21–30 of 93 posts
The (American) judicial system is broken when this type of class justice arises. This is a dangerous development.
my favourite case of the big guy losing despite the resources they bring to bear is the mclibel case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_Case)
Question for any lawyers present: If a lawyer threatens to "ruin your life with litigation", etc., can't that be construed as a threat/bribe? I would think it would be illegal to call a student, who doesn't know any better, and threaten to ruin their life, especially if the threats you're making aren't actually true. In any case, the obvious next step in the student's situation is to contact a lawyer, and see if ther…
This is an incredibly ridiculous story. This student is exactly the type of person Hollywood should be nurturing: a creative student with vision, perusing his creative 'dream' and not letting his limited means get in the way of his vision. It's a real pity that this happened, and a lost opportunity for the film industry. It could have been simple for them to take this as an opportunity and make something great out it…
If this isn't, I don't know what is.
Note that the author was talking about the fragment of his own film that he uploaded (and subsequently took down). "one download at a time" is referring to the downloads of that fragment (which, by the other party's admission, he had the right to shoot, and holds the copyright to). He is not talking about anything illegal (such as pirating content).
P.S. This doesn't just apply to "Hollywood," it happens everywhere.
There are some simple things that could be done to protect against this kind of abuse: - Loser pays the winner's costs, but capped such that the loser won't be bankrupted. This effectively means that when a big company loses, they get to pay for all of the trial, but individuals can still lose without being totally doomed. - A judge could be allowed to grant "free trial" if he thought the case had merit and one of th…
Loser pays a proportion of the winner's costs equal to the loser's costs (i.e. loser spends £100 in legal fees, winner spends £1500 in legal fees, loser has to pay £100 of the winner's costs, leaving the winner with £1400 to pay) has some nice properties.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Loser pays a proportion of the winner's costs equal to the loser's costs (i.e. loser spends £100 in legal fees, winner spends £1500 in legal fees, loser has to pay £100 of the winner's costs, leaving the winner with £1400 to pay) has some nice properties.
Even better - loser pays the winner the exact amount they paid their legal team. By their own admission "at arm's length" so to speak, that was the value of the litigation to them.
I presume by "One download at a time" the author is referring to the downloading of his own films? Downloading Hollywood films won't kill Hollywood, as it only spreads Hollywood's influence and makes the problem worse. The way to kill Hollywood is to ignore it. That's got to be more terrifying to a studio than being pirated. Paul Graham had it right in his "Kill Hollywood" piece: it's not pirating that will kill Holl…
People with money have influence. If we give them less money, they'll have less influence.
However, in situations like this where you might have some legal leverage, it never hurts to attempt some sort of negotiation. He could, for instance, negotiate himself into some sort of production position in the upcoming shoot or on some other set.
This is going to sound really harsh: Aside from nepotism and sheer luck, people do really make it in the film industry based on pure will and this could have been his opportunity. However, in the end he murdered his darling and packed it in. With an attitude like that (harsh, I know) his chances were slim. The film industry is not a meritocracy, and his art alone would not have carried him to success. He needed to hustle, in both senses of the word.
If he did try something like that, then I feel doubly worse for him, though.
I presume by "One download at a time" the author is referring to the downloading of his own films? Downloading Hollywood films won't kill Hollywood, as it only spreads Hollywood's influence and makes the problem worse. The way to kill Hollywood is to ignore it. That's got to be more terrifying to a studio than being pirated. Paul Graham had it right in his "Kill Hollywood" piece: it's not pirating that will kill Holl…
People with money have influence. If we give them less money, they'll have less influence.
If you don't see the film, and one of your friends has a film reference you don't recognize, you're actively not helping the film monopoly since the time your friend invested in the film has no value to you. In this way, you're denying the network effect.
The films don't need everyone to pay for it, only a fraction. By pirating a film, you contribute the most important thing you have: your mind and social attention.
Question for any lawyers present: If a lawyer threatens to "ruin your life with litigation", etc., can't that be construed as a threat/bribe? I would think it would be illegal to call a student, who doesn't know any better, and threaten to ruin their life, especially if the threats you're making aren't actually true. In any case, the obvious next step in the student's situation is to contact a lawyer, and see if ther…
If he threatened him with a criminal threat, ie "we're going to send you to jail if you don't pay up," that I know is definitely illegal and I've heard of lawyers threatened with disbarment for it.