This woman just makes me SICK



  • While I don't frequent digg that much, a friend pointed to me to this posting.

    This
    woman is suing archive.org because their spider crawled her website
    after she posted, in plain english on one of her pages, that her
    website can't be crawled.  Ironically, she has no robots.txt to back
    this up. 

    NEWSFLASH:  Archive.org's spider can't read

     
    Frankly, I think this woman is a gigantic asshole.  What do you think?

    EDIT: Read a few of the comments.  A couple are quite insightful.


     



  • I just saw this in today's slashdot news, I don't think this woman really has a case, as the whole thing is based around lack of understanding of how computers work. She seems to think archive.org works manually with someone sitting there reading everything that is crawled. This is why internet should require a licence, so morons like this don't get to use it.



  • The lawsuit is over. The judge pretty much agreed that her case is bullshit.



  • In this post are photographs of print outs of Google's cached copy of her website, laid on a wooden table...

     



    And my personal favourite:

    All in my camera's really-high resolution so most of the text is still readable XD



  • @Spacecoyote said:

    The lawsuit is over. The judge pretty much agreed that her case is bullshit.

     
    What happened to the glorious American legal system where you could sue anybody for a random amount with a nonsensical case and win?



  • The latest claim is


    "Internet Archive sued ME first!" Only because she demanded $100,000 dollars from them.

    I don't blame her for not wanting her site in the IA, but surely she could have dealt with it a civilized way by simply putting in a removal request and letting that be the end of it.



  • I hate stupid farts like that. Or the site that has the following in its T%C's:

    You may not create a link to this website from another website or document without (URL)’s prior written consent.

    The URL contains the words 'beans', 'com', 'student' and '.', in some order ;) 



  • @j_pilborough said:

    surely she could have dealt with it a civilized way by simply putting in a removal request and letting that be the end of it.

    Methinks she could even have written a robots.txt file if she didn't want crawlers to browse her site because that's what robots.txt is for



  • Methinks she's just an attention-seeking prat



  • Looks like you're not too far from the truth, sadly.  She's now suing DIGG...

    http://digg.com/tech_deals/The_Moron_Who_Sued_Archive_org_Intends_to_Sue_Us_Next
     





  • @mdk said:

    @Spacecoyote said:

    The lawsuit is over. The judge pretty much agreed that her case is bullshit.

     
    What happened to the glorious American legal system where you could sue anybody for a random amount with a nonsensical case and win?

    Clearly this didn't happen in America, because God Forbid the "sensible American judge" oxymoron be proven to be not an oxymoron...</sarcasm>



  • The domain resolves to my router! WTF!?



  • Well, I was going to complain that [url=http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/17/1455214]the Slashdot article[/url] is more interesting, but those Digg users are always unintentionally entertaining.

    1.  Sueing a site for spidering?  No case.
    2.  [url=http://digg.com/tech_deals/The_Moron_Who_Sued_Archive_org_Intends_to_Sue_Us_Next]Possible harassment[/url]? Possible case.
    3.  [url=http://digg.com/tech_news/Sue_Me_Suzanne]Blatant theft[/url]? Definite case.

    With that said, spiders probably should ignore any site without a robots.txt, but I'm sure the search engines want to avoid that at all costs.



  • Hahaha I love the warning when you go to her site. Before anything loads you have to agree to her terms and conditions.

    Since there is no way to view the terms and conditions without agreeing to them, no sane court of law could possibly hold you guilty for not observing her completely absurd T&Cs. I just broke them anyway. The first character of this post was copied from her site, which according to her I can't do.

     

    I just can't get over the completely amateurish "design" of the page though. Not even a 5 year old in 1995 would have made such a monstrosity.



  • And if you don't agree (i.e. click 'Cancel') it lets you in anyway...  



  • @lgeekery said:


    Frankly, I think this woman is a gigantic asshole.  What do you think?

    EDIT: Read a few of the comments.  A couple are quite insightful.

