CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

[#1RealTrekFan]

Nope, but I've dropped two emails at the author of the article. One regarding the article and the second regarding the comment section which should be interesting once the IT guys at hollywoodreporter.com find out if they match or not and if Alec Peters is stupid enough to use email addresses with alec@ that can be traced back to him.

if you click on 'red omega' and 'alec peters', is there anything like an email or ip address on display that is the same?

 

[Karzak]

Would the real Alec Peters please stand up?

Riiiiight, because Alec couldn't just also post under both handles. And we know he'd never use more than one username on the same forum, right?

 

[Noname Given]

very interesting, thanks. so you think they will get the injunction indefinitely?

Again, if the case goes forward, I do think the Judge will grant an injunction for the length of the trial. That said, I'm not a Judge or a lawyer, but as someone whop works with Judges; most cut through legal BS pretty quick, and most don't care for lawyers who try to argue every single small technicality they can find. They are there to adjudicate - and they just want the facts of the case to render a decision.

 

[#1RealTrekFan]

The author of the article Eriq Gardner just got back to me 7 minutes after I've sent the emails to him with "I'll look into it. Thanks."

Riiiiight, because Alec couldn't just also post under both handles. And we know he'd never use more than one username on the same forum, right?

 

[muCephi]

Again, if the case goes forward, I do think the Judge will grant an injunction for the length of the trial. That said, I'm not a Judge or a lawyer, but as someone whop works with Judges; most cut through legal BS pretty quick, and most don't care for lawyers who try to argue every single small technicality they can find. They are there to adjudicate - and they just want the facts of the case to render a decision.

thanks. this judge does seem from comments I have seen here to be a cut through the noise type.

 

[muCephi]

The author of the article Eriq Gardner just got back to me 7 minutes after I've sent the emails to him with "I'll look into it. Thanks."

I guess they will have to follow whatever standards they have published about their users' privacy, if the info is not made public by the user and is warranted to only be used for communication from the publication to the user then they shouldn't reveal it even to an author. I just thought a public flag might have been set on an email address entered by the two IDs, or IP addresses of origin were published. Stranger things have been known to happen.

I suppose if they had TOS against sock puppets in their forums, and they felt it was appropriate to look, and it turns out that's what it is, they might want to delete the comments, or more likely, ban the IP. But that's really according to whatever their standards are and whether they really want to enforce them in just one case (I would think not).

 

[Michael Hinman]

Webster's disagrees with you:

Definition of mockumentary
plural mock·u·men·ta·ries

1. : a facetious or satirical work (as a film) presented in the style of a documentary

So does Oxford. So does Wikipedia. So does MacMillan. And Collins. And the Free Dictionary. The elements of parody, facetiousness, wit, humor, irony or satire are core elements of the word, even if applied to works not overtly ha-ha hi-larious.

You could split hairs over whether mockumentary covers what Prelude is, or whether "docufiction" or "fictional documentary" is a better term for the film, but the fact remains that Winston & Strawn chose its term very deliberately. They wanted to divorce what CBS calls the combined "Axanar Works" into two separate parts — one, a short parody covered under fair use, and the other not yet created so covered under prior restraint, enabling producers to get it made and only then be subject to assessment of its copyright infringement.

However, Carlos, I have to work with the definition that Ranahan has asked us to work with, to help understand why she is using the term. See Footnote 6 on page 4 of the main breakdown in the motion Ranahan filed. She provides not only a link to the definition of "mockumentary" she is using, but also defines it in the footnote as "a movie or television show depicting fictional events but presented as a documentary."

Sorry, I like to go with intent of what is being said, especially with colloquialisms, and appreciate when someone (especially a lawyer) specifically defines what that intent is, as was done in this footnote. Nothing in her footnote seems to even suggest she is calling "Prelude" a parody, and that she is using "mockumentary" as a descriptor exactly for what I was saying — the story device of making something look like a documentary, when it's actually a documentary of fiction.

 

[Michael Hinman]

As far as parody, it appears they're only trying to get Prelude designated as one by calling it a "mockumentary" (its use in the motion is a mockery of the term), so that it falls under fair use. The full Axanar film they want to buy time to file off the serial numbers so production can move forward.

I disagree. While they might try to use parody as a defense down the road, I see no indication in the motion to strike filed by Ranahan that suggests that here. She defines "mockumentary," which is a colloquialism by the way, and helps readers understand her usage of the term.

 

[Michael Hinman]

If a judge granted a dismissal, I would think he would also have to order C/P to issue a set of formal guidelines. I don't see it happening, but I'm just guessing.

A dismissal is that, a dismissal. There could not be such a directive from a judge, as far as I know. Not in simply granting a motion to dismiss.

 

[Amaris]

I wish he would issue a remissal to Axanar, where he would state from the bench, "I was remiss in not choosing to give you people a swift kick in the ass sooner."

 

[MikeH92467]

A dismissal is that, a dismissal. There could not be such a directive from a judge, as far as I know. Not in simply granting a motion to dismiss.

