
How a big movie studio (unfairly) forced a student to give up his senior thesis - switz
http://www.reddit.com/r/SOPA/comments/pq8ra/this_is_why_i_oppose_the_mpaa?
======
arethuza
Back in '97 I was the CTO of a VC funded startup. Within weeks of our funding
closing a company we had been working with for about a year initiated
litigation over an IP matter.

Even though it was the company, and not me personally, who was being sued that
time was the most stressful time of my life - the sheer injustice of it all
left a deep scar on me. However, we had a good law firm and money in the bank
- our lawyers more or less told them there was no case to answer and both
sides backed down (although we did have to pay our own legal costs).

It was bad enough being involved in litigation with supportive colleagues,
money and good lawyers - being in a similar, actually worse, situation as a
broke student would be infinitely worse.

[Edit: as to the timing of the litigation, I believe the first rule of
litigation is "sue people who have money"].

~~~
a_a_r_o_n
I used to jump at a very small skydiving operation. When the owner dropped his
insurance, the lawsuits disappeared. No one wants a 1957 Cessna.

~~~
bh42222
Uhmm... what were the lawsuits about before he dropped his insurance?
Parachute not opening?

~~~
a_a_r_o_n
Not lawsuits right and left. Just people getting hurt once in awhile landing,
twisting ankles and stuff. Not often. But there's always a lurk of lawyers
waiting to help you "get what you deserve." It's a physical sport.

------
edanm
Question for any lawyers present: If a lawyer threatens to "ruin your life
with litigation", etc., can't that be construed as a threat/bribe?

I would think it would be illegal to call a student, who doesn't know any
better, and threaten to ruin their life, especially if the threats you're
making aren't actually true.

In any case, the obvious next step in the student's situation is to contact a
lawyer, and see if there's any merit to the threat. For all he knows, a lawyer
would have told him that it's a totally empty threat and he shouldn't worry
about it. It is naive to listen to the word of someone who is obviously
opposing you.

~~~
hobin
I don't know whether such extreme talk is legal, no, but it's quite common for
lawyers to talk in this way.

Remember those letters you got when you forgot to pay for something on time?
You know, the ones with a nice little addition saying "if you do not pay
before X, we will be forced to take legal action."

It's the same thing, whether they will take action or not. The intent behind
the statement is 'this will make it more likely that our victim is going to
pay, so we don't have to deal with expensive legal stuff.'

~~~
pavel_lishin
> It's the same thing

Not exactly. The debt letter states, "If you do not fulfill our legal
contract, we will pursue legal and established means to come to a resolution."

The lawyer threat states, "I am turning a business issue into a personal one,
and I will abuse the law."

~~~
hobin
In the case of the OP, I agree. I was speaking in more general terms what the
general intent of 'lawyers threatening you' tends to be.

------
klipt
> He told me that I was technically in my legal right to use Isaac Asimov’s
> material. However, if I chose to proceed, they would file multiple lawsuits
> totaling over 2 million dollars against me.

Hmm, if the lawyer admitted he was technically in the right, I wonder if
recording that phone call could've gotten any lawsuits thrown out as
frivolous.

~~~
yardie
Not only is it frivolous, he should have recorded it for a countersuit in
districts that have anti-SLAPP legislation.

~~~
leviathant
The one time I was on the bad end of a phone call with a record industry
lawyer (I was 21 at the time), I recorded the call. I had heard of previous
encounters with this particular PR lady that involved lots of bullying and
bullshit, so once the conference call between the lawyer, the PR flack, and
myself began, I announced that "For the protection of all parties involved, I
am recording this conversation."

It was like I had cast a spell. Everything got VERY professional. By the end
of the call, I had schooled said lawyer on fair use and the DMCA - which was
at the time still very new - and after the call wrapped, that was the end of
the thinly-veiled legal threats.

I didn't even need a lawyer, but I had enough free time to do ample research
on related laws, and was very confident that I was completely in the right. I
was nervous as hell on the phone, but felt like THE MAN when I got off that
call.

------
dctoedt
Some observations:

1\. If the studio had filed a lawsuit, there's a very good chance that, after
seeing the Asimov estate's permission, the judge would have quickly tossed the
case on summary judgment --- and quite possibly awarded the student his
attorneys' fees under section 505 of the Copyright Act,[1] as happened
recently in several of the _Righthaven_ copyright-troll cases.[2]

2\. A copyright lawyer might have been willing, for little or no money, to
explain the facts of life to the studio lawyer on behalf of the student. The
student then might have been able to respond to the studio lawyer (with utmost
politeness, of course), "do what you gotta do." He could then have started
making his movie and waited to see what the studio did.

