I feel like Something is missing.

[galled]

I watch a lot of JUDGE JUDY, THE PEOPLE'S COURT, etc.. The lesson almost always is PUT IT IN WRITING! So many conflicts would be settled quickly if we all just did that.

It sounds like you're siding with the one who allegedly owes the other money. Can one buy the other out?

[Boris]

If he sells, then that means the staff will have to change the name of the new facebook page they created when the developer started his temper tantrum. That also means that they will have to come up with a new name as well. The developer in question claims that the other owner owes him money, but the owner of the site showed that he has paid the other guy money. I do think it's a legal issue because the other owner doesn't want the site to be sold. It was HIS site, and his idea, and the developer was one he trusted, which was a mistake.

[galled]

Sounds like it's going to be messy. IP involved (who owns the code?) or is just a domain that's being potentially sold? If it's just the domain, not the end of the world, but the simplest thing is to just buy it when the other guy sells it. The domain is virtually nothing without the code behind it. Or am I missing something?

A snake pit nevertheless...

[Boris]

I watch a lot of JUDGE JUDY, THE PEOPLE'S COURT, etc.. The lesson almost always is PUT IT IN WRITING! So many conflicts would be settled quickly if we all just did that.

It sounds like you're siding with the one who allegedly owes the other money. Can one buy the other out?

I side with the one that paid the developer, and the developer is selling

*The web codebase
* The database structure and data
* Facebook prescence
* Domain, currently in good standing for restoring all SEO
* Exclusive rights of use.

I don't think it's legal, but I'm no lawyer, and the developer lives in the U.K, and put the site's ownership to his name.

[Gingerale]

If there is a paper trail and an original agreement for whose name the site was originally under - and no thing to the contrary then that sounds like a case.

Messy though, and not sure if the lawyer stuff would be costly.

[Boris]

If there is a paper trail and an original agreement for whose name the site was originally under - and no thing to the contrary then that sounds like a case.

Messy though, and not sure if the lawyer stuff would be costly.

I don't know if they do are not, and yeah, lawyers are always expensive. The founder of the site quit his job for the site, so now he has no income coming in, which sucks! I do believe the site they used to transfer money has records of the payments at least, could be printed out and used as evidence against the developer. I just hope everything works out.

[Lemon Cheesecake]

I went to a Gaia online panel this summer at AX and they were talking about the different transfer of people going on and how some of the original core people were coming back and trying to clean up the mess that happened while they were gone...but most of them work for free on the site and put in more then 40 hours a week and I wondered how a site so big couldn't generate enough capital to pay for it's employee's.

[galled]

I guess having stuff written down doesn't ensure no problems. One of the members of the band STEELY DAN died not too long ago and there was an agreement/contract signed 45 years ago. Now the family/estate does not want to abide by it/saying it's not valid.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/mus ... 899846001/

People really suck when money comes into play...

[Watery Star]

What a mess. :/