Business
In Britain, a Fight Over a Film Studio Becomes a Test for the Economy
Andrew Rackstraw has lived in Marlow, a small, wealthy town on the River Thames about 30 miles west of London, for nearly three decades. Its main streets are dotted with luxury boutiques, high-end cafes and stores like Saddle Safari, Mr. Rackstraw’s bike shop.
With a population of about 14,000, Marlow also has a plush cinema and a rowing club that dates to the 19th century. Around the corner from Mr. Rackstraw’s shop is a Michelin-starred restaurant. Farther down the road is Britain’s only two-Michelin-starred pub.
It is the picture of an idyllic English town.
But there is a threat, as locals see it, to Marlow’s quiet charm: a proposal to build a 750-million-pound ($950 million) film and TV studio complex. Plans include 18 soundstages, workshop space, offices and outdoor filming lots across 90 acres between Marlow and the smaller village of Little Marlow.
For more than three years, many Marlow residents have opposed the project, dubious of the developers’ promises that it will bring thousands of jobs, including creative roles, and more business for the town’s economy. “It will have the biggest impact to Marlow that we’ve ever seen because of the scale of it,” Mr. Rackstraw said on a recent morning inside his store.
In the past few months, the battle over this studio has taken on national significance as a marker of how far the British government will go to use development as a means to revive the nation’s stagnant economy. But the proposed film studio is not crucial infrastructure or needed housing, unlike much of the other development the government has vowed to speed up.
Marlow is “already choked with traffic,” Mr. Rackstraw said. The studio would bring thousands more cars, he added, and the town would “lose the very element that draws people to Marlow — the fact that it isn’t spoiled like so many other towns.”
Opponents seemed to be victorious last May when the local council rejected the planning application. But just a few months later, a new government, led by the Labour Party, breathed new life into the studio plans.
Britain’s creative industries, including film and TV production, have been designated a central part of the government’s economic growth agenda. These industries have long been a major cultural and economic force for the country, stretching back to the early 1900s. Alfred Hitchcock helped shape the thriller genre in the 1930s in Britain. But the country also became a top destination for international productions, particularly since the 1970s when “Star Wars” filmed just outside London. More recently, blockbusters like “Wicked” and “Barbie” were filmed here. It’s the largest production hub for Netflix outside North America.
The Labour government has said economic growth is its No. 1 mission, but since the party came to power last summer, growth has been mostly elusive. Hampered by strained public finances, the government is depending on changes to the nation’s planning system as a crucial lever in generating growth. Ministers have proclaimed that they will “back the builders, not the blockers” to revitalize Britain’s economy.
The developers behind the project, led by Robert Laycock, the chief executive of the would-be Marlow Film Studios, appealed the council’s decision in September. A month later, Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister and secretary of state for housing, communities and local government, stepped in and said she would decide whether to grant approval, a relatively rare intervention.
“There’s a growing consensus across the U.K. that the planning system is too restrictive and that this is causing problems,” said Anthony Breach, a researcher for Centre for Cities. “It’s too difficult to build, it’s too uncertain, it’s too judicial.”
But the Labour Party has started to loosen the rules, and there has been a “change in mood music,” he added.
Last month, the government said it supported adding a third runway to Heathrow Airport, potentially drawing an end to a two-decade debate on the subject. Ministers have also made it easier to build more houses around commuter rail stations and to speed up decisions on big infrastructure projects such as nuclear plants and wind farms. “The answer can’t always be no,” Rachel Reeves, the chancellor of the Exchequer, said recently.
The future of the Marlow film studio is in limbo. A planning inspector overseeing a five-week public inquiry, which ends Monday, will make a recommendation to Ms. Rayner. Another studio project, just seven miles from Marlow, is also hoping for Ms. Rayner’s approval to overturn a rejected application.
Mr. Laycock chose the land he wanted to build on about a decade ago. “It’s really tough to do anything in this country,” he said. But he said he was enthusiastic about the government’s changes to “get us out of this rut” of not wanting to do ambitious projects.
