How a big movie studio (unfairly) forced a student to give up his senior thesis(reddit.com)
reddit.com
How a big movie studio (unfairly) forced a student to give up his senior thesis
http://www.reddit.com/r/SOPA/comments/pq8ra/this_is_why_i_oppose_the_mpaa?
92 comments
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.
Uhmm... what were the lawsuits about before he dropped his insurance? Parachute not opening?
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.
Were people dying at this operation? Or breaking their legs? Or...?
One part of this story I had forgotten about - after roughly a couple of years the same company (and the very same people at the company) approached us again looking for advice about raising VC money in the UK (we were on our second round by then).
I remember showing the email to our CEO, who suggested that the best thing to do would be to quietly ignore their request....
I remember showing the email to our CEO, who suggested that the best thing to do would be to quietly ignore their request....
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.
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.
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.'
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.'
> 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."
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."
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.
The technical term is "barratry", and it is illegal in some jurisdictions, but not all.
I thought it was illegal in all jurisdictions?
Not according to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry
(Note: I am not a lawyer.)
(Note: I am not a lawyer.)
ruin your life with litigation might be illegal in some jurisdictions.
If he threatened him with a criminal threat, ie "we're going to send you to jail if you don't pay up," that I know is definitely illegal and I've heard of lawyers threatened with disbarment for it.
If he threatened him with a criminal threat, ie "we're going to send you to jail if you don't pay up," that I know is definitely illegal and I've heard of lawyers threatened with disbarment for it.
> I've heard of lawyers threatened with disbarment for it.
Has anyone actually been disbarred, though? Threats are cheap.
Has anyone actually been disbarred, though? Threats are cheap.
Most colleges have student legal assistance available, I think. I wonder if he tried going that route?
I remember being a senior in college and just wanting to get on with life. His story is heart breaking but I believe many people would have acted identically.
> 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.
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.
Not only is it frivolous, he should have recorded it for a countersuit in districts that have anti-SLAPP legislation.
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.
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.
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...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines#.22Just_Plan...
[Edited for style]
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...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines#.22Just_Plan...
[Edited for style]
> It's a pity the student didn't talk to a copyright
> lawyer (with litigation experience) before caving.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?
I'm somewhat surprised (given that all the faculty were sympathetic) that nobody directed the student to the university's counsel.
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.
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.
I'll follow up by asking how a student is supposed to know all this?
And I'll ask, where were the professor and the school's legal counsel? If the student didn't know to go to the latter, the professor should have guided him in this matter.
The school should have served as an advocate for the student. They clearly failed.
And I'll ask, where were the professor and the school's legal counsel? If the student didn't know to go to the latter, the professor should have guided him in this matter.
The school should have served as an advocate for the student. They clearly failed.
>I'll follow up by asking how a student is supposed to know all this?
The lawyers are supposed to know all this. The student is supposed to ask around and find a lawyer.
The lawyers are supposed to know all this. The student is supposed to ask around and find a lawyer.
It could've been free first consultation, it could've been a few hundred dollars - if OP had already budgeted $10,000 on the project, a small price to pay.
Agreed. Most attorneys, even back then, usually give you your first consultation free. Attorneys are also supposed to take several cases per year on a pro bono basis. I think this would have been great for both parties.
Attorney gets plenty of press for taking on the studio (and most likely enough business afterwards to pay for the costs and work he did), student gets free legal representation, and the big studio looks horrible attempting to quash a students film he needs to graduate.
Attorney gets plenty of press for taking on the studio (and most likely enough business afterwards to pay for the costs and work he did), student gets free legal representation, and the big studio looks horrible attempting to quash a students film he needs to graduate.
If he was at university then surely there was a clued up professor there who could have given him all the advice he would have needed.
[deleted]
> 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
Surely when the studio optioned the rights, they got exclusivity as part of the contract. That is: it doesn't matter if he got "permission": at that point Asimov's estate had no right to grant such a thing.
Surely when the studio optioned the rights, they got exclusivity as part of the contract. That is: it doesn't matter if he got "permission": at that point Asimov's estate had no right to grant such a thing.
> Surely when the studio optioned the rights, they got exclusivity as part of the contract. That is: it doesn't matter if he got "permission": at that point Asimov's estate had no right to grant such a thing.
IIRC, if the studio didn't record a grant of exclusivity in the Copyright Office, then the Asimov estate's subsequent grant of permission to the student would not have been binding on the student. That is, the studio might have a claim against the Asimov estate for breach of contract, but the estate's grant of permission to the student would still have been valid.
