I'm sure it was seen and noted by all................
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
I'm sure it was seen and noted by all................
Yeah, but you all seemed to be concerned over a stupid house
You made the post...........6 posts later you linked back to it...........and then a few pages later asked if we saw it. I don't think it is any great shock that they haven't updated that info. With everything else, that's kind of minor IMHO. I've also ignored the ENTIRE house topic.
Maybe. But to be honest, I saw no need to redact a public document that I was linking to. I cannot control what information people choose to make available to the public, and I think it's improper for me to try and anticipate what someone would get bent out of shape for, and what someone wouldn't.
For many years, I did not make my physical address public in any way. And that was primarily because people would "dox" me (I don't get the whole new-age online terminology -- you kids and your rock-and-roll). I mean, during the Old BSG v. NuBSG battle, (and actually some other battle), someone decided to post that I was the editor of a church newsletter (the name of the publication was called the Temple Terrace News, because the city -- where Busch Gardens and the University of South Florida is just outside of Tampa, is called Temple Terrace), got my age wrong based on an interview that appeared on TrekToday's old TrekNation site, which somehow got reposted with the different date, and provided what they thought was my home address.
It's very easy to not have a home address out there. Don't put it in public documents. Sure, you can't get away from putting it on a deed. But then, don't use it as a business address for a corporation that you form, once again a public document.
The over-sensitivity to addresses is quite new. Yet, it's funny that to really get an address, all you have to do is type in a person's name and the city you believe they are in, and more often than not, their address is the first thing that pops up. Hell, it's how I remember my dad's address. =P
Maybe, but at the time (and really now, I'm iffy on it), there was no reason to do it. As far as I knew, Peters had this property as a vacation property, like the timeshare he owned immediately previously to it. It was not "homesteaded" that I could see, so he was not using it as a primary residence, as defined by Florida law.
If I knew that he had his "godsons" there as he states, sure, I might have considered sharing the information without links, and possibly offering links only if requested. But I had no information supporting that. I simply had a business, and this was what the business claimed as its corporate address. It was the company's legal address.
But if you look back in the many pages here, people shared corporate information links all over the place, especially when it came to the company that reportedly owned the building Ares Studios is based out of. Why would this be treated different than that? And I was linked directly to a corporate filing.
And I am definitely listening to your advice.But I am not familiar with the hashtag situation you talked about above. Maybe if you get a chance and can talk to me private (since it might be off-topic here), I'd be happy to review it, and what SPJ weighed in with.
I left out a lot of information that I deemed not necessary. But to be honest, it would be a tough discussion to have that would state the listed physical address of a company that is being questioned is not necessary. While you never want to have an over-abundance of information, you don't want anyone to read something you present, and say, "But where is it?" or whatever answer you should've provided in what you presented.
Fair enough, really. But I'm no stranger to having to balance what should be public and what should be private. And still, it comes down to the fact that I was asking about a corporation that had minimal information available, except for who was listed as its registered agent and its principal, as well as a corporate address. I didn't repeat the corporate address, but it was included in the public documents that discussed the company.
For the love of sweet baby Jesus, shut up about the house. No one cares. And you ruined our clubhouse.
A new case of copyright infringement was filed today:
http://www.neowin.net/news/font-brother-out-for-blood-after-hasbro-uses-font-without-permission
Except in this case it is the little guy filing suit against the big bad corporation, who used their material without permission. To me, the interesting thing here is the show's fans defending the infringement, painting it as one or more of the following:
1) pfft, you can't copyright a font! (hint: yes you can)-- they should change that law! It's stupid!
2) why did they wait 5 years!? Greedy assholes! How is this really hurting them?!
3) these guys are nobody's, who cares if they stole a font? Go away!
4) they're just mad that the font is used on something awesome!
5) Hasbro is going to CRUSH them!
Sound familiar? Much of the above is very similar rhetoric to what the Axanar supporters have been spouting (who were defending the little guy, rather than the big company).
