Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Yahoo Deletes Journalist's Pre-Paid Legacy Site After Suicide

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the failing-at-a-last-request dept.

Yahoo! 403

New submitter digitalFlack writes "Apparently Martin Manley has been a popular blogger and newspaper journalist for many years. For his own reasons, no indication of illness, he decided sixty years on this planet was enough. He designed a 40-page website with sections such as: 'Why Suicide?' and 'Why Age 60?.' Martin planned his suicide meticulously, but to manage his legacy, he picked Yahoo. He even pre-paid for five years. After he left this mortal coil on his 60th birthday, Yahoo decided they don't want his traffic, so they took the site down. Sorry, Martin."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

They didn't know he also... (5, Interesting)

sinij (911942) | about a year ago | (#44595195)

Yahoo didn't know he also prepaid lawyers. Or at least lets hope so.

Yahoo has contractual obligation to provide service, sudden death of a party is a sleazy way to weasel out of a service contract.

Re: They didn't know he also... (5, Funny)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#44595263)

Pretty sure suicide is against the tos

Re: They didn't know he also... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44595313)

That's a joke, right? What in the world does his manner of death have to do with anything?

Re: They didn't know he also... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44595367)

Since he's dead and can no longer defend his publication, it effectively becomes Yahoo's own publication, so it would be Yahoo condoning suicide. That someone should commit suicide for whatever reason is at best a controversial point of view. It might even be seen as inciting suicide and could be illegal. So yes, obviously what's on the page does have everything to do with it being taken down. If he wanted someone to be there to fight his fights, he could have stayed and done it himself, you know?

But on a more general note: It's bad enough that the rich extend their reach beyond their death by leaving their heritage to immortal foundations. The world belongs to the living. It should be much harder to control what happens after you die. Just prepaying doesn't do it.

Re: They didn't know he also... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44595403)

Maybe the publication belongs to his estate, but I strongly agree with everything else you wrote.

Re: They didn't know he also... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44595457)

It definitely belongs to his estate. No "maybe" about it.

Re: They didn't know he also... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44595655)

The content does, but the publishing contract ends. A dead person can not be part in a contract. Continued publication would be Yahoo's responsibility, and they would be nuts to keep publishing something this controversial.

Re: They didn't know he also... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44595793)

So life insurance doesn't need to pay up, because their contract is with the deceased, not the beneficiaries?

Re: They didn't know he also... (3, Insightful)

EvanED (569694) | about a year ago | (#44595369)

I would speculate it's not a question of how he committed suicide. Had he had a Star Wars fan site or something, it would have been left up. But that's not what it was: it was a site that, in part, explained why he committed suicide. And it may be at least somewhat reasonable for Yahoo to interpret that as promoting suicide, and quite reasonable for it to take down the site for that reason.

Re: They didn't know he also... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44595459)

That's a sad interpretation. This guy put a fair amount of effort to explain why he ended his life. If someone else interprets that as promoting suicide they could just stick a "are you over 18?" thingie in front of it in case of legal doubt.
While I'm quite sure I don't agree with his reasons (then again, I'm unable to read about it), most of the western world still has freedom of speech. That includes the written word as far as I know.

Re: They didn't know he also... (5, Insightful)

JWSmythe (446288) | about a year ago | (#44595501)

From what I read of it, he was talking about his personal feelings and opinions.

I could see if it were a site that he put video of his own suicide on, or other graphic depictions, there would be a reason to remove it. In this case, there was none. It was left as his legacy, or at least for the 5 years he paid for.

There was no good justification in taking it down, except possibly that it took too much traffic. If it were a small hosting company, and had a negative impact on services to other customers, I could see it. Yahoo has enough resources to continue supporting that site for the full term as paid for.

Re: They didn't know he also... (3, Interesting)

EvanED (569694) | about a year ago | (#44595547)

From what I read of it, he was talking about his personal feelings and opinions.

His site was explaining why he committed suicide. Basically by definition, that's him explaining why he felt that suicide was the best option in his case -- which is implicitly explaining why he thinks that suicide is the best option ever, which if you look at it the right way, is promoting suicide. It's not promoting suicide in the sense of "Hey Fred... you really oughta go kill yourself" or in the sense of "you should consider suicide in these cases ...", but I think you could say it is promoting suicide in the sense of "suicide can be, if you weigh the options, the best option." And without saying Yahoo was right or wrong, I can at least understand why even that would be too far for them.

