the Crooked Narcissists Network?
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
the Crooked Narcissists Network?
Helfino, but my guess is we'll just see an order at the end of it.
May 9th will mean I am (hopefully) finally done with classwork. It will be the day before Mr. jespah and I go to Cape Cod.
I may get sand in the blog.
I admit I don't know what I'm talking about half the time! But whilst I might be spouting rubbish, the fact that you've taken the the time out to correct my mistakes, in a friendly rather than condescending manner, only confirms my love for this particular forum. I learn as I go along.
The potential catch I can see here is that Klingon, in and of itself (without considering the setting it's used in) is just a language. If the law says that languages don't fall under copyright (I wouldn't know; I haven't been following this argument closely enough), then unless it specifically states actively used languages, this argument might actually prevail.
As an interesting exercise, consider the scenario where some author somewhere writes a screenplay, entirely in Klingon. If the screenplay itself, the ideas it expresses, have nothing whatsoever to do with Star Trek beyond the language it's written in, what is its legal status? Does that truly original work lose copyright protection just because it's written in a language that itself is thought to be copyrighted?
I have no answer to that. Just playing devil's advocate for a bit.
I was thinking the same thing. Are they renting the hardware, or do they own it and that's the credit-card bill? Or was that $250 for the ISP, which would be very high even for a business connection. And $100 per month for the electrical bill is a little high, is it not?
To quote the Dowry Countess: Vulgarity is no substitute for wit.
That's okay, because I suspect more than half the people posting don't know what they're talking about, either. At least you admit it.
Quick! Someone turn that into a Bilbo quote.
That makes my head hurt a bit, but I keep coming back to the fact that the "language" itself was never just "put out there" like Esperanto for the use of the public, but published and sold for profit in a book bearing a notice of copyright. I'd be inclined to think Paramount could make the author use a different language if it wanted to.The potential catch I can see here is that Klingon, in and of itself (without considering the setting it's used in) is just a language. If the law says that languages don't fall under copyright (I wouldn't know; I haven't been following this argument closely enough), then unless it specifically states actively used languages, this argument might actually prevail.
As an interesting exercise, consider the scenario where some author somewhere writes a screenplay, entirely in Klingon. If the screenplay itself, the ideas it expresses, have nothing whatsoever to do with Star Trek beyond the language it's written in, what is its legal status? Does that truly original work lose copyright protection just because it's written in a language that itself is thought to be copyrighted?
I have no answer to that. Just playing devil's advocate for a bit.
^^^^^ Oh, good point.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In the Language Creation Society amicus curiae, they quote (I suspect out of context) a Supreme Court ruling stating “To this end, copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work . . . It is the means by which copyright advances the progress of science and art.” On face value, this is in direct conflict with black-letter law regarding derivative copyrights. No??
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In the Language Creation Society amicus curiae, they quote (I suspect out of context) a Supreme Court ruling stating “To this end, copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work . . . It is the means by which copyright advances the progress of science and art.” On face value, this is in direct conflict with black-letter law regarding derivative copyrights. No??
Last edited:
Not really, no. Colocation has a totally different pricing expectation than a typical connection into a home or business. As a simple example, you're not just paying for "power". You're most likely paying for "redundant power circuits, with battery backups, which are themselves backed up by diesel generators."
That said, colocation isn't generally cost-effective for something Axanar's size these days unless there's a lot of bandwidth involved. Since I have no actual knowledge of their traffic levels, and haven't analyzed the amount of data they're serving per hit, I can't really speculate on whether it was really a good choice in any informed manner.
$250/month is actually fairly low-end for colocation. That would probably include a small amount of space in someone's datacenter, an internet uplink that probably provides ten or twenty megabits of bandwidth (though that can vary widely depending on the provider), and a few amps worth of redundant power. I would guess based on his comments that he actually does own the servers; as I said, it's most likely to be only one or two, and they're not all that expensive, especially if you're buying white-box stuff.
I keep thinking about a case that I heard about, which I unfortunately don't have any references to (maybe one of our resident lawyers might?). It was along the lines of a phone company suing someone for copyright infringement for producing a phone book (maybe Pac Bell vs. the Donnelly Directory people or something? Not sure).
If I recall correctly, the court basically ruled that the phone numbers and names and such couldn't be copyrighted because it was just a collection of data, but the specific arrangement of that data in that particular phone book was, in fact, eligible. I really wish I could remember the details, as that sounds like it could possibly be relevant to the scenario I proposed.
Basically, the idea would be that the book that they published with the language is copyrightable, but because it's a language, anything else written in it would not infringe on that copyright unless it was a direct copy of the book in question. Or something.
Some days, I'm really glad I'm not a lawyer.
Okay, I went back and re-read the posting. I had remembered it wrong. He said he owns and operates all the hardware, and the $250/month is $150 for ISP (about right for a business account, I think) and $100 for the "increased electrical usage" (which still seems high to me if it's just the electric bill because that's more than I pay for my whole house).
Joining this conversation late but I do know that most California courts permit cameras on a very limited basis.
My guess is that there will be zero media coverage of this story with the only communication coming from Axanar's people (and only if they so choose).
In my humble opinion (again joining this discussion on page 776 and not having reviewed earlier comments), it would be wiser for the two litigants to enter settlement discussions this week. This case needs to go away fast or the consequences on the Axanar people could be financially and legally devastating.
Hello. Would you expand on that a bit? Is the financial devastation you foresee due to costs outside of what the pro bono covers beginning to accrue in earnest at this point in the case process?
Though the more interesting to me of the two reasons you mention is the legal devastation. I would like to hear more of your thoughts on the urgency you see to enter settlement discussions this week due to consequences from further delay possibly being legally devastating.
Last edited:
This is largely speculation as to logical conclusions of the participants.
One thing that is not speculative is that California has laws against recording people without their consent. In the case of the interview, AP was on-camera and knew he was being recorded and filmed.
As just a viewer, I felt rather uncomfortable viewing the interview because the person on the phone (Bawden?) did not explicitly get told that he was being filmed and recorded.
For California citizens (not sure about other states), it is in fact illegal for a party to audio record a conversation without first informing the party being recorded that they are in fact being recorded.
When you are calling a customer service line or some huge corporation, California citizens can actually tell that company to turn off their recording (i.e. recording "for quality control purposes only").
In the case of the youtube video posted, the author and interview host is recording and knows that he is recording but does not appear to inform "Bawden" or Alex Peters that the camera is not "off the record". By all rights, the tape should have been stopped.
With all due respect to the reporter, Peters clearly stated that he was Off The Record. But, to invoke the California law, the California citizen must state that they do not want to be recorded at all and that the recording must stop. Peters did not do this.
No, definitely not. Could they have spiked at maybe 20,000 uniques a few times? Sure. But there's no way they are generating 3 million uniques a month. Definitely not. There are only 10,000 donors, and let's say that they defied convention and 70 percent of them are visiting the site every day (it's probably closer to 12 percent), that's 7,000 uniques a day.
Even "Prelude" on YouTube has 2 million views. And those aren't unique — but somehow the website is pulling in 3 million on average? Per month?
I think you might be severely over-estimating.
I mean, what would be pulling even the donors there each day? Peters' daily blog? The same one he shares on their Facebook pages (thus not even requiring those who are donors to visit the website?) There is no other new content for them to visit. I don't even visit my own sites every day, let alone someone else's.I believe Axanar's traffic is closer to 5,000 average uniques per day, and that's being generous. I do believe there were spikes in traffic, especially when they get media mention, and it might be trending a little higher now because of the Klingon silliness. But by higher, I mean, their average might have been pushed up to 7,000 per day.
There is nothing really changing on the site. Yes, there could be an increase in traffic out of curiosity of what was read or seen in the news, but those are flashes — not sustained. You hear about something on the news, you might look it up online. You might read through it, and then you move on to the next thing, and maybe never go back to that site again.
That's actually quite typical.
Also, someone else suggested they were hosting the video for Prelude on the site? First, if they are, that's even more silly than anything else. Why host the video, when you can put it up on YouTube, and not have to give up any bandwidth.
A decade ago, it wasn't the best thing to use YouTube. But now it's perfectly fine. And probably even preferable.
Our old ad company with Airlock Alpha wanted us to use their player so they could feed ads into it. We used it for a while, but even back then, YouTube was a far better option.
"On the Record/Off the Record" interviews are only as secure and honored as the integrity of the Participants. Along with so much else in this "Theater of the Bizarre", Integrity and Honor seem to have lost their way to Obfuscation and Deflection.
What a shame this "Replicator" is doling out such bad tasting fare.
What a shame this "Replicator" is doling out such bad tasting fare.
I am unclear on where the above information was obtained. Regardless, it is rather inaccurate.
Application for 501c3 may be made at any time. The only issue in review is the specific 501c subchapter and the expressed definition of the organization's non-profit activities.
Regarding "public good", IRS does review this specific definition. Peters may be attempting to qualify for a 501c3 IRS exemption. If an organization is an educational organization, then on can claim "fair use" on copyright if such "fair use" involves specific aspects of educational curriculum, critical analysis, or subjective review.
This issue of fair use is a critical element in the review of Copyright issues, especially in the context of cases occurring in the state of California.
This person's comments match my logic as well.
Settlement terms are negotiated between the parties. However, both litigants usually want to dismiss the case, get the legal matter behind them, and move on with their lives. If the settlement is NOT confidential, then either party can use the case as a future argument against the other party. Therefore, counsel usually include confidentiality clauses and non-disparagement clauses.
One way out of this (long-shot obviously) is if Peters really has the money can actually use this money to truly license the product in a fashion which gets him out of the jam, allows commercialization within the parameters defined by CBS, and has sufficient margin to permit completion of the project. With the state of the matter, this "best case scenario" is really not going to happen.
More likely, Axanar will never be resurrected with all donors losing their money and Peters needing to find another line of work.
- Status