CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
Well, I note that the “open and fair” approach ant Mike Bawden seemed to have been taking last week on the Axanar blog (as noted by @BillJ and others) seems to have stopped pretty quickly. Last April 6, I responded to the following comment made by Mike under the “Kobayashi Maru” post:
by noting that C/P did not only tell Alec to stop (see that pesky lawsuit), but actually notified him that it was asking the court to issue an order to him to stop (note that pesky request for injunctive relief). I then stated that “Suing someone for copyright infringement and asking for $150k per infraction is not telling someone to stop, it’s a stick-up. Sitting down with someone and telling them why you want them to stop is the appropriate course of action” was really just another way of saying “we will view something as ‘being told to stop’ if it is presented in the way we want to hear it, and we will only consider it if we get to argue why we shouldn’t have to stop on our own terms.” I then said “’no’ means ‘no’ - even if you don’t like the reasons for the ‘no’ or how you are told ‘no’”. But I said all of this in a very respectful manner with a request for Mike to respond.
A week later, my comment has still not been approved for publication, though others (favorable to Axanar) submitted in the days since have been. So, make of that what you will.
Looking forward to the outcome of @carlosp ’s discussion with Mike via Trekzone.
M
by noting that C/P did not only tell Alec to stop (see that pesky lawsuit), but actually notified him that it was asking the court to issue an order to him to stop (note that pesky request for injunctive relief). I then stated that “Suing someone for copyright infringement and asking for $150k per infraction is not telling someone to stop, it’s a stick-up. Sitting down with someone and telling them why you want them to stop is the appropriate course of action” was really just another way of saying “we will view something as ‘being told to stop’ if it is presented in the way we want to hear it, and we will only consider it if we get to argue why we shouldn’t have to stop on our own terms.” I then said “’no’ means ‘no’ - even if you don’t like the reasons for the ‘no’ or how you are told ‘no’”. But I said all of this in a very respectful manner with a request for Mike to respond.
A week later, my comment has still not been approved for publication, though others (favorable to Axanar) submitted in the days since have been. So, make of that what you will.
Looking forward to the outcome of @carlosp ’s discussion with Mike via Trekzone.
M
I also have a response to that particular comment in "awaiting moderation". It has been there since April 5th.
I figure it is because you're not allowed to tell them they did anything wrong. I posted that it wasn't CBS' fault that the budget ballooned out of control.
***
Mike,
I think we both know that $150k per infringement is nothing for multi-billion dollar corporations like CBS and Paramount. That amount is probably floating around Les Moonves’ couch cushions.
They are a penalty to discourage others from doing what Mr. Peters is doing here, making a living off of fan donations. A message to those who think Mr. Peters has stumbled onto a gold mine. How anyone can say that Mr. Peters didn’t go too far when he was selling merchandise and coffee based on CBS’ IP is beyond me.
I do think I would take notice if the toys I was using were owned by someone else and that someone else went publicly on record as saying they were investigating their options to protect their toys. Also, “continue” can cover past as well as present and future tense. If they are continuing something, it means it started sometime in the past.
One final point, I don’t believe Alec Peters, not for a moment, would stop at this point. He is in way to deep, to the tune of $1.2 million dollars and very little, if any, of that money is left. I guarantee it.
Just a by-the-by…
I would be totally for CBS/Paramount dropping this suit and allowing Axanar to go forward, if it could be done on the funds that have already been raised, with no further fundraising of any kind. Axanar was originally suppose to be done for several hundred-thousand dollars and they past that total a long time ago. It isn’t CBS fault that this project ballooned out of control.
Bill Jasper
***
Mike,
I think we both know that $150k per infringement is nothing for multi-billion dollar corporations like CBS and Paramount. That amount is probably floating around Les Moonves’ couch cushions.
They are a penalty to discourage others from doing what Mr. Peters is doing here, making a living off of fan donations. A message to those who think Mr. Peters has stumbled onto a gold mine. How anyone can say that Mr. Peters didn’t go too far when he was selling merchandise and coffee based on CBS’ IP is beyond me.
I do think I would take notice if the toys I was using were owned by someone else and that someone else went publicly on record as saying they were investigating their options to protect their toys. Also, “continue” can cover past as well as present and future tense. If they are continuing something, it means it started sometime in the past.
One final point, I don’t believe Alec Peters, not for a moment, would stop at this point. He is in way to deep, to the tune of $1.2 million dollars and very little, if any, of that money is left. I guarantee it.
Just a by-the-by…
I would be totally for CBS/Paramount dropping this suit and allowing Axanar to go forward, if it could be done on the funds that have already been raised, with no further fundraising of any kind. Axanar was originally suppose to be done for several hundred-thousand dollars and they past that total a long time ago. It isn’t CBS fault that this project ballooned out of control.
Bill Jasper
You're confusing two different people. There was a dentist with a Star Trek office. The juror worked elsewhere.
