CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
I think I can sum it up in five words
Alec isn't telling the truth
Alec isn't telling the truth
Ghostbusters, me, you and Chief Justice Jespah
Just quoting it so everyone can read it again. And maybe a third time. I'm looking at you, Peters.
I'm following it. At this time he seems to be holding. I'm noticing his 'method' of reply causing friction now and then, but not yet (that I've seen anyway) friction in his courtesy toward the questioners. Currently he seems to be doing a more than reasonable job in this PR nightmare he's been handed and is maneuvering through. There are a couple of skirmishes that have been attempted from both 'I Stand With' sides which so far have been handled decently and mitigated. And I've read several posters who are putting up the same questions that I have been asking for so long.
Choose any or all of the above (in no particular order):
- Some form of argument must be made, as defendants are entitled to a zealous defense (and we legal types are required by the Code of Professional Responsibility to offer same
- This case is more about the nerdy or fanficcing or free speechifying folks who will come down the pike later and will need defenses and can/will engage the firm's services and not for pro bono publico (like it or not, lawyers do have to advertise their wares, and sometimes it can be in a roundabout fashion)
- The desire to try to chip away at what @mkstewartesq wrote (see, I'm giving you credit. Please don't sue me. I like my house.
), e. g. maybe some sort of argument will be bought and a precedent, however narrow and flimsy, will be set
- Maybe she thinks it really will fly
- Aliens, generic or otherwise
- What @mkstewartesq said
7. Winston and Strawn want to make a Fan Film, and are positioning themselves for The Perfect
Treatment, and the Outline for the Pilot of:
Star Trek: Star Fleet Legal© (whoops, no need of that pesky symbol!)
"...its ok, folks...no need to worry..."Infringement is Futile"
I'm wondering in particular about specific pointed questions from donors and the concrete or fantasy answers being given (he could be *politely* telling them his nonsense about not being advised how far they could go disqualifies copyright law, for example), and about any donors who may be raising the possibility of legal action and trying to organize with each other. Also whether he is trying to shift the blame in answers or refuse to disclose specific financial waypoints, the way Alec does, or whether he is trying to argue in favor of Sarek is a minor character and Vulcans are not distinctive enough. That kind of thing.
Not asking for an inventory of everything... just curious as you note things which parallel questions here and on axamonitor, 1701news, and g&t in particular. They could be quite polite (except in that haters diatribe), while still completely stonewalling and making misstatements to donors.
I definitely see what I call Party Line holding in his answers. I will grant him that this is his role though. But I do not read him to be stonewalling. Reading him one could say he is "politely answering" with the same answers that before this fans have been Banned, Hit Over The Head With and Beaten Down With vitriol in reply, threatened with a lawsuit, mocked, or ad hominem diatribe employed. But that, in and of itself is new. And important. And has long been needed.
He is also saying things like (paraphrasing) 'Yup, you're right that a non-donor has the same valid right to voice concerns as a donor and we are addressing this problem'... and such. I've seen where he's basically said 'Our bad for doing that wrong. We will do better'.
Now what I think, is that we are not going to get all that many (if any) 'new' answers to these questions that keep concerning us. I don't think he is in a position to give them. Here's the thing though, for me at least, he doesn't seem to be dismissing anyone's need to ask them. And they are getting on that site so it doesn't look anymore like blue birds and lollypopville. It isn't (as yet) censured. It reads more balanced. Supporters, non-supporters, detractors, fanatic pro, people with questions, undying supporters, issues raised, praises sung. An actual cross section of fan sentiment rather than an All I See Is Luv Luv Luv from The Fans (implying Trek 'Fandom' at large) site previously being claimed. All points of view or interest. It's a dialogue that has not been allowed since... when was it the Star Trek: Axanar thread started to crash and burn? Well, since then.
So probably on each particular question you may be thinking should/could be asked... I'd say they are being allowed to be asked. The answers though, on the 'where's the money' & 'why the studio' & 'how come the salaries' & 'why????' etc. are still going to be Party Line and will not satisfy.
But everything asked (as far as I seen) seems to be showing up. There was one poster who asked politely 'where's my post' and Mr. Bawden pleasantly directed him to where it was posted.
