• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm mostly staying out of this because I have a number of friends on all sides of it. But I happen to know Alec, and I remember when he very openly sold of a load of screen-used stuff to buy this house for his godson. The story is true, to the best of my knowledge, and it's sad to see a genuinely nice gesture being painted in a dubious light.

Also, as I recall, this happened before Axanar. Make of that what you will.
 
Last edited:
Michael Hinman said:
That's great. Except I missed the part where I am only limited to talk about the lawsuit. Can you please point that out? I am not fighting the lawsuit on behalf of CBS/Paramount, so why would I have to limit the scope of my discussion?



Actually, it's really fair game for anyone to ask. He doesn't have to answer, of course, but that doesn't mean people can't ask. Wow ... you are very bossy. :)



Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were a lawyer on this. I'm very sorry.

Although, I know if I asked my attorney about this, she would say that it would depend on the contract that was in place with the medium being used, in this case, IGG. They are the bridge between the donor and the receiver, and have set the rules. So it might say that.

However, there's also another issue at stake, and maybe one that is not brought up enough. While there might be a civil case that says there are no guarantees that money raised is going to be used for what is advertised, there are some criminal aspects that do still come into play.

For instance, I cannot raise $50,000 to say I'm going to feed the homeless, when the whole time I planned to just buy a Tesla. There's a word for that ... again it starts with an "F" ... damn, I can't think of it.

Not saying that is happening here. But once again, there is a moral responsibility I feel that people in general should at least ask the question. And sometimes in place of those who are unable, or afraid to ask on their own behalf.



That is very, very, possible. Seriously. I mean this possibility is definitely out there. But so are many possibilities. :)
Click to expand...


Tbh there is so many things i would love to look into regarding him etc i just cant be bothered to waste my time so when someone like you does dig about its nice to see what turns up
 
USS Intrepid said:
I'm mostly staying out of this because I have a number of friends on all sides of it. But I happen to know Alec, and I remember when he very openly sold of a load of screen-used stuff to buy this house for his godson. The story is true, to the best of my knowledge, and it's sad to see a genuinely nice gesture being painted in a dubious light.

Also, as I recall, this happened before Axanar. Make of that what you will.
Click to expand...


The thing is speculation is human nature and when someone in the public eye in this case Mr Peters acts in the way he has regarding this people will dig out things even if they are legit or not.
 
Jam3s1701 said:
The thing is speculation is human nature and when someone in the public eye in this case Mr Peters acts in the way he has regarding this people will dig out things even if they are legit or not.
Click to expand...
Except this could have probably been cleared up pretty easily if someone dug a little deeper. It was hardly a big secret at the time.
 
Jam3s1701 said:
Yes this is true but if someone is a journalist its apart of their nature so.....
Click to expand...
The problem is that speculation leads to accusation, and it's how you make people biased for or against someone. Asking questions? That's one thing, but speculating on how they acquired something, and implying nefarious or underhanded means? That's another.
 
Journalism is known as muckraking for a reason -- muck gets pulled to the surface. Alec Peters is now a public figure, at least in our small bubble, and sort of creates a demand for information.

I've been in many arguments about what exactly constitutes "doxing" in the past year or so, in regards to different issues. The general consensus I've seen reached is that the compilation of many disparate, yet publicly available facts about someone into a single document is a lesser form of doxing than releasing private info, such as emails or hacked/stolen documents.

And really, what I'm calling "lesser doxing" is synonymous with investigative reporting. And yeah, it really puts the subject on the spot, and that's awkward for everyone, but that's just business if the subject is a public figure. Whereas if someone compiled a whole bunch of info on me, a nobody, that'd be ethically wrong because I'm not a public figure.

In regards to redacting, it's a courtesy but pointless, because 99% of the time some commenter will just go find the censored document and post all the redacted info in the comments, foisting responsibility onto moderators on whether or not to delete those posts, or effectively allow the nullification of the redaction.

USS Intrepid said:
I'm mostly staying out of this because I have a number of friends on all sides of it. But I happen to know Alec, and I remember when he very openly sold of a load of screen-used stuff to buy this house for his godson. The story is true, to the best of my knowledge, and it's sad to see a genuinely nice gesture being painted in a dubious light.

Also, as I recall, this happened before Axanar. Make of that what you will.
Click to expand...

Well, good. Honestly, this is the best outcome. I feel like Peters' life being dug into and exposed was inevitable, and I'm rather happy the person doing is an actual accredited journalist, not just some rando. It's unfortunate that there was any impression of wrong-doing on Peters' actons here when there isn't, but if there really isn't then that is good! There was smoke, but no fire, so let's just move on.
 