Most of the development would be on fields of thistles near several lakes where red kites fly overhead. But the complex would also nearly envelop a small area of housing, which includes more than 50 mobile homes where many retirees live and an early-18th-century house converted into apartments.
Thorsten Polleit, an economist who lives in one of the converted apartments, testified in the inquiry that residents would be “totally surrounded, literally incarcerated” by the development.
Among the reasons the Marlow studio has been contested is that it is proposed on a so-called green belt, which is land protected from development to stop urban sprawl. Green belt makes up 13 percent of England’s land.
The government is planning to reclassify some of the poor-quality parts of the green belt as “gray belt” and thus open it up to development, a change that has been mostly welcomed because it could accommodate more housing where people most want to live and work.
The plans for the Marlow studio also come after a boom in studio building in Britain. In the past five years, studio space has doubled to about six million square feet as developers and local authorities have capitalized on interest from American streaming giants including Netflix, Disney+ and Amazon Prime and British government support for the sector.
But the production industry was hurt by the Hollywood strikes in 2023, because most of the spending comes from the United States. And the big streamers have also spent less on content in recent years. Last year, the industry started to recover, with £5.6 billion spent in Britain on film and high-end TV production, 86 percent of which came from abroad. That was 31 percent more than in 2023, but did not return to the highs of 2021 and 2022.
“2024 was a transition year from the worst parts of the strikes,” said Adrian Wootton, the chief executive of the British Film Commission. He’s feeling “cautiously optimistic” about this year as filming picks up again, including for “Star Wars” TV shows and Season 4 of “Bridgerton,” and the benefits of enhanced tax relief measures introduced last year.
The commission has supported the expansion of studio space, including projects still in development such as the one in Marlow, but is not “banging the drum saying we need even more than that,” Mr. Wootton said.
Despite the hurdles, Mr. Laycock, the Marlow Film Studios chief executive, is committed to having the studio near Marlow. It’s the “right and only” location, he said, in part, because it is less than 10 miles away from Pinewood Studios, where many of the James Bond movies were filmed. Mr. Laycock is a great-nephew of Ian Fleming, the author of the Bond books, a connection he emphasizes amid accusations that he and his team do not have enough experience in the film industry.
“Nobody is denying that the planning system needs reform,” said Anna Crabtree, a parish councilor for Little Marlow, the village bordering the studio. But, she argues, one of the problems is that the system is biased toward people with money who can push forward “unrealistic proposals that local people know are not going to work.”
The battle has been “a huge drain on the local community,” she said. “It’s really stressful for local people.”
Business
Uber, California lawyers say deal reached to avert dueling ballot initiative showdown
The state’s trial attorneys and Uber say they have reached a last-minute deal to scrap their dueling ballot measures and avert what was gearing up to be one of most expensive battles of the November election.
The deal, which comes a day after both measures qualified for the November ballot, has Uber agreeing to bulk up safety measures, while the trial attorneys will limit how much they can claim for lien-based medical treatment of victims who get in Uber or Lyft accidents, according to spokespeople for both sides of the campaign.
“Both sides agree: Californians deserve a system that’s safe, fair, and accountable,” read a joint statement from Uber and the Consumer Attorneys of California, a powerful attorney trade group. “This agreement protects patients from unnecessary treatment or getting overcharged, ensures access to medical care and legal representation, and strengthens safety measures.”
The agreement, finalized Thursday, means the ride-share giant will kill its ballot measure to cap how much attorneys can earn in vehicle collision cases and limit medical damages to rates based on insurance. Uber has argued that the costs for medical treatment done on a lien, which allows doctors to get paid from a cut of the plaintiff’s payout, far exceed what it would cost if the victim had used their own insurance.
In return, the Consumer Attorneys of California will cancel its competing ballot measure that sought to increase legal liability for ride-share companies if a passenger is sexually assaulted by a driver. The measure followed an investigation by the New York Times into sexual assault by drivers.
Both sides had poured tens of millions into the campaigns, plastering billboards across Los Angeles.
