Case Study: Dallas Buyers Club LLC

I agree with court’s decision to dismiss Ms. Marder’s grievance against Paramount. Ms. Marder made a contract with Paramount and sold away the rights to her story. The contract between Ms.Marder and Paramount was legal and binding; the courts could not favor her. Paramount became the legal own of Ms. Marder’s story at the time of its purchase; the price they paid for her story, although quite small, was the amount she had agreed to.

One would think the story has ended here, yet there is more to come. The Associated Press reported on April 4, 2008 that there were other law suits involving PG&E and approximately 1100 residents from Kings, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The last suit was finally settled in March 2008 for $20 million (SF Gate web site).

Issues: In what courts may Elle sue FDC? (What courts would have jurisdiction over this lawsuit)?

The complaint Ms. Payne filed on July 13, 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern

Should the Plaintiffs really get the $1.3 million ordered by the Courts? Should they be awarded any money for their “other cost and losses”?

photo of the plaintiff with his wife and children on twitter, and also made the location of the

Everybody nowadays knows that our country is built up on progress. We all give everything to our daily lives and our jobs. We are being paid for the work we give. This money comes from our boss, who gets money for what we helped him with. Well, what about the action pictures workers, or the music companies that spend ages to complete a project? They have pretty hard jobs and need good pay. If we download their work illegally, they would lose money and we would not have more of what they do. Although, by paying for what we listen or watch the hollywood and music business will grow. We would have more of what we want if we just pay for it. After all, you are like everybody else. Have compassion and see that there is no point of stealing. You are only hurting people when you do it.

MGM also warned of allowing “a copyright owner [to] si[t] still . . . waiting to see what the outcome of an alleged infringer’s investment will be.” Indeed here, Petrella admitted to waiting to file her lawsuit in light of Raging Bull’s questionable profitability. But Justice Ginsburg responded that under §507(b), in practice, “there is nothing untoward” about allowing copyright owners to assess the

An excerpt from the article states, "People who work hard to produce creative works are entitled to enjoy legal protection to reap the benefits of their labors." Artists, actors, producers, and many other media jobs work hard to create original movies and songs to share to the public for a small cost. This small cost that is paid when their work is bought is how they put food on their table. Without the money, they may not be able to live the same lifestyle. Organizations should win legal battles over these money-stealing businesses by using emotionally charged language, so media creators are not robbed of potential money. Information found in the text expressed that the law stated that anything of value is considered property. If one downloads something from the internet that would usually cost money, they are stealing, and potential money for the creators of the media is lost. Therefore, organizations should use emotionally charged language if it means they will win more legal

This is a huge issue for illicit downloaders because it makes it now makes it much more difficult to download content in secret. If you are too download the Dallas buyers’ club movie, or have done already, offenders are most likely to receive a letter of their infringement and the damages that must be accounted for. In consequence, it is extremely hard for rights holders to prove that you actually download it.

Due to how abusable current copyright laws are, they must be reformed to prevent copyright trolling. According to Matthew Sag, “The essence of trolling is that the plaintiff is more focused on the business of litigation than on selling a product or service or licensing their IP to third parties to sell a product or a service” (“Copyright Trolling, An Empirical Study” page 4). Copyright trolls seek to acquire their income from suing others on copyright violations, rather than continually creating new works and using copyright to protect them. Copyright, whether one agrees with the concept or not, was not designed for this purpose. People should not be allowed to make a business off of suing others. This is not only unjust, but wastes the court’s time with actual crimes. The United States must reform its current laws to prevent this type of behavior from happening. According to Parker Higgins, “Like email spammers, copyright trolls depend on the ability to cheaply cast a very wide net, sending out hundreds or thousands of accusations at once and getting settlement payments back from some percentage” (“Copyright trolls suffer big loss” par. 3). Many trolls do not target specific groups or people; rather, they spread it in such a way that any company or organization can accidentally “misuse” it. This creates an environment in which it is impossible for many groups to tell if they can use another party’s content without invoking a ludicrous copyright lawsuit. This is not a

The entertainment industry expressed its displeasure when Metro-Goldwyn Mayer (MGM) and “other film studios, songwriters, music publishers and recording companies filed suit against both Grokster and the StreamCast Network” (Communications Law: Liberties, Restraints and the Modern Media, 2011, p. 360). This landmark case made its way to the hallowed halls of the United States Supreme Court after the higher court granted review of the lower federal courts decision to side with the defendants (Grokster and StreamCast). Thus was born the case MGM v. Grokster, 545 U.S. 913 (2005). The Supreme Court under began hearing arguments in this case in

The Hawk Firm LLC is a law firm that is located in Augusta, Georgia. Their practices areas include criminal defense, personal injury, probate law, and family law. The Hawk Firm LLC also specializes in drug possession, assault and violent crimes, car accidents, tractor-trailer injuries, motorcycle accidents, and fatal accidents. The Hawk Firm LLC renders criminal defense for varying types of cases such as criminal traffic offenses, driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, drug charges, theft offenses, white collar crimes such as Medicare and Medicaid fraud, burglary, plus more. The Hawk Firm LLC has been honored as the Metro's Best Law Firm in 2016 and 2017. Jacque Hawk, the firm founder is recognized by the American Institute of Legal

So, when lawsuit resumed, on April 18, 2013, Viacom, presented another angle to the table to dispute their case using, The Grokster Case, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., they

U.S. copyright law allows a successful plaintiff in a copyright case to obtain an award of statutory damages for copyright infringement by his sole election in lieu of actual damages or an accounting of defendant’s profits. The award is called special or extraordinary largely because it does not require any proof that the plaintiff has suffered an actual harm from the infringement or that the defendant has made a profit from the infringement.[n2] Plaintiff can choose to elect at any time up to the final judgement, and the award is to be granted in any amount that the court considers “just” in a range between $750 and $30,000 per infringed work, and up to $150,000 per work in case of a willful infringement. [n3]