I see what you mean. However, it does seem that the Axanar team is trying for something like that. If not with a dismissal in some other way and I agree that such an outcome seems most unlikely.

 

[Michael Hinman]

No, the Paramount/CBS are prepping for the hearing on 3/21.

What hearing? There has only been a REQUEST for a hearing. As far as I can see, there is no official hearing yet placed on the calendar. Remember, the motion to strike was filed solely by Ranahan and her team. Not by the judge or by the attorneys with CBS/Paramount. There may have been discussion between the two on dates that work, and March 21 might have come up — but it's up to the judge to schedule a hearing. And as far as I can tell, that has not happened.

 

[Karzak]

Interestingly, now that "Alec Peters" has been posting on that THR article, "Red Omega" has suddenly gone silent over there. Now that can't possibly be because they're the same person, right? Right?

 

[Michael Hinman]

I see what you mean. However, it does seem that the Axanar team is trying for something like that. If not with a dismissal in some other way and I agree that such an outcome seems most unlikely.

I don't see that, to be honest. I see the defense attorney doing her job, which is to first try and bring the suit down on technical terms (or greatly reduce it through strikes through the original complaint). This is not their defense, but simply a strategy to try and reduce the suit, and maybe even buy some time through a need for the plaintiff to amend the complaint, or refile completely. Or maybe get so red-faced, they just drop it.

However, if a judge did indeed order a dismissal, there would not be any directive to CBS/Paramount beyond that. I mean, there is no counter-suit against CBS/Paramount at this point, and even Ranahan doesn't ask for such a redress in her motion to strike.

In all honesty, if this motion fails completely, I think you will see Axanar clamoring to get back to the settlement table even faster than before.

 

[#1RealTrekFan]

Alec Peters' special apperance on hollywoodreporter.com 2/23/2016 captured for posterity.

Mr. Alec Peters from Star Trek Axanar honored the little people in Hollywood with his presence in the comment section of a Hollywood Reporter article 'Star Trek' Fans Want Paramount, CBS to Do Better Job Explaining Franchise to Court by Eriq Gardner at http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/star-trek-fans-want-paramount-868691 .

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Admiral Cain]

There's two things I would like to know but don't know if we can ever find the answers to:

1. Was donor money used in any way for the Woodland Terrace purchase?

2. Were all the funds that initially went into the Propworx bank account from Kickstarter transferred in their entirety to Axanar's bank account?

 

[muCephi]

2. Were all the funds that initially went into the Propworx bank account from Kickstarter transferred in their entirety to Axanar's bank account?

Kickstarter money for Axanar was ever deposited in the Propworx company bank account? Why would that happen?

 

[Michael Hinman]

There's two things I would like to know but don't know if we can ever find the answers to:

1. Was donor money used in any way for the Woodland Terrace purchase?

The Florida real estate was purchased in 2013, which I believe was before the main fundraisers for Axanar (but does someone have the timeline?

The only reason why I have brought something similar to this up in the past is not because of the property itself, but for Woodland Terrace Investments, a company Peters created in Florida in February 2015 — in the same time period he was raising all that money for Axanar — using the real estate he owns in Florida as a "corporate address." This is a publicly available document (and even forming a corporation in Florida, you are warned that information provided IS public record), and while the formation of the company itself doesn't prove anything (outside of the fact that he formed a company), it does raise questions on what this company is for.

Peters has told me in the past that this company was designed to put his real estate property — the same property listed as the company's corporate address — into its ownership, to protect it through a corporate entity. However, at the time he made that claim — a year AFTER he formed the company — Peters had yet to go through the very simple steps of transferring ownership of the property from himself to the corporation (which would be required in such a move).

And yes, even who owns real estate in Florida is public record.

 

[T'Bonz]

Red Omega here was Alec Peters so it's him.

 

[Admiral Cain]

The Florida real estate was purchased in 2013, which I believe was before the main fundraisers for Axanar (but does someone have the timeline?

The only reason why I have brought something similar to this up in the past is not because of the property itself, but for Woodland Terrace Investments, a company Peters created in Florida in February 2015 — in the same time period he was raising all that money for Axanar — using the real estate he owns in Florida as a "corporate address." This is a publicly available document (and even forming a corporation in Florida, you are warned that information provided IS public record), and while the formation of the company itself doesn't prove anything (outside of the fact that he formed a company), it does raise questions on what this company is for.

Peters has told me in the past that this company was designed to put his real estate property — the same property listed as the company's corporate address — into its ownership, to protect it through a corporate entity. However, at the time he made that claim — a year AFTER he formed the company — Peters had yet to go through the very simple steps of transferring ownership of the property from himself to the corporation (which would be required in such a move).

And yes, even who owns real estate in Florida is public record.

Putting it under a corporate umbrella would possibly save from being seized to satisfy a judgement? How would the court handle that asset considering it is co-owned?