6 ms·

I don't know why this isn't a criminal copyright violation that the FBI should investigate. Seems pretty cut and dried to me. Obviously not an IP lawyer.

knodi123 6y ago
I mean, > There are four essential elements to a charge of criminal copyright infringement. In order to sustain a conviction under section 506(a), the government must demonstrate: (1) that a valid copyright; (2) was infringed by the defendant; (3) willfully; and (4) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain. There ya go. Pretty cut and dry. Disney argues that they acquired those companies' rights without acquiring their obligations, but, that's, uh... that's just not how it works. At all.
- bigbubba 6y ago
  Yeah, it makes zero sense that Disney could buy something that wasn't for sale in the first place (the rights to the books without any contractual obligations attached, which Lucasfilm did not own and therefore could not sell.)
  - milesskorpen 6y ago
    I guess Disney is saying there are two separate things: the works that were produced, and separately an annuity pegged to some % of sales that Alan was given in return for the works. So they bought the work but didn’t take on the liability. Sorta messed up. In theory, I think that’d make Alan a creditor for whoever owns the remaining parts of the business Disney didn’t buy. There had to be a remaining but if it owns the liability! Not sure it has assets though. Corporations can go bankrupt. I’d hope a court would frown on this (as the court of public opinion will)
    - JackFr 6y ago
      You can’t sever the asset and the obligation in this case because royalties are contingent on licensing the author’s intellectual property. With no licensing agreement, there is no asset. On the other hand, the only wrinkle that might make this interesting at all, is the fact that all the works in question are novelizations of others work, for which either Alan Dean Foster himself had to license or created at the request of the licensor. I don’t think that materially changes things but then I’m not paid like a Disney lawyer.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> I don't know why this isn't a criminal copyright violation that the FBI should investigate. The existence of the contract is uncontested (though its effect clearly is contested), so its clearly a breach of contract case. I think it is pretty well established that at least for civil litigation between the parties, the existence of a contract license covering the work generally requires the aggrieved party to proceed under contract law, not bare copyright law. It is at least reasonably consistent that the same should bar criminal copyright action, as well.
microtherion 6y ago
While I have every reason to believe that Disney DOES owe royalties in this case, and IS remiss in paying them, I think it might be worth pointing out that the characterization of Disney's position as "they have purchased the rights but not the obligations of the contract" is the SFWA's, and presumably not literally the position that Disney espoused (because to do so would indeed, as you note, be a clear cut criminal copyright infringement case).
- ansible 6y ago
  Yes, because apparently Disney won't say or do anything without first signing a NDA. Which is BS of course.
lisper 6y ago
> I don't know why this isn't a criminal copyright violation that the FBI should investigate. Because Disney owns the copyright.

knodi123 6y ago

I mean, > There are four essential elements to a charge of criminal copyright infringement. In order to sustain a conviction under section 506(a), the government must demonstrate: (1) that a valid copyright; (2) was infringed by the defendant; (3) willfully; and (4) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain. There ya go. Pretty cut and dry. Disney argues that they acquired those companies' rights without acquiring their obligations, but, that's, uh... that's just not how it works. At all.

bigbubba 6y ago
Yeah, it makes zero sense that Disney could buy something that wasn't for sale in the first place (the rights to the books without any contractual obligations attached, which Lucasfilm did not own and therefore could not sell.)
- milesskorpen 6y ago
  I guess Disney is saying there are two separate things: the works that were produced, and separately an annuity pegged to some % of sales that Alan was given in return for the works. So they bought the work but didn’t take on the liability. Sorta messed up. In theory, I think that’d make Alan a creditor for whoever owns the remaining parts of the business Disney didn’t buy. There had to be a remaining but if it owns the liability! Not sure it has assets though. Corporations can go bankrupt. I’d hope a court would frown on this (as the court of public opinion will)
  - JackFr 6y ago
    You can’t sever the asset and the obligation in this case because royalties are contingent on licensing the author’s intellectual property. With no licensing agreement, there is no asset. On the other hand, the only wrinkle that might make this interesting at all, is the fact that all the works in question are novelizations of others work, for which either Alan Dean Foster himself had to license or created at the request of the licensor. I don’t think that materially changes things but then I’m not paid like a Disney lawyer.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> I don't know why this isn't a criminal copyright violation that the FBI should investigate. The existence of the contract is uncontested (though its effect clearly is contested), so its clearly a breach of contract case. I think it is pretty well established that at least for civil litigation between the parties, the existence of a contract license covering the work generally requires the aggrieved party to proceed under contract law, not bare copyright law. It is at least reasonably consistent that the same should bar criminal copyright action, as well.

microtherion 6y ago

While I have every reason to believe that Disney DOES owe royalties in this case, and IS remiss in paying them, I think it might be worth pointing out that the characterization of Disney's position as "they have purchased the rights but not the obligations of the contract" is the SFWA's, and presumably not literally the position that Disney espoused (because to do so would indeed, as you note, be a clear cut criminal copyright infringement case).

ansible 6y ago
Yes, because apparently Disney won't say or do anything without first signing a NDA. Which is BS of course.

lisper 6y ago

> I don't know why this isn't a criminal copyright violation that the FBI should investigate. Because Disney owns the copyright.