After further research, I’ve noticed there are other cases of alleged copyright infringement filed by Melissa Scott; Melissa Scott v Bobbi Jones, Tina Perida, and Michael Evans. In this action Jones, et al has filed a counterclaim and Scott opposed by filing a motion to dismiss. Judge Real has decided that the motion is suitable for a decision on the papers, meaning he will not hear oral arguments. This could go either way, but after reading the moving papers and opposition, I believe Scott has the advantage. For one thing, Jones’ attorney is attempting to try it as a first amendment case. The Supreme Court of the United States, in Harper & Row Publishers v. Nation Enterprises 471 U.S. 539 (1985) held, in part, that copyright law is a permissible speech restriction. This SCOTUS ruling, if on point, renders the argument of copyright infringement as an abuse of Jones’ first amendment rights, baseless and with little hope of prevailing. Remember that a district judge cannot override the SCOTUS. Furthermore, Jones is attempting this as an offensive maneuver as opposed to an affirmative defensive. I see nothing in the papers that would lead me to believe this will work out in the defendants’ favor.



I found two more cases of alleged copyright infringement involving Melissa Scott: the defendants are Timothy Briggs and Anthony Todd. These two have not answered and Scott has requested an entry of default. The request for Briggs default has been granted. Todd’s default is pending a correction to a deficient document. The court will grant the default once the correction has been made.



Finally, regarding the original case I was blogging about: there is a motion to consolidate the cases in the Dream/Robinson action, 17-55068, 17-55069, 17-55071, 18-55288 and 18-55487. The motion moves to consolidate all the cases that were sent back down from the appellate court. In the moving papers, counsel for Robinson has presented the argument that case number 18-55288 has been remanded for trial with instructions to grant leave to amend their complaint to include their “limited abandonment” “naked license” theories. It goes on further to request the Dolores/Scott actions be consolidated together but placed on hold until the closed, and affirmed, declaratory action is completed. I’m shocked at this maneuver by Robinson’s attorneys. I know that the commenters in the blog sites were convinced this is what the appellate court ordered, but I was not surprised because their reactions were indicative of their emotional connection to the case. But for counsel to attempt such a move is appalling. Dolores/Scott countered that argument in their response, stating that the appellate gave no instructions regarding the declaratory action, the appellate order states that “limited abandonment” “naked license” may be used as a defense, and the district court’s decision regarding complete abandonment has been affirmed. Robinson will now file a reply brief to rebut Dolores/Scott’s argument. I do not believe Robinson will prevail, but that is just my opinion. My blog post above gives further insight to my conclusion on the appellate case, order, and instructions.



Below you’ll find links to see the relevant Docket summaries. You may download the filed documents but you have to pay for that service:














Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is Patrick Robinson Going to Free Up Dr. Gene Scott's Copyrights?

Will an effective defense by Patrick Robinson in a copyright infringement case “free up the copyrights” of Dr. Gene Scott’s works? Read on to find out the answer. I’ve been watching this battle play out with concern, as should anyone with an interest in copyright law, whether they be a small-time production or even Walt Disney Company. The claims being made, and defenses raised in this complicated issue of copyright infringement and claims of copyright abandonment could have a wide range of effects on copyright law. But are any of them favorable to Patrick Robinson’s group? This case has gone up and down the proverbial field of play, from the initial copyright infringement cases being dismissed to the abandonment theory being defeated in cross-motions for summary judgment. You may be asking, what is a motion for summary judgment, let alone a cross-motion? It’s not that difficult to understand and I’ll walk you through it if you’ll read on. On one side of the playi...
Read more

Patrick Robinson Gives an Update in His FUMS #41

In his FUMS #41 video Patrick Robinson gives another victory update. But is this an accurate report? It is correct that the court did rule on the motion for consolidation. This was a motion brought by Dolores/Scott and opposed by Robinson. Therefore, I cannot comprehend Robinson’s update. In the video, Robinson says a few things that are inaccurate: 1) The cases are being consolidated under his first case. 2) Robinson acts like this consolidation is a victory for his group. 3) The undisputed fact that “It is undisputed that Dr. Gene Scott permitted downloads and encouraged the sharing and distribution of his teachings.” The first point is false. The cases are being assigned under Dolores Press’ first filed case, as evidenced by the court’s order Granting Dolores Press’ Motion for Consolidation, document 164 filed on 08/13/2019 page 4 of 4, wherein the Judge ordered the cases be consolidated under: Dolores Press Inc. v Patrick Robinson, et al. 2:15-cv-02562-R-PLA. Furthe...
Read more

Did Anthony Todd Testify Against Himself?

Is it possible to testify against yourself in a trial in which you did not appear? Anthony Todd may find out soon enough. On Friday, September 27, 2019 Melissa Scott’s attorneys filed a Motion for Reconsideration regarding the denied injunction against Todd. In Scott’s proposed judgment it was requested that Todd be enjoined from further infringement, and among other things, for Todd to preserve every file of Dr. Scott’s works. Judge Klausner denied the injunction reasoning that Scott had not proven that Todd was likely to continue to infringe. He further denied the preservation of all files because that was not what the complaint requested. In Friday’s moving papers, Scott’s attorneys request the Judge reconsider his previous orders and issue the injunction. The documents contain screenshots of Posts by Todd wherein he is conversing with other people online in google groups and Facebook. In these posts Todd promises Scott that he will not stop sharing the files...
Read more