By helping in the office, thats aid and comfort
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
By helping in the office, thats aid and comfort
Irrelevant to what everyone is objecting to, talking about the personal lives of anyone outside of their activities for the Axanar project. That isn't included in any "fair game" scope you could define. Didn't the 16 likes and growing on the first objection to your comment make any impression? No talking about personal lives outside the Axanar project. Its not anyone's business here.
Nothing she does or doesn't do on Axanar opens her up to sexist and defamatory comments about her private life. That is never 'fair game' with anyone. If you wish to discuss or criticise her involvement in Axanar, or Propworx, or anything else related to the topic, that is reasonable. But just leave the sleazy remarks alone.
I never made any sexist comments - others may think there were such comments, of course, but I never made them
Last edited:
Ok, you don't see it. But every other person here is telling you they see it, and you ignore it because you personally have a different opinion. Isn't ignoring everyone what got Alec in trouble? Maybe listening would be a better path.
@HMS Ark Royal
You have made some funny and some serious posts that really contributed to this thread, I'll give you that. And, for sure, you've recognized how well received those posts were.
Maybe time to rethink the strategy of making snarky remarks that seeminlgy cross the lines here, even if you wouldn't see them that way.
Thank you for considering.
You have made some funny and some serious posts that really contributed to this thread, I'll give you that. And, for sure, you've recognized how well received those posts were.
Maybe time to rethink the strategy of making snarky remarks that seeminlgy cross the lines here, even if you wouldn't see them that way.
Thank you for considering.
I'm a warship - crossing lines is my job
And we come in peace and only seek justice.
Good lord, man. Look, I've been lurking this thread for awhile and while I like the majority of your posts, sometimes you go over the line. Do you not see what you do? There comes a point in time where you just have to say "mea culpa." It has been asked DOZENS of times in this thread: Leave Diana and Alec's new girl out of it. What do you choose to do? Exacerbate it. Be offensive. Ignore a lot of friendly advice. Make jokes of the situation. It's just being asked that you to take a step back and look at what you're saying.
That's not clever and it's unwarranted.
Not many people in this topic like Peters. Your continual self-dramatizing, grudge-bearing attempt to demonstrate that you're the Greatest Axanar Opponent of them all is tiresome.
I think you're crossing a line with the repetitive crude sexual innuendos that have nothing to do with the thread topic. Come on man, you're better than that.
Your repeated allusions to their personal lives says very much otherwise.
Cross the wrong line too many times, and a lone warship tends to find itself torn apart and rapidly descending to the bottom of the ocean.
Just sayin'
We don't know that for sure.
(Sincere apologies. It was there--I had to use it.)
Who knows...
Well I have read the amicus curiae for the Klingon language, and while the arguments are interesting and entertaining, I am left with the feeling that this is another case of consumers of an intellectual product deciding that they are going to expropriate it for their enjoyment, just as happened with Axanar.
Klingon was not put out into the world as Esperanto, an offering without conditions intended to ease communication between different language groups. Klingon was put out into the world as an artifact of an entertainment production. Its dictionary was published as an entertainment artifact.
The AC authors argue that none of that matters because now, people have expropriated that property and are engaging in activities which, devoid of context, could not be in the reach of copyright. The AC authors argue that new vocabulary was not part of the original films and therefore not part of the studio's scope of copyright, even though the new vocabulary needed to conform with the existing canon of the dictionary and prior Klingon uses.
When you look at it, you see Axanar mentality all over again. That is, the assertion that anyone proclaiming themselves the 'true holders of true meaning' of the IP are not subject to copyright; and that creating stories which derive from the entire canon, but supposedly are primarily adding new material, are also not subject to copyright because the IP holder hasn't gotten around to that story.
I think what C/P will need to do is get specific that they own everything in the published works they copyrighted and licensed, the dictionary and Orkrand's other books, and any additional grammatical or pronunciation precedents were set in the media works that also lay groundwork for substantial similarity analysis. They need to show that the Axanar content bears substantial similarity to these works, not everything every fan ever invented. They need to keep the question focused on this, not on whether an entire language is copyrightable.
A key part of the WS and AC analyses is the point where they claim that because C/P didn't explicitly say they were laying claim to their copyright works (like the dictionary) specifically, that C/P *must* be claiming everything about Klingon. This is easily remedied by C/P stating a clarification that they lay claim to the content of the works they had done for hire or licensed.
An interesting side point made by someone on the HR site's coverage is that if you don't allow for constructed languages in entertainment to be protected, there won't be any, because the studios won't pay for it.
I have no doubt there are examples of IP being expropriated by interest groups throughout recent history. Sometimes it may be successful. C/P need to stay away from being sucked into this broader question, which as a defense strategy is a way to entangle the IP theft case in a sideshow.
Klingon was not put out into the world as Esperanto, an offering without conditions intended to ease communication between different language groups. Klingon was put out into the world as an artifact of an entertainment production. Its dictionary was published as an entertainment artifact.
The AC authors argue that none of that matters because now, people have expropriated that property and are engaging in activities which, devoid of context, could not be in the reach of copyright. The AC authors argue that new vocabulary was not part of the original films and therefore not part of the studio's scope of copyright, even though the new vocabulary needed to conform with the existing canon of the dictionary and prior Klingon uses.
When you look at it, you see Axanar mentality all over again. That is, the assertion that anyone proclaiming themselves the 'true holders of true meaning' of the IP are not subject to copyright; and that creating stories which derive from the entire canon, but supposedly are primarily adding new material, are also not subject to copyright because the IP holder hasn't gotten around to that story.
I think what C/P will need to do is get specific that they own everything in the published works they copyrighted and licensed, the dictionary and Orkrand's other books, and any additional grammatical or pronunciation precedents were set in the media works that also lay groundwork for substantial similarity analysis. They need to show that the Axanar content bears substantial similarity to these works, not everything every fan ever invented. They need to keep the question focused on this, not on whether an entire language is copyrightable.
A key part of the WS and AC analyses is the point where they claim that because C/P didn't explicitly say they were laying claim to their copyright works (like the dictionary) specifically, that C/P *must* be claiming everything about Klingon. This is easily remedied by C/P stating a clarification that they lay claim to the content of the works they had done for hire or licensed.
An interesting side point made by someone on the HR site's coverage is that if you don't allow for constructed languages in entertainment to be protected, there won't be any, because the studios won't pay for it.
I have no doubt there are examples of IP being expropriated by interest groups throughout recent history. Sometimes it may be successful. C/P need to stay away from being sucked into this broader question, which as a defense strategy is a way to entangle the IP theft case in a sideshow.
Last edited:
A low class and petty post.
This, minus the deleted text, is the definition of derivative copyright, is it not? People can claim all they want until they're blue in the face that it's not subject to copyright protection, but black-letter law says they are wrong Wrong WRONG.
- Status