Re: They didn't know he also... (5, Insightful)

kasperd (592156) | about a year ago | (#44595633)

it was a site that, in part, explained why he committed suicide.

I'm sure anybody who knew him would like to read it. That may very well include people who didn't know him all that well, so a website would be an obvious way to reach all potentially interested parties. A major part of the reason for creating the site may be to comfort those left behind. With that in mind I cannot see how anybody could think it was an acceptable move from Yahoo.

Re: They didn't know he also... (4, Interesting)

Skiron (735617) | about a year ago | (#44595469)

Surely the would need to get a copy of the death certificate before they could do anything - at the moment (legally) it's just hearsay.

Re: They didn't know he also... (1)

pigiron (104729) | about a year ago | (#44595341)

In addition to being against the law, at least it used to be.

Re: They didn't know he also... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44595371)

Suicide is not against the law. Only aiding it.

Re: They didn't know he also... (1)

alen (225700) | about a year ago | (#44595455)

Which includes hosting a site about why someone killed themselves

Re: They didn't know he also... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44595573)

I'm not a lawyer but even I know that hosting a site on why somebody committed suicide does not aid their suicide. You are confusing legality with morality. The deepest concern here is the moral concern: "Does leaving this site up possibly give other people the idea to commit suicide for the same reason." This can be both a legal and a moral concern but it's more a moral concern IMSHO because it's the difference between "we took it down because we didn't want anybody to have any strange ideas" or "we took it down because we do not approve." The latter being bad because now they are playing mother to the internet. The former being justifiable (though still bad because in way they are still playing mother) because... well it would be bad for somebody else to take their own life, even worse if somebody took their own life because of the work of another. Either way, unless the site specifically hints that other people should commit suicide there is no legal concern IMO but again I am not a lawyer.

Re: They didn't know he also... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44595481)

Not in Sweden, unless it's active aid.

Re: They didn't know he also... (1)

PNutts (199112) | about a year ago | (#44595853)

Assisted suicide is legal in three US states.

Re:They didn't know he also... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44595307)

It doesn't work that way. If you want a say in what happens after your death, you need a living person to execute your will. There are legal constructs which you can use to construct a legal person (as opposed to natural person) to do that, but if you just prepay something, the contract ends when you die, no matter how. Dead people can not uphold their obligations in a contract, so living people don't need to uphold their end of contract with a dead person either.

Re:They didn't know he also... (5, Insightful)

alexgieg (948359) | about a year ago | (#44595377)

Remember: it's Ya-"let's delete early Internet history because keeping 1TB around is too expensive"-hoo we're talking about.

Never trust Yahoo. Ever.

Re:They didn't know he also... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44595595)

I actually find that refreshing...the "extreme history" provided by the internet is quite unpleasant.

Re:They didn't know he also... (4, Insightful)

Dogtanian (588974) | about a year ago | (#44595641)

Remember: it's Ya-"let's delete early Internet history because keeping 1TB around is too expensive"-hoo we're talking about. Never trust Yahoo. Ever.

You're talking about Geocities? Well, actually it was *several* terabytes, so it would have cost them two or three *hundred* dollars to store all that. Quite a lot for a small company like Yahoo. *cough*

In all seriousness, I agree with you- I guessed at the time of the shutdown that the storage requirements would be in the ballpark of the low-terabytes (slight underestimate, but not by much), and- more importantly- that the cost of the traffic would (by modern standards) be negligible. Indeed, the profit or loss- either way- at that time would have been small by Yahoo's standards, but I figured out that they should still be able to easily turn a profit it by making it archive-only. *If* they'd been that bothered about it, that is.

The conclusion I came to was that the reasons for shutting down Geocities "probably had more to do with either indirect legal issues (tax write-offs, accounting and the like) or some executive who wanted to be seen doing something that looked more significant than it actually was." [slashdot.org] Things I read later pretty much confirmed I was right on this.

Re:They didn't know he also... (3, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year ago | (#44595393)

Yahoo has contractual obligation to provide service

Do they? Have you read the contract? It is possible that the contract has a termination clause in the event of death. It is also quite likely that advocating or promoting suicide is a violation of the terms of service. Contracts have fine print for a reason.

