Reply to thread

Click here to become an Official Member of BMW Club Malaysia Download Form

Message: <blockquote data-quote="popeadrian" data-source="post: 228296" data-attributes="member: 2065">Hmm.....why is it that some dimwits can never stick to the topic? Could just be me, but what has THIS got to do with the topic??:stupid:   Anyway, we'll now get back on track, shall we? bmwcar raised a very simple question regarding hosting and the method in which it is done. The techies have answered but since the conversation has "blossomed", lets look at it from a legal standpoint....blackrobe, pls feel free to jump in :wink:  Lets say there's a Client. Now this Client has asked this company...lets say the company is called Fraudulent Enterprise or FE for short. So Client has asked FE to do some work for it...to sort out its website and to host the website for...lets say, one year. So they sit down, the brief is given by Client to FE and FE says "a-ok,we do no prob!". But now, for whatever reason the Client tells FE that they want the hosting to be done by another company...lets say Company Honest Thom or Co.HT for short. So its all agreed....FE says no problems and they sort of part ways but are still around because Co.HT needs to get the data etc from FE. So one day the data transfer is organised and FE hands the passwords & login etc to Co.HT. Does this equate to "handover"? From a legal standpoint, it DOES NOT. WHy? Simple. To handover a project such as this, it means that FE is to ensure that Co.HT has the necessary access (unrestricted, unhindered etc) to the servers/data to transfter the necessary data. It also means that FE must allow for enough time (reasonable time is the exact phrase) for Co.HT to transfer the data. It also means that FE must handover all backups of the data, any CD copies etc...EVERYTHING that was required by the Client (ie the work) to either Co.HT or the Client. Why? Because it FE doesnt, then its THEFT and to some extent PLAIGARISM and COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!!! Go ahead, google it....its true. This means that FE can't willy nilly utilise the backup data etc to run a new website or to use it to design some new work for another client or itself. IT does not own any of the rights for which the work was done for the client. Remember, that the work was for a ONE YEAR period...which means all the amendments, any updates, any changes etc...everything (unless specofically excluded) are the Clients.....Tah dah!  So now the question is this... in the situation presented by bmwcar, do the "excuses" given hold water? Doubtful. Why? Because backups are done routinely, as stated by PD etc. Now, if...lets say IF, the portions highlighted in red by PD are standard for all such scenarios ie "Therefore, subscriber agrees that the company shall not be liable for any damages arising from such causes beyond the direct and exclusive control of the company. Subscriber further acknowledges that the company's liability for its own negligence may not in any event exceed an amount equivalent to charges payable by subscriber for services during the period damages occurred"then whats to be deduced? Simple...that in this scenario, FE should hand over all the stuff that it should ethically, legally and business wise to the Client. And if, thru its own negligence (lets say for eg, delaying in re-authorising Co.HT access if Co.HT had mis-typed the password) caused a problem, then to reimburse the Client accordingly.  Its plain and simple isnt it?  Reading thru PD, and the other techie postings, it seems that if one were to use the scenario above to bmwcar's question, that FE are either irresponsible, unethical or merely foolish. True, that perhaps the Client should have been wiser but as a business transaction, its pretty cut & dry isnt it? :wink:</blockquote>

Verification