More like you fail.
Alright then. If that's how you want it...
Illjwahm is correct. Like it our not, he's pretty much correct on the law. You may not like what they are doing, you may think it's stupid and petty of them to sit on their hands and then complain that another movie is made. None of that changes the issue of whether they have rights to the movie, which is what the question is. It's not whether they are nice guys for doing this.
QUOTE
Then tell me how Warner Bros. has a snowballs chance in hell. And btw comparing this to a criminal case is one of the worst comparisons in the history of comparing something.
They bought the property 17 years ago and did nothing with it as far as I'm concerned their statue of limitation has run out.
Tell me how they don't. The difference between what you and I are saying is you are claiming they absolutely don't and that fact is obvious on its face. So obvious in fact, that FOX has no right to proceed with it's lawsuit and no right to be heard on the merits either by a judge or jury. I'm NOT claiming FOX the victor, only that on what I know of the suit, the judge was correct in denying the motion to dismiss. As far as I can tell, you called the judge stupid only because he didn't do what you wanted him to.
So, prove to me that FOX has no rights to the film. That articles said absolutely nothing about the terms of the license. You yourself said they did acquire them, so when and how did they lapse? Were they required to do ANYTHING with them? I can think of no statute that requires anybody to do anything with a copyright that they have acquired from someone else. What is generally going to matter is the TERMS of that license. As I explained already, FOX may not ultimately win, and that the motion to dismiss does not mean FOX will win ONLY that it can proceed. If a judge or jury at trial decides FOX is full of it, then fine. But if this motion was granted then FOX doesn't even have the chance to do that.
However, if you are sure that FOX's case is so bad that it doesn't even have a right to be heard on the merits, then prove it to me. That you are mad that they sat on their hands just isn't going to cut it.
QUOTE
They bought the property 17 years ago and did nothing with it as far as I'm concerned their statue of limitation has run out.
That's fine except that is not what a statute of limitations is L. A statute of Limitations refers to the length of time someone has to bring a lawsuit or file criminal charges. It has absolutely nothing to do with when the rights were acquired, but when the violation of those rights took place. In a statute of limitations issue the primary question and focus is when Time did what FOX is accusing them of doing and when FOX filed that suit. That's it.
QUOTE
And btw comparing this to a criminal case is one of the worst comparisons in the history of comparing something.
You completely miss the point.
My point was to explain how a motion to dismiss typically functions and what granting/denying it means. The criminal equivalent is exactly what I said it was and is something I'm more familiar with because I've had to oppose those motions all the time as well as filing my own. A motion to dismiss is similar to motion for directed verdict whether you think so or not.
QUOTE
Fox doesn't want to settle they want the movie TERMINATED
So go and protest FOX. You think their behavior is wrong, that their jerks and a**holes for waiting so long, or are simply doing this out of spite...fine, it doesn't bother me. You can go up to FOX and protest, write an angry letter, refuse to see their movies ever again, and hell, get your friends to do it too. You have the right to do all that, and if you can persuade FOX that what they are doing is wrong and to drop the suit (which they have almost the absolute right to do regardless of its merits) then more power to you. But, none of that has any bearing on the fundamental question of that lawsuit: Did FOX buy the license to make that movie and do they still have those rights?
FOX is petty for waiting so long to do something, only to complain now, but that doesn't change the fact they did buy the rights. I am not condoning their behavior, but I do object you calling the judge an idiot when he's most likely right just because you think FOX is an a**hole.
That you think they should expire if not used does not mean they do. The party selling those rights can always ask for a clause saying if it's unused it's forfeited or to simply put a hard cap on the length of that license and refuse to sell it if one is not included. What's Time Warner going to say if there is no such clause, that there should be a set time limit on such if licenses expire if unused even if the copyright holder or purchaser has no desire or is not astute enough to include one? For all I know, it might having something of that nature, but if it doesn't and the license is exclusive, should the judge just rewrite the terms of the license because people want to see the movie? What standard should he use, how long should it be, because a decision to do that effects all the other lawsuits filed in that court as well. No matter how bad you may want to see, you aren't entitled to do so.
If you think the law is wrong on such licenses then call your Congress and complain about it and ask for such a change in the law.