Yes, the contract can be in electronic form. Where is it?Freeyorp101 wrote: ↑07 Mar 2019, 03:43 Regarding the repeated requests for a written contract. While we've already seen that a court will consider the impact of a pair of adjacent emoji in a text message as evidence, you might be interested in some of the general rules surrounding validity of online evidence, and how broadly this is considered.
U.S.C. § 7001. General rule of validity wrote:(a) In general Notwithstanding any statute, regulation, or other rule of law (other than this subchapter and subchapter II), with respect to any transaction in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce—
(1) a signature, contract, or other record relating to such transaction may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form; and
(2) a contract relating to such transaction may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because an electronic signature or electronic record was used in its formation.You might also be interested in the [statute of frauds], which exhaustively enumerates the activities which *must* require a written and signed contract. Which activity do you believe this falls under?Rule 1001. Definitions The Apply to This Article wrote: (a) A “writing” consists of letters, words, numbers, or their equivalent set down in any form.
These are all pieces of evidence that a court would consider when attempting to determine ownership of the eathena@ account, and many more.
If you do not wish to consider the evidence, why are you replying?
At the very least, Platyna providing written expectation that the eathena files and forums were to go with bjorn in 2009, when she declared that she no longer wished to host the project, is certainly relevant to the interests of any fair court.
That's quite disingenuous at best. The Regulations of Platinum Linux Non-profit Servers make quite clear the rules surrounding the engagement, and hosts do not in general made individually named, written, and signed contracts for each user. I certainly have no such specific agreement with Linode for my servers, nor does TMW currently have any such individual contract with Azure.blackrazor wrote: ↑07 Mar 2019, 03:10 I wrote one up with minimal effort. It was only three lines of text. Was that too much work for the founder or his co-workers? Just slipped their collective minds? Trusting strangers over the internet? Lost in the mail? Eaten by dog? No contract? Too damn bad. No copyright for you!
From ~2010, I had a shell account (which is much closer to the hosted arrangement in question here, as compared to Azure providing a full VM) with wilcox-tech's public access servers, and they had a similar set of terms of service. I would certainly not expect my IRC logs (created by the irssi IRC client, which is also GPL, not that it matters, as you were the only one that seems to think TMWC believed they could copy data under GPL provisions, rather than having the blessing of bjorn, the owner of the files) to then become property of the server administrators.
You could ask the https://sdf.org/ administrators if they believe they own all the shell account data of their members, or if they made individually named, written, signed contracts for each member. If this is truly how the law works, I suspect quite a lot of people will suddenly find themselves in very unexpected situations.
So we have established consensus on hosting in general, rather than hosting of eathena@ in particular. I'll go ahead and mentally uncheck step 2 for now.
You might notice the lack of a check on "[ ] Regulations of Platinum Linux Non-profit Server apply to eathena@". With that said, I'm pretty sure that the citations of Platyna invoking those same rules with regard to the eathena@ account, both in saying she could not be sued for eathena data breach and in evicting Jaxad, would make for pretty compelling evidence in a fair court of law.
The specific charges would be illegal copying and display, and copyright infringement. Perhaps also wire fraud, since it was done electronically, and that is a USA favorite to apply in such cases.
The three lines I provided are not intended for a specific situation. They would be for every situation, and would be placed within each asset file that already contained the GPL clause, just under it.
More exotic evidence is considered when there is no presumption of copyright claimant. Fortunately, GPL contract already provides for one, rendering all that evidence superfluous and irrelevant. Show me something that actually matters, like a statement of copyright (electronic form is fine) that would override the default presumptions of the GPL contract.
P.S. There apparently are also EU (of which Poland is a member) rules about moving personal data (like email addresses, usernames, and passwords of players) outside of EU jurisdiction, to the USA, for example. Looks like we might have an international incident on our hands.