Re:They didn't know he also... (4, Informative)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about a year ago | (#44595465)

It is also quite likely that advocating or promoting suicide is a violation of the terms of service.

To be honest, I don't see anything advocating or promoting suicide. I see him explaining his reasonings in rather clear terms and as such I'd classify it as a discussion about suicide. There is a difference between discussion and active advocation and/or promotion.

Re:They didn't know he also... (1)

julesh (229690) | about a year ago | (#44595621)

It is also quite likely that advocating or promoting suicide is a violation of the terms of service.

To be honest, I don't see anything advocating or promoting suicide. I see him explaining his reasonings in rather clear terms and as such I'd classify it as a discussion about suicide. There is a difference between discussion and active advocation and/or promotion.

There's a page on the site that outlines a list of possible methods and reasons why you would choose one or the other of them. Sure, it's in the context of how he decided what method to use for himself, but it can be read as instructional for other people, which is a clear violation of Yahoo's ToS.

Re:They didn't know he also... (3, Insightful)

Grieviant (1598761) | about a year ago | (#44595629)

Do they? Have you read the contract? It is possible that the contract has a termination clause in the event of death. It is also quite likely that advocating or promoting suicide is a violation of the terms of service. Contracts have fine print for a reason.

Don't they? Have YOU read the contract? Is it fair to assume that documenting one's own reasons for suicide constitutes promoting it?

Indeed, contracts do have fine print for a reason. That reason is for high and mighty business thugs such as yourself to be able to dick over little guys without making them aware of it beforehand. It's pretty simple - Yahoo was caught trying to (quietly) weasel out of their responsibilities to avoid backlash for hosting speech that they realized would be unpopular with some people. A spineless move.

Re:They didn't know he also... (4, Informative)

julesh (229690) | about a year ago | (#44595561)

Yahoo has contractual obligation to provide service, sudden death of a party is a sleazy way to weasel out of a service contract.

Unless he violates the terms of service.

10.1 Prohibited Uses
[...]
You agree that you will not:
[...]
(p) promote or provide instructional information about illegal activities, promote physical harm or injury against any group or individual, or promote any act of cruelty to animals.

A section of his site was instructions on how to commit suicide, which is an illegal act in many (most?) jurisdictions.

Why illegal? (1)

jandar (304267) | about a year ago | (#44595737)

Why would suicide be illegal? Where I live it isn't. How could be someone prohibited from suicide save livelong incarceration in a padded cell?

Re:They didn't know he also... (2)

grahamlee (522375) | about a year ago | (#44595669)

"You agree to indemnify and hold Yahoo! and its subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, agents, co-branders and other partners, and employees, harmless from any claim or demand, including reasonable attorneys' fees, made by any third party due to or arising out of Content you submit, post to or transmit through the Services, your use of the Services, your connection to the Services, your violation of the TOS, or your violation of any rights of another." - http://info.yahoo.com/legal/uk/yahoo/utos/en-gb/details.html [yahoo.com] Or, to put it another way, no they don't.

treasure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44595201)

Methinks yahoo wants the treasure to themselves.

Mirror? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44595205)

Does anyone have one?

Re:Mirror? (5, Informative)

dmbasso (1052166) | about a year ago | (#44595365)

http://www.zeroshare.info/ [zeroshare.info]

Re:Mirror? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44595375)

Luckily a redditor mirrored the site almost as soon as they became aware of it. Fuck Yahoo.

mirror [zeroshare.info]

Yahoo! is getting in trouble (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44595209)

If the author pre-paid for the service, Yahoo! had no business removing his blog. I'm not a betting man usually, but I would put down a grand that someone will sue Yahoo! on the deceased author's behalf.

Re:Yahoo! is getting in trouble (2)

Aighearach (97333) | about a year ago | (#44595411)

If he has an heir who wants to go the effort of trying to get a refund from yahoo, I'm sure yahoo will refund it as soon as the lawyers send the appropriate letter. It won't get it back online, though. They could use the money to put the site up somewhere else, if they wanted.

So my guess (gambling is for fools, that's why I only make guesses) is that yahoo would not ever be sued. To be sued they would have to first be asked for the refund, and then refuse; and then refuse again when threatened with legal action. At that point it would be punted to the lawyers, who would look at the amount of money for 5 years of hosting, and recommend refund very quickly.

Re:Yahoo! is getting in trouble (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year ago | (#44595751)

You would lose the bet.