Neil
If they had built sets instead of decorating plush offices we would be watching the film now...
It was terrific though. Patients exhibited more smiles in the waiting rooms, conversations were more upbeat and animated. And they were happy in their profession, with general dentistry being one of the most stressful fields in the medical profession on both the dentist & peripheral trained practitioners there, indeed as well as the patients.
Their office was not child's play any more than are children's hospitals which are becoming extremely playfully themed in decorations and worker superficial clothing that implies no lie to the medical training and professionalism of the people their doing their jobs there.
Regarding uniform vs costume in such a venue I don't see a distinction as starfleet is fictional, doctor whites and nurse/tech scrubs medical costumes. And while scrubs do indeed have utilitarian construct the decorative nature does not. Were they to be printed with balloons & teddy bears as has become normal, or StarTrek insignias, the intent to bring lightness of heart to the dark places where we find ourselves most vulnerable when our bodies betray our health. Many doctors themselves have begun choosing to specifically not wear whites anymore because of some patients' reactions to here comes the [pain/suffering/etc] associated to them.
My own grandson became afraid of band aids, band aids, that he began to associate with pain & needles because of many necessary procedures over his years to improve his condition... that always had a band aid applied after each procedure. Band aids.
That a dentist practice has the vision or intent to interrupt these tiny associations with fear, discomfort, pain I find extremely admirable and inventive. Rather than walking out of such a place I find myself more inclined to trust and appreciate that in fact they see deeper into their patients' needs that goes beyond the procedure itself.
Last edited:
Oh, sorry, you are right.
But they got their furniture at Ikea!
Chuckle. Mike Bawden's purpose was to represent his client, so I am not surprised it didn't take long for him to become a two-faced, disingenuous, manipulative, and cowardly hack.
In theory, one way CBS could officially allow fan films is by having them apply for, and receive a very strictly limited license that permits them to ONLY make NON COMMERCIAL fan films. With an included provision that A) the license is not carte blanche to make Star Trek works, and B) that CBS has the right to cancel the project and revoke the license at any time, with no explanation required. And if you don't like it, you have the right to be sued.
This license would not grant permission to make a commercial film, it would not be permitted to be distributed through commercial channels (i.e. TV, Cinema, Amazon/Netflix etc).
Of course it will never happen; as long as CBS maintains that NO ONE BUT THEM can produce Star Trek works, it's far easier to simply pick and choose where to enforce it than open it up to a mess like Axanar.
This license would not grant permission to make a commercial film, it would not be permitted to be distributed through commercial channels (i.e. TV, Cinema, Amazon/Netflix etc).
Of course it will never happen; as long as CBS maintains that NO ONE BUT THEM can produce Star Trek works, it's far easier to simply pick and choose where to enforce it than open it up to a mess like Axanar.
That is disturbing to me. I'm finding no positive way I can interpret it.
There isn't. Just more message control to keep the ever shrinking pool of donors and potential donors from being exposed to the facts that would make them close their wallets for good.
Exactly. It's controlling. It's dishonest. And if they actually had anything to stand on, it would be entirely unnecessary.
If someone's only response to critics is to silence them, ask questions and don't stop. They don't deserve your trust.
Agreed.
Well, the correlation here is (to me) pretty clear. They posted a link to that blog on the Axanar Facebook page as a "another good article on the lawsuit." Just as they don't want the waters muddied by troublesome comments on a post on the Axanar Productions page, they even moreso don't want the increased visibility those comments would get to the larger Facebook audience who might access the blog via the Facebook page.
M
M
So if someone were to steal Mike's car, the way to resolve that would be to sit down with the thief and find a way that is mutually beneficial to both the thief and Mike. What planet do these people live on? They're bootleggers who got caught in the act (it wasn't difficult to spot) and when asked to stop, they didn't. Instead they concoct excuses that don't stand up to any level of scrutiny.Mike Bawden said:
Neil
P.S. This is the first post on page 717 and my birthday is July 17. Coincidence?
Join the crowd as I replied in a similar fashion an my comment too is "Awaiting Moderation" -- bu again, I give the PR guy props as he IS doing his job by answering a few of the 'more challenging' questions (that aren't all that challenging per se, but also aren't the "Axanar is 100% 'right' here - Alec Peters and Co are now the ONLY ONES who get how to do Star Trek..." variety. <--- This makes it seem that they don't delete/ignore every single sub 100% positive comment
Bottom line: They still basically want the positive 'echo chamber'; but it's still a bunch of smoke and mirrors. But hey that's why you get a PR guy.
There are no coincidences.
They live on the planet of "comfortable fiction" - the fiction being that CBS/P will eventually wise up and realize how much amazing value a horribly run, incredibly derivative, naked money grab of a production brings to the Star Trek brand.
I thought about giving him a some of his own medicine by making him await moderation to post into the CBS v. Axanar Facebook page. But 1) Facebook doesn't let you do it to just one person; 2) I won't stoop to that hack's level.
- Status