This is really depressing (but not unexpected)....

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: This is really depressing (but not unexpected)....

    Originally posted by nojustice View Post
    This is what I mean by not understanding the industry. They're selling the movie to the audience, not the script. A leaked script will downgrade the experience of the movie, and therefore reduce the impact of the movie as a whole and as a consequence the buzz, and ultimately downgrade Box Office.
    this weakens their case about the value of the script itself. it's not as if she took the script and made her own production and then distributed it as her own.

    and yet movies adapted from novels that have already been read by millions do very well. does the audience come from people who've read the book or people who have not?

    Comment


    • Re: This is really depressing (but not unexpected)....

      If you are basing your movie on a best seller them some of your audience will come from the book, but more will be responding to the element in it that made it a best seller, that's why it's called a best seller.

      But they want all movies under wraps until release because it isn't predictable. Even best sellers aren't guarantees so as you can imagine, all of the rest are even riskier.

      In other words, it's all factored in.

      Comment


      • Re: This is really depressing (but not unexpected)....

        Originally posted by NikeeGoddess View Post
        actually you're the one making a huge assumption about me.
        Not a assumption; you've demonstrated repeatedly you don't understand the law.

        Originally posted by NikeeGoddess View Post
        This case was tossed because of a safe harbor provision, not because the judge liked one party more than the other. This case and the safe harbor provision are completely irrelevant to any issue being discussed on this thread. Even if a person doesn't know much about the law that much should be clear just from the summary in the article you linked.

        Originally posted by NikeeGoddess View Post
        another case - PJ this is a good one for you to get your attorneys to check out.
        the judge threw this out for 2 reasons: just making the music available wasn't enough. they had to prove (and they couldn't) that the woman actually distributed and/or that anyone actually downloaded the files. and the other reason b/c the monetary damages claimed were far in excess of actual damages.
        http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9774/ju...ted_new_trial/

        on retrial the judge threw the case out and now the woman won't settle. she has the upper hand and refuses to budge.
        Alright, onto the next. Let's break this down because I am familiar with this case and you 1) don't understand what happen and 2) didn't bother to look up what has happened since the link you posted. I'm going to try to keep this (relatively) brief:

        (by the way - the article you cite itself gets various things wrong: there was no "conviction." This was a civil case and there aren't convictions in civil cases).

        First trial: He did NOT "throw out the case" in the sense the case was over and done. The judge ordered a retrial because of a jury instruction error. And despite his misgivings about the jury award of $222,000 this had NOTHING to do with ordering the retrial. So then the case was retried...

        Second trial: Jury instructions were corrected and once again defendant was found liable of copyright violation. This time the jury awarded damages of $1.92 million. Judge reduced damages to $54,000 by way of remittitur. Remittitur means that the plaintiff has to accept the judges reduction or there is a retrial on the issue of damages. Plaintiffs did not accept the reduction so case was reset for trial on just the issue of damages (she's already been found liable so the only issue at this point is the amount).

        Third trial (for damages): November 2010 jury returns a verdict for damages in the amount of $1.5.... so it still marches on but right now the judgment is at $1.5 mil.

        --

        Here's the problem with you throwing out your "interpretations" of the law - it could do a lot of harm. They are wrong. Flat-out wrong. If these were just opinions that were irrelevant to anything then I wouldn't be going after you and asking you to stop making **** up. But when you say "this is a legal defense" some person reading your comments might think you know what you are talking about and think "oh, I can do this and I can't be sued because..." or "all I have to do is go into court and show the judge that the big, bad corporation is being mean to me and he'll toss the case because he likes me." It's not fair that someone could end up getting screwed because they do something, believing what you say to be correct.

        PJ has her own attorneys. Let them do their jobs. If they don't know what cases to look at or what law is relevant then a couple of links to web articles isn't going to save them. Nothing good can come from you acting as a pseudo-attorney here on this board. Let her attorneys handle her case.

        Comment


        • Re: This is really depressing (but not unexpected)....

          Originally posted by NikeeGoddess View Post
          another case - PJ this is a good one for you to get your attorneys to check out.
          the judge threw this out for 2 reasons: just making the music available wasn't enough. they had to prove (and they couldn't) that the woman actually distributed and/or that anyone actually downloaded the files. and the other reason b/c the monetary damages claimed were far in excess of actual damages.
          http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9774/ju...ted_new_trial/

          on retrial the judge threw the case out and now the woman won't settle. she has the upper hand and refuses to budge.
          Originally posted by sbbn View Post
          ***
          (by the way - the article you cite itself gets various things wrong: there was no "conviction." This was a civil case and there aren't convictions in civil cases).
          ***
          Here's the problem with you throwing out your "interpretations" of the law - it could do a lot of harm. They are wrong. Flat-out wrong. If these were just opinions that were irrelevant to anything then I wouldn't be going after you and asking you to stop making **** up. But when you say "this is a legal defense" some person reading your comments might think you know what you are talking about and think "oh, I can do this and I can't be sued because..." or "all I have to do is go into court and show the judge that the big, bad corporation is being mean to me and he'll toss the case because he likes me." It's not fair that someone could end up getting screwed because they do something, believing what you say to be correct.