Yahoo would have taken the site down if he was dead or not. It doesn't matter how much he has paid in advance. It violates the terms of service.

It's not like they get a notice every time a customer dies. Somebody would have complained to Yahoo they are hosting a site both advocating suicide and describing many methods of doing so. Not very legal in California.

good for him! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44595211)

if more people went that way before they became resource sponges then the quality of life would be better for everyone (well everyone still left alive anyway)

now if only we can somehow prevent anyone over the age of 60 from holding elected or appointed government positions we would be on the right track

and really since he was planning on dying anyway why not kill off a few people who really deserve it on your way out? i mean it isn't like you will feel guilty about it later

hopefully that isn't the only place he published his manifesto and he has other locations

Re:good for him! (5, Insightful)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about a year ago | (#44595427)

This little quote from the guy's site:

The thought of being in a nursing home, physically or mentally disabled, was the single scariest thing I had ever thought about

This is exactly what I've been thinking for years now; I've always thought that I will commit a suicide and end my life one day when I feel I'm getting too old, when I feel I'm losing control over my own thoughts and body. Honestly, the most horrible thing that I could imagine is being locked up in a bed 24/7 at the mercy of others without being able to do anything by myself -- I do not want to end there. I will commit a suicide if it looks like it's coming to that, I want to be in charge of my own life. As such I fully understand the guy's reasoning and I agree: good for him.

Re:good for him! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44595513)

While I agree with the general thought there, I don't think I would choose his method of ending my life 'when the time comes'. Shooting yourself in front of a police station just sounds cliche, and way too urban.

I would rather go out on a camping trip and never come back. Whether that's in the hot desert or cold mountains, or out in the plains of Africa with my final sight being a hungry lion. If I'm ending it all, I want it to be something more personal than a bullet in the head while standing in a city street.

Posting AC to keep future searchers from discovering anythiing.

Re:good for him! (2)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about a year ago | (#44595553)

Shooting yourself in front of a police station just sounds cliche, and way too urban.

I just find it somewhat distasteful. I haven't yet decided how I'd wanna go, but I'd try to do it in such a way that it doesn't involve bystanders or possibly cause anyone to actually see me dying. So, I'd probably opt for going somewhere far out-of-sight and just overdosing on something that's certain to kill me -- no messy blood, no bystanders being sprayed with brains, no collateral damage, just a clean death.

Re:good for him! (4, Insightful)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | about a year ago | (#44595587)

Putting a bullet to your head in front of witnesses and the police means there's little to no investigation - or, cost to society. They clean up the street, but it's obvious why, how, and when you died.

Disappearing into the woods could prompt a million-dollar manhunt trying to 'rescue' you, until or unless they find you first. And once they do find you, they'll have to do an autopsy to investigate cause of death - possibly quite an expensive one, as your remains will have degraded. You'll cause a lot of extra cost and grief to society that you could have avoided.

Maybe that was important to him.

Re:good for him! (0)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year ago | (#44595439)

We'll get back to you in 30-40 years and see how you feel about it then.

Or (here come the troll mods) if you're that dissatisfied with your own life, go right ahead and...

But no, you're just mouthing off, aren't you?

I'm 51, my life and work are going pretty well, my health is good, and I'm getting married in a few weeks. I've got every reason to believe that I'm good for another 25-30 years, at least--most of my forebears and their immediate kin have lived at least into their 80s in good health, and I've one great-great-uncle who lived to be 106. (They found him one evening leaned up against a fencepost, where he'd evidently stopped to take a little break whilst making his daily walk around his farm. Nothing wrong with him, the doctor said, except that he finally just wore out.)

If you think I'm tossing away everything I've worked for and the advantages I've likely inherited a mere 9 years hence in order to meet some half-assed expectation of yours, think again, kiddo.

I intend to be living a fantastic life and raising hell for another decade or three yet. Deal with it.

Re:good for him! (5, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | about a year ago | (#44595625)

I intend to be living a fantastic life and raising hell for another decade or three yet. Deal with it.

So... your magic number isn't 60, but possibly 85 or 90. Ok, that's fine. I am more than happy to let you define how long you think your quality of life is good. So what happens after that?

I've one great-great-uncle who lived to be 106. (They found him one evening leaned up against a fencepost, where he'd evidently stopped to take a little break whilst making his daily walk around his farm. Nothing wrong with him, the doctor said, except that he finally just wore out.)

