https://torrentfreak.com/movie-company-has-no-right-to-sue-accused-pirate-argues-171208/
"ZHANG denies downloading the movie but Defendant's current motion for summary judgment challenges a different portion of F&D's case: Defendant argues that F&D has alienated all of the relevant rights necessary to sue for infringement under the Copyright Act," Madden writes.
The filmmakers opposed the request and pointed out that they still had some rights. However, this is irrelevant according to the defense, since the distribution rights are not owned by them, but by a company that's not part of the lawsuit.
"Plaintiff claims, for example, that it still owns the right to exploit the movie on airlines and oceangoing vessels. That may or may not be true – Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence on the question – but ZHANG is not accused of showing the movie on an airplane or a cruise ship.
"He is accused of downloading it over the Internet, which is an infringement that affects only an exclusive right owned by non-party DISTRIBUTOR 2," Madden adds.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Sunday December 10 2017, @07:49PM (1 child)
The article didn't say, and a hasty search didn't turn up much, but I suppose Lingfu Zhang is an ordinary citizen caught in the MAFIAA dragnet, and not some billionaire operator of a massive pirate website, creator of cracking tools, or even the owner of a factory that produces physical media. What is the basis of the accusation that he copied a movie? An IP address that supposedly is his, engaging in bit torrent and tracked by some of those MAFIAA watchdogs? And is just one movie the subject of the accusation? Just one movie?
This lawsuit doesn't even seem to be part of the MAFIAA's terrorism, as there is apparently very little publicity about it. Anyway, it appears that over the past decade, the MAFIAA has toned down the histrionics about "digital theft". Nope, this looks like a plain old shakedown that went awry when the victim fought back.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday December 11 2017, @07:35PM
I'm pretty sure throwing lawsuits out due to lack of standing is lawyerin' 101, as well.
This isn't the novel legal tactic the summary seems to be implying.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Sunday December 10 2017, @09:09PM (7 children)
The really odd part is that the plaintiff claims there is some sort of bare right to sue, essentially some sort of fictional right to treat the courts as a settlement mine for profit. Defendant notes that even should such a crazy thing exist, plaintiff is not the party that supposedly retained it.
The mere fact that plaintiff imagines there can be any sort of right to sue for infringement that is separable from the right that might be infringed proves that their intent is profit, not the address of genuine damages.
(Score: 2) by Virindi on Sunday December 10 2017, @09:32PM
Spot on.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 10 2017, @11:38PM (5 children)
I don't see that in the attached story. Instead, it appears to be that the defendant is arguing that the plaintiff sold any rights beyond that of the "bare right to sue" away and hence, don't have an exercisable right recognized by the court. As an aside, the reason for this peculiar argument is a strange beast called "champerty and maintenance" [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 10 2017, @11:42PM (3 children)
It's a good thing the laws we're expected to follow are so straightforward and easy to comprehend.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 10 2017, @11:47PM (1 child)
(Score: 4, Touché) by aristarchus on Monday December 11 2017, @01:18AM
I don't know, khallow, I just don't know!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 11 2017, @06:28PM
It's the modern priesthood class.
(Score: 3, Informative) by sjames on Monday December 11 2017, @12:33AM
From TFA:
Yes, the defendant argues (correctly I would say) that plaintiff has sold off any relevant rights. It is my further conclusion that the plaintiff even being willing to float an argument about having a right to sue over infringement of a right it no longer owns demonstrates their actual intent to abuse the courts as a profit center loud and clear.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday December 11 2017, @03:30PM
If the plaintiff sold off the right that was allegedly infringed, then it seems to me that the defendant is really claiming that the plaintiff has no standing to bring the suit. Thus, while the defendant claims NOT to have downloaded an infringing file, he also is claiming that even if he did that the plaintiff is the wrong party to bring the suit.
People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.