3\. It's likely that any lawsuit by the studio would have been quickly
resolved one way or another, without much in the way of legal expense:

• If the student had won quickly on summary judgment, the odds are that his
lawyer would have been paid by the judge.

• If the student had found he wasn't going to win quickly on summary judgment,
_then_ he could have caved to avoid further expense. The odds are that the
studio would have gone along --- and might even have been willing to pay the
student's legal fees just to get rid of the matter.

4\. Either way, both the student and his lawyer would have gotten at least
some reputational benefit from the resulting publicity.

5\. Heck, they could have proposed settling the case along the lines that
Southwest Airline's CEO settled a trademark dispute years ago over the term
"Just Plane Smart": Herb Kelleher arm-wrestled the other side's CEO for
charity, resulting in good PR for both sides.[3]

6\. All this assumes, of course, that the article accurately states all the
relevant facts. Lawyers know from hard experience that this always has to be
confirmed.

[1] <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/505>

[2]
[http://www.copyrighttrademarkmatters.com/2011/11/01/righthav...](http://www.copyrighttrademarkmatters.com/2011/11/01/righthaven-
loses-another-battle-over-attorneys-fees/)

[3]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines#.22Just_Plan...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines#.22Just_Plane_Smart.22)

[Edited for style]

~~~
vibrunazo

      > It's a pity the student didn't talk to a copyright
      > lawyer (with litigation experience) before caving.

How much would that cost him in the US?

And how likely is that the court would actually grant him the money? The link
says "at court’s discretion". Has it actually ever happenned before?

~~~
fluidcruft
I'm somewhat surprised (given that all the faculty were sympathetic) that
nobody directed the student to the university's counsel.

~~~
pasbesoin
Just saw your comment after posting mine. Agree.

Unfortunately, in my anecdotal experience schools not infrequently do not
fulfill the role of advocate well. (Sometimes, they do, though.)

In a case like this, I think it can somewhat be "luck of the draw". With the
initial/primary contact point with the school being the professor, some
professors know what to do or at least will tackle the problem. Others are at
a loss, or don't care. (I'm not saying that's the case, here; they did pass
him, although leaving him without a thesis project.) Remember, you're dealing
with an _academic_ , when what you may need is a _lawyer_.

------
finnw
> I responded by sending them the consent form from the Asimov estate, and
> _explained that it was a student project, not a commercial venture worth
> litigating. I turned over our script, our shooting notes, our shot list,
> copies of our tapes and even the concept art drawings._

I think the moral of the story is: Don't give the studio more information than
you have to. The consent form would have been enough.

If the studio's goal had been to take money from you, you would have been
right to let them know you had no money. But it wasn't: What they wanted was
to stop you releasing the film. In that situation you want to appear as
professional as possible. Just sending a cover letter from a lawyer with the
consent form would be a start.

~~~
dctoedt
Another perspective: If the studio had sued, they'd have gotten the
information in the discovery process anyway. So you might as well give them
the information early; that will increase the chances that someone at the
studio will make a sensible informed decision. (If the information were
confidential, you'd want to insist on putting an NDA in place first.)

------
femto
I presume by "One download at a time" the author is referring to the
downloading of his own films? Downloading Hollywood films won't kill
Hollywood, as it only spreads Hollywood's influence and makes the problem
worse.

The way to kill Hollywood is to ignore it. That's got to be more terrifying to
a studio than being pirated. Paul Graham had it right in his "Kill Hollywood"
piece: it's not pirating that will kill Hollywood, but irrelevance. Startups,
new ways to entertain people and new ways to make movies.

~~~
v0cab
People with money have influence. If we give them less money, they'll have
less influence.

~~~
clarkevans
By downloading a film, even if you don't pay for it, you are contributing
capital to that film. You'll cache the the plot, characters, actors in your
mind and likely talk about it with your friends & collegues --in social
situations re-enforce the film's value and reify the investment others have
made by paying for the film.

If you don't see the film, and one of your friends has a film reference you
don't recognize, you're actively not helping the film monopoly since the time
your friend invested in the film has no value to you. In this way, you're
denying the network effect.

The films don't need _everyone_ to pay for it, only a fraction. By pirating a
film, you contribute the most important thing you have: your mind and social
attention.

~~~
doron
You convinced me.

I got more time than money, and I am willing to spend that capital in exchange
for a movie. A fair exchange (unless the movie sucks, in which case i want my
time back, or in lieu of time, i am willing to get payed by the MPAA to watch
crap movies.

Now that i realize I am actually giving the movie industry my most valuable
assets, re my mind and attention, I feel Compelled not to give them my money,
enough is enough.

