• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

Status
Not open for further replies.
Smoked Salmon said:
McIntosh is in no position to make such determinations, and I'm not sure Carlos should be including them in his articles. Instead, let's stick to the the questioning, pleadings and orders.
Click to expand...
Like anyone who is an eyewitness to an event, they are likely to have feelings, ideas and opinions about what they experienced. Those are valid things to report on a news article.

If I had reported that McIntosh's impressions of his deposition were absolute fact, I'd totally agree with you. But I believe reporting on how he thought and felt his own deposition went is completely appropriate.
 
@Smoked Salmon & @urbandefault it was our annual fundraiser. We stay up podcasting for 24 hours straight and give out a prize every hour to the person who donates the most during that hour. This year was better than last year as we didn't get stuck with the time change in the middle of it (we ended up doing 25 hours last year).

The blogs will mostly be kinda sparse as I have a bunch to do and we want to get them scheduled so I can deal with the Axa documents and then start NaNoWriMo with a more or less clear schedule. But I'll spend some time on the Semantic Shenanigans spot (we talked about the Bechdel test) and the following hour I presided over a hilarious mock trial where 5 Year Mission 'sued' the Trek Geeks podcast (William Shatner was cited!). I'll also post more in depth about the actual show, which was the final three hours and is when I talked Axa.
 
carlosp said:
Like anyone who is an eyewitness to an event, they are likely to have feelings, ideas and opinions about what they experienced. Those are valid things to report on a news article.

If I had reported that McIntosh's impressions of his deposition were absolute fact, I'd totally agree with you. But I believe reporting on how he thought and felt his own deposition went is completely appropriate.
Click to expand...
Yes, but your blog already carries the stigma of being biased according to Peters and your association with the anti-Axanar groups on Facebook.

Terry has had a falling out with Peters and is likely not giving an objective impression. Plus, much like Jonathan Lane, is not sufficiently experienced in the law or the litigation process to proper determine the impact of his evidence or whether or not it went well.

What I'm saying is that his opinions have no basis other than the superficial impressions of a biased layman. Therefore I do not see what value they afford to your blog other than to reinforce the impression of you as a "hater", rather than an objective commentator. *shrug*
 
From @carlosp's latest:
In his October 19 deposition, Peters revealed he had retained other attorneys prior to the lawsuit, prompting the plaintiffs to ask for a log showing communication Peters had had with those lawyers. The plaintiffs said they had previously been led by Ranahan to believe there had been no such communication.
[...]
Peters had posted on Facebook in April 2015 that he had engaged lawyer Eric Feig‘s firm to draw up various legal papers to professionalize Axanar Productions:
Click to expand...
Here's what I'm wondering: How much of AP's existing public statements--podcasts, Facebook and Twitter posts, et al.--did his lawyers review before taking on this case? This is a highly unusual lawsuit in the sense that the defendant went to great lengths to publicly discuss just about every aspect of the alleged infringement in "real time." I suspect his lawyers may not have fully appreciated this beforehand.
 
oswriter said:
From @carlosp's latest:

Here's what I'm wondering: How much of AP's existing public statements--podcasts, Facebook and Twitter posts, et al.--did his lawyers review before taking on this case? This is a highly unusual lawsuit in the sense that the defendant went to great lengths to publicly discuss just about every aspect of the alleged infringement in "real time." I suspect his lawyers may not have fully appreciated this beforehand.
Click to expand...
Given that Peters was spitting out posts online before and during the litigation, it's likely that they didn't have full access to it all at the commencement of their instructions.

Peters is his own worst enemy. You can bet he was advised not to comment on the litigation as soon as it started, and even if he wasn't his own common sense should have been enough. It's probably very difficult to keep track of all of his online posts in their numerous guises. He's not a good client in that respect.
 
Smoked Salmon said:
Yes, but your blog already carries the stigma of being biased according to Peters and your association with the anti-Axanar groups on Facebook.
Click to expand...
Well, @carlosp's blog carries a "stigma" because it's not preapproved by AP. At least that's how the defense and its supporters see the world. Conversely, one could argue Reason, which explicitly holds itself out as a journalistic enterprise, carries a stigma of bias because it colluded with AP to publish a video that portrayed him as a victim of the studios.

Terry has had a falling out with Peters and is likely not giving an objective impression. Plus, much like Jonathan Lane, is not sufficiently experienced in the law or the litigation process to proper determine the impact of his evidence or whether or not it went well.
Click to expand...
First, just about everyone who has dealt with AP seems to have had a "falling out" with him, as I believe @jespah and company discussed during their podcast this morning. So I'm not sure that automatically renders Mr. McIntosh's observations irrelevant or worthless.

What I'm saying is that his opinions have no basis other than the superficial impressions of a biased layman. Therefore I do not see what value they afford to your blog other than to reinforce the impression of you as a "hater", rather than an objective commentator. *shrug*
Click to expand...
I think the impressions of someone who was in the room is valid, even if they're from a biased layman. I certainly didn't take McIntosh's quote to @carlosp as Gospel. It was presented for what it was.
 
Smoked Salmon said:
Yes, but your blog already carries the stigma of being biased according to Peters and your association with the anti-Axanar groups on Facebook.

Terry has had a falling out with Peters and is likely not giving an objective impression. Plus, much like Jonathan Lane, is not sufficiently experienced in the law or the litigation process to proper determine the impact of his evidence or whether or not it went well.

What I'm saying is that his opinions have no basis other than the superficial impressions of a biased layman. Therefore I do not see what value they afford to your blog other than to reinforce the impression of you as a "hater", rather than an objective commentator. *shrug*
Click to expand...
At this point, there is no way for anybody who doesn't absolutely toe the AP line to avoid being labeled a "hater". Were I in Carlos's shoes whether a post might reinforce that claim would be the least of my worries.
 
carlosp said:
It bugs me, too. I'm still trying to figure out how to write around that now that the defense has tried to make me part of the story. I'll keep working on it.
Click to expand...

