61–70 of 93 posts
This was a defensive lawsuit that had nothing to do with shutting down his student project -- it was to protect themselves from a party that could have potentially tied them up for years in court demanding money if he had properly lawyered up.
Some observations: 1. If the studio had filed a lawsuit, there's a very good chance that, after seeing the Asimov estate's permission, the judge would have quickly tossed the case on summary judgment --- and quite possibly awarded the student his attorneys' fees under section 505 of the Copyright Act,[1] as happened recently in several of the Righthaven copyright-troll cases.[2] 2. A copyright lawyer might have been…
> It's a pity the student didn't talk to a copyright > lawyer (with litigation experience) before caving. How much would that cost him in the US? And how likely is that the court would actually grant him the money? The link says "at court’s discretion". Has it actually ever happenned before?
Yes -- I updated my first comment at note [2].
Why isn't anyone mentioning the fact that if this kid (at the time) owned the rights to the I, Robot via permission he could have sued the producers of "I, Robot" for a portion of their profits. This was a defensive lawsuit that had nothing to do with shutting down his student project -- it was to protect themselves from a party that could have potentially tied them up for years in court demanding money if he had pro…
So defensive it may be, but that is just a symptom of an exceptionally litigious system, that overwhelmingly favors big players.
Why isn't anyone mentioning the fact that if this kid (at the time) owned the rights to the I, Robot via permission he could have sued the producers of "I, Robot" for a portion of their profits. This was a defensive lawsuit that had nothing to do with shutting down his student project -- it was to protect themselves from a party that could have potentially tied them up for years in court demanding money if he had pro…
Some observations: 1. If the studio had filed a lawsuit, there's a very good chance that, after seeing the Asimov estate's permission, the judge would have quickly tossed the case on summary judgment --- and quite possibly awarded the student his attorneys' fees under section 505 of the Copyright Act,[1] as happened recently in several of the Righthaven copyright-troll cases.[2] 2. A copyright lawyer might have been…
> It's a pity the student didn't talk to a copyright > lawyer (with litigation experience) before caving. How much would that cost him in the US? And how likely is that the court would actually grant him the money? The link says "at court’s discretion". Has it actually ever happenned before?
And I'll ask, where were the professor and the school's legal counsel? If the student didn't know to go to the latter, the professor should have guided him in this matter.
The school should have served as an advocate for the student. They clearly failed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's a pity the student didn't talk to a copyright > lawyer (with litigation experience) before caving. How much would that cost him in the US? And how likely is that the court would actually grant him the money? The link says "at court’s discretion". Has it actually ever happenned before?
I'm somewhat surprised (given that all the faculty were sympathetic) that nobody directed the student to the university's counsel.
Unfortunately, in my anecdotal experience schools not infrequently do not fulfill the role of advocate well. (Sometimes, they do, though.)
In a case like this, I think it can somewhat be "luck of the draw". With the initial/primary contact point with the school being the professor, some professors know what to do or at least will tackle the problem. Others are at a loss, or don't care. (I'm not saying that's the case, here; they did pass him, although leaving him without a thesis project.) Remember, you're dealing with an academic, when what you may need is a lawyer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People with money have influence. If we give them less money, they'll have less influence.
By downloading a film, even if you don't pay for it, you are contributing capital to that film. You'll cache the the plot, characters, actors in your mind and likely talk about it with your friends & collegues --in social situations re-enforce the film's value and reify the investment others have made by paying for the film. If you don't see the film, and one of your friends has a film reference you don't recognize,…
I got more time than money, and I am willing to spend that capital in exchange for a movie. A fair exchange (unless the movie sucks, in which case i want my time back, or in lieu of time, i am willing to get payed by the MPAA to watch crap movies.
Now that i realize I am actually giving the movie industry my most valuable assets, re my mind and attention, I feel Compelled not to give them my money, enough is enough.
Back in '97 I was the CTO of a VC funded startup. Within weeks of our funding closing a company we had been working with for about a year initiated litigation over an IP matter. Even though it was the company, and not me personally, who was being sued that time was the most stressful time of my life - the sheer injustice of it all left a deep scar on me. However, we had a good law firm and money in the bank - our law…
I used to jump at a very small skydiving operation. When the owner dropped his insurance, the lawsuits disappeared. No one wants a 1957 Cessna.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's a pity the student didn't talk to a copyright > lawyer (with litigation experience) before caving. How much would that cost him in the US? And how likely is that the court would actually grant him the money? The link says "at court’s discretion". Has it actually ever happenned before?
> Has it actually ever happenned before? Yes -- I updated my first comment at note [2].
Americans, why don't you introduce the concept where courts are encouraged to award all costs against the loser? This culture is widespread in the commonwealth, and strategic court actions are less common. It should be a really simple change.
Because it discourages people with a valid case and little money from filing the suit in the first place. So now if you think you've been wronged not only do you have to worry about winning you also have to worry about losing. Nothing is stopping the defending counsel from getting a team of high priced lawyers, verses the 1 you could afford, and stuffing you with the bill of not only your lawyer, but all of theirs. T…
The Hot Coffee film was produced by a plaintiffs lawyer, and presents little more than emotional appeals. As a group, plaintiffs lawyers hated the publicity originally given to the MacDonalds suit, so perhaps it makes sense that some of them try so desperately to revise the standard interpretation.