It just always seems funny to me that the loudest and most vocal fans who take sides in these kinds of situations are always in favor of the offender. Axanar, Hasbro, it's not about "big guy vs. little guy"-- no, I think it's a belief that people should be able to do what they want if the final product is really great.
People, generally, have no respect for the law and don't quite fully grasp either its nuance or its intent.
http://www.neowin.net/news/font-brother-out-for-blood-after-hasbro-uses-font-without-permission
Except in this case it is the little guy filing suit against the big bad corporation, who used their material without permission. To me, the interesting thing here is the show's fans defending the infringement, painting it as one or more of the following:
1) pfft, you can't copyright a font! (hint: yes you can)-- they should change that law! It's stupid!
2) why did they wait 5 years!? Greedy assholes! How is this really hurting them?!
3) these guys are nobody's, who cares if they stole a font? Go away!
4) they're just mad that the font is used on something awesome!
5) Hasbro is going to CRUSH them!
Sound familiar? Much of the above is very similar rhetoric to what the Axanar supporters have been spouting (who were defending the little guy, rather than the big company).
It just always seems funny to me that the loudest and most vocal fans who take sides in these kinds of situations are always in favor of the offender. Axanar, Hasbro, it's not about "big guy vs. little guy"-- no, I think it's a belief that people should be able to do what they want if the final product is really great.
People, generally, have no respect for the law and don't quite fully grasp either its nuance or its intent.
In his defense, his last actual post was yesterday and 2+ pages ago, so everyone else who also needs to let it go.
A few options for donors seeking redress, in no particular order:
- Contact Paypal or their credit card companies and call for an investigation
- Contact IGG or KS as appropriate and call for an investigation
- Contact the California Attorney General's office, same reason
- Class action lawsuit
- Contact local (or California) crusading reporter, you know the kind of person who usually goes on the 6 o'clock news to talk about the potholes not being fixed. Often called a consumer affairs reporter, can also be for print journalism
There may be more options but those leap out at me.
Terry McIntosh is now claiming copyright violation in behalf of CBS/Paramount and Axanar Productions, Inc.
Here's what was in the "Intellectual Property thief Terry McIntosh insults a Star Trek Axanar donor" video.
Here's what was in the "Intellectual Property thief Terry McIntosh insults a Star Trek Axanar donor" video.
I'm aware of the options, I'm just wondering about the success. Again, Peters said the risk would be CBS shutting them down. And that is what, most likely, will come to pass. If you know the risk, and it happens, how can you later go "I should get my money back."?
I don't know if they can sue. They were donors, not investors. They were donating to a project that is technically illegal, so how can they reap gains on a contribution to it?
There have been many instances of KS donors getting their money back from various means: pressuring Kickstarter, the project owner, their credit card companies or consulting legal representation.
Nobody is completely screwed as long as they're willing to do some legwork. That's why it's important for donors to start taking action now-- sooner than later-- because if he keeps spending the money it will be harder and harder to get your donation back.
Wait, there's no toilets?!?!I've had an eye on it as a possible destination for that "Where Are the Toilets?" thread.
Oh, the horror!
Does he not realize that making comments like this doesn't really help his case or Axanar's? (and I don't mean the lawsuit). Just makes himself look like a complete douchebag. I swear every time he opens his mouth a Tribble dies in agony. -_-.
I wonder if CBS is also hoping during the discovery phase to learn to what extent KS/I pursued Axanar for their fundraising. It's one thing to claim innocence on an infringing IP, but to actively pursue when they should have known better is a different matter. Those companies also have much deeper pockets than Axanar...
Regarding the other kickstarters where donors got their money back, did the risk of failure happen? Meaning, if this happens the project will fail.
Peters told them how they might lose their money.
I'm sure some people might try and get their money back, but there's a great defense: We told you CBS might shut us down, and you still donated.
It's sort of like gambling and then sueing the casino because you lost money. Unless the casino rigged it....
And I don't think Peters planned on CBS stopping them.
- Status