It bugs me as well, lol.
As not a journalist, but as a writer, I would go with the suggested, "this reporter" or even "this site"
But, I get why you don't want to go with "Me" or "I" because it suddenly make it sound unprofessional and blog like.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ion
Smoked Salmon said:
Yes, but your blog already carries the stigma of being biased according to Peters and your association with the anti-Axanar groups on Facebook.

Terry has had a falling out with Peters and is likely not giving an objective impression. Plus, much like Jonathan Lane, is not sufficiently experienced in the law or the litigation process to proper determine the impact of his evidence or whether or not it went well.

What I'm saying is that his opinions have no basis other than the superficial impressions of a biased layman. Therefore I do not see what value they afford to your blog other than to reinforce the impression of you as a "hater", rather than an objective commentator. *shrug*
Click to expand...
^^^
Seriously?

Like Carlos said, he's merely reporting what Terry himself said AFTER the Deposition. Is Terry a legal layman? Yes, but so are 99.99% of everyone who goes through a deposition. That he reported what Terry said himself publically doesn't make his Blog 'biased' for or against Axanar then Carlos repeating word for word what Alec peters has said publically.

Carlos isn't weighing in himself in any way as to whether Terry's account is 100% factual or not - BUT Terry IS the person who went through the Deposition and publically related to others his recollections and impression of what he just went through. News articles contain that type of stuff all the time, and leave it for the reader to judge credibility. It's not 'bias' to repeat what a person directly involved in an event has said publically; it's standard reporting.
 
I'm not a legal scholar so I look towards Axmonitor for current developments. I find the facts of what was said, a clearly defined section of opinion along with references at the bottom. Great site but still it is written from a pro CBS/P prospective and I like to hear from both sides. Turning to FFF there is a lot of legal terms invoked, so I'm googling meanings, attempting to understand how they fit into the context of the sentence, then drift off to conversations as recounted around the dinner table. I'm not attempting to knock Lane's work, I'm simply attempting to point out that after an hour the reader should have a clear understanding of exactly what was the bombshell the story was eluding to in the first place.
Or was that the point of the blog?
 
Smoked Salmon said:
Well, there are in my opinion. Worth remembering that when I say "merit", I mean that there is some level of argument, not that they will necessarily win.

First you have fair use. Is it an argument that will succeed? I don't think so. But there is nonetheless some argument that Axanar is not a direct copy of Trek and therefore is transformative. The reason I don't think that will succeed is that Axanar still relies on the core heart and hallmarks of Trek. I've said this in here since January. In layman's terms, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, etc. But there is nonetheless an argument. It's like the example I Gave above from my own case when I said my opponent's application likely won't succeed. But she will be unlikely to get penalised by a judge as long as there is some level of credibility in her application.

Second, even if they lose on fair use, they will have a duty to try and mitigate the level of damages ordered against Peters & Co, and in such circumstances the fact that the studio hasn't gone after productions like New Voyages might come into play and might be an argument that impacts the level of damages. As a lawyer you have to be conscious not just of what is happening in the here and now, but what could happen in any number of scenarios that could possibly play out.

It's only really if they made an application totally and completely devoid of argument that you could say they are advancing a vexatious defence.
Click to expand...
Isn't the difference between copyright and trademark that a copyright IP owner can defend their property at their discretion but a trademark IP owner has no choice and must defend their trademark from all violations? My apologies if I transposed copyright and trademark.

What I'm getting at is how can that work against CBS/P regarding damages if CBS/P can decide to enforce their copyright IP rights as they please?
 
Last edited:
Red Gore said:
Isn't the difference between copyright and trademark that a copyright IP owner can defend their property at their discretion but a trademark IP owner has no choice and must defend their trademark from all violations? My apologies if I transposed copyright and trademark.

What I'm getting at is how can that work against CBS/P regarding damages if CBS/P can decide to enforce their copyright IP rights as they please?
Click to expand...

They could have sued Axanar over trademark infringement, but that would open up the question why hadn't they done so with the other fanfilms.

That choice won't affect their damages.
 
Red Gore said:
What I'm getting at is how can that work against CBS/P regarding damages if CBS/P can decide to enforce their copyright IP rights as they please?
Click to expand...

My guess would be that it goes to whether the violation was "willful" or not, which would significantly affect the statutory damages if I'm recalling correctly. If they can successfully argue that "Hey, everyone else was doing it, so we had a reasonable expectation it was alright," then perhaps they can say it wasn't willful.

Or at least, that's what I think they're thinking.

I wouldn't personally expect it to be a successful argument because two wrongs don't make a right. That everyone else was also willfully infringing, doesn't mean in any way that Axanar wasn't.
 
Red Gore said:
Isn't the difference between copyright and trademark that a copyright IP owner can defend their property at their discretion but a trademark IP owner has no choice and must defend their trademark from all violations? My apologies if I transposed copyright and trademark.

What I'm getting at is how can that work against CBS/P regarding damages if CBS/P can decide to enforce their copyright IP rights as they please?
Click to expand...
Just because something is actionable at discretion doesn't mean mitigation of damages is irrelevant. You're conflating cause of action with remedy. The studio has to establish wilful infringement to claim that upper level of damages. If Peters can show that he was unaware he was doing anything wrong those damages may be reduced...and the argument in that respect is that the other infringers were allowed to continue, crowd fund and pay professionals without action, thus leading Peters to believe he could do what he did.

In other words, just because the studios aren't compelled under law to bring a claim each and every time, it doesn't mean the duty to mitigate is washed away.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top