~~~
danneu
But at the end of the day, you share your time on earth for only a brief
moment with the rest of us. Is it possible that you derive more value sharing
the film consumption experience and discourse with your friends and peers than
some crusade against Hollywood? At what point would you rather see a movie
with a girl, your family, or your friends after work rather than reject the
opportunity to feel like you're contributing to Hollywood's demise.

~~~
doron
I can do both at the same time. A win win scenario. I get the movie for free
and save money for my friends to.

------
fakelvis
This is an incredibly ridiculous story. This student is exactly the type of
person Hollywood should be nurturing: a creative student with vision, perusing
his creative 'dream' and not letting his limited means get in the way of his
vision.

It's a real pity that this happened, and a lost opportunity for the film
industry. It could have been simple for them to take this as an opportunity
and make something great out it. Instead, they alienated the type of person
they need.

That said, I don't think this is an excuse to take 'revenge' on these
companies, "one download at a time".

~~~
setrofim_
>That said, I don't think this is an excuse to take 'revenge' on these
companies, "one download at a time".

If this isn't, I don't know what is.

Note that the author was talking about the fragment of his own film that he
uploaded (and subsequently took down). "one download at a time" is referring
to the downloads of that fragment (which, by the other party's admission, he
had the right to shoot, and holds the copyright to). He is not talking about
anything illegal (such as pirating content).

~~~
jsnell
That seems like a retcon. He originally posted a different telling of the same
story under the title "This is Why I Pirate". That's gone now, the only trace
is a pointer to this new version:
[http://www.reddit.com/r/SOPA/comments/poqvn/this_is_why_i_pi...](http://www.reddit.com/r/SOPA/comments/poqvn/this_is_why_i_pirate/)

~~~
icehawk
This is the original:

<http://pastebin.com/0gRzqBxq>

Edit: Formatting

------
ssp
There are some simple things that could be done to protect against this kind
of abuse:

\- Loser pays the winner's costs, but capped such that the loser won't be
bankrupted. This effectively means that when a big company loses, they get to
pay for all of the trial, but individuals can still lose without being totally
doomed.

\- A judge could be allowed to grant "free trial" if he thought the case had
merit and one of the parties couldn't afford the legal costs. This would mean
that the state would cover the legal costs of that party no matter the
outcome.

~~~
hythloday
Loser pays a proportion of the winner's costs equal to the loser's costs (i.e.
loser spends £100 in legal fees, winner spends £1500 in legal fees, loser has
to pay £100 of the winner's costs, leaving the winner with £1400 to pay) has
some nice properties.

~~~
mokus
Even better - loser pays the winner the exact amount they paid their legal
team. By their own admission "at arm's length" so to speak, that was the value
of the litigation to them.

~~~
hythloday
Thanks, that's a better way of phrasing what I meant. :)

------
jackalope
Forced or _bullied_? It may seem like a small distinction, but it sounds like
he backed down after a single threatening phone call, without calling their
bluff.

 _It’s important to note that the film was based on one of Asimov’s short
stories, “Reason”, but was not a direct interpretation. It was not titled “I,
Robot”, and barring the inclusion of the laws of robotics, was almost wholly
original._

If that's the case, then why not remove any Asimovian references, disavow any
connection with "I, Robot" and complete the film?

Don't get me wrong, the studio behaved badly and this guy didn't deserve the
treatment he received from them, but it sounds like there were perfectly
acceptable options available that didn't require shutting down the project
completely.

------
rquantz
It seems like the best course of action here would have been to take down the
website... and then just finish filming anyway. It wasn't actually worth it to
the studio to send somebody there to confirm that filming had stopped. They
were just tying up loose ends and getting rid of online promotion that was
competing with them. If the film was really good and got a distributor, then
there would have been a bigCorp there to swat away this frivolous lawsuit. If
not, then it would have just flown under the radar.

------
tsunamifury
Why isn't anyone mentioning the fact that if this kid (at the time) owned the
rights to the I, Robot via permission he could have sued the producers of "I,
Robot" for a portion of their profits.

This was a defensive lawsuit that had nothing to do with shutting down his
student project -- it was to protect themselves from a party that could have
potentially tied them up for years in court demanding money if he had properly
lawyered up.

~~~
onemoreact
He probably had 'Non exclusive' rights to make the movie.

