Got a good laugh this morning after we released our opening for Star Ship Endeavour, which read that cost about $408,333.33 in Axanar dollars.
Nope, just in house talent.
Nope, just in house talent.
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
Every Axanar fan should be made to memorize this and be required to type it in from memory on any donation page they want to submit.
I kinda suspect that the idea they are loyal to in every individual case is "I, a Trek fan, deserve the unquestioned right to make and distribute Trek without limit, because, well, me".
But, but.. you said when you raised 1.4 million that the management team was made up of seasoned professionals who knew what to do with the money... ooo, ooopsy. You mean "we can't pour 90% of your donations into our pocket for a studio anymore".. you just needed to find a different set of words to express the idea..
Here's a holy s*** squared: by this quote, Alec just admitted that his statement of risks on the crowdfunders was fraudulent, since he is now admitting that the team at that time were amateurs who could misestimate a project cost by 90% (if he can't admit the money was going to the studio 90%, which would show fraud too, since they claimed the fundraising was largely for the film). Someone be sure to screencap it not just quote it.
Last edited:
So, intellectual property isn't property? Something that I've created I don't have a "genetic need" to protect my work?
Besides that, so what? Speeding is an artificial concept, yet we have laws that govern how fast you can go.
But, again, so what? What does it matter that we have only had copyright for a few hundred years. We have only allowed the right for women to vote for less than 100, does that mean it's not real? It's not important?
This is why this is a silly point to bring up.
It seems to have distorted yours, sure. But, it seems like you and one other person are up in arms about it. And, no, not deliberately misapplied. Very deliberately applied.
I never said you didn't need one. (Besides you have one from the moment you created it--so you get one whether you want one or not. Registration, obviously is different.) I said you shouldn't be be so paranoid that someone is going to steal your work, that CBS is going to steal your work etc. In other words, lighten up.
If it's just intellectual, this copyright thing, why are you so consumed by it? One might say you have a genetic need to protect something of yours....
Fair enough. Then, you prove your point. How many have been lost? How many suddenly have thrown in the wrench? 2? 3?
How many have continued? I was able to name at least one.
Joel didn't have the option, actually. He didn't own the rights by that point. He got them back later.
Maybe I'm not grasping at straws, but, rather, it's not a very good example of fans saving a show, like they saved Star Trek 50 some years ago...
Nah. It's property, intellectual or not. And my mamma said, you don't take something that's not yours. It's stealing.
I find your lack of humor disturbing.
Maybe fan films are committing espionage then. Maybe that's a less distressing word choice for you.
EDITED TO ADD:
Espionage is stealing state secrets
Copyright infringement is stealing intellectual property.
Both are taking ideas, not the actual thing. Both are stealing.
Last edited:
Yeah, I'm afraid we're a FAN film. We don't pay any of our crew anything.
Psst: I think that's the way it's supposed to be.
That's what I keep trying to tell everyone. $50 grand for up to 15 minutes of film. What are you doing, paying someone else to make it for you?
But Dale is a Professional Appraiser and can't help placing a dollar value on everything, compared to market forces. sales values and trending costs so it appears we fared well in his assessment.
This. 50k is a ton of cash. How many people would love to make that in a year?
I'm going to start calling posts like this "Godwin's Law, Part II."
I have no sympathy for the dupes who keep giving His Most Precious their hard earned cash. Zip, zero, nada.Holy shit:
And what am I 'Holy Shit"-ing about specifically:
Alec: "Now, before then we will have to raise the money for the episodes, and that will really determine how much we can do. The good news is we only need about 1/10th of what we raised for the feature film, and we are way more efficient now and know a lot more than when we did Prelude."
^^^
So, Mr. Peters wants/need another $140,000.00 - $200,000.00 U.S. for the two remaining segments?! Of, and what abbout the part of the Axanar Case settlement where he agreed to the Star Trek Fan Film Guidelines - part of which reads:
http://www.startrek.com/fan-films
Fan Fim Guidline: "CBS and Paramount Pictures do not object to limited fundraising for the creation of a fan production, whether 1 or 2 segments and consistent with these guidelines, so long as the total amount does not exceed $50,000, including all platform fees, and when the $50,000 goal is reached, all fundraising must cease."
And it doesn't differentiate between 'public' and 'private' fundind as some of the Axanar faithful like to claim - by the above $50,000 in donations (Public or Private or whatever method) IS THE ABSOLUTE LIMIT <--- And that limit was reached and exceeded by Alec Peters for this 'Axanar' project long ago; yet here is Alec PUBLICLY stating again:
"we will have to raise the money for the episodes"
Of course I doubt CBS/Paramount will drag Alec back into court (claiming a breach of the Settlement Agreement) unless he goes whole hog back to selling UNLICENSED Star Trek themed merchandise and makes another huge sum of cash from that as they got what they really wanted:
- Alec Peters to admit he ILLEGALLY used the Star Trek IP to personally profit.
- Alec Peters to admit CBS/Paramount DO JOINTLY OWN all coyrights to the Star Trek IP.
But it just amazes me after being sued (and had CBS gone all they way - Alec Peters would have been financially ruined WAY beyond anything - not just 'Axanar') and getting a Settlement that DOESN'T ruin his life - he goes back to his old grifting/con man habits like nothing at all really happened.
And did you notice that he's found something else to blame on Gossett?
I have no sympathy for the dupes who keep giving His Most Precious their hard earned cash. Zip, zero, nada.
And did you notice that he's found something else to blame on Gossett?
He *has* learned a lot since Prelude was finished, as he says. And it *is* about how you cannot successfully do it the way he did, that is also true. And what he learned *is* about what is the real cost of a fan film, and what is excess that was unnecessarily spent. True, true, and true.
...all a setup for misdirect and move the card.
I disagree with your characterization of my post, but mostly I remain mystified why you or others continue to suggest my current debate or conversation with some people here relates to what Peters did such that you would bring it up as if it were some telling counterpoint to what I have said. It isn't. I do not now, nor have I ever disagreed that Peters crossed the line and was doing more than simply infringing on another's IP rights. He clearly was.
I have carefully pointed out, more than once, that copyright infringement can go too far and could possibly enter criminal behavior and be properly called theft or stealing. My point was never to suggest otherwise, or to say what Peters did was therefore acceptable. My only point is to counter the notion that ALL copyright infringement IS therefore theft. It's not. Most of it probably isn't, and pointing to Peters' bad behavior doesn't prove otherwise. In particular, most fan film productions probably aren't theft. Yes, some obviously are, like Peters', but many, if not most, are likely not. But especially, since CBS/Paramount has given actual guidelines, if one were to remain within them while making a Trek fan film, then that hardly could be considered theft. It is, of course, still copyright infringement, but not all copyright infringement is theft, and THAT is my point.
Insisting on calling it theft or stealing is either dishonest or demonstrates a lack of understanding of the differences between infringement and theft. And bringing up Peters, who is admittedly a clear example of an IP thief, as if that disproves my point, just convinces me there is a locked mindset in this thread that isn't interested in doing much else than disparaging Peters, and isn't really reading anything whose main thrust isn't about how awful Peters is.
Seems to me you imply that every time you call it theft or stealing since stealing and theft are criminal acts. But for the sake of your argument, where are you are saying something is stealing or is theft but it's not a criminal act, since you seem to suggest you are not equating the two? And remember, you don't do hypotheticals.
And "taking" via theft incorporates the notion you have taken something away such that the true owner no longer has it, and now