Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Previous revision | |||
— | dismissal-citations [Unknown date] (current) – external edit (Unknown date) 127.0.0.1 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | {{:: | ||
+ | ====== Examining the Case Law Behind the Motion to Dismiss ====== | ||
+ | {{TOC}} | ||
+ | <WRAP left round important 50%> | ||
+ | <wrap lo>< | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | The defendants' | ||
+ | |||
+ | In a post on the blog for the popular Star Trek podcast, "The G&T Show," attorney Janet Gershen-Siegel [[http:// | ||
+ | ===== Five Reasons to Dismiss ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Here are the five essential arguments the defense offers to convince federal [[judge_r._gary_klausner|Judge R. Gary Klausner]] to dismiss the studios' | ||
+ | |||
+ | [{{ :: | ||
+ | |||
+ | - Specify the copyrights being infringed, thereby failing to properly notify the defendants. | ||
+ | - Identify who, between CBS and Paramount, owns which copyright. | ||
+ | - Base their allegations on anything more than " | ||
+ | - Show how they can claim infringement by a film that has not yet been produced. | ||
+ | - Justify an injunction halting production because it would be a prior restraint on free speech. | ||
+ | ==== Vague Copyright Claims ==== | ||
+ | [{{ :: | ||
+ | |||
+ | The defense calls for dismissal because CBS and Paramount don't specify exactly which of their copyrights were infringed, citing four cases to back them up. Of them, Siegel says only one directly applies. | ||
+ | |||
+ | [[https:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Who Owns What? ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | The motion asserts that the [[Paramount Pictures# | ||
+ | |||
+ | For this, the motion cites [[https:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | > To my mind, this appears to be the weakest of the first three defense statements. After all, you can find the copyright holders yourself by checking the Library of Congress’s copyright listings.(([[http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== ' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The defense quotes case law it says requires more facts than the legal complaint offers in its allegations based “on information and belief” — essentially, | ||
+ | |||
+ | Here, the motion relies on two cases, the Twombly case noted above and Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009), which raised the standard on assertions made in legal pleadings based "on information and belief." | ||
+ | |||
+ | > Under this view, a key task for a defendant, in addition to marshaling complaint-specific arguments … will be to emphasize every facet of the case that would warrant a more stringent application of the plausibility standard.(([[http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | Does Axanar' | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Too Soon to Sue ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | The defense believes that any claims related specifically to the as-yet-unproduced Axanar film should be dismissed, saying the court can't determine whether a film infringed or not if it hasn't been made yet. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Siegel examines the five cases cited to support this argument, concluding: | ||
+ | * Only one resulted in a dismissal but without prejudice, meaning it could be re-filed. | ||
+ | * Another dealt with a patent on the design of a concrete, tangible item as opposed to works of fiction that are "often edited and otherwise amended even after they are considered completed, and without said editing converting them back to incomplete status." | ||
+ | * Two cases dealing with works that couldn' | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Censorship ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | The defense argues the injunction sought by CBS and Paramount would be {!prior restraint: | ||
+ | |||
+ | To back up this claim, attorney Ranahan cites the famous [[https:// | ||
+ | ===== More Thorough Analysis ===== | ||
+ | Siegel is posting a second blog focusing on a more thorough examination of the motion to dismiss.(([[http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | ---- | ||
+ | **Keywords** {{tag> |