------
cturner
Americans, why don't you introduce the concept where courts are encouraged to
award all costs against the loser? This culture is widespread in the
commonwealth, and strategic court actions are less common. It should be a
really simple change.

~~~
yardie
Because it discourages people with a valid case and little money from filing
the suit in the first place. So now if you think you've been wronged not only
do you have to worry about winning you also have to worry about losing.

Nothing is stopping the defending counsel from getting a team of high priced
lawyers, verses the 1 you could afford, and stuffing you with the bill of not
only your lawyer, but all of theirs.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the US civil court system.[1] Just
like there isn't a knifing epidemic in the UK. People see these cases in the
media and get the idea this is common when it really isn't. This is what
people that want to reform the tort system are trying to convince you. It's
not the small businesses that have a problem with the current system. It's
Macdonalds and ATT that believe they shouldn't have to pay millions in class
action suits.

[1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Coffee_(film)>

~~~
nate_meurer
The MacDonalds hot coffee case should rightly be viewed as a textbook example
of a frivolous lawsuit, and it baffles me that it has been used to actually
argue against tort reform.

The Hot Coffee film was produced by a plaintiffs lawyer, and presents little
more than emotional appeals. As a group, plaintiffs lawyers _hated_ the
publicity originally given to the MacDonalds suit, so perhaps it makes sense
that some of them try so desperately to revise the standard interpretation.

~~~
dangrossman
> The MacDonalds hot coffee case should rightly be viewed as a textbook
> example of a frivolous lawsuit

It's McDonalds, and I wonder if you know the actual facts of the case.
McDonalds had received over 700 reports of burn victims from their coffee.
They knew they were injuring people by the hundreds yet maintained policy that
franchises should keep the coffee 40 degrees hotter than other establishments,
a temperature so high it would cause 3rd degree burns in under 2 seconds.

Have you seen what that kind of burn looks like? Here's the plaintiff (NSFW
image): [http://neufeldlawfirm.com/blog/wp-
content/uploads/2011/08/st...](http://neufeldlawfirm.com/blog/wp-
content/uploads/2011/08/stella-liebeck-mcdonalds-coffee-burns.jpg)

~~~
nate_meurer
McDonalds received 700 complaints out of _10 billion_ cups of coffee served.
There will always be some number of people complaining regardless of the
temperature, just like there will always be people foolish enough to put said
coffee between their legs and fiddle with the lid. How many people do you
suppose complained that their coffee is served too cool? If you say none I'm
tempted to call you naive.

McDonalds coffee was not "40 degrees hotter" than other establishments. This
came from her attorney during the trial and it's laughably false. Out of thin
air it seems, he invented the axiom that coffee should never be served hotter
than 60 deg C. McDonalds' corporate policy was, and still is, to serve coffee
at around 80 C.

My coffee maker brews at 95-100 C. Your's does too. At all other times, your
coffee maker maintains a temp of at least 85 C. Guess who else does this?
Fucking everybody. The National Coffee Association recommends coffee be served
at around 80 C. Starbucks, Daz Bog, Peaberry all serve coffee at or around...
you guessed it: 80 C. Tell you what, go to a Starbucks and see what kind of
reaction you get when you tell them they should lower the temperature of their
coffee to help keep you safe. Remind them that you just might be stupid enough
to squeeze the cup between your legs.

Stella Liebeck put a cup of hot coffee between her legs, and acted surprised
that 1.) it spilled, and 2.) it burned. The arguments at trial were a textbook
example of farce. Her lawyer monkeyed around about exactly how many seconds it
takes for coffee at various temperatures to cause a burn. All the while
dancing around the unspoken notion that Stella Liebeck did some kind of mental
calculation based on some assumption of the temperature of McDonalds coffee,
and rationally concluded that putting it between her legs was unlikely to
cause pain or injury if it spilled.

Trying to argue your point using a picture of her legs is nothing more than an
appeal to emotion. Yes, that burn looks bad. Yes, it's too bad she chose to
put a cup of hot coffee between her legs in order to fiddle with the top.

How about this: I'll show you a picture of my daughter's friend after she
accidentally stabbed herself in the eye with a paring knife, and then you can
politely agree that the knife maker should be sued for negligence.

------
rglover
I think the student made one big mistake here: he didn't ask _why_ (or at
least, didn't disclose the answer to such a question). Aside from legal
threats that appear to hold little if any merit, there's no reason this
student should have let his career end. Irrespective of the choices he made,
let this be a lesson to many. When you're talented and smart, you have much
more leverage than you think. You have to go beyond the bs and if not to
eliminate it, at least justify why someone is trying to harm you.

P.S. This doesn't just apply to "Hollywood," it happens everywhere.