53075450.jpg


Neil
 
Harcourt F. Mudd said:
And yeah, it really puts the subject on the spot, and that's awkward for everyone, but that's just business if the subject is a public figure. Whereas if someone compiled a whole bunch of info on me, a nobody, that'd be ethically wrong because I'm not a public figure.
Click to expand...
Who decides who is a 'public figure'? Alec Peters is fairly obscure even among minor internet personalities. How many people have to know you before you become a 'public figure' and therefore open to having anything that can be found out about you splashed across the internet perfectly ethically?
It's an artificial distinction used to justify the flagrant privacy violations of celebrities by the media. People, all people, should have the right to a private life. If there is a suspicion of wrongdoing, there are correct channels for that.
It is one thing to say 'this persons publicly shared creative work is derivative of CBS IP' or 'this persons public statement on the matter is a bit insane'. It is quite another to say 'hey look his home address is on the internet, take a look'.
 
cultcross said:
To then defend it as not even simply innocuous but actually the morally courageous thing to do is extraordinary.
Click to expand...

Uh, excuse me? I never said anything about it being morally courageous to post information about Alec's godsons. Nor did I defend it. The only thing I said was, "I wouldn't trust what Alec Peters says without verification, and it's a convenient deflection." And then I promptly stated that the whole thing should never have happened in the first place.

Please do not ever attempt to twist my words like that. In general, I do not imply (humorous intent excepted); I say exactly what I mean, no more, and no less -- and if I'm wrong, I'm willing to apologize; see below.

USS Intrepid said:
I'm mostly staying out of this because I have a number of friends on all sides of it. But I happen to know Alec, and I remember when he very openly sold of a load of screen-used stuff to buy this house for his godson. The story is true, to the best of my knowledge, and it's sad to see a genuinely nice gesture being painted in a dubious light.
Click to expand...

If I came off as claiming that it was untrue, then I do apologize, Tom. That wasn't my intent. All I was pointing out is that anything that Peters says is, to me, in need of verification before I'll assign any veracity to it -- and that it would be the exact right thing to say by way of deflection, which gave me pause. Having yourself and one other confirm it, however, is enough for me to believe it (and I admittedly forgot that the other individual said something about that before I posted, which is my bad, so I apologize for that as well).

Peters is a suspicious character in my book. That does not make it okay to post personal addresses of people associated with him. Thing is, if I understood the chain of events correctly, it was thought to be a business property when it was posted. Should have been removed, but the initial post doesn't sound malicious to me.

Though Mr. Hinman does clearly have too much time on his hands. :)
 
Ion said:
Please do not ever attempt to twist my words like that.
Click to expand...
That's OK because I didn't. Clearly I was talking about the behaviour we were all discussing, which was the posting of private information to do with Peters. He defended it as 'morally responsible' not a handful of posts above mine. The only part of your post that related to mine was the bit I quoted. We started to get caught up in the did they/did they not know about the godson. I said that I don't think that's relevant.
 
Ion said:
Uh, excuse me? I never said anything about it being morally courageous to post information about Alec's godsons. Nor did I defend it. The only thing I said was, "I wouldn't trust what Alec Peters says without verification, and it's a convenient deflection." And then I promptly stated that the whole thing should never have happened in the first place.

Please do not ever attempt to twist my words like that. In general, I do not imply (humorous intent excepted); I say exactly what I mean, no more, and no less -- and if I'm wrong, I'm willing to apologize; see below.



If I came off as claiming that it was untrue, then I do apologize, Tom. That wasn't my intent. All I was pointing out is that anything that Peters says is, to me, in need of verification before I'll assign any veracity to it -- and that it would be the exact right thing to say by way of deflection, which gave me pause. Having yourself and one other confirm it, however, is enough for me to believe it (and I admittedly forgot that the other individual said something about that before I posted, which is my bad, so I apologize for that as well).

Peters is a suspicious character in my book. That does not make it okay to post personal addresses of people associated with him. Thing is, if I understood the chain of events correctly, it was thought to be a business property when it was posted. Should have been removed, but the initial post doesn't sound malicious to me.

Though Mr. Hinman does clearly have too much time on his hands. :)
Click to expand...
This. When I made my post about asking questions and making accusations, it was still understood that this property was a business property. If I would have known even for a moment that it belonged to a member of Alec's family, I would have removed the whole thing.
 
cultcross said:
That's OK because I didn't. Clearly I was talking about the behaviour we were all discussing, which was the posting of private information to do with Peters. He defended it as 'morally responsible' not a handful of posts above mine. The only part of your post that related to mine was the bit I quoted. We started to get caught up in the did they/did they not know about the godson. I said that I don't think that's relevant.
Click to expand...

Then please be more clear about quotes and who you're responding to in the future, because you came off as attributing such sentiment to me, which I did not appreciate.
 
cultcross said:
Who decides who is a 'public figure'? Alec Peters is fairly obscure even among minor internet personalities. How many people have to know you before you become a 'public figure' and therefore open to having anything that can be found out about you splashed across the internet perfectly ethically?
Click to expand...

Being named as defendant in a lawsuit by a major American network which is covered as breaking news by the mainstream entertainment press (Variety, The Hollywood Reporter) in articles that quote said defendant might qualify somewhat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top