View Single Post
Old 05-15-2009, 05:54 PM   #18
shawn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 9,941
Default

not only request $150K but the fact that there are free beta's already released prior to the letter has to be taken into account.

If a beta where released that was downloaded to someone the person receiving said letter and there was no way to tell by a normal person any of the people that downloaded the beta then the person who made the beta could not be held responsible for anything release PRIOR to the letter.

Also IF the lawyers representing DO NOT actively try to find and present all people that downloaded the beta with letters then the original party could not be held responsible for an unknown person doing something beyond their control, especially if said letter was given out AFTER original beta's were dispersed.

Now here's the fun part.

If someone whos ID is unknown by the original hacker, has a beta unknown to the original hacker, that was in their possession prior to the letter being received then legally since they have not received a letter then they could complete and release a final version and the original developer/letter receiver could not be held responsible for said release. The reason is because the lawyers sending the letter must have found out about the beta online snooping or from a person being a rat. Now when they realized the beta was out and they didn't go out and get warrants for all IP addresses of people downloading it, then send all beta downloaders letters informing them to destroy the beta and all copies and not to release it, copy it , ect, then they CANNOT hold the original hacker responsible in any way.

This letter now that I think about it can only be inforced if sent to all people in possession of a copy and all copies are in a known location or can be found and lettersender makes a full and I mean full attempt to find every copy in existence.

Basically it all means you can't be held responsible for an unknown persons actions or lack of. Especially if said unknown person was in possession of a beta prior to receiving the letter. That's just common law and common sense.

Just basically back down and if anything send back letter saying beta has been removed from site and all people working or beta's PC's, BUT, haha I love this part.
Also state a beta was released prior to receipt of this letter to the public and you have no way to know who downloaded it and have no way to control their actions.

The above statement just told them you have complied to the best of your ability but cannot be held responsible for release by an unknown 3rd party and I'ld also make a copy for a lawyer also.

Now when they send a letter saying you're in trouble for release of a beta you bring original letter, your letter, and this follow up to a lawyer. The lawyer will ask if the other lawyers had found all IP's "like in P2P lawsuits" and then sent letters to all persons downloading the original beta telling them not to distribute and to destroy the beta. If they had not then they cannot hold original hacker responsible since they themselves were negligent in contacting ALL people in possession of said beta.

I know it's long winded but anyone with law experience will tell you it's basically sound in it's reasoning. Sure they could TRY to sue but unless the judge is either stupid or paid off they are going to lose if they take it to court.

So remember if you comply fully and immediately you cannot be held responsible for crimes commited by an unknown 3rd party. Any court that would hold you responsible is in fact breaking the law and the judge should be removed from the bench.

Last edited by shawn; 05-15-2009 at 07:43 PM.
shawn is offline   Reply With Quote