Quote:
Originally Posted by crich70
Would getting it notarized or snail mailing a copy to yourself be a good idea in such a case Hitch or would that be overkill?
|
Crich:
No, because a notary can't attest to something she only knows because you tell her is "x." (Effectively, hearsay). So, for example, s/he has no way of knowing that you did indeed receive said email from the publisher. You're simply telling her that you did. She can't attest to the actual receipt. She could attest to nothing more than that you swear, under penalty of perjury, that X occurred. That's not that useful, in this circumstance.
The grossly-misunderstood, abused and misused "poor man's copyright" of mailing something to yourself wouldn't really apply, either. Again, it simply proves that on date x, you mailed an email to yourself that you purport had come from party Y. (P.S.: in case anyone wonders, the "poor man's copyright" isn't worth the time it takes you to read this sentence, not in a court of law.)
What matters in this case are the email headers, any other metadata, etc., you can grab, and keeping copies of the emails. That's the best you can do in this circumstance.
@gmw:
Agreed; in some circles, that use of "retain" would be normal, but not in most legal documents in this day and age. Not in that sentence. They may well have meant it that way. However, a clarification would have been nice. BUT, I agree: they can't retain (keep) in sentence two what they are claiming they do not have in sentence one. So, all in, it's probably okay, but...I'm a stickler for that type of gooey wording.
Hitch