As far as his power extends, the talking to us, allowing us to talk and everything, it's going more than reasonably well so far.
Last edited:
I can think of another reason why she might be sticking with the case: she (or her firm) is being paid.
AFAIK, pro bono is treated differently depending where you are. But where I work, we do pro bono work for nearly all our clients. The rub is, if your case stays with us and goes beyond the initial interview+advice+occasional-follow-up-if-we-can't-deal-with-it-on-the-day, then we start charging.
So for eg. I can take on a client and interview them. I can then give them some intial advice, write up some letters or forms, do some research for them, and even represent them in a hearing if it's a minor enough (for eg. Traffic or Bail). And I will probably do all that pro bono.
But if the client needs more help and chooses to stay with us, then I'll open a file and the case will usually be passed on to another solicitor more specialised in that area (or who just has the time). That persons work, even though we're both from the same place, won't be pro bono.
It's entirely possible Ranahan got this case got dumped on her lap and now has to keep Alec happy. It he doesn't like what's she's doing, then the firm could lose a paying client.
AFAIK, pro bono is treated differently depending where you are. But where I work, we do pro bono work for nearly all our clients. The rub is, if your case stays with us and goes beyond the initial interview+advice+occasional-follow-up-if-we-can't-deal-with-it-on-the-day, then we start charging.
So for eg. I can take on a client and interview them. I can then give them some intial advice, write up some letters or forms, do some research for them, and even represent them in a hearing if it's a minor enough (for eg. Traffic or Bail). And I will probably do all that pro bono.
But if the client needs more help and chooses to stay with us, then I'll open a file and the case will usually be passed on to another solicitor more specialised in that area (or who just has the time). That persons work, even though we're both from the same place, won't be pro bono.
It's entirely possible Ranahan got this case got dumped on her lap and now has to keep Alec happy. It he doesn't like what's she's doing, then the firm could lose a paying client.
Last edited:
Well if he is at least letting them talk that is something. Perhaps criticism about their walled garden which they couldn't control had something to do with them changing. If we helped pop off that lid so donors could speak to each other, we accomplished something in all this.
My previous assessment of this fellow was based upon his haters screed and an impression that the website was still we-will-disappear-you land. I still think his attempt to paint disreputable motivations for almost all critics was unacceptable business conduct, but if he is taking control from Alec and allowing donors to talk, that mitigates it a little.
Now they need to be repeatedly directed to the 'hater' websites (1701news, g&t, axamonitor), perhaps in signatures if Facebook has such a thing.
My previous assessment of this fellow was based upon his haters screed and an impression that the website was still we-will-disappear-you land. I still think his attempt to paint disreputable motivations for almost all critics was unacceptable business conduct, but if he is taking control from Alec and allowing donors to talk, that mitigates it a little.
Now they need to be repeatedly directed to the 'hater' websites (1701news, g&t, axamonitor), perhaps in signatures if Facebook has such a thing.
Last edited:
If Axanar Productions is paying them full out on this then I'd imagine they will be in a very awkward place very soon given fundraising is paused and they probably are paying salaries and rent and to film their 'making of' film and going to conventions and etc.
At a minimum they would have to start priming their donors for an 'attorney expenses' fundraiser, and that's assuming they come out of it able to make a film so they can justify fans paying the attorneys.
They probably are paying expenses regardless of whether they are getting a pass on billable hours for the duration.
Mike has been very polite and respectful to people, one on one. Even jovial within the Facebook group. I'd definitely have a beer with him [insert drink of choice].
The trouble with his diatribe was him zooming out and impugning the motives of an entire group of people with a broad brush, under the cover of delineating them under seven categories, making it seem like an entirely reasonable approach.
But the premise — that everyone in that group wants to "tear down" Axanar or "hates" Alec Peters — is inherently flawed, using his desired conclusion instead as his premise. Is there truth lodged within his seven categories? Indeed. I could myself point to individual examples illustrating each of his seven types of detractors. But the question is, do they all add up to those seven categories? Of course not. I could just as easily find people who don't fit any of those categories.