Lawyers claimed the fight had turned existential with the measure threatening to decimate the profit margin of many personal injury cases and leave drivers with small or thorny cases unable to find an attorney willing to take their case.
Spokespeople say the deal is predicated on their agreement being codified into a bill within the next week. Otherwise, they said, each side will move forward with its ballot measure.
Business
Commentary: A porn firm that a judge called a ‘copyright troll’ now has Meta in its sights — and it could win
This porn company made millions by shaming the little guys who downloaded its films. But now it’s going after Meta for copyright infringement.
It isn’t often that a lawsuit can make me smile, much less laugh out loud. The latest exception is Strike 3 Holdings vs. Meta Platforms, which is currently unfolding in San Jose federal court.
Two things are amusing about the case. One is that Meta, the giant social media company, is accused of copyright infringement for allegedly downloading 2,400 of the plaintiff’s movies to train its AI bots. If Meta loses, that would be a serious (and in my opinion, deserved) blow against AI companies that have used copyrighted materials without permission.
The second part of the joke is the identity of the plaintiff. Strike 3 Holdings, you see, makes porn. Moreover, for years it has pursued a plainly unscrupulous business model in which it sues individuals for allegedly downloading its movies without permission, and shames them into settling for a few thousand dollars at a pop.
While it is possible one or more Meta employees downloaded Plaintiffs’ videos, it is just as possible…that a ‘guest, or freeloader,’ or contractor, or vendor, or repair person—or any combination of such persons—was responsible for that activity.
— Meta points the finger at others for a porn scandal
Whether or not Strike 3 has a legitimate claim for copyright infringement, it doesn’t deserve your sympathy. The firm was flayed in 2018 by federal Judge Royce C. Lamberth of Washington, D.C., for engaging in what he labeled a “high-tech shakedown … smacking of extortion.” Lamberth called Strike 3 a “copyright troll” and threw out its lawsuit against an unidentified internet user for having treated his court “not as a citadel of justice, but as an ATM.”
When I wrote about this scheme in 2023, I counted more than 12,440 lawsuits that the Los Angeles-based firm had filed in federal courts coast-to-coast. The latest count, according to a Lexis search a defense lawyer ran for me, is more than 21,000. The vast majority were settled and closed within a few months of their filing, an indication that they were never meant to go to trial.
Now Strike 3 appears to have hooked a big fish. In the first significant ruling in its lawsuit against Meta, the firm scored a surprise win: On June 11, federal Judge Eumi K. Lee of San Jose denied Meta’s motion to dismiss the case. Meta’s defense, she wrote, “strains credulity.”
More about that in a moment. First, a few words about the litigants. Meta needs no introduction: Formerly known as Facebook and based in Menlo Park, Calif., Meta recorded a profit of $60.5 billion last year on $201 billion in revenue.
Strike 3 portrays itself as an avatar of “Hollywood style and quality” in its adult films, which it distributes through its streaming websites such as Blacked, Tushy, Vixen and Wifey. It has described Greg Landry, its former owner and house auteur, as the porn industry’s “answer to Steven Spielberg.”
Neither Meta nor Strike 3 responded to my request for comment beyond the claims and defenses in court filings.
As I reported in 2023, Strike 3 has flooded federal courts with cookie-cutter lawsuits alleging that defendants infringed its copyrights by downloading its movies via BitTorrent, an online service on which unauthorized content can be accessed by almost anyone with an internet connection. Its targets generally have been individuals with plenty to lose from being publicly outed as porn viewers.
“Given the nature of the films at issue,” a federal judge in Connecticut observed last year, “defendants may feel coerced to settle these suits merely to prevent public disclosure of their identifying information, even if they believe they have been misidentified.”
Strike 3’s letters to its target defendants have warned that the statutory penalty for willful copyright infringement is $150,000, but offer to make the case go quietly away for a few thousand bucks, which would be a fraction of the cost of hiring a defense lawyer, not to mention the downside of exposing oneself as a porn fiend.
