Juridical question...

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Maybe that's what he meant, but that's not what he said. What he said was generic.

If he really was asking our advice on how to sue us in particular, I have a few other words to offer him.

No, I think he was talking generally with reference to the court case, but I also think he's getting IP and copyright mixed up.

Time to get Dewey, Cheatem, and How on retainer, I guess.

Or just shut the site down until we write a forum agreement that gives us everything you've ever created, including "subsequent works" like first born. . .

And it wouldn't be legal, even if you got everyone to sign it in front of a judge

 

[Geo]

Legal is what a court says it is, alas. Hence the propensity for judge shopping, and "my lawyer can beat up your lawyer".

 

[nthd]

Legal is what a court says it is, alas.

Yes, and then the first court's decision can be overruled by another (higher) court if it considers that the judge "erred in law".

 

[Geo]

If the parties can afford to keep pursuing it and are motivated enough to do so. Often times a legal contest is a test of wills more than a test of law. Depends on the parties tho.

 

[nelg]

You can't show me any legal mechanism by which those rights have transferred to B3D, because there isn't one. Legally, they still belong to me. You have no signed contract, you have no legal T&Cs that can supersede statue law. At best you have some kind of implication which simply has no legal standing any more than if I claim that by you "agreeing" to send me you postings via my internet connection that you are giving up your copyrights to me because I'm taking the trouble to read them.

By covenant , if you did not state any limitations, there is an implied contract giving the 'publisher' the right to reproduce the work. It can be argued that that the request to remove material is an new or amended contract to which both parties have not consented, therefore it is unenforceable.

Keep the quote button legal!

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

By covenant , if you did not state any limitations, there is an implied contract giving the 'publisher' the right to reproduce the work. It can be argued that that the request to remove material is an new or amended contract to which both parties have not consented, therefore it is unenforceable.

Keep the quote button legal!

There is no covenant. Show me where one is and where my witnessed signature is on it. You can't use contracts to end-run around statute laws. The "contract" is invalid.

 

[nelg]

There is no covenant. Show me where one is and where my witnessed signature is on it. You can't use contracts to end-run around statute laws. The "contract" is invalid.

It becomes a covenant to common law. A signature is not required. The seal is the acceptance of the user agreement. There is no end-run as there was license granted. Of course it is all subject to legal opinion.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

It becomes a covenant to common law. A signature is not required. The seal is the acceptance of the user agreement. There is no end-run as there was license granted. Of course it is all subject to legal opinion.

Covenants still can't supersede statute law, least of all implied covenants. It would be like opening a shop and claiming everyone who comes in has made a covenant with me to give me their children into slavery.

 

[nelg]

Covenants still can't supersede statute law, least of all implied covenants. It would be like opening a shop and claiming everyone who comes in has made a covenant with me to give me their children into slavery.

There is no superseding though. There was / is a granting of license by accepting conditions and participating. Within statutory limitations implied contract can still exist because the conditions are those set forth by the holder.