Moreover, his list doesn't merely categorize behavior, it describes motivations which — unless he has ESP — Mike can't really know. For each accurately described behavior he ascribes his theoretical motivation and applies it to every single person who behaves in that particular way, then finds a way to dismiss them.
For myself, I can see that I must fall into his group number 6 —
Since my website, AxaMonitor.com, has no advertising, clearly no commercial advantage accrues to me. That leaves, of course, only one other motivation in Mike's estimation. Surely, what drives me is "having the ability to drive people to [my] website," offering me "a sense of control that can be intoxicating." So I'm either a greedy bastard or a control freak drunk on power. Not a very broad spectrum of motivation Mike offers me: I can only be evil, or more evil.
In fact, he sums up all the detractors as either being people who feel they've been unfairly wronged and who can make appeals to a kinder, gentler Axanar, or being "bullies, harassers and conspiracy theorists." There's no room in the world he describes for Axanar's supporters for anyone who simply wants to hold Axanar accountable to the standards of openness and transparency with which it touts itself, for anyone who cares about how the professional, commercial venture trading off CBS and Paramount's property — the studios' words, not mine — imperils all other fan films.
I take Mike at his word that he zealously represents his client because he cares about the project, that he wants to see Axanar made, that it embodies an idea of Star Trek that thousands of fans want to see brought to life. I don't see why he can't offer me the same courtesy, instead seeking to discredit what I've published about Axanar by impugning my motivations. Why not engage my critiques on their merits, with logic and facts and open discussion?
He has never once pointed to anything on AxaMonitor and said, "That's wrong. That's inaccurate. That's unfair." Despite the meticulous sourcing of each article, no objection of substance has ever been lodged that I haven't answered. Instead, we see the setup of a straw man "detractor," motivated by greed or narcissism or some intoxicating mixture of both, easily dismissed. It appears to be more convenient to attack that opponent than one who brings facts to bear, and critical questions and a sincere desire to see fan productions survive this debacle.
The trouble with his diatribe was him zooming out and impugning the motives of an entire group of people with a broad brush, under the cover of delineating them under seven categories, making it seem like an entirely reasonable approach.
But the premise — that everyone in that group wants to "tear down" Axanar or "hates" Alec Peters — is inherently flawed, using his desired conclusion instead as his premise. Is there truth lodged within his seven categories? Indeed. I could myself point to individual examples illustrating each of his seven types of detractors. But the question is, do they all add up to those seven categories? Of course not. I could just as easily find people who don't fit any of those categories.
Moreover, his list doesn't merely categorize behavior, it describes motivations which — unless he has ESP — Mike can't really know. For each accurately described behavior he ascribes his theoretical motivation and applies it to every single person who behaves in that particular way, then finds a way to dismiss them.
For myself, I can see that I must fall into his group number 6 —
A select few of the "detractors" who have found their posts and claims about Axanar Productions, Alec and Rob drive traffic to their websites. Is there a commercial advantage to doing so? If there is one, I can’t believe it’s too much of one – the audience involved here is pretty small – but having the ability to drive people to your website gives one a sense of control that can be intoxicating.
Since my website, AxaMonitor.com, has no advertising, clearly no commercial advantage accrues to me. That leaves, of course, only one other motivation in Mike's estimation. Surely, what drives me is "having the ability to drive people to [my] website," offering me "a sense of control that can be intoxicating." So I'm either a greedy bastard or a control freak drunk on power. Not a very broad spectrum of motivation Mike offers me: I can only be evil, or more evil.
In fact, he sums up all the detractors as either being people who feel they've been unfairly wronged and who can make appeals to a kinder, gentler Axanar, or being "bullies, harassers and conspiracy theorists." There's no room in the world he describes for Axanar's supporters for anyone who simply wants to hold Axanar accountable to the standards of openness and transparency with which it touts itself, for anyone who cares about how the professional, commercial venture trading off CBS and Paramount's property — the studios' words, not mine — imperils all other fan films.
I take Mike at his word that he zealously represents his client because he cares about the project, that he wants to see Axanar made, that it embodies an idea of Star Trek that thousands of fans want to see brought to life. I don't see why he can't offer me the same courtesy, instead seeking to discredit what I've published about Axanar by impugning my motivations. Why not engage my critiques on their merits, with logic and facts and open discussion?