Yeah, and I've got an 80+ year old great uncle in-law or something who's been bedridden for years now. Adult-onset type 2 diabetes. The diabetes so far has caused blindness, and has led to the amputation of both legs. It could happen to anyone, even you. 51 is a long way from 70.

My own grandfather developed Alzheimer's, and although he remained perfectly healthy in body until the end, that was probably the most horrifying and heart wrenching thing to undergo. He was terrified at least for as long as knew what was happening, and it wasn't much better for those around him.

We all wish to age gracefully, die in our sleep peacefully, and while I agree arbitrarily committing suicide on your 60th birthday is nuts... committing suicide when the circumstances of your final days are rapidly becoming apparent is pretty rational in my books.

don't see where it matters (1, Interesting)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year ago | (#44595227)

He *thought* he had a website up for five years when he died. He'll never know the difference.

But because geeks always want to fix things ... it seems to me that if he had the website in someone else's name, or even in a lawyer's name, it'd still be up.

Re:don't see where it matters (2)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44595327)

What a strange response, regardless of the reasoning behind Yahoo canceling the service (looks like they're pushing the ToS button). I see this as tantamount to somebody buying a burial plot and funeral services, and being dumped in the wilderness with the justification, "they'll never know, since they're dead!"

Re:don't see where it matters (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year ago | (#44595495)

What a strange response, regardless of the reasoning behind Yahoo canceling the service (looks like they're pushing the ToS button). I see this as tantamount to somebody buying a burial plot and funeral services, and being dumped in the wilderness with the justification, "they'll never know, since they're dead!"

And you think that doesn't happen [wikipedia.org] ?

I'm not trying to justify what yahoo did -- it was scummy, and I hope they get prosecuted, if there's anyone who would do so. Just pointing out that for him, the important thing is believing up to the moment of death that the arrangements he had made would continue afterwards. Such arrangements are, usually, in a practical manner, for the benefit of people still alive.

Re:don't see where it matters (2)

O'Nazareth (1203258) | about a year ago | (#44595477)

We could use your argument to make murder legal as long as the victim does not get to know about it.

Re:don't see where it matters (0)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year ago | (#44595599)

We could use your argument to make murder legal as long as the victim does not get to know about it.

Um, no we couldn't. The prosecution of and punishment for murder is of benefit to the living. Do you think we prosecute murder so that the victim's ghost can find peace? I suspect that only happens in television shows. No, we prosecute murder because it's a behavior that society wants to discourage. (Usually, for most societies. Although I'm beginning to wonder about Chicago.)

Fuck Yahoo! (5, Informative)

ShaunC (203807) | about a year ago | (#44595233)

In the meantime, there is a mirror located here [zeroshare.info] .

Re:Fuck Yahoo! (1)

lobiusmoop (305328) | about a year ago | (#44595385)

Streisand effect in play. (Or maybe Obi-Wan effect perhaps)

Re:Fuck Yahoo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44595687)

slashdotted :(

Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? (5, Insightful)

excelsior_gr (969383) | about a year ago | (#44595267)

Not only was this website paid for, it was obviously part of the deceased's last wishes. If Yahoo has no respect for the law or its customers, it should at least show some respect to a dude's last wish.

Re:Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44595395)

If the website was in the deceased's name, the contract ended upon that person's death. You are under no obligation to honor a contract to a dead person.

Re:Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? (1)

bsolar (1176767) | about a year ago | (#44595451)

You are under no obligation to honor a contract to a dead person.

You are under no obligation not to honor it either, which is the point of the "at least show some respect to a dude's last wish" argument.

Re:Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? (4, Insightful)

rtb61 (674572) | about a year ago | (#44595597)

That is a blatant lie ie a lawyer appointed by a person to carry out their last will and testament is bound by contractual law to honour that contract. Same for leaving estate to pets et al. Face it Yahoo are a bunch of douche bag shits heads for what they have done and the stink of an ex-google bimbo is all over it.

As for some of the reasons the dude committed suicide, reincarnation might obviate the exercise and even worse place him in even worse circumstance ;D.

Re:Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44595787)

That is a blatant lie ie a lawyer appointed by a person to carry out their last will and testament is bound by contractual law to honour that contract. Same for leaving estate to pets et al. Face it Yahoo are a bunch of douche bag shits heads for what they have done and the stink of an ex-google bimbo is all over it.

