Whether literary works are protected under copyright law similarly to music sampling

QUESTION PRESENTED RULE 14.1(a) A. Whether the U.S. Copyright Act and Clause 17 U.S.C. 501, the Copyright Act Clause and the First Amendment of the U.S. Const., Art. 1, Sec. 8, equally provide protection for film use of literary writers’ rights to how music writers’ rights. (1) Whether literary works are protected under the law for “plagiarism” similarly positioned to “snippets or sampling” use of music : as to Authors ideas to create a new body of work unfairly not compensating both protected under the Copyright Act for owners’ rights. (2) Whether under federal law does film and music corporations provide to writer’s credits and compensation to both music and film industry equally. The copyright infringement laws under the federal copyright act currently does not protect samples of writer’s works in film as in compared to writers works used in samples of music, yet film and music fall under the same protections, the companies compensate music owners for scoring and soundtracks in films, but not sampled film scripts and manuscripts. (3) Whether major and minor film production studios should properly license literary copyright owners for works of creative ideas or samples that plaigerize Owners’ works protected under the First Amendment, when profiting on two or more predicate acts of the same nature for a pattern of more than ten years by the same company injuring different copyright owners and violating their federally protected intellectual property. I (4) Whether federal laws for plagiarism for education hold stiffer penalties than corporations that make huge profits from plagiarism and keep all profits without crediting or compensating original creator and copyright owners. (5) Whether the victims of plagiarism be afforded equal access to justice and protections of the law under the U.S. Constitution as copyright infringed victims. B. Whether the abuse of discretion was fraud upon the court Fed.R. Civ.P 60 by the court(s) a violation of the petitioner's U.S. Constitutional rights, First, Fifth, Seventh, Eleventh and Fourteenth Amendment(s). (1) Whether respondents erroneously filed reassignment document 31 (intra,191a-193a) stating petitioners filed two (2) prior Civil RICO 18 U.S.C. 1961-1964 cases (intra, 191a-192a), yet using two copyright infringement case numbers. a. Whether the orders document 138 ruling for a 54(b) (intra,288a) abuse of discretion by district judge by ruling on Civil RICO Case not properly asserted as a counterclaim for copyright infringement by the respondents, who stated they did not request a counterclaim on the motion ruled on as a counterclaim. (2) Whether the petitioner's summary judgment Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, 12(c) on document 61 should have ended litigation, rather than respondents Rule 12(c) motion for copyright infringement not considered a counterclaim, yet done under Civil RICO where the copyright infringement were predicate acts failed to defend Civil RICO. Tl (3) Whether respondents of Civil RICO can request to stay or modify discovery (intra,224a#1; 2), then ignore district judge’s orders to provide discovery, (intra,225a) document 124 (intra,273a) did this violation prejudice petitioners due process, if they failed to rule on the 54(b) abuse of discretion issue. a. Whether the Eleventh Circuit, erred when they said, “judge did not abuse his discretion making discovery rulings.” Violating petitioners due process fifth and fourteenth amendment. b. Whether all of the respondents and Judge violated the Eleventh Circuit Court’s when placing an all writs injunction, Rule 56 summary judgment and second counterclaim and injunction on the record Feb. 5, 2018, document 157 (intra,321a) and the district court issuing orders on document 168 (ntra,326a-335), during the appeal process meanwhile awaiting a decision on all brief(s). Did the Eleventh Circuit Court fail to protect petitioners’ constitutional rights of due process. c. Whether petitioners had were denied discovery since the district judg