He has never once pointed to anything on AxaMonitor and said, "That's wrong. That's inaccurate. That's unfair." Despite the meticulous sourcing of each article, no objection of substance has ever been lodged that I haven't answered. Instead, we see the setup of a straw man "detractor," motivated by greed or narcissism or some intoxicating mixture of both, easily dismissed. It appears to be more convenient to attack that opponent than one who brings facts to bear, and critical questions and a sincere desire to see fan productions survive this debacle.
Last edited:
Carlos, he is using the same to-atoms-and-reconstruct-to-justify-a-desired-argument approach as W&S. And its just the Alec 'haters' argument made up with a cloak of pseudo-analysis based on this misused analytical approach.
Even *if* any particular person has any particular motivation, this has NOTHING to do with the intellectual validity of the arguments they present. THIS is the flaw, and it is intentional. And it is worth being angry about.
He needs to answer with facts and records the intellectual content of the questions and criticism. Period.
Example: why does Alec keep saying they are operating as a nonprofit and even approved already as a nonprofit (somewhere) when there is no evidence presented of this? What are the filing actions that have taken place? What has Axanar prepared and submitted in a 501(c)3 application? How can for profit activities done with the donor money under the Axanar Productions umbrella be described as the activities of a public-good nonprofit?
The answer to such questions is NOT "the transition to nonprofit status is in progress and we are operating as a nonprofit because we say we are and if you can't accept that you must be one of the 7 categories of haters, but THANK YOU for your question!".
Even *if* any particular person has any particular motivation, this has NOTHING to do with the intellectual validity of the arguments they present. THIS is the flaw, and it is intentional. And it is worth being angry about.
He needs to answer with facts and records the intellectual content of the questions and criticism. Period.
Example: why does Alec keep saying they are operating as a nonprofit and even approved already as a nonprofit (somewhere) when there is no evidence presented of this? What are the filing actions that have taken place? What has Axanar prepared and submitted in a 501(c)3 application? How can for profit activities done with the donor money under the Axanar Productions umbrella be described as the activities of a public-good nonprofit?
The answer to such questions is NOT "the transition to nonprofit status is in progress and we are operating as a nonprofit because we say we are and if you can't accept that you must be one of the 7 categories of haters, but THANK YOU for your question!".
Last edited:
Great post - and there is a simple answer to your questions: Mike isn't trying to construct a sound argument or win a debate. His job is to take the facts and spin/ignore/restate/selectively emphasize them in such a way to portray his client in the best light and to follow his client's instructions - which in this case appear to be "keep as many donors as possible in the fold." Fostering an "Us versus Them" attitude is an excellent way to keep donors from waking up and realizing they have been duped.
So the answers in both cases as to why the attorneys and PR people here are making false statements is, they choose to self define their jobs as being exempt from accountability for their statements as long as the client ordered the act. Kinda like Alec self defines his story as not accountable to copyright as long as the fans ordered the act.
I fully understand that the professions serve a purpose within the debatable areas of human opinion. But these folks just don't seem to be drawing any lines. Vulcans are not copyrightable? Copyright doesn't apply because CBS wouldn't set explicit boundaries? What is up with these people? Sure, I know attorneys throw whatever they can at the wall in the hope some of it squeaks through, but don't these people look at some of the stuff they are selling and say "even we can't say that"?
Last edited:
The issue is - It's NOT the PR guy's job to tell the truth. it's his job to spin whatever narrative is being put forth in the best most favorable way to the client (in this case Axanar Productions and Alec Peters.) If he can do that by telling the truth (impossible in this situation, but still); so much the better - but make no mistake - his job is to put the most positive spin on ANY issue raised and deflect or confuse the issue if that can't be done for certain situations. The actual person doing Axanar's PR is doing a hell of a good job right now, I must admit. A good PR man doesn't necessarily or actually believe everything he's saying; BUT he needs to come across like he believes in everything he's saying on his client's behalf.
That's true of anyone (PR person, CEO, hell the Janitor) making public statements for an organized group or company.
- Status