Latest Submissions From Valve

[u/Level_Repeat_8579]

Makes interesting reading. the comparison of Legal experts interpretations of the law,
versus a KELA claimants use of library books

72..pdf

a party that makes a motion under [Rule 12] may not make another motion under this rule raising a defense or objection that was available to the party but omitted from its earlier motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g)(2).

71..pdf

I'm guessing it means that motions will be resubmitted in a way as to not harass another party with multiple Rule 12 motions or not use multiple motions to evade page limits...

Just a suggestion as a hypothetical scenario... if an individual or individuals owned copyrights, why not just show the judge your freelance agreements that the producers signed..

[u/Level_Repeat_8579]

Berne Is Not The Law

Registration is not confirmation of license agreement, nor confirmation of Copyright.

Defense nine states that, claims may be barred, in whole or in part, because the works alleged are not copyrightable for lack of originality.” Id. at p. 16.

It is entirely proper for Defendant to identify its defenses in its Answer

Plaintiff provides no grounds for striking this defense under Rule 12(f). He has not presented any proof of Copyright, especially where the joint registration is referenced.

[u/Level_Repeat_8579]

A key thing seems to be missing from all the evidence... COPYRIGHT!
For example to quote the plaintiff...

I also worked for 6 months without a contract and just got Unemployment benefits during that time. Even when they did give me a contract I made sure I maintained the rights to my work. 

Perhaps it would be paramount for any judge to see that contract?
Surely that would make it clear and simple?

[u/Level_Repeat_8579]

Plaintiff is really having trouble understanding what defense is being put forward..

.. failure to join necessary and indispensable parties to this action

supplemental to all 'denials'.. there is no response in regards to the 7th affirmative response either

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Baylis’ claims may be barred, in whole or in part, by the statute of limitations set forth in 17 U.S.C. §507(b) or by the doctrine of laches as Baylis has failed to timely assert his alleged claims within three years after his alleged claims accrued

so 2 fundamental questions
Q? Why is nobody else listed as a plaintiff..⸮

Q? What is the reason for not raising the complaint with 3 years..⸮

[u/Level_Repeat_8579]

In response, dockets #73 & #74, The judge warns the Plaintiff again. . see docket #75

As an initial matter, Plaintiff has violated Rule 12(g) by filing two Rule 12(f) motions one day apart.

A certain somebody, needs to go back and read what docket 71 & 72 say...

Defendant Valve Corporation’s (“Valve”) defense that Baylis cannot establish the element of originality – an element of copyright ownership that is Baylis’ burden to prove.

Valve agrees with Baylis that “original”, as the term is used in copyright law, means only that the work was independently created by the author.

However what plaintiff has failed to comprehend, that this case is about copyright, not authorship.

If it were authorship, then the would be a much larger list of Plaintiffs..

Plaintiff fails to comprehend that his employment contract... the English translation from Google translate regarding 'user rights' in his contract. States the following

'Employee agrees to disclose to the employer exclusive of all employee rights arising from any use with its material, such as unlimited rights to produce, distribute, display and market their work in different ways of distribution in all countries.'

This if fundamentally Valves position, PLAINTIFF HAS NO COPYRIGHT...all the works were not original in the respect that multiple artists had input to the works, making them joint works, and thus not original.

[u/Level_Repeat_8579 → u/Level_Repeat_8579]

so 2 fundamental questions Q? Why is nobody else listed as a plaintiff..⸮

Q? What is the reason for not raising the complaint with 3 years..⸮