9 ms·

How a big movie studio (unfairly) forced a student to give up his senior thesis

369 points by switz 15y ago

losethos 15y ago
Don't worry, God is just. God says... vigorous experience VIII seemly worketh dignity Dost Another flocks whereon diddest consider miss Present armory pressed With leaning doer Michael plea meets reposes blessings trial's palate exhalation wax Even disalloweth vocal abhor dissolvest 'that repose lower thickeneth former access calculations mimic Still daemons infinitely fee hereunto abundantly UNDER concerned deal unknown fund disagreements pretend wings ministers Medea uninjuriousness immutable defective
mahrain 15y ago
The (American) judicial system is broken when this type of class justice arises. This is a dangerous development.
- moylan 15y ago
  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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_Case)
  - nextparadigms 15y ago
    The loser paying for the winner's costs might alleviate the problem a little.
    - paulhauggis 15y ago
      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.
  - yread 15y ago
    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!
femto 15y ago
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 15y ago
  People with money have influence. If we give them less money, they'll have less influence.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - clarkevans 15y ago
    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.
    - bonzoesc 15y ago
      > 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.
javadyan 15y ago
That's... that's just so sad. And so infuriating.
regularfry 15y ago
This would be "protecting the artist", yes?
Craiggybear 15y ago
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.
arethuza 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    Uhmm... what were the lawsuits about before he dropped his insurance? Parachute not opening?
    - a_a_r_o_n 15y ago
      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.
  - powertower 15y ago
    Were people dying at this operation? Or breaking their legs? Or...?
- arethuza 15y ago
  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....
klipt 15y ago
> 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 15y ago
  Not only is it frivolous, he should have recorded it for a countersuit in districts that have anti-SLAPP legislation.
  - leviathant 15y ago
    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.
paulnelligan 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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.
edanm 15y ago
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.
- mosburger 15y ago
  Most colleges have student legal assistance available, I think. I wonder if he tried going that route?
  - digitalsushi 15y ago
    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.
- hobin 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    > 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."
fakelvis 15y ago
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_ 15y ago
  >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 15y ago
    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_pirate/ http://www.reddit.com/r/SOPA/comments/poqvn/this_is_why_i_pi...
    - icehawk 15y ago
      This is the original: http://pastebin.com/0gRzqBxq http://pastebin.com/0gRzqBxq Edit: Formatting
- jakejake 15y ago
  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.
ssp 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    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 15y ago
      Thanks, that's a better way of phrasing what I meant. :)
  - Tichy 15y ago
    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.
    - maxerickson 15y ago
      I think part of the idea is that if you sue someone and nothing comes of it, you have to pay their fees.
cturner 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Coffee_(film)
  - nate_meurer 15y ago
    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 15y ago
      > 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/stella-liebeck-mcdonalds-coffee-burns.jpg http://neufeldlawfirm.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/st...
yread 15y ago
... 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.
finnw 15y ago
> 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 15y ago
  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.)
rglover 15y ago
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.
look_lookatme 15y ago
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.
rquantz 15y ago
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.
Tichy 15y ago
I wonder how the movie studio would have liked the publicity over ruining a film students life.
dctoedt 15y ago
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 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/505 [2] http://www.copyrighttrademarkmatters.com/2011/11/01/righthaven-loses-another-battle-over-attorneys-fees/ http://www.copyrighttrademarkmatters.com/2011/11/01/righthav... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines#.22Just_Plane_Smart.22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines#.22Just_Plan... [Edited for style]
- vibrunazo 15y ago
  > 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?
joshklein 15y ago
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 15y ago
...don't universities have lawyers, and honestly shouldn't they be a free resource to students in cases like this?
mickey7 15y ago
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.
tsunamifury 15y ago
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.
- doron 15y ago
  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.
- onemoreact 15y ago
  He probably had 'Non exclusive' rights to make the movie.
jackalope 15y ago
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.
jakejake 15y ago
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.
FJim 15y ago
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.
veyron 15y ago
Beat you by 5 hours :P http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3593031 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3593031

369 points by switz 15y ago

Don't worry, God is just. God says... vigorous experience VIII seemly worketh dignity Dost Another flocks whereon diddest consider miss Present armory pressed With leaning doer Michael plea meets reposes blessings trial's palate exhalation wax Even disalloweth vocal abhor dissolvest 'that repose lower thickeneth former access calculations mimic Still daemons infinitely fee hereunto abundantly UNDER concerned deal unknown fund disagreements pretend wings ministers Medea uninjuriousness immutable defective

mahrain 15y ago

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

moylan 15y ago
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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_Case)
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  The loser paying for the winner's costs might alleviate the problem a little.
  - paulhauggis 15y ago
    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.
- yread 15y ago
  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!

femto 15y ago

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 15y ago
People with money have influence. If we give them less money, they'll have less influence.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- clarkevans 15y ago
  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.
  - bonzoesc 15y ago
    > 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.

javadyan 15y ago

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

regularfry 15y ago

This would be "protecting the artist", yes?

Craiggybear 15y ago

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.

arethuza 15y ago

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 15y ago
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 15y ago
  Uhmm... what were the lawsuits about before he dropped his insurance? Parachute not opening?
  - a_a_r_o_n 15y ago
    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.
- powertower 15y ago
  Were people dying at this operation? Or breaking their legs? Or...?
arethuza 15y ago
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....

klipt 15y ago

> 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 15y ago
Not only is it frivolous, he should have recorded it for a countersuit in districts that have anti-SLAPP legislation.
- leviathant 15y ago
  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.

paulnelligan 15y ago

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 15y ago
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.

edanm 15y ago

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.

mosburger 15y ago
Most colleges have student legal assistance available, I think. I wonder if he tried going that route?
- digitalsushi 15y ago
  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.
hobin 15y ago
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 15y ago
  > 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."

fakelvis 15y ago

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_ 15y ago
>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 15y ago
  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_pirate/ http://www.reddit.com/r/SOPA/comments/poqvn/this_is_why_i_pi...
  - icehawk 15y ago
    This is the original: http://pastebin.com/0gRzqBxq http://pastebin.com/0gRzqBxq Edit: Formatting
jakejake 15y ago
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.

ssp 15y ago

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 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    Thanks, that's a better way of phrasing what I meant. :)
- Tichy 15y ago
  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.
  - maxerickson 15y ago
    I think part of the idea is that if you sue someone and nothing comes of it, you have to pay their fees.

cturner 15y ago

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 15y ago
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) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Coffee_(film)
- nate_meurer 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    > 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/stella-liebeck-mcdonalds-coffee-burns.jpg http://neufeldlawfirm.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/st...

yread 15y ago

... 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.

finnw 15y ago

> 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 15y ago
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.)

rglover 15y ago

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.

look_lookatme 15y ago

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.

rquantz 15y ago

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.

Tichy 15y ago

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

dctoedt 15y ago

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 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/505 [2] http://www.copyrighttrademarkmatters.com/2011/11/01/righthaven-loses-another-battle-over-attorneys-fees/ http://www.copyrighttrademarkmatters.com/2011/11/01/righthav... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines#.22Just_Plane_Smart.22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines#.22Just_Plan... [Edited for style]

vibrunazo 15y ago
> 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?

joshklein 15y ago

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 15y ago

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

mickey7 15y ago

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.

tsunamifury 15y ago

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.

doron 15y ago
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.
onemoreact 15y ago
He probably had 'Non exclusive' rights to make the movie.

jackalope 15y ago

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.

jakejake 15y ago

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.

FJim 15y ago

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.

veyron 15y ago

Beat you by 5 hours :P http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3593031 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3593031