          PJ has her own attorneys. Let them do their jobs. If they don't know what cases to look at or what law is relevant then a couple of links to web articles isn't going to save them. Nothing good can come from you acting as a pseudo-attorney here on this board. Let her attorneys handle her case.
          And to that I would like to add... Nope, that about does it. Please join with me to give the man a round of applause. Don't forget to tip the waitstaff. Drive safe.

          Comment


          • Re: This is really depressing (but not unexpected)....

            PJ has her own attorneys. Let them do their jobs. If they don't know what cases to look at or what law is relevant then a couple of links to web articles isn't going to save them. Nothing good can come from you acting as a pseudo-attorney here on this board. Let her attorneys handle her case.
            you obviously give me too much credit if you think her lawyers are paying attention to anything i, you, or anyone else on this board has to say.
            in any case, i'm sure PJ is happy that some fellow writers have her back and will stay in her corner no matter what.

            Comment


            • Re: This is really depressing (but not unexpected)....

              How about wrapping this thread up soon, please, now that it's hit the 200 mark. It's just dragging on and some seem to be arguing just to argue.
              Will
              Done Deal Pro
              www.donedealpro.com

              Comment


              • Re: This is really depressing (but not unexpected)....

                Originally posted by sbbn View Post
                Here's the problem with you throwing out your "interpretations" of the law - it could do a lot of harm.
                Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. There's a group of people on the various screenwriting boards who have no respect for intellectual property. (I know, of all groups...)

                When the Scriptshadow controversy blew up over the sharing of unproduced scripts, there was no shortage of armchair lawyers (and at least one actual lawyer) who spewed nonsense about educational use and a thousand other misused and misunderstood reasons why nothing could ever go wrong, and studios and writers couldn't protect their work...

                Ask PJ how that advice worked out.

                Same thing with pirated TV shows and movies - a lot of the same people spring up and explain why it's fine to steal. I'm not going to laugh if/when the hammer falls on those people... No, wait. I will laugh. Heartily.

                Copyright is serious shit. Thank god! The less it's respected, the less money available for all of us who want to make a living writing.

                Comment


                • Re: This is really depressing (but not unexpected)....

                  Just for the record, after the Fox thing, I did ask PJ if she had read the Scriptshadow/August controversy. She did not. She'd just started a new job and was distracted by that. I feel bad I didn't call her attention to it at that time.
                  Advice from writer, Kelly Sue DeConnick. "Try this: if you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp and the story still basically works, maybe you need another draft.-

                  Comment


                  • Re: This is really depressing (but not unexpected)....

                    Sc111, the more you try to cover up the holes you dug, the more it's apparent you dug holes.

                    Comment


                    • Re: This is really depressing (but not unexpected)....

                      Originally posted by prescribe22 View Post
                      Sc111, the more you try to cover up the holes you dug, the more it's apparent you dug holes.

                      What the hell are you talking about?

                      Go read the old Scriptshadow thread. It's quite interesting. I reread it over the weekend.

                      In that thread, Script Trading on Done Deal was characterized as "only going seven miles over the speed limit" while what Scriptshadow/Chris Eads did was "going 100 miles over the limit."

                      Here's what I said (and got my butt handed to me for saying it):

                      Post # 652 (12/20/09)

                      sc111:

                      If we are to be appalled by SS -- then we can't claim when we do the same thing on DD it's excusable because it's on a "smaller" scale. for all we know MORE people have downloaded copyrighted material thanks to Done Deal's long lifespan than have yet to do so the year SS has been in existance.

                      EDITED TO ADD:

                      Just Did the legwork on DD's script-trading activities.

                      Official Script Request Thread as of December 6/09 - 2,293 views
                      Official Script Request Thread as of July 1/09 - a whopping 63,325 views

                      There's nothing private about this script trading.
                      http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/...t=scriptshadow

                      Read from this point on and see how many members were pounding Chris Eads into the ground while rationalizing (and in some cases excusing) the trading done on this site.

                      Go look. It's very interesting. What a difference a year and a half later makes.
                      Advice from writer, Kelly Sue DeConnick. "Try this: if you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp and the story still basically works, maybe you need another draft.-

                      Comment


                      • Re: This is really depressing (but not unexpected)....

                        Will has asked everyone to bring this thread to a close. Unfortunately, it is continuing, and some of you are making the issue too personal.

                        I am going to go ahead and lock the thread. I am sure that we will come back to all of this sooner or later, but for now let's just move on.

                        "The fact that you have seen professionals write poorly is no reason for you to imitate them." - ComicBent.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X