How a big movie studio (unfairly) forced a student to give up his senior thesis

Post by doron » Thu, Feb 16, 2012, 4:26 AM UTC

danneu wrote: post #89

doron wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You convinced me. 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,…

But at the end of the day, you share your time on earth for only a brief moment with the rest of us. Is it possible that you derive more value sharing the film consumption experience and discourse with your friends and peers than some crusade against Hollywood? At what point would you rather see a movie with a girl, your family, or your friends after work rather than reject the opportunity to feel like you're contrib…

Post by dctoedt » Thu, Feb 16, 2012, 1:57 PM UTC

SeanLuke wrote: post #86

dctoedt wrote: post #48

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…

> 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 Surely when the studio optioned the rights, they got exclusivity as part of the contract. That is: it doesn't matter if he got "permission": at that point Asimov's estate had no right to grant such a thing.