of 549 comments (clear)

  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 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."
    4. 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!
    5. 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
    6. 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
    7. 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?

    8. 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!
    9. 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! :)
    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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?
    13. 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.
    14. 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!
    15. 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.

    16. 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.
    17. 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)

  2. 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!"
  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. 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
  6. 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!

  7. 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.
  8. 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.

  9. 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
  10. Re:Apparently lawyers are dirt-cheap now... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Funny

    I don't think FrontPage has a paywall button.

  11. 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
  12. 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.

  13. 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.
  14. 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.