Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday December 10 2017, @05:15PM   Printer-friendly
from the be-careful-how-you-license dept.

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.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Sunday December 10 2017, @07:49PM (1 child)

    by bzipitidoo (4388) on Sunday December 10 2017, @07:49PM (#608036) Journal

    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

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Monday December 11 2017, @07:35PM (#608396) Journal

      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)

    by sjames (2882) on Sunday December 10 2017, @09:09PM (#608057) Journal

    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

      by Virindi (3484) on Sunday December 10 2017, @09:32PM (#608061)

      Spot on.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 10 2017, @11:38PM (5 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 10 2017, @11:38PM (#608109) Journal

      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.

      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].

      "Maintenance" is the intermeddling of a disinterested party to encourage a lawsuit. It is "A taking in hand, a bearing up or upholding of quarrels or sides, to the disturbance of the common right." "Champerty" (from Old French champart, a feudal lord's share of produce) is the "maintenance" of a person in a lawsuit on condition that the subject matter of the action is to be shared with the maintainer.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 10 2017, @11:42PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 10 2017, @11:42PM (#608111)

        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)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 10 2017, @11:47PM (#608113) Journal
          Ignorance is no excuse, amirite?
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 11 2017, @06:28PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 11 2017, @06:28PM (#608368)

          It's the modern priesthood class.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by sjames on Monday December 11 2017, @12:33AM

        by sjames (2882) on Monday December 11 2017, @12:33AM (#608128) Journal

        From TFA:

        Interestingly, an undated addendum to the licensing agreement, allegedly created after the lawsuit was started, states that the filmmakers would keep their “anti-piracy” rights, as can be seen below.

        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

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 11 2017, @03:30PM (#608286) Journal

    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.
(1)