As for some of the reasons the dude committed suicide, reincarnation might obviate the exercise and even worse place him in even worse circumstance ;D.

How about you go ask a lawyer before you fire off with your Internet legalese?

Re:Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#44595453)

If the website was in the deceased's name, the contract ended upon that person's death. You are under no obligation to honor a contract to a dead person.

They may not have an obligation, legally speaking; but they have the guy's money (so, unless their pricing minions suck, they should be able to make at least a slight profit on the contract) and they sure look like dicks by immediately going against the customer's expressed wishes.

It is not illegal to exploit absolutely every angle not forbidden by law or contract; but nobody has to like you for it, nor should they.

Re:Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year ago | (#44595559)

Apparently Melissa Meyer is a big fan of Ayn Rand.

Re:Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year ago | (#44595577)

Argh. MARISSA.

Re:Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44595537)

Then how the hell does life insurance work? The contract is with the person whose life ended. Especially if the only beneficiaries are two minor children.

Re:Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44595515)

Maybe the deceased should show some respect to Yahoo's "Terms of Service"?
Since he wanted to promote suicide he had to find some entity willing to respect his sick life views - or stay alive and manage his own server or something...

Re:Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? (1)

jackb_guppy (204733) | about a year ago | (#44595551)

Need to right the release of rights page, read his last line.

Release of Rights

I, Martin Manley, being the creator and owner of all information on the site "MartinManleyLifeAndDeath.com", neither hold nor retain any claim or copyright on any part of this web-site. I do not grant these rights to any individual person or entity either in life or upon death. Rather I release all rights to this work - making it public domain. Anyone can do with it whatever they wish.

Martin Allen Manley

August 15, 2013.

Re:Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? (1)

i.r.id10t (595143) | about a year ago | (#44595769)

See this is why you retain copyright but give a permissive license like creative commons, etc.

Re:Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44595617)

This is Yahoo! When did they EVER listen to anyone's wishes? It took about 5 years and millions of complaints before Chris Chase got fired, but supposedly it was unrelated to his piss-poor editorials. Yahoo has nothing good to offer anymore besides their mail client and they can only blame themselves for their failures. Listen to your consumers or face extinction.

Re:Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? (1)

evilviper (135110) | about a year ago | (#44595671)

If Yahoo has no respect for the law or its customers, it should at least show some respect to a dude's last wish.

Actually, Yahoo might be breaking the law by hosting the site. Free speech law goes pretty far in the US, but encouraging suicide, or any other major illegal activity could get them in trouble. I also assume there's something in their TOS that forbids such content, so they're all good.

And someone's "last wish" isn't legally binding for good reason... Just because you're dying doesn't mean your motives are free of decades of bias, prejudice, etc. Dying declarations tend to be treated specially, but not "wishes".

Re:Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo? (1)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | about a year ago | (#44595833)

Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo?

Because it's not censorship.

And the idea that a corporation with shareholders should in some way show compassion, you're cute.

Yahoo should have considered the negative publicity, proving that pre-paid means nothing after death. More likely they have legal advice that keeping a site which will be cited as a suicide advocate is more expensive in the long term than lost revenue.

It doesn't matter that the site is a personal opinion and as neutral as it can be while still explaining. If a ridiculous court case popped up, Yahoo would have to defend itself with no way to either pass the blame onto the guy, or at least have him explain that it was not an advocacy position. Because he's dead.

And that is the important bit. If Yahoo had found out about this while he was alive, he would have been able to switch providers, and probably ask for a refund. But it was not an actual suicide note until he did it, so it could have qualified as fantasy or even therapy.

When the dude bit it, it became reality, and business hates ties to reality when it could point to legal issues later. Kind of a catch-22 where it doesn't bother Yahoo until it's too late to talk to the dude about it.

But it's not censorship. Your misunderstanding of words doesn't mean that's what they mean.

so? (1)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | about a year ago | (#44595283)

So where's the mirror? You'd expect someone to mirror this. Even just to investigate a death with unnatural causes, you'd expect the police to want a full copy of the web site?

Re:so? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44595387)

Here [zeroshare.info]

Vogue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44595287)

That's okay--Marissa will make the lost traffic up in Vogue hits. Also/Obligatory: Yahoo is still in business?

