if the AG goes after them, my non-attorney browsing of news about similar cases is that they don't have to have a large number of donors go after them, just enough to validate the complaint. aside from patches etc those who were to get benefits from the actual movie production having gone forward might be in that class. how can Axanar offer for big bucks to give credits in a film if they start asserting they never actually intended to deliver the film? It looked to me from the other cases like an AG case would be the equivalent of a class action lawsuit in scope.
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
if the AG goes after them, my non-attorney browsing of news about similar cases is that they don't have to have a large number of donors go after them, just enough to validate the complaint. aside from patches etc those who were to get benefits from the actual movie production having gone forward might be in that class. how can Axanar offer for big bucks to give credits in a film if they start asserting they never actually intended to deliver the film? It looked to me from the other cases like an AG case would be the equivalent of a class action lawsuit in scope.
Class action suits mostly benefit the attorneys who represent the class, and are often designed to be settled out of court, not litigated.
1) I don't think there are any Axanar donors pissed enough to go to the trouble of getting legal representation. I could be wrong, and time will tell. But those who contributed less than $500 understand that there would be time and cost involved in getting relief, and they might rather just walk away.
2) Class action suits could be considered to be a punitive measure - a way to get a corporation to stop a behavior and to "feel the pain" - in this case I believe CBS' legal action will be sufficient to bring about an end to Axanar's potentially fraudulent behavior.
3) The ones who are feeling the largest financial pinch, i.e. the "big" donors may be sufficiently snowed by AP and Co. to consider CBS the bad guy who stole their money.
All these valid points notwithstanding, one could say by analogy that as individuals, payday loan customers choose to enter the loans since the net lets them deal with the new situation of lenders across state lines, but usury is still illegal so consumer protection and/or AG roles of the state must step in for interests they protect, stop the actors in the new channel, and control the channel. They just need some example cases to establish the situation.
The fact this is happening in a largely unregulated/high consumer risk area like crowdfunding I would think would make it more rather than less likely to attract such action, and/or legislative action to place some boundaries on how crowdfunding may be conducted.
Last edited:
Well the farce continues over at The Hollywood Reporter (including the full motion):
'Star Trek' Fans Want Paramount, CBS to Do Better Job Explaining Franchise to Court
Sounds like Peters is pushing for the whole thing to get thrown out because CBS/Paramount never gave him specific rules to play by... when using their legally owned property to make a fan film... of their legally owned intellectual property.
Their case is built on a foundation of Jello.
'Star Trek' Fans Want Paramount, CBS to Do Better Job Explaining Franchise to Court
Sounds like Peters is pushing for the whole thing to get thrown out because CBS/Paramount never gave him specific rules to play by... when using their legally owned property to make a fan film... of their legally owned intellectual property.
Their case is built on a foundation of Jello.
A couple things about this confuse me.
First of all, why would it matter who owns what? Everything is owned by CBS and Paramount, and they're both involved in the law suit, so no matter what they are being sued by the copyright holders.
I don't think it should matter if the actual movie is done, since they've been pretty open about their intentions and who/what franchise material was going to be in it. Not to mention that we already have Prelude and the Vulcan scene.
First of all, why would it matter who owns what? Everything is owned by CBS and Paramount, and they're both involved in the law suit, so no matter what they are being sued by the copyright holders.
I don't think it should matter if the actual movie is done, since they've been pretty open about their intentions and who/what franchise material was going to be in it. Not to mention that we already have Prelude and the Vulcan scene.
Not only do we have Vulcans, in the three minutes purported to be from the film, we have shots of Vulcan that were lifted directly from Star Trek IV. That would be copyright infringement right there, no?
Viacom shares jumped about 5% after CEO Philippe Dauman announced at an investor conference that he has been “approached by several potential strategic investors in Paramount” and is “pursuing a transaction with a strategic minority investor.”
http://deadline.com/2016/02/viacom-begun-talks-sell-minority-stake-paramount-1201707626/
Several potential strategic investors? Please let that be Axanar Productions Inc.
http://deadline.com/2016/02/viacom-begun-talks-sell-minority-stake-paramount-1201707626/
Several potential strategic investors? Please let that be Axanar Productions Inc.
Yes. CBS is the Owner, and Paramount is the license holder. This "chain of custody" bunk is just silly, as they are trying to argue that sense the initial complaint does not give a long and arduous detailed description of each copyright violation and who is violated by it - the whole thing is dismissable. Yeah, no.
In most of the dismissal, they are trying to argue that case precedent places the burden of proof on the Plaintiff, while ignoring the fact that most of the previous cases cited took place after a significant copyright violation had occurred and such information was readily available after the discovery phase was completed. Making the argument that "you have no proof" so the case needs to be dismissed before the proof can be collected is rather silly.
On the flip side, I can say in my opinion the first complaint was designed to get AP to settle. If you notice it contains lots of broad, scary language and emphasizes the financial relief the Plaintiffs are seeking.
However, now that AP has demonstrated they are going to fight this, IF the judge requires an amended complaint, you will see a lot more specificity and evidence.
I find myself wondering if the defense's tactic is simply "if we drag this out long enough and give them enough of a headache, maybe we can get them to give up the suit and settle in our favor". That's what it looks like from the out side looking in.
The problem, of course, is that CBS/P has a vested interest in keeping the fight going, and the resources to do so.
They are angling @BillJ for the thing they have wanted all this time: guidelines as to what can and cannot be included in a "fan film." "So is Tuvok off limits but Flotter is ok?"
CBS won't make those guidelines because they would be tantamount to licensing fan productions, something that would royally piss off that other company that pays money for the rights to use their IP, and such guidelines would open the crown funding floodgates thus reducing the fan dollars that would go to CBS and Paramount's property. That's bad business.
It's funny to read this response and see AP's fingerprints all over it. He has found a kindred spirit in that law firm, that is for sure.
CBS won't make those guidelines because they would be tantamount to licensing fan productions, something that would royally piss off that other company that pays money for the rights to use their IP, and such guidelines would open the crown funding floodgates thus reducing the fan dollars that would go to CBS and Paramount's property. That's bad business.
It's funny to read this response and see AP's fingerprints all over it. He has found a kindred spirit in that law firm, that is for sure.
I understand what it is. But how can people continue to believe that Peters is a fan with that type of response?
Defendants do have a right to fair process I guess. If the lawsuit leaves them unable to determine the specific reasons for the action against them, I think they have the right to demand clarification or dismissal. I think its not the role of the court to judge whether AP is a superfan or whether they knew what they were doing, prior to arguments at trial. Right now, I believe the role of the court is to assure due process is fully exercised.
Not the court. The people that continue to back this nonsense.
At this point, Bill, are you surprised at anything that the Axanar Faithful™ believe? These people have long since lost their grip on reality.
he's a fan because of his enthusiasm. I think the question for donors would be is he a service oriented honest facilitator of fan aspirations?
fully understand crosseyes about the fans that are invested in this. but look at what people do in the world. its not abnormal, just deeply tapped into for the sake of particular objectives.
- Status