Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Previous revisionNext revision | |||
— | fan_film_factor [2016/10/27 06:49] – [Reading the Judge's Mind] adds photo credit Carlos Pedraza | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | <WRAP rightalign> | ||
+ | {{:: | ||
+ | <wrap lo>// | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | ====== Examining Axanar' | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{TOC}} | ||
+ | **//Does //Fan Film Factor//' | ||
+ | |||
+ | <WRAP left box 175px> | ||
+ | // | ||
+ | <wrap lo> | ||
+ | **AxaMonitor** editor \\ | ||
+ | October 27, 2016</ | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | In the wake of a [[discovery_order|court ruling]] compelling CBS and Paramount to turn over some of the [[compel_discovery|records sought]] by his defense attorneys, [[Alec Peters]]' | ||
+ | |||
+ | In a four-part series, " | ||
+ | |||
+ | Lane writes the Fan Film Factor blog, which has become the place through which Axanar releases information or provides exclusive interviews. Proscribed from too much public discussion about his lawsuit, Peters has told Axanar supporters that Lane's blog is "the one location [where] you can get the inside scoop on the Axanar lawsuit [and] the only legitimate news source on the Axanar lawsuit online,” claiming Lane’s coverage was “unbiased and knowledgeable.”((Alec Peters, [[https:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | <WRAP right round box 50%> | ||
+ | //**__Civil lawsuits aren't won by the side that obtained the most evidence, but by the one whose case is better grounded in the law.__**// | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===== A Big Win? ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Despite the court officially describing its order as only " | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== All the Marbles ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Lane likened Axanar' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Even the anonymous attorney Lane quoted pointed out that CBS and Paramount' | ||
+ | |||
+ | > The defense went after way too much, hoping that by asking for a mountain, they’d at least get a mole hill. The plaintiffs took a chance that they could weasel out of having to produce most of what the defense was asking for. It was worth a shot, and some judges might have let them get away with some or most of what they wanted to withhold. But other judges will rule the other way, and as I said, I’m not surprised by this outcome. <wrap hi>I doubt the plaintiffs’ lawyers are all that surprised either</ | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{page> | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Reading the Judge' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Lane argued that one of the judge' | ||
+ | |||
+ | <wrap em> | ||
+ | |||
+ | [{{ :: | ||
+ | ===== Bounty of Information ===== | ||
+ | |||
+ | By all accounts, Axanar' | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== Building Axanar' | ||
+ | |||
+ | As Axanar attorney Erin Ranahan explained the motion to compel discovery, lack of harm goes to the heart of the defense case, especially with regard to [[fair use]], namely: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * **No harm from Axanar**. //Prelude to Axanar//, distributed for free what she called the " | ||
+ | * **Tolerated use**. The studios "long tolerated and encouraged … Star Trek-inspired works of fan fiction." | ||
+ | * **No harm from fan films**. The studios' | ||
+ | * **Statutory damages**. Little or no need for statutory damages from whatever copyright infringement the plaintiffs might prove. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==== The Two Pillars ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Lane's recounting of the defense case rests on two pillars: | ||
+ | |||
+ | <WRAP right box 50%> | ||
+ | //**__« Axanar' | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | - Minimal actual damages | ||
+ | - Innocent infringement | ||
+ | |||
+ | However, as explained by Lane, those concepts miss important aspects of copyright law. | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Actual Harm === | ||
+ | |||
+ | Market harm is only one of the four factors to be weighed in a fair use analysis, and while it's important, market harm and actual damages are not synonymous, and Jonathan seems to be equating the two. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Lane characterized the plaintiffs' | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Defendants' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Furthermore, | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Stealing From the Rich**. Axanar' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The very essence of copyright is that no one gets to control your intellectual property but you; no one gets to earn income from your intellectual property but you. Fair use is the exception that proves the rule. | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Innocent Infringement === | ||
+ | |||
+ | Lane further argued that winning the case would prove only a pyrrhic victory for the studios; the burden is on them to prove that Peters willfully infringed, and short of that the statutory damages fall well below the $150,000 the plaintiffs could claim per instance of willful infringement. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Lane asserts that willfulness requires reading Peters' | ||
+ | |||
+ | <WRAP right round info 50%> | ||
+ | <wrap lo> | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Burden of Proof == | ||
+ | |||
+ | Also, it's important to remember that this is a civil case. The plaintiffs don't have to prove Peters' | ||
+ | ==== Financial Incentive ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | Finally, Lane continued to portray the lawsuit as a loser for CBS and Paramount because they likely will see little money from Axanar were the studios to win. The trouble is, it's not clear CBS and Paramount are after money. Since they received a copy of Axanar' | ||
+ | |||
+ | It's worth it to the studios to spend the hundreds of thousands this lawsuit will likely cost them to send that message. Not simply to Peters, who eventually fades away, but to anyone who thinks they can set up a commercial venture under the auspices of their "love for the franchise." | ||
+ | |||
+ | ---- | ||
+ | **Keywords** {{tag> |