Yahoo Doing Evil Again (1, Interesting)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year ago | (#44595291)

The site is paid for, Yahoo needs to do the right thing and leave the site up. Dead people don't have rights, so the poster who asked about Manley's lawyers is right on the money, hopefully he set up a legal trust to deal with these issues. If Manley had set this up with Japanese hoster they probably wouldn't have thought twice about hosting the site.

Re:Yahoo Doing Evil Again (1)

mysidia (191772) | about a year ago | (#44595531)

Dead people don't have rights, so the poster who asked about Manley's lawyers is right on the money, hopefully he set up a legal trust to deal with these issues. If Manley had set this up with Japanese hoster they probably wouldn't have thought twice about hosting the site. --

Yahoo has a policy that they close your account if they die.

I think setting up a legal trust would involve a level of research and planning not suggested by his choice to simply use Yahoo hosting. Furthermore --- suing Yahoo would be expensive and probably unsuccessful. A much better option is to demand a refund and switch hosting providers to something like NearlyFreeSpeech.net

If I were setting something like this up; I would have a foundation with prepaid custodians, and a duty to hold ownership of the domain and move the site or DNS services to different providers as necessary to keep the site up.

And if I was concerned about them failing in their duties --- i'd launch two or more sites, with different custodians for redundancy.

The custodians would be required to demonstrate 99% uptime for the site, and a MD5 digest match on the author's page content, using a 3rd party independent website monitoring provider (MD5 match to prevent custodians from framing my content or changing my message or inserting advertising).

After each year, the custodian would receive ~$1000; plus after showing invoices and proof of payment with the costs -- reimbursement for domain registration cost of up to 4 domains for each site (not more than the average .COM domain renewal price), plus reimbursment for cost of website hosting with a national hosting provider not more than $100 a year adjusted for inflation, after producing reports from a minimum of two independent 3rd party monitoring website monitoring services to my foundation.

Re:Yahoo Doing Evil Again (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year ago | (#44595859)

Yahoo has a policy that they close your account if they die.

I assume all bets are off if Yahoo dies. But getting back to the point;

I think setting up a legal trust would involve a level of research and planning not suggested by his choice to simply use Yahoo hosting.

Uh, if I understand your terrible use of English... legal trusts, living wills, etc, are fairly common place and any lawyer who specializes in such, and there are many, would have it set up in a jiffy. You're not really sure what you're talking about, are you?

mirror of the site (fta) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44595303)

http://www.zeroshare.info/ [zeroshare.info]

WOW !! I BET HE IS PISSED !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44595311)

Who'll walk me down to church when I'm sixty years' of age
When the ragged dog they gave me has been 10 years in the grave
And senorita play guitar, play it just for you
My rosary has broken and my beads have all slipped through

You've hung up your grey coat and you've laid down your gun
You know the war you fought in wasn't too much fun
And the future you're giving me holds nothing for a gun
I've no wish to be living sixty years on

Yes I'll sit with you and talk, let your eyes relive again
I know my vintage prayers would be very much the same
And Magdelena plays the organ, plays it just for you
Your choral lamp that burns so low when you are passing through

And the future you're giving me holds nothing for a gun
I've no wish to be living sixty years on
And Yahoo! I am pissed

TL;DR (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a year ago | (#44595317)

There is a novel sized amount of text here.

Re:TL;DR (1)

Trepidity (597) | about a year ago | (#44595825)

Novella-sized, perhaps. If you want a Tolstoy-esque novel by someone who committed suicide, check out Mitchell Heisman's suicidenote.info [suicidenote.info] .

Bonus: check out the chapter titles.

Yahoo Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44595361)

Yahoo going downhill since the rise of Google? Say it isn't so...

uh oh (4, Funny)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#44595397)

He's gonna haunt the shit out of them now

Re:uh oh (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44595645)

YaWhooooo!

Living in the now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44595417)

It's a shame no one had given him a copy of Eckhart Tolle's "The Power of Now".
Reading the "Why suicide?" section it's a classic example of a human mind at it's absolute worst creating abstract future's that will probably never happen.
e,g, "I didn’t want to die having my chin and my butt wiped by someone who might forget which cloth they used for which."

