<horta> Cry for the lawyers...Go. Go. Sadness. Sadness for the end of Axanar.</horta>
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
I can't imagine they will stand for much more. It seems they are doing this pro bono for the chance to break new ground in what "transformative" means in copyright law, but it's hardly such a slam dunk that they need to put up with a loose canon for a client.
At the same time, as long as he's being forthright with them, they may feel the other stuff is worth putting up with. But if they ever find out he's not being square with them, my guess is they're out the door quickly. The last people you ever mislead are your lawyers.
There was speculation in the thread after the interview that the second firm may be necessary for "case creep" if the workload for the first one becomes too large and/or the Does start turning against Peters. The way I read things, the Does are still on their own for legal representation.
Last edited:
The passing remark about a second firm is somewhat cryptic - did Peters tell this to Kirk? Did he name the firm? Did he describe the circumstances under which the second firm was signed?
Did Kirk ask? A second law firm, after all, is the only piece of real news in the article.
Maybe it's a replacement firm - or will be after the "A" team digests this article.
Another mention of a second law firm is made in a blog posted by Peters.
Alec Peters said:
Neil
So he grants an interview to a blogger and then is SHOCKED that his words were taken out of context . What a dopePeters now says his quotes in the 1701 article were taken out of context and others heavily edited out, which isn't surprising that he would make that claim. And that he'd do so in his echo chamber:
Source: https://www.facebook.com/groups/axanarfansgroup/permalink/545837935592375/
I don't - they looked at it and decided to take Mr. Peters and Axanar Productions as client Pro Bono. What WILL be interesting is if the resolution of the cases(s) fails to go his way (IE Mr. Peters fails to obtain a settlement to his liking/outright looses the case) will Mr. Peters start to blog negatively about the work the firm(s) representing him did, and/or will he decide to file a lawsuit against them for incompetent/substandard representation in the case and sue for damages? (Using another firm pro bono to boot of course...
)
There a trick that prevents damaging statements being printed 'out of context'. Don't say them to an interviewer. In any context. Ever.
Although short of claiming they put words in his mouth, I don't know how 'context' would improve those statements re. the other productions. It's not like he's saying they quote-mined him.
Although short of claiming they put words in his mouth, I don't know how 'context' would improve those statements re. the other productions. It's not like he's saying they quote-mined him.
I was just threatened directly by Peters (on Facebook so you know it's official), not by his attorneys. If Peters told them to file a suit against anyone I'm sure they'd laugh.
And if you're dying to hear the sound of your own voice, but know it would be a bad idea to say something, then there's an awesome little phrase that you can use: "No comment."
I've never had a chance to use it, but I hear it works wonders.
How dare that blogger take Alec's words out of context by quoting them verbatim!
It's entirely possible that after further examination, Winston & Strawn recommended seeking separate counsel for Peters himself, since it's possible that he and his company may actually have competing interests in this case.
Or, the second legal team is for representing the up to 20 "John Does" — as yet unnamed production staff or key creative personnel — whom CBS may name as co-defendants and will need lawyers, too.
Or, the second team may help build a third line of defense (apart from from the copyright waiver and fair use arguments Winston & Strawn are relying upon) in an area of law in which the first team may not be as well-versed. I guess we'll find out.
Oh boy. He's trying to have his cake and eat it too. Now it's Cawely and others who are attacking him, yet he claimes he's done nothing but sing their praises. Geez.
This is exactly why we have a court system rather than mob rule. Rather than it being one emotionally-invested side against another emotionally-invested side, a (presumably) neutral party gets to judge who is right or wrong in the eyes of the law and exact justice, which probably won't be subjecting Alec to a stream of Axanar Downfall parodies the way some would prefer.
There would be no case if the one party had quit selling coffee when the other party told them they couldn't make a profit with their property.
So Alec Peters' claim that 1701 News quoted him out of context and that editor-in-chief Michael Hinman cut up his quotes after the fact in order to make Peters look bad turns out to be untrue. 1701 News has published all of Peters' quotes, in their entirety, and will shortly make the audio recording available, too.
http://1701news.com/node/1004/quote-quote-quote-quote.html
http://1701news.com/node/1004/quote-quote-quote-quote.html
Mr. Peters, I think this is the time for a colorful metaphor.
The guy functions on the emotional level of a twelve year-old.Hahahaha!
It's no one else's fault that, given one shot at persuading a larger audience than his few thousand fans, he embarrassed himself and alienated even many people who'd been giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Winning!
- Status