How does a film with only two minutes of live action footage work, exactly?Reece, give it up! It's over!
(Link that he referenced right here)
Also, TampAxanar put out some real zingers here and here
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
More to the point, what is the "Star Wars Prequel Problem"? The three films grossed over $2.5 billion and led Disney to buy LucasFilm for over $4 billion. That's a problem I'd love to have.
It shoulda been $2.6B!
Yeah, but George Lucas made them the way he wanted without asking the fanboys' permission first so they're failures. I guess he thought it was okay since Star Wars was his idea in the first place, but if he'd bothered to go on the Internet he'd have learned that Star Wars really belongs to the fans.
It wasn't Directed by Alec, and Produced by Reece. They aren't rolling in the profits.
Reece, give it up! It's over!
(Link that he referenced right here)
Also, TampAxanar put out some real zingers here and here
And a thousand people had the idea for that fish that sings too. I'm sure a number of those people say they had the idea first. But they didn't execute on it and obtain the IP *LEGALLY*.
Why is the *do it legally or GTFO* part always reprehensibly intentionally missing from these pithy analyses posted under his "things that make you go hmm?" picture? Its ugly that he acts like he has absolutely no obligation to choose between PR flacking and personal integrity. He never says "you know, this act was a clear violation of the law, so glorifying its content and execution is a nonstarter, I won't do it". This is really bottom line integrity stuff. It isn't legal. Walk away.
Last edited:
I am not sure that even a ban from making profit or whatever else could be done to restrain him in the name of protecting studio IP could restrain free speech rights to make statements in the form of parody, documentary, etc. Perhaps attorneys could clarify, its interesting.
As to your specific question, the studios can't stop those sorts of parody films in any case, so they probably couldn't stop an Axanar version.
Last edited:
Impressive that Reece doesn't gag with something that far down his throat.Reece, give it up! It's over!
(Link that he referenced right here)
Also, TampAxanar put out some real zingers here and here
Discovery has finished and both parties have moved for summary judgment (plaintiffs moved for partial, which would just be on liability if granted, and not damages). Oral arguments are scheduled for December 19. January 9, 2017 is still the scheduled date for a Pretrial Conference, with January 31 being the currently scheduled day for trial to begin.
However, either party might move for an interlocutory appeal if they don't get their way in motion practice (personally, I doubt either motion will succeed, as there seem to be too many questions of fact for Judge Klausner to ignore).
Lots of interesting details, including questions about where over a million smackers went.
So stay tuned, and pass the pie.
Just to clarify Madam Justice's @jespah's use of alien legal jargon, an "interlocutory appeal" refers to an appeal of a non-final order. Normally an appeals court--in this case the Ninth Circuit--has no jurisdiction to here a case until there is a "final" decision, i.e. a judgment in favor of either party. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), one of the federal statutes governing appellate jurisdiction, makes an exception for certain types of "interlocutory" appeals:
So if Judge Klausner, say, denies the defense motion for summary judgment, they could ask him for permission to certify a "controlling question of law"--i.e., whether Axanar is entitled to summary judgment based on its fair use claims--for immediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit. CBS and Paramount could do the same with respect to their summary judgment motion. Indeed, there could be cross-appeals on both motions, as was the case in Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. (which is now before the Supreme Court).
If Judge Klausner were to certify an interlocutory appeal he would also likely stay further proceedings--delay the trial--until the Ninth Circuit rules. I suspect this would give the defense more of an incentive to appeal than the plaintiffs. The defense could buy a year or more on an interlocutory appeal, which would keep LFIM in the spotlight and afford him a chance to seek more public support, particularly from anti-copyright groups.
"Interlocutory Appeal"
for when you really, really want things to come to a standstill.
Wouldn't the fact that Axanar's right to use the IP has been challenged in court foreclose Axanar from crowdsourced fundraising?
And the fact that all the money is spent would surely motivate a class action to move ahead if the other case is stalled. Especially if the studios did a solid and published budget details as part of any appeal filing, so the info becomes public record.
Then there's the IRS. And the FTC. And Cal state. And the rent. And W&S fees. And
Anti-copyright groups better have deep pockets for a bailout, otherwise it could be a tough year.
Last edited:
--All the principals have testified under oath.
--All the witnesses have testified under oath.
--All the evidence available has been entered under oath.
--Plaintiffs and defendants attorneys have summed up their sides in written documents to the judge about why they're right and the other side is wrong.