Rather than brush his "thoughts" under a carpet like Yahoo has done I'd leave them there for others to link to who can better explain what when wrong in his head.
"The power of linking" could turn this negative into a positive.
It should remain as a warning to the living that you are not your mind, your mind and your thoughts are a product of an organ that can mis-fire just like any other organ in your body.
If you are wondering what I'm talking about pick up a copy of Tolle's bestseller and find out for yourself.

demanding refund in full (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44595433)

Where is Yahoo gonna transfer the refund to?

You know what's even creepier? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44595447)

There's another guy named Martin Manley who was born 2 weeks later and has the wikipedia page :D

I mean seriously, not just the same name, or year, but the same month too!

Understanding what death means (1)

istartedi (132515) | about a year ago | (#44595463)

Among many other things, death entails a complete lack of power.

agreed. Fuck Yahoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44595467)

the site has been going downhill anyway.
this is just the final nail in thw coffin.

Winning strategy (5, Funny)

NoMoreMrNiceGuy2 (2989999) | about a year ago | (#44595493)

1. Get customers to sign up for 5 year plans of web hosting.
2. Kill customer, make is look like a suicide.
3.?
4. Profit!

Read a little of it (4, Insightful)

rsilvergun (571051) | about a year ago | (#44595499)

with the exception of some of the Alzheimer stuff he mentioned every thing he described is treatable, and even a lot of the Alzheimer stuff is. That is, if you have access to the health care. This sounds more like a failing of our society than anything else.

Re:Read a little of it (4, Interesting)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | about a year ago | (#44595757)

Why isn't he entitled to decide when he has lived enough? Why does he need valid medical reasons?

I think you're right, it's a failing of society. Society rather plays for god and decide who lives and who dies.

(I only hope he performed a clean suicide rather than jumping in front of a train, or something)

Re:Read a little of it (1)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | about a year ago | (#44595857)

with the exception of some of the Alzheimer stuff he mentioned every thing he described is treatable

That makes me feel bad for the dude. You mean he didn't actually have any reason to off himself? You could have told him that, I'm sure he would have listened to reason in his highly emotional state of mind.

Yahoo definitely wrong choice. Or was it? (4, Informative)

Joiseybill (788712) | about a year ago | (#44595509)

I was gonna rant about refunding the estate for the residual value of his contract, and for the 5 year domain registration.. or at least transfer it to his estate.. BUT.. Yahoo's TOS specifically deals with death.
"No Right of Survivorship and Non-Transferability. You agree that your Yahoo! account is non-transferable and any rights to your Yahoo! ID or contents within your account terminate upon your death. Upon receipt of a copy of a death certificate, your account may be terminated and all contents therein permanently deleted."

Allegedly, this was in effect for a while.. the page
http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/utos-173.html [yahoo.com]
says it was last updated March 16, 2012.
For a man who made a living with his words, maybe he should have read the TOS ( short by some comparison). Or, maybe like the false 'treasure hunt', he knew Yahoo would cancel his account, and through both methods he gains some post-mortem notoriety. Either way.. I hope he gets some pleasure out of all this attention to his life being generated today.

Seems (1)

no-body (127863) | about a year ago | (#44595543)

that Yahoo folks have a problem with themselves in connection with dying, suicide and related things. For sure it's not a money issue to keep the page open.
Now they have another PR issue and are exposes as jerks.

anti-conspiracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44595555)

Anti-Conspiracy Capitalist Pig Investment Banker Commits Suicide for Free Hosting from "Reddit" pg 11

How is the Slashdot and Reddit crowd sympathizing with this wackadoodle?

Yahoo and the Streisand effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44595701)

So their latest CEO has been buying companies for ridiculous amounts of money in order to keep Yahoo in the press, and then they pull something like this?

That is truly priceless.

Let's help Yahoo to know who they really are (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44595715)

I agree with most comments here. And I'm proud of the ones showing compassion towards this person's last wishes.
I propose we all send a message to
@YahooInc and cc to @marissamayer
It would be most effective to use hashtag too to start a trend. Mine would be: #Fuckyahoo
But not everybody would like to use profane language.
What about #Yahoosucks ? or both?
And a link to this page to let the world know?

Marissa Mayer response expected soon (1)

JoeyRox (2711699) | about a year ago | (#44595729)

In a follow-up edition of Vogue magazine. Yahoo is toast, with a raspy T.

Yahoo is shit (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44595805)

People still use Yahoo? Why? That site has totally turned to shit the last few years.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?