    She's obviously a friggin moron, but I do think the internet would be a better place if everything was "opt in" instead of "opt out".

    Two comments about her being a retard:

    1) On her site, if you click "Cancel" to the yes/no question, it doesn't actually navigate you away from the site.

    2) In her PDF -- stylized "facts" of the case -- she puts references to HERSELF in the footnotes.

    Her grammar is atrocious and for somebody who wants to be taken seriously, she has made no attempt at constructing a reasonable argument. (Can you imagine the laughs you would get if you wrote a document at work that read like this? My performance assessment would tank.) I think her cause kind of makes sense, she's just way too stupid to lead the way.

    Edit: 3) Spiders don't interpret javascript anyway, and certainly never clicked any OK button consenting to abide by human laws.



  • [quote user="phelyan"] And if you don't agree (i.e. click 'Cancel') it lets you in anyway... [/quote] 

     

    ...but demands you indicate your disagreement by closing your browser.

     

    Here's an idea.  To read this text, you hearby agree to give me your first-born male child.  To indicate your disagreement with this new policy, you must give me $5,000 in unmarked, non-sequential bills.



  • Disables javascript What messagebox? :)

    BTW, did anyone else feel that the site was slow to load? Take a look at http://www.websiteoptimization.com/services/analyze/wso.php?url=http://www.profane-justice.org/

    Just look at the header, the damn things is 2880px wide, 659px high and weights in at 825.15 KB. http://www.profane-justice.org/assets/images/famcollage_copy.jpg 



  • Egad, what an amazing and yet frightening mishmash of formats.  Not that my own site is anything to write home about, but sheesh!!!  Based on the... the... ummm,  garishness of her site, she strikes me as a rhetorical ditch-digger.  Once they form an opinion about certain subjects, they run off the road into the ditches of extremism.  As we would say in the rural community I grew up in, "It doesn't make any difference if you're in the ditch on the left or the ditch on the right, you're still stuck in a ditch!!!" 
     



  • I can't see why anyone has yet pointed out that just by viewing the site you have the pay $5000 per page, based on the fact that when you view each page the browser creates a copy in it's cache



  • @Hitsuji said:

    I can't see why anyone has yet pointed out that just by viewing the site you have the pay $5000 per page, based on the fact that when you view each page the browser creates a copy in it's cache

    About 7 years ago I was working on a recruitment website for a fairly major newspaper publishing firm. I happened to notice that the T&Cs for the site included a section specifically disallowing caching of the content by end users' browsers or by ISPs' caches. I decided not to argue the point.
     



  • @Einsidler said:

    In this post are photographs of print outs of Google's cached copy of her website, laid on a wooden table...

    You'd think wooden table jokes would get old by now.  I nearly burst out laughing at this one.



  • @Hitsuji said:

    I can't see why anyone has yet pointed out that just by viewing the site you have the pay $5000 per page, based on the fact that when you view each page the browser creates a copy in it's cache

    I was going to but decided to read all the comments.  luckily I only received that one page and immediately deleted any cached images and files related to it. 

    Also lucky for me, she has violated my explicit 3rd party cookie policy - to which I clearly outline a $10,000 invasion of privacy and identity theft investigation and prevention fine - 5 times!!  I'm in the money!  I'm in the money!!



  • btw:  why doesn't this derned program save the tags in the correct order?  wtf??



  • BTWx2:  I totally feel libelled against by her using the term iGeeks.  Plus, I bet these organizations would not appreciate her using their names in vane.  Did she properly get permission from them to use the term?

    http://igeeks.org/

    and

    http://www.igeeks.ch/igeeks/

    I think not.  She had better review her own policy of stealing when appropriate or it'll come back to haunt her.



  • sorry for the double post



  • @m0ffx said:

    I hate stupid farts like that. Or the site that has the following in its T%C's:

    You may not create a link to this website from another website or document without (URL)’s prior written consent.

    The URL contains the words 'beans', 'com', 'student' and '.', in some order ;) 



    I remember a few years ago NPR tried to do the same thing.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.