Of course you don't, because you have no legal training and you want to see Peters fail.
But when I talk of merit, I do not necessarily mean they will succeed. I mean that there is an argument to advance.
No, I do not have legal training. I've been quite clear about that. I do, however, have an opinion. I also live in the US, and have witnessed US law in action for my entire life. I'm well aware that the law doesn't always follow the rules of logic and consistency (unfortunately), but that's why we're all watching this, isn't it? Otherwise the outcome would be a foregone conclusion.
As for what I want, it isn't to see Peters "fail".
If someone convinced me tomorrow that Peters didn't actually do anything wrong, then I'd support him (from a distance probably, given his tendency at being, as
@Karzak put it, a dick). I don't know him, nor does he have any of my money. He does, however, have a history of business practices that are dubious at best, and appear designed to fleece the fan community at worst. I'm not okay with that, and he could use a bit more than a slap on the wrist to get the message across that it's not acceptable behavior. What I
want, is to see future potential customers protected from his allegedly predatory practices.
(edit: since I can see the response coming, yes, I know that's not what this case is about. That
is, however, my motivation for wanting to see him called on the carpet.)
And yes, I'll admit that I think he deserves a good smack for (in my opinion) pushing the studios to set out hard and fast rules, but in that sense I'll settle for the look on his face when he realizes that no amount of bluster is going to convince sane people that he's the fan film messiah, because we've all seen through the bullshit.
I have no interest in seeing his life destroyed, though, and I have faith that the court will act appropriately there.
But back to the topic at hand...
"But Mom, little Billy didn't get in trouble! I shouldn't either!" is not (or at least
should not be) a valid legal defense in terms of determining if someone broke the law. Damage (or sentence) mitigation is another story entirely.
Here's how the Ninth Circuit recently described the standard for "willful" infringement:
To prove `willfulness' under the Copyright Act, the plaintiff must show (1) that the defendant was actually aware of the infringing activity, or (2) that the defendant's actions were the result of `reckless disregard' for, or `willful blindness' to, the copyright holder's rights.
That test passes from point the first. Alec was indisputably aware that he was infringing someone else's IP (he openly said so in his kickstarter and, I believe, various other places). If the court follows this finding, then that's willful infringement, which renders the "but they did it too" argument worthless in this context.
About the only valid argument I can see them having at this point is that the studios had somehow given tacit agreement through their inaction.
Since copyright law apparently may be enforced (or not) at the copyright holder's discretion, I can't see how the latter can prevail as an argument -- because if it did, it would effectively mean that copyright holders, like trademark holders,
must always enforce their copyrights or risk losing their effectiveness. That goes against the spirit -- and possibly the letter -- of current copyright law as I understand it (though stranger things have happened, of course).
They can make the argument, sure, but I don't think it'll do much for them.
In terms of damage mitigation, well, that's another story. It kinda boils down to "Everyone else was stealing cars and not getting caught, so I had a reasonable expectation that I would get away with it too, so you should go easy on me." Not sure how the court will see that; probably depends on how convincing W&S can be.
JMO.