------
regularfry
This would be "protecting the artist", yes?

------
mahrain
The (American) judicial system is broken when this type of class justice
arises. This is a dangerous development.

~~~
moylan
when it comes to the little guy been screwed over by the ones with the cash to
pay lawyers i don't think the usa has any monopoly in this area.

my favourite case of the big guy losing despite the resources they bring to
bear is the mclibel case (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_Case>)

~~~
nextparadigms
The loser paying for the winner's costs might alleviate the problem a little.

~~~
paulhauggis
I'm not so sure. If I have 100 million and I'm suing a student and lose..my
costs might be what $30,000? $50,000? and like the MPAA lawyer said, it might
take 10 years.

I reminds me of the story from "a flash of genius". Yeah, he got a ton of
money in the end, but he lost everything in his life that was important to him
over the course of 10 years.

------
jakejake
What the studio lawyers did was typical and it stinks. This is a valuable
story to be told. But i hate to say it, this guy would probably not have made
it in the movie business as a director (if that is what his aspiration was).

First of all, having one failure and then giving up - that business is
constant rejection and having to overcome difficulties with every project.
Projects fall apart all the time. Lawsuits happen all the time. You have to
stick out your neck financially over and over.

I'm not judging him, it's a crappy thing he went through, but if you want a
career in the arts you have to be undeterred by situations like this.

------
paulnelligan
This is exactly why SOPA / ACTA et al must be stopped.

If this happened me, in 2012, I would go straight onto kickstarter to get
donations for the legal fees and fight these dickheads tooth and nail.

~~~
scott_s
_If this happened me, in 2012, I would go straight onto kickstarter to get
donations for the legal fees and fight these dickheads tooth and nail._

You don't _know_ what you will do until you're actually presented with the
choice. It's easy to say such things when your only emotion is outrage,
because you read about the story happening to someone else. It's not as easy
when you also have abject fear of financial ruin.

------
look_lookatme
That's an unfortunate, sad story.

However, in situations like this where you might have some legal leverage, it
never hurts to attempt some sort of negotiation. He could, for instance,
negotiate himself into some sort of production position in the upcoming shoot
or on some other set.

This is going to sound really harsh: Aside from nepotism and sheer luck,
people do really make it in the film industry based on pure will and this
could have been his opportunity. However, in the end he murdered his darling
and packed it in. With an attitude like that (harsh, I know) his chances were
slim. The film industry is not a meritocracy, and his art alone would not have
carried him to success. He needed to hustle, in both senses of the word.

If he did try something like that, then I feel doubly worse for him, though.

------
joshklein
This is apropos the story, albeit slightly tangential. I don't remember all
the specifics, but during my time at university, I remember a student being
sued by some outside party related to his academic work. My university
mobilized every resource at their disposal to defend the student and the
lawsuit went away. The OP mentions attending a "small private college"; maybe
my story is a hidden benefit of the large institutional machine. I would have
expected the school to provide him counsel at a minimum.

------
VikingCoder
...don't universities have lawyers, and honestly shouldn't they be a free
resource to students in cases like this?

------
Tichy
I wonder how the movie studio would have liked the publicity over ruining a
film students life.

------
FJim
Threatening to bankrupt someone with a nuisance lawsuit that has no merit is
not looked favorably on by judges, and a lawyer who says as much risks
sanctions from both a judge and the bar association.

------
javadyan
That's... that's just so sad. And so infuriating.

------
mickey7
guerilla tactic: if the trial ever proceeded it would have launched this guy's
film career by giving him immense public exposure instead of just another sob
story on reddit.

why did it take the lead of the studio's lawyer's team to make the phone call
- it would imply how seriously they were concerned about real potential risks.

instead his surrender was exactly what the studio lawyers aimed for.

btw since this was 10 years ago it's conveniently outside the statute of
limitations for slander - so he doesn't have to prove this story is even real
and not just viral promotion bs for his lame student project.

------
yread
... and that's why loser pays system is better. This guy would just get one of
those lawyers who you have to pay only after the case (that is if you lose)
and have them eat their C&D letters.

------
veyron
Beat you by 5 hours :P

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3593031>

------
Craiggybear
Absolutely shocking story. It must have been gut-wrenching.

This sort of shit is like a red rag to a bull for me. I would have went ahead
and called their bluff and let them get it into court; I would have hoped
against the odds that with all the evidence you had the judge would have
thrown it out and it would have cost those bringing the action dear.

Of course, reason might _not_ have triumphed and you would have lived to
regret it.

But that's just me, and I'm an idiot. Though, I like to think, an idiot with
principles.