This assumes, of course, that the Asimov estate did indeed grant an exclusive to the studio; that's one of the (probably-many) things we don't know about the situation.
IIRC, if the studio didn't record a grant of exclusivity in the Copyright Office, then the Asimov estate's subsequent grant of permission to the student would not have been binding on the student. That is, the studio might have a claim against the Asimov estate for breach of contract, but the estate's grant of permission to the student would still have been valid.
This assumes, of course, that the Asimov estate did indeed grant an exclusive to the studio; that's one of the (probably-many) things we don't know about the situation.
From how I read the story, it made it seem like he got permission before the studio did. Wouldn't that make the exclusivity point moot?
Furthermore, you get a lot of publicity by being the target of major litigation. Especially if you end up winning.
> 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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
People with money have influence. If we give them less money, they'll have less influence.
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.
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.
> 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.
That and $8 will get you a Starbucks.
That and $8 will get you a Starbucks.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[deleted]
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".
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".
>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).
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).
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...
This is the original:
http://pastebin.com/0gRzqBxq
Edit: Formatting
http://pastebin.com/0gRzqBxq
Edit: Formatting
Unfortunately there are already hundreds of thousands of creative people in Hollywood trying to claw their way into the business. Hollywood doesn't need to nurture anybody. I'm not saying that it's fair or a good thing - it's just the reality. You have to accept and deal with that reality if you want to work in that business.
I would applaud this guy if he put his movie up for downloading but despite having rights to the material he doesn't want to take a financial risk. Making movies is a gambler's business. I hope he changes his mind - i would check out the movie.
I would applaud this guy if he put his movie up for downloading but despite having rights to the material he doesn't want to take a financial risk. Making movies is a gambler's business. I hope he changes his mind - i would check out the movie.
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.
- 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.
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.
Um, wouldn't that enable people to ruin people's lives at will? Just sue them over and over. Even if the claims have no merits, eventually they will be bankrupt.
I think part of the idea is that if you sue someone and nothing comes of it, you have to pay their fees.
Isn't that the status quo? The suggestion I replied to was to make the loser only pay part of the winner's fees.
My understanding is that (in the U.S.,) the defendant generally doesn't recover any expenses. But I'm not a lawyer and all that. I guess they can counter sue, and courts generally don't tolerate people filing tons of frivolous lawsuits.
Doesn't something like the loser paying winner's cost already exist?
I've heard about it, but I don't know much about law. My lawyer once told me, here in my country, it was possible for the winner to ask the loser for compensation, but that had many "ifs". But I have no idea how it works in the US. Does it exists at all? Anyone with legal experience could shed a light?
I've heard about it, but I don't know much about law. My lawyer once told me, here in my country, it was possible for the winner to ask the loser for compensation, but that had many "ifs". But I have no idea how it works in the US. Does it exists at all? Anyone with legal experience could shed a light?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
He probably had 'Non exclusive' rights to make the movie.
A valid argument.But few students have the wherewithal to "lawyer up". Not to mention that the "kid" wanted to make movies, not get himself in his own court room drama.
So defensive it may be, but that is just a symptom of an exceptionally litigious system, that overwhelmingly favors big players.
So defensive it may be, but that is just a symptom of an exceptionally litigious system, that overwhelmingly favors big players.
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.
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)
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)
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.
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.
> 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...
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...
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.
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.
Less people would moan about the McDonalds coffee lawsuit being example of a frivolous suit when shown that picture.
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.
P.S. This doesn't just apply to "Hollywood," it happens everywhere.
This would be "protecting the artist", yes?
The (American) judicial system is broken when this type of class justice arises. This is a dangerous development.
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)
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)
Thanks for the link to McLibel, somehow I've never heard of it. You might argue though that this case ended positively creating precedents. The small guys won 60k (from government) after being fined for 40k (which McDonald didn't even collect). OTOH it dragged on for 20 years... But being right in the end is priceless!
The loser paying for the winner's costs might alleviate the problem a little.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
...don't universities have lawyers, and honestly shouldn't they be a free resource to students in cases like this?
I wonder how the movie studio would have liked the publicity over ruining a film students life.
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.
That's... that's just so sad. And so infuriating.
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.
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.
... 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.
Beat you by 5 hours :P
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3593031
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3593031
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.
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.
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"].