Snarf

http://www.rhizomes.net/issue5/poke/pokemon.html This is surprisingly useful and meme-y

Does anyone have David's contact info?

I actually think this is a really thorough articulation of the point. I think we talked a little past eachother - you're talking about your website's functionality, while I'm talking about cross-x's popularity and legitimacy (despite not being as functional). Cross-x has an enormous membership base and name recognition, largely built on its historical luck and legacy, and I'm wondering if you have a specific plan to build your alternative website's base to comparable levels -- and if so, why that plan is likely to succeed relative to c-x's enormous existing base.

I'd love to hear both of you talk a little more about the legitimacy problem - a ton of sites with varying levels of sophistication have tried to new the "new cross-x," and have consistently never attracted a sufficient critical mass to shift the center of gravity from here to anywhere else. The criticisms about CX being poor now could either be a reason to move or a reason to improve here. Since I get that you're both seriously committed to the former option, I think it would be useful to hear your replies to the legitimacy problem.

David paying makes a lawsuit mostly less viable BUT the people David wrongfully withheld from are likely entitled to compound interest (somewhere bt 7-10% per year depending on where we sued) and could quite easily recover for that in small claims. If David really wants to make things right, and means what he’s saying about “cross-x deserving better”, he’ll pay a compound interest from the time that each payment accrued as well as all balance of all payments due. He’d should also reach out to site veterans who have payments due but haven’t logged in for a while, and offer them payments as well. A simple message that they’re entitled to $ would be a good start.

NO don't delete your files. It makes the claim less strong and deprives you of your right.

Ok. Can anyone who currently has a file posted let me know, is it possible to delete the file on your own? Like do you 100% control that or is there a process for de-listing that the admins would have to approve?

Also: anyone who posted files originally for cost then reposted them free as a protest should put them back to their understanding of the fair market value for the file. If the file is actually worth, say, 25 bucks / download, then set it to that.

Sorry for two double posts - if we get enough interest in this, when I'm licensed in November, I'll take the case. I have an idea for a fee arrangement that is creative and would help get C-X back into flourishing. The things that it would be REALLY helpful are if: 1) Members could figure out David's full name and contact info. PM or post here, it doesn't matter. 2) Members who have ANY file (regardless of a balance owed) posted on C-X and are interested in participating in the suit post here and PM me. 3) Members who are owed a balance from Evazon and are interested in participating in the suit, post here and PM me. Please include screenshots of how much you are owed, and when the balance accrued (because a court might award interest, which, over 3-5 years, could be significant - CA awards 10% compound per year). 4) Any member who has a copy of the Evazon author agreement, post here. This is extremely important. If you didn't have a contract, say. 5) Screenshots of David (or the other admin's) promises to pay out Evazon. These need to include date.

We'd need like ~100 authors tbh. Class actions require demonstrating a number of things, including numerosity - so many people that it's infeasible to simply join the litigants as parties. So instead of X Spike, Maury, Rawrcat v. David & Cross-X (which is a normal suit), it would be The Class of Cross-X Authors v. David & Cross-X (a class action). You can still sue without a class action and it basically looks the same - focusing on this is largely a distraction. It would be helpful if everyone due a payment posted here, simply by making it easier to ID plaintiffs. That said, this is probably not a lot of money - even bad lawyers charge ~100/hr (or flat fees in the thousands) so the only way to get it is pro bono. The way to get a lawyer on this is to make it a copyright case. An important pre-req to doing that it to see the Evazon author agreement. Can anyone post that?

High key we'd need to figure out where David could be sued. Personal jurisdiction - the power of a court to issue a judgment against David specifically - is a bit complex with internet sites, and because it would almost certainly be in state court (but applying due process jurisprudence), it would turn on how the forum state thought about interactive internet websites. My impulse is that there's probably nationwide jurisdiction because of the nature of the website, but that's an uninformed impulse for drafting-a-brief purposes. Also, depending on how the signup contract for Evazon is drafted, that might affect the analysis. Does anyone have a copy of the author agreement? What would be fun would be suing David for copyright infringement (by posting the files after he'd been given notice by email that his license to post them was revoked). An author's copyright vests immediately once the file is written (suing on the copyright requires a few formalities - like registration - but those are super easy to satisfy). The reason this would be juicy: The minimum statutory damages are $750.00 and the max is $150,000.00. See 17 U.S.C. § 504 (2012). And since David's been so absent despite repeated promises not to be, the willfulness argument (which pushes the award towards 150) is respectable, if not strong.

The most effective way to do so - if you're an author with money due from evazon - is to sue for breach of contract + interest, or unjust enrichment + interest (likely in small claims court). Someone bold could do it as a class action, too, if there were enough authors around (we'd need a BUNCH, but my understanding is there are a bunch).

this is a really, really solid 2AC. well done.

Just so everyone knows for real-life purposes: the courts DA is wrong for a massive reason - immigration judges are Article I judges (which do not enjoy life tenure and cannot exercise general judicial powers), and all of the impact evidence talks about Article III judges (who are part of the federal judiciary, enjoy general judicial powers, and enjoy life tenure). Article I judges are essentially administrative oversight randos with no judicial power in the constitutional sense. A quick primer on this distinction regarding a semi-recent SCOTUS case and other Article I judges (in bankruptcy): https://www.foxrothschild.com/publications/u-s-supreme-court-dramatically-curtails-bankruptcy-courts-powers/ I can explain more if anyone wants, but if anyone reads this against you, the Article I/III distinction is a single-sentence DA ender.

Don't worry. I'm never gonna give you up; never gonna let you down.