J. Curtis Edmondson, a Portland, Ore., lawyer who won a case against Strike 3, estimated in 2023 that Strike 3 “pulls in about $15 million to $20 million a year from its lawsuits.” But financial data that could validate his estimate hasn’t surfaced in court records.
There’s nothing new about content owners’ aggressive pursuit of copyright infringers. The practice was pioneered by the Recording Industry Assn. of America, when the industry feared that unauthorized downloading of music through programs such as Napster threatened its very existence. From 2003 through 2008, the association sued some 35,000 alleged song pirates.
But it abandoned the strategy because its legal dragnet swept up sympathetic targets such as single mothers and teenage girls, creating a public relations disaster.
There followed the appearance of outright trolls such as Prenda Law Group, which posted porn films online as bait to attract downloaders, whom it then sued in what judges ultimately found to be sham lawsuits. Prenda principal John L. Steele even bragged publicly that Prenda had made nearly $15 million with its lawsuits. U.S. Judge Otis Wright II of Los Angeles put the kibosh to its practice by slapping the Prenda lawyers with stiff sanctions for contempt.
That brings us to Strike 3’s case against Meta, which it filed in July. Strike 3 hasn’t been accused of a Prenda-style fraud, since it does own the films at issue and its right to sue copyright infringers isn’t disputed. But its allegation that Meta downloaded its films to train its AI bots, rather than just for personal enjoyment, is a new wrinkle for an old issue.
Strike 3 says its lawsuit grew out of a separate case in which a witness testified that Meta had downloaded thousands of pirated books to train its LLaMA AI bots — that is, feeding the content into LLaMA for it to use to generate answers to user questions. (Numerous lawsuits have been filed against AI firms alleging similar infringement.)
Strike 3 says that case prompted it to look into whether Meta had downloaded any of its content. It says it discovered that 47 IP addresses owned by Meta — that is, digital identifiers of internet accounts — had downloaded its movies without permission.
In all, Strike 3 alleges, those Meta addresses downloaded at least 2,396 of its movies — almost its entire catalog — more than 6,000 times via BitTorrent. What’s more, Strike 3 says Meta then posted some of that content back onto BitTorrent to take advantage of BitTorrent’s “tit-for-tat” mechanism through which users can obtain faster download speeds by uploading content to the platform.
If Strike 3 were to prevail on all its claims for illicit downloading, it would be entitled to about $360 million in damages, observes Eric Fruits, an Oregon economist who has testified for the defense in some Strike 3 lawsuits.
One might ask why Meta might be downloading porn for any reason, bot-training or otherwise. Meta, in its defense filings, says Strike 3 has offered no proof that Meta, as a corporation, was responsible for the downloading. If it happened, Meta says, it would have been inadvertent.
“Tens of thousands of employees and innumerable contractors, visitors, and third parties access the internet at Meta every day,” it wrote in its motion to dismiss the case. “While it is possible one or more Meta employees downloaded Plaintiffs’ videos, it is just as possible … that a ‘guest, or freeloader,’ or contractor, or vendor, or repair person — or any combination of such persons — was responsible for that activity.” The “sporadic downloads,” Meta says, “exhibit the hallmarks of personal use,” not corporate strategy.
This defense has borne fruit in other Strike 3 cases, in which defendants successfully argued simply having an IP address that was used to infringe wasn’t enough to prove they committed the infringements.
Strike 3 says it can show that the downloads weren’t the work of random users. Some downloads, it says, were coordinated among several Meta IP addresses, all based on the same algorithmic keywords and occurring simultaneously, suggesting that the infringements “took place within Meta’s walls.”
On Dec. 15, 2022, for instance, downloads apparently based on the keyword “teen” involved not only the movies “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” and “Teen Titans Go to the Movies,” but also “Teen Sex Sessions 2” and “Teens love Tats XXX,” according to Lee’s ruling. Other simultaneous downloads swept up episodes of “The Big Bang Theory” and “Ted Lasso” out of order, though a putative human user would probably have downloaded them sequentially.
