Got it... so you and others childishly "gifted" him with the name because of his childish actions. Way to go by stooping down to *his* level. While this forum is a great place and I love plenty of the stuff posted here in other subforums, this thread in particular is very disappointing. If you have the weight of law on your side (AND I AGREE THAT WE DO... AND I PUT THAT IN BOLD CAPS SINCE THOSE STATEMENTS SEEM TO BE MISSED EASILY), you don't need to engage in name calling and mudslinging. It's an entirely voluntary choice and it reflects more on you than on the target. The "understanding" of the 1st Amendment posted here in this thread is as flawed as the most rabid Axanar Fan's "understanding" of fair use and yet somehow one gets a pass while the other doesn't.
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
Got it... so you and others childishly "gifted" him with the name because of his childish actions. Way to go by stooping down to *his* level. While this forum is a great place and I love plenty of the stuff posted here in other subforums, this thread in particular is very disappointing. If you have the weight of law on your side (AND I AGREE THAT WE DO... AND I PUT THAT IN BOLD CAPS SINCE THOSE STATEMENTS SEEM TO BE MISSED EASILY), you don't need to engage in name calling and mudslinging. It's an entirely voluntary choice and it reflects more on you than on the target. The "understanding" of the 1st Amendment posted here in this thread is as flawed as the most rabid Axanar Fan's "understanding" of fair use and yet somehow one gets a pass while the other doesn't.
It's hardly a "voluntary contract" nor a legal consumer right to refund practice when LFIM is holding a person's money hostage in exchange for their unconstitutional silence and their personal info. Why are you defending an illicit tactic that violates consumer's rights?
Apples and Oranges. The fact that's germane here is PRIOR to the lawsuit, Alec was charactering Axanar emphatically as NOT a fan film (and denigrating many fan films in the process.)
Ergo, it's now pretty disingenuous of him (and his attorney); to act like that never occurred (and remember this happened for over a year) and further that Alec Peters wants documents relating to how C/P treated other fans films to somehow now bolster a defense predicated on "Hey, Axanar was just another fan film..."
^^^
And such a defense in itself is irrelevant when talking about copyright law as the copyright holder is allowed top selectively prosecute as they see fit with no prejudice to their case under the law. (IE the fact that Axanar was the only group sued has ZERO bearing on the questions at hand, which are:
- Is what Axanar did Infringement of the Star Trek IP owned jointly by C/P?
- Did they further infringe by wholly commercializing aspects of their production without a license/explicit permission from the rights holders?
- Have they financially benefited (not just 'made a profit') from using the Star Trek IP without permission?
You DO realize that any language where someone includes "you can't speak or post anything negative online" has ALREADY been struck down by the California Supreme Court (and Axanar Productions being incorporated in CA is bound by that) - ergo, should Alec Peters attempt to enforce any such NDA in court; he's loose on the first motion to dismiss by the other party (we'll given it's $1000, when the other party or the Judge Pro Tem brings it up at the Small Claims hearing.)
Last edited:
So... no retraction of your 1st amendment violation claim? I like how you just skirted right past that in a fashion very reminiscent of modern politics without linking to any actual governmental involvement in silencing backers. It is, btw, a voluntary contract as no backer is required to sign it. That doesn't mean that I'm defending the NDA or Alec Peters or Axanar but rather refuting your ridiculous claim they're somehow violating the constitutional protection of free speech. I think signing that NDA would be stupid for most backers (unless they paid for one of the ridiculously high pledge levels mentioned and in desperate need of the money back immediately... which would beg the question why they'd fund a speculative kickstarter for that obscene amount in the first place if not financially secure). I also agree that it may potentially run afoul of various consumer protection laws. I also agree as per the terms of kickstarter at that time that backers are entitled to a refund (which isn't true of kickstarters that started after the company changed their terms of service quietly iirc in Oct 2014) if the show isn't ultimately produced. I have to state those things because you're apparently keen to jump to conclusions in a very black and white sort of manner without any basis in fact.
Link? I'm not familiar with CA state law and legal precedent (and neither is Red Shirt as he was referring to the US Constitution explicitly). If true, Red Shirt doesn't get brownie points for being "right" for the wrong reasons.
Um, I never said the government is silencing anyone, I said LFIM is trying to illegally silence people seeking a refund. Get your strawman arguments straight. lol.
You specifically claimed a 1st amendment violation as the basis for the illegality which involves the goverment by definition. It's not a strawman argument if you're proven to be completely ignorant of what you're actually invoking.
