4 ms·

Because those persons will sue them, assert their copyright, then receive damages and remove the product from being sold. This isn't like a compulsory licensing

by Asooka 7y ago

Because those persons will sue them, assert their copyright, then receive damages and remove the product from being sold. This isn't like a compulsory licensing fee where you pay to record a cover of a song and nobody can stop you, the rightsholders have said they're not interested in the remake existing, therefore we can assume they'll just kill any remake that gets made.

ChuckMcM 7y ago
Yes, except the article said the legitimate "rights holder" was unclear. In order to sue, the party doing the suing has to prove "standing" (which is the legal term for the party being harmed) and to prove that they have to prove they are the rights holder. I was thinking that the cost of filing a motion to dismiss unless the plaintiff could prove they had standing would be relatively inexpensive. (say $50K - $100K in legal fees). Seems like one way to clear up the rights issue.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > In order to sue, the party doing the suing has to prove "standing" (which is the legal term for the party being harmed) and to prove that they have to prove they are the rights holder. No that's not what standing is. They have to establish a legally cognizable claim to harm to establish standing; actual harm is what an actual trial exists to establish. A dispute of fact over who holds rights at issue would be a perfectly normal issue for trial. > I was thinking that the cost of filing a motion to dismiss unless the plaintiff could prove they had standing would be relatively inexpensive A defense motion to dismiss necessarily must state that the plaintiff has no legally cognizable claim as a matter of law; if there is anything relevant that might potentially be proven, it is automatically viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. You can't make a motion to dismiss unless the plaintiff proves something, the very idea of that acknowledges that there is a disputes issue of fact necessary to resolve the case, calling for a trial.

by Asooka 7y ago

ChuckMcM 7y ago

Yes, except the article said the legitimate "rights holder" was unclear. In order to sue, the party doing the suing has to prove "standing" (which is the legal term for the party being harmed) and to prove that they have to prove they are the rights holder. I was thinking that the cost of filing a motion to dismiss unless the plaintiff could prove they had standing would be relatively inexpensive. (say $50K - $100K in legal fees). Seems like one way to clear up the rights issue.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> In order to sue, the party doing the suing has to prove "standing" (which is the legal term for the party being harmed) and to prove that they have to prove they are the rights holder. No that's not what standing is. They have to establish a legally cognizable claim to harm to establish standing; actual harm is what an actual trial exists to establish. A dispute of fact over who holds rights at issue would be a perfectly normal issue for trial. > I was thinking that the cost of filing a motion to dismiss unless the plaintiff could prove they had standing would be relatively inexpensive A defense motion to dismiss necessarily must state that the plaintiff has no legally cognizable claim as a matter of law; if there is anything relevant that might potentially be proven, it is automatically viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. You can't make a motion to dismiss unless the plaintiff proves something, the very idea of that acknowledges that there is a disputes issue of fact necessary to resolve the case, calling for a trial.