“It strains credulity,” Lee ruled, “to suggest that these correlations are mere coincidence and the product of individual human selections.” Rather, the use of an algorithm would account for “why pornography was downloaded alongside children’s cartoons and sitcoms. … The odds that multiple people using the Corporate IP addresses … coincidentally torrented the same show, rather than simply streaming it, on the exact same day strains belief.”
The case is still at an early stage. For Strike 3, the lawsuit offers the potential of a big score. But Meta has signaled that it’s not inclined to roll over like a family man caught downloading skin flicks and worrying about his reputation at home and around town.
This time, Strike 3 may have a fight on its hands with a defendant that has money to burn.
Business
Rivian lays off hundreds of workers days after new vehicle deliveries begin
Rivian said it’s laying off hundreds of employees, or less than 2% of its workforce, as part of restructuring efforts aimed at making the company profitable for the first time.
The layoffs come one week after the Irvine-based electric vehicle maker began deliveries of its highly anticipated R2 SUV.
The company is hoping that the R2, which is currently only available as a performance version for $57,990, could attract more customers with its lower price tag.
But industry analysts said the performance R2 is still not affordable for many Americans, and investors reacted with disappointment to the first deliveries June 9, with shares falling 7% that day. On Wednesday, Rivian shares gained .33 points, or 2%, to close at $16.26.
The company said a standard version of the R2 starting at $44,990 will become available next year.
The layoffs took effect on Monday and affected Rivian’s service and customer organization employees, including sales and marketing teams. Rivian employed 15,232 people as of December.
“We recently restructured a handful of teams within Rivian as we work to profitably scale our business,” a company spokesperson said.
The laid off employees have been provided with severance packages and are encouraged to apply for other open roles with Rivian, the company said.
Rivian may be trying to reach profitability by saving money on labor, said Ivan Drury, director of insights at Edmunds.
“You have to wonder to what degree they do plan on replacing those people with some level of AI and automation,” he said.
Rivian, which is pouring money into autonomous vehicle efforts including a robotaxi partnership with Uber, has struggled to turn a profit with its luxury EVs.
The layoffs are likely not directly tied to recent reception of the R2, auto analyst Brian Moody said.
“I think that it’s declining interest in new electric cars, and maybe declining interest in expensive things,” he said. “We can surmise that [layoff] process began long before the R2 launch.”
The company lost $3.6 billion last year and recently said it is no longer expecting to meet its 2027 adjusted core profit target.
There has been a broad cooling of the EV market. Major automakers including Honda and Ford have cut back their EV options as excitement for the vehicles has fallen under the Trump administration. A $7,500 EV tax credit for new vehicles expired in September.
Rivian cut 4.5% of its workforce in October, or more than 600 jobs, following the expiration of the credit. The company also laid off about 200 employees in September.
In a recent turnaround, Rivian surprised the market with strong earnings results in February, reporting gross profits for 2025 of $144 million compared with a net loss in 2024 of $1.2 billion. Gross profit is revenue without subtracting the cost of production expenses.
In its earnings release, Rivian credited the swing to “strong software and services performance, higher average selling prices, and reductions in cost per vehicle.”
“The company has never posted a full year’s worth of profit, and this is the one lever they can pull to rightsize things,” Drury said.
-
San Francisco, CA12 minutes agoOakland man faces hate crime charges for Castro District attack
-
Dallas, TX15 minutes agoAt least 4 injured after vehicle drives into Dallas crowd, driver arrested
-
Miami, FL20 minutes agoMiami Central students prepare for life changing trip to Zimbabwe amid funding challenges
-
Boston, MA27 minutes agoGiannis to Boston is a possibility. Should the Knicks be worried?
-
Denver, CO30 minutes agoDenver Public Schools’ decline in enrollment continues to reshape district
-
Seattle, WA35 minutes agoWoo twirls 7 scoreless innings in bounceback outing vs. Orioles
-
San Diego, CA42 minutes agoNASCAR makes history with inaugural Naval Base Coronado race
-
Milwaukee, WI44 minutes agoStolen Oak Creek couple’s car found by viewer dumped near Milwaukee apartment complex