Talk:United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (general): Filmmaking task force

[edit] Film Libraries?

I'd never before heard "the loss of the studio's rights to their own classic film libraries" was due to the Paramount case. How are the two events linked? --Jeremy Butler 13:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed it. Looking back at the edit history, it sounded like someone was speculating that this decision was a factor in a few studios' sale of rights to their libraries. The speculation was probably that the studios lost money because of this decision and had to sell something. Without citations I'm removing all the speculation about this. Tempshill 21:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It is clear that this case was indeed a cataclyst for film studios losing the rights to their library to others. How else would this case have affected the studios, especially since at that time a new art form was rising--that of television. If video killed the radio star, then television killed the silver screen...albeit briefly, of course. Hiphats 03:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"Clear" it may be ... but without a citation it's pure original research. Daniel Case 22:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs some expert attention

In addition to the infobox I have polished the article some and added some direct quotes from the decision in a section discussing it. It sounds a little less like it was written by a first-year law student now. But it still needs attention from an expert ... we have an outline of its effect on film production and distribution but, despite saying over and over that it is an important antitrust case (and it is). Someone who can speak to its effect on subsequent jurisprudence more effectively than I is needed. Daniel Case 15:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)