I laughingly agree with Mr. Lane that we're in the part with the attorneys rebutting each others summaries:
“Did!”
“Did not!”
“Did too!”
jespah, oswriter, axamonitor, fff explain it in more detail.
Oh yeah, and there's this:
The legally entered into evidence numbers show the production is broke:
Money IN: $1,428,902.43
Money OUT: $1,433,003.67
Where did the money go? Which seems to be itemized in some of the legal papers but the defense, attorney & defendant, are insisting this information needs to be kept secret from the public. Ms. Ranahan says it's because it would embarrass the defendant.
Last edited:
When this started a year ago I didn't think it would last a year. How time has flown by...
One good thing out of it was the free education on American law from Chief Justice @jespah / @Chanukahjes
One good thing out of it was the free education on American law from Chief Justice @jespah / @Chanukahjes
I know, right!
Axanar management says they are impaneling a board of "experts" to release a commentary on the spending which will "prove it was all done responsibly and Alec did not take a cent".
In the meantime, Axanar fights to absolutely prevent any details of spending from becoming public.
In the mean-meantime, one of the exhibits showed Axanar in grand total has spent everything plus a little more. Another details a long list of expenses taken by Alec and granted to associates. Including, if I read commentary from FB correctly, a trip overseas to play Warhammer on donor money.
And then there was the cupcakes.
Last edited:
Right. I'd forgotten about the cupcakes.
-But had you heard before that about the refunds with the condition of signing an non-disclosure agreement?
-Oh yeah, and fff "is the only legitimate news source on the Axanar lawsuit online. the author, consults with lawyers on every article and he is the only blogger that is both unbiased and knowledgeable about the law" (<-quote) Now the author of fff, in legal declaration, says he writes for the production & also says he is 'not' unbiased. So there's that.
-oh yeah, and axamonitor has been declared a cyber-stalker
-and that salary? It was all just a big misunderstanding and has all been paid back. something like that.
-now were you around for the production donor list being used to spam mail advertise the defendant's other business?
-Oh. And there's the tens of thousands of dollars spent on meals. You knew about that, right? I think that was just a big misunderstanding too. maybe it was "lies" (<-quote), I forget. Apparently CBS/P attorneys are doing lots of lying under oath to the Court right now about the production and defendant so that might have been one of their lies.
-You heard about Elon Musk and the 100M offer to the defendant, right? the defendant turned it down of course. "it was a crap deal." (<-quote)
-did you see the YouTube vid where the defendant explains how much and why Prelude went from $20k to $125K. They were going to "make it for $20k but the crowdfund raised $101k so they made it for $125k". (<-quote)
-And the meeting with Netflix to produce a ST production? You knew about that, right?
-And nobody gets a refund anymore.
-But had you heard before that about the refunds with the condition of signing an non-disclosure agreement?
-Oh yeah, and fff "is the only legitimate news source on the Axanar lawsuit online. the author, consults with lawyers on every article and he is the only blogger that is both unbiased and knowledgeable about the law" (<-quote) Now the author of fff, in legal declaration, says he writes for the production & also says he is 'not' unbiased. So there's that.
-oh yeah, and axamonitor has been declared a cyber-stalker
-and that salary? It was all just a big misunderstanding and has all been paid back. something like that.
-now were you around for the production donor list being used to spam mail advertise the defendant's other business?
-Oh. And there's the tens of thousands of dollars spent on meals. You knew about that, right? I think that was just a big misunderstanding too. maybe it was "lies" (<-quote), I forget. Apparently CBS/P attorneys are doing lots of lying under oath to the Court right now about the production and defendant so that might have been one of their lies.
-You heard about Elon Musk and the 100M offer to the defendant, right? the defendant turned it down of course. "it was a crap deal." (<-quote)
-did you see the YouTube vid where the defendant explains how much and why Prelude went from $20k to $125K. They were going to "make it for $20k but the crowdfund raised $101k so they made it for $125k". (<-quote)
-And the meeting with Netflix to produce a ST production? You knew about that, right?
Last edited:
And in my continuing cyberstalker tradition, I've done an infographic depicting the convoluted connections between Alec Peters’ Georgia business concerns, his Atlanta attorney and his California companies that I first detailed in a September article that now includes a link to a PDF version of the graphic annotated with hyperlinks.
Last edited:
- Status