Local IT guy hijacks client's website

House said:
True.

The problem with this precedent is that it directly impacts negatively on the services provider - coder or designer. The days of preventing the person from continuing with business is over.

The best is to ask for full payment upfront and take it from there.
Click to expand...

The case appears to turn on service being withheld until an apology was received and was not on a contract of performance.

What amounts to extortion is the refusal to either provide a service or transfer an item of property (the domain) to the client on demand.

I haven't read the judgement yet so this is a guess. but this should not be a precedent setting judgement where a contract of specific performance is in breach. (viz. I build a site and you don't pay, so I withdraw access until payment is made).

D
 
There is a difference between hijacking a domain, and refusing to release a website. This guy was convicted because the domain belonged to the company (not him) and he refused to hand it back. That's a very different issue to refusing to hand over a website for non-payment. The domain was never his to begin with.
 
I guess we will never know the full story now. I wanted to cal the IT guy unprofessional but there might be more to this
 
deweyzeph said:
There is a difference between hijacking a domain, and refusing to release a website. This guy was convicted because the domain belonged to the company (not him) and he refused to hand it back. That's a very different issue to refusing to hand over a website for non-payment. The domain was never his to begin with.
Click to expand...

+1.

House's comment on the precedent is invalid.
Withholding a website until payment is made is perfectly legit.
Withholding access to something the company owned beforehand.... yeah, that's what happened here.
 
deweyzeph said:
There is a difference between hijacking a domain, and refusing to release a website. This guy was convicted because the domain belonged to the company (not him) and he refused to hand it back. That's a very different issue to refusing to hand over a website for non-payment. The domain was never his to begin with.
Click to expand...

+1

The moment a client instructs you to register a domain on their behalf, legally they are the owner of that domain name, whether you register the domain in your name or the clients' name. You cannot withhold that domain for reasons of payment, especially if that client is already conducting business.
 
damian24 said:
The case appears to turn on service being withheld until an apology was received and was not on a contract of performance.

What amounts to extortion is the refusal to either provide a service or transfer an item of property (the domain) to the client on demand.

I haven't read the judgement yet so this is a guess. but this should not be a precedent setting judgement where a contract of specific performance is in breach. (viz. I build a site and you don't pay, so I withdraw access until payment is made).

D
Click to expand...

This guy went and changed the ownership of the domain, as well as the hosting company. He changed the password to access the site and refused to give the domain back or access to the hosting cpanel or whatever they used. A new developer was unable to continue with development.
 
House said:
This guy went and changed the ownership of the domain, as well as the hosting company. He changed the password to access the site and refused to give the domain back or access to the hosting cpanel or whatever they used. A new developer was unable to continue with development.
Click to expand...

I agree. It's the deliberate hijacking of the domain and refusal to hand it back that is the extortion. Refusal to provide a service or item of property on demand for non-payment in itself is not extortion. That would be crazy. Otherwise you could just walk into your local supermarket and demand they give you stuff for free otherwise you're going to charge the manager with extortion.
 
House said:
+1

The moment a client instructs you to register a domain on their behalf, legally they are the owner of that domain name, whether you register the domain in your name or the clients' name. You cannot withhold that domain for reasons of payment, especially if that client is already conducting business.
Click to expand...

Not exactly.... if a client asks me to register a domain and me to host it, it is, and will ALWAYS remain my property until paid for in FULL. I have every right to deny/suspend the service until it is paid for. I agree that if it is paid for, I have to return the client's property should they ask me to.

There has to be flexibility in the law to protect both the client AND service provider.
Currently, we have a client who owes over R4000-00 and their service is suspended. After numerous emails, phone calls and promises of payment from the client, they are now trying to submit a transfer for the domain, and thus get out of paying what they owe... under which circumstances do they have the right to do that? and what rights do I have as a service provider/host/developer in order to recover said money from defrauding and delinquent client?

Furthermore, your point regarding "conducting business"... the client is conducting business with a service that I have provided (and paid for), and that they haven't paid for - they have no rights in this instance.
 
Last edited:
LaraC said:
I wonder if he was also ordered to relinquish control over the domain and service provider.
Click to expand...
cortexenslaver said:
Not exactly.... if a client asks me to register a domain and me to host it, it is, and will ALWAYS remain my property until paid for in FULL. I have every right to deny/suspend the service until it is paid for. I agree that if it is paid for, I have to return the client's property should they ask me to.
There has to be flexibility in the law to protect both the client AND service provider.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree more with what cortexenslaver said. There must be Lien rights in the domain.
 
LaraC said:
I tend to agree more with what cortexenslaver said. There must be Lien rights in the domain.
Click to expand...
I do acknowledge though, that with the new EPP system that COZA has implemented, only the Registrant details now appear on the "whois" of the domain... the older/legacy system was better in that respect, as it had the technical/billing/administrative contact details, too. Now with the new system, hosts/SP's are forced to register in their name until paid for in full. Unless you have credit card facilities to charge immediately on purchase, you are forced to hold onto domains until you get paid. Also, if you are hosting the domain, you need to put your own email address and NOT the client's, so that you can affect changes (name servers, contacts, etc.) on behalf of your client (saves time).

Most of my clients pay on time, so the above is never an issue, but you never know.... currently, I am on the other end with a client's past provider/IT guy/host who is not responding to transfer tickets, emails, phone calls. This guy registered everything in his name, and his hosting with Web Africa. We have been trying to get the domain from him for the last 3 months. Interestingly, it is this guy that owes my client money, and not the other way around. What do you do in this instance??? Submit a Manual Form to COZA with proof of ID and company name ownership?
 
I have had a client call me a Ka*fer before......... I was subcontracted... otherwise I would wrecked his shi*.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X