California law protects your right to post negative reviews online. See: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB2365
Yes I did mention quite loudly that LFIM's "NDA" is a violation of a citizen's First Amendment right to free speech. You're the one who keeps mentioning the government as a non-sequitur strawman due to you can't quote what I haven't said.
Thank you Jespah.
Where is my Monday Morning G&T youtube show?
You didn't say it because you choose to remain ignorant of it stubbornly. The 1st amendment protects your free speech FROM THE GOVERNMENT (specifically Congress but it's been expanded since 1791). Alec Peters is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution nor is Axanar. The NDA violates your 1st amendment as much as it does your 2nd amendment rights... which is to say that it doesn't. It may be illegal for OTHER reasons as I've already posted but that doesn't mean your 1st amendment rights are being violated.
I'm thinking this renders all discussion about the applicability of the 1st Amendment moot at this point.
Thanks for the link. I would point out that the first part of that refers to a good or services leased or sold.. words that are never mentioned in the kickstarter terms that all backers agree to. You're not buying, leasing, investing, gambling, or any other commonly used term. Crowdfunding is a legal quagmire at the moment and I await some sort of federal decision in determining exactly what it actually is. I didn't back Axanar but I backed another project that has been in limbo for two years for half the rewards with no end in sight (with no admission of failure like the only successfully sued creator had) and some clarity would be appreciated. I do hope that the courts ultimately determine that backers do purchase items in crowdfunding and are afforded all the rights that come with that.
A lot of people here think that a lot of the specific behaviors of Alec are ridiculous, to use your term. You seem in many ways to agree.
So let's investigate the word you choose to characterize the content you disagree with here:
https://www.google.com/search?q=ridiculous
How, for example, do you feel about Axanar countersuing the studios right after Abrams and Lin effectively offered an olive branch? The directors put the studios in a position where Axanar cooperation might well have led to a settlement without major financial damages, the best outcome I think most people here believe Axanar could hope for.
How do you feel about Axanar claiming that sending out a few thousand letters, a task comparable in every way to what many crowdfunded projects do promptly each year, which an infinite number of nonprofits do each year, is something that can't get done for years?
How do you feel about the noble person who wants to play the revered legend of early Trek resorting to every um, disingenuous legal maneuver in the book (such as reducto ad absurdum claims that you can't copyright the collective Vulcan qualities because each feature individually can't be copyrighted), instead of taking the high road and admitting he is in the wrong?
How do you feel about the manipulation of the fan film loophole to get a private studio out of donations and keep promising the fans they will get their film, we need just a bit more money, a bit more money?
Granted, Axamonitor documents this. But as a fan, how do you *feel* about it? Does the word ridiculous come to mind?
Last edited:
I would point out that if the 1st amendment *ACTUALLY* applied then there would have been no need for that state law. The fact that CA felt the need to enact such a consumer protection bill proves that the 1st amendment doesn't actually apply. It does render the discussion moot but for the opposite reason your post implies.
I'm wrong (ignorant in your words) premised on what I've never said?
I think you're just looking for a pointless argument for the sake of arguing pointlessly.I agree that Axanar's actions regarding this situation (including their conduct prior to the suit) are ridiculous. They overstepped both the law and the spirit in which fan films were made until that point (albeit in an escalating Fan Film arms race). CBS has every right to sue them and I don't think there is any merit to their defense. My point is that two wrongs don't make a right in reference to the consistent tone of this thread. Unlike the rest of this forum, this thread in particular is just as close minded and childish as the commentary on pro-axanar blogs that folks here refer to... only with a healthy dose of actual law (except in Red Shirt's case) thrown in. As I said earlier, the weight of law is on CBS' side so there is no reason to stoop down to that level in defending the lawsuit. If you want to want to see how to address statements by and the position of a person without simply attacking the person, check out the Axamonitor blog. Criticising the tone and behavior displayed in this thread doesn't mean that I am defending the target of the vitriol. I'm simply stating that folks here can do better. There was a quote from yesterday's debate that summed it up perfectly that went something like "When they take the low road, we take the high road."
I'm wrong (ignorant in your words) premised on what I've never said?
Next you'll be claiming Axanar is violating your 2nd amendment rights.. and claim after the fact you weren't talking about guns because you didn't actually use the word. It's inherent to your disproven claim. I do agree though that it's pointless to discuss it further with you.
You have a funny definition of voluntary.
If you don't like it, then don't read the thread. QED.
- Status