• 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.
Jedi_Master said:
Just a minor digression, I think we are starting to see a reversion to the earliest days of mass charity. Throughout human history charity has oscillated between being the purview of institutions to the purview of individuals. The "institutions" have tended to be religious in nature or occasionally a society of wealthy individuals. However, during the 19th century when it became possible for a single individual to control more wealth than an entire nation, a charitable hyper-wealthy individual could not possibly process all the requests for help he received, nor could he ensure that money he gave away was going to someone who honestly needed it.
So there was a need to employ individuals who could process the requests for help and ensure that money was well and dutifully spent. Thus the origin of the charitable foundation - the first of which was the brainchild of none other than John D. Rockefeller.
Click to expand...

The donations of hyperwealthy individuals of the 18th century were not of a scale or always aligned with broader nonprofit social interests like universal education, food safety, etc., even if they funded individual foundling hospitals or clinics. They perhaps dis seed demand and belief in doing these things, like now, I think. The people as a whole ultimately had to take these things on. There were and are parallel institutionalization tracks going on with funding public interests.

Jedi_Master said:
As foundations and secular charities have proliferated and grown in scope, the personal touch, the "I'm helping someone in a direct way" has slowly been lost. When we as humans give, we often yearn for that direct connection, so giving a buck to the Red Cross may be easy, but it isn't all that fulfilling.
That's why I think that all these Kickstarter and Indigogo campaigns to give Momma a new kidney are so popular.
Click to expand...

new technology opens disruptive possibilities, classic example

Jedi_Master said:
I think the popularity comes from the fact you can give in micro - amounts (What's $10 between friends?) and that you can give directly to a cause of your choosing. When you donate to a large charity you know you aren't just helping horses with cleft palettes eat their oats, you are also paying for the secretary, the light bill, and the CEO's insurance plan. Direct donations allow dollars and cents to go only to the donor, not to an infrastructure.
Click to expand...
Jedi_Master said:
However, there is a touch of hidden commercialism to these projects that I don't think most people realize. The websites take a cut if you meet your goal, and therefore they are going to aggressively seek more and more customers and court large scale projects that contribute more to their bottom line. So now you have someone who makes a living collecting charity, and that I think will lead to more and more problems.
Click to expand...

hm. I wonder how the percent these groups skim as profit compares to the overhead of a well run charity?
 
Admiral Cain said:
True, however the money raised from outside Kickstarter (merch sales, additional donations via Ares Digital, Retroactive Donor funds) does not appear to be listed anywhere on the Annual Report. That's not exactly being "open and honest", not to mention all the other shifty things listed in this forum thread.
Click to expand...
Well he also hasn't met the standard of "professional film" or "studio" or anything else he has thrown quotes on, but in this case he was at least trying to do something transparent, he just had no clue that people wouldn't look too kindly on his waste and inefficiency. I think as he began to get negative feedback, he decided to clam up and not reveal where the other money went.
 
Karzak said:
I have no doubt in my mind that in Alec's deluded, victim-complex riddled and all-or-nothing worldview mind he absolutely was being totally upfront about all his expenses... but he sure as hell wasn't going to let that stop him from trying to get away with as much as he possibly could get away with.

In retrospect it's all so blatantly a cash-grab by Peters. If it weren't we'd be niggling over the details of his fan film because he would have actually, you know, finished the damn thing.
Click to expand...
Exactly! Peters has lived off donor money for the past 18 months. Payed himself a salary and all expenses paid convention trips. He was more interested in buttering up convention judges for awards than actually making the film he plugged. His behavior towards anyone questioning him regarding Axanar isn't that of a mature adult.

What I find insulting is that in his ego-bloat, Peters thinks he speaks for all Star Trek fans and is somehow entitled to universal adoration. And for what? Self-admittedly taking I.P. he knows isn't his to line his pockets. IMO, Peters is nothing more than con-artist using the Star Trek brand image to mislead people.
 
BillJ said:
Difference being, no one cares if you spend leftover funds on pizza. Because you're actually going to complete the project you sold. Peters had to act like there was accountability because of all the money he was asking for. But I don't see spending $9,000 on convention appearances and $7,000 on phones as being accountable. YMMV.
Click to expand...

You're forgetting the auto expenses.
 
12226927_10153050084422130_6023855810443428366_n.jpg


Only one of the people in this photo is being sued for paying themselves a salary based on an IP they don't own.
 
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