Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Last revisionBoth sides next revision
direct_financial_benefit [2017/01/10 10:49] – Carlos Pedrazadirect_financial_benefit [2017/01/10 10:54] – adds material throughout Carlos Pedraza
Line 10: Line 10:
  
 In January 2017, a federal judge made a ruling in response to both sides' requests for [[summary judgment]]. While he denied the summary judgment he did rule on the counts of contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. In January 2017, a federal judge made a ruling in response to both sides' requests for [[summary judgment]]. While he denied the summary judgment he did rule on the counts of contributory and vicarious copyright infringement.
 +
 +<WRAP right round box 50%>
 +//**__<wrap lo>« Peters’ substantial involvement in, such as writing script for, the Axanar Works materially contributes to the infringing conduct of Axanar Productions. … Peters also profited directly from the Axanar Works. »</wrap>__**// — //Judge R. Gary Klausner//
 +</WRAP>
  
 ===== Vicarious Copyright Infringement ===== ===== Vicarious Copyright Infringement =====
Line 18: Line 22:
  
 > Vicarious copyright infringement requires a direct financial benefit from the infringement and the right and ability to supervise the infringing activity. Originally, the “direct financial benefit” element was interpreted to apply to financial benefits in proportion to the infringing activity, such as a royalty or commission “directly” related to the infringement. See, e.g., Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. v. H. L. Green Co., 316 F.2d 304 (2d Cir. 1963). Over time, however, the concept of “direct financial benefit” has been stretched to cover situations in which the financial benefit from the infringement was neither any immediate revenue nor any value correlated with the infringing activity itself. Thus, in Napster, “direct” financial benefit was found where the availability of infringing matter was said to act as a “draw” for web site users and where “Napster’s future revenue is directly dependent upon ‘increases in userbase.’” Napster, 239 F.3d at 1023. \\ \\ Many attorneys believed, hitherto, that the Napster extension of “direct” financial benefit would be limited to circumstances in which the value of the entire enterprise, essentially, was tied to infringement, even if no revenues flowed directly from the infringement. That limiting reading was rejected by the Ninth Circuit in Ellison v. AOL. Though the plaintiff still must show that the infringing activity “constitutes a draw for [an online service’s] subscribers, not just an added benefit,” the extent of the draw need not be “substantial” for direct financial benefit to be found.(([[https://www.fenwick.com/FenwickDocuments/Copyright_Alert.pdf|Mitchell Zimmerman, "Copyright Alert: Ellison v. AOL"]], Fenwick & West LLP, retrieved 6/17/16.)) > Vicarious copyright infringement requires a direct financial benefit from the infringement and the right and ability to supervise the infringing activity. Originally, the “direct financial benefit” element was interpreted to apply to financial benefits in proportion to the infringing activity, such as a royalty or commission “directly” related to the infringement. See, e.g., Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. v. H. L. Green Co., 316 F.2d 304 (2d Cir. 1963). Over time, however, the concept of “direct financial benefit” has been stretched to cover situations in which the financial benefit from the infringement was neither any immediate revenue nor any value correlated with the infringing activity itself. Thus, in Napster, “direct” financial benefit was found where the availability of infringing matter was said to act as a “draw” for web site users and where “Napster’s future revenue is directly dependent upon ‘increases in userbase.’” Napster, 239 F.3d at 1023. \\ \\ Many attorneys believed, hitherto, that the Napster extension of “direct” financial benefit would be limited to circumstances in which the value of the entire enterprise, essentially, was tied to infringement, even if no revenues flowed directly from the infringement. That limiting reading was rejected by the Ninth Circuit in Ellison v. AOL. Though the plaintiff still must show that the infringing activity “constitutes a draw for [an online service’s] subscribers, not just an added benefit,” the extent of the draw need not be “substantial” for direct financial benefit to be found.(([[https://www.fenwick.com/FenwickDocuments/Copyright_Alert.pdf|Mitchell Zimmerman, "Copyright Alert: Ellison v. AOL"]], Fenwick & West LLP, retrieved 6/17/16.))
 +
 +[{{ :alec_peters.jpg?nolink&150|Axanar producer **Alec Peters**}}]
  
 === Peters Personally Profited === === Peters Personally Profited ===