Flatfingers wrote: Poet1960 wrote:
in my opinion, for any legal action that might be brought against a dev, they would have to prove the dev has failed to continue working on the project. What judge would condemn a man for taking a hiatus, because of health issues created by his commitment, dedication and drive in creating the actual product?
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but I think my logic is correct.
I also am not a lawyer, but I think I can offer an important clarification here.
Winning in court is not the correct goal. If you get pulled into court, you have already lost.
In the U.S., each party to a suit has to pay court costs. Furthermore, time spent on discovery -- copying every relevant email and receipt -- is time spent not working (which in Josh's case would mean not coding and testing Limit Theory).
Basically, if you get sued, even if you win, you lose.
So the real solution is not to win in court -- it is to take every reasonable action needed to dissuade anyone from filing a legal complaint in the first place.
So, what are "reasonable actions" for a Kickstarter project? I'd suggest they include:
1. Communicate with backers regularly and no less than once per month (preferably more often, although every day for two years straight is superhuman).
2. Show some tangible progress every few months (preferably more often).
3. Don't be Duke Nukem Forever or Half-Life 3. Four years is probably the outer limit of patience for a KS project.
As always, these are just my opinions.
I don't think any clarification is needed. Your solution seems to imply that the person in question, should try to satisfy each and every person to the utmost degree, in order to dissuade anyone from filling a complaint, which completely ignores those people who just like to be jerks and are never satisfied no matter what happens.
No one said the goal is to "win" a court battle, the goal is to get what was promised. Anyone can file a lawsuit justified or not. I'm pretty sure the courts are not interested in your personal opinion, nor mine, on how the word "reasonable" should be defined. The rules that apply, at least as far as LT goes, are the rules as they stood the day people sent in their money.
The facts are, that KS has it's definition for what a dev has to do in order to stay in compliance, and if a dev is in compliance as defined, then all the lawsuits in the world won't change that, regardless of anyones personal feelings.
You may have your own personal ideas of what should constitute compliance, but it is irrelevant unless or until it becomes part of a new agreement, which is maybe I guess what you are trying to get at, I dunno.
I think that probably the simplest and most honest way of doing it, would be to just make it completely clear upfront, that any monies donated
are of your own free will and will NOT be returned and that it is a risk. That way maybe people will be a bit more careful with their money or perhaps only give what they won't miss. I think that many people have exaggerated expectations of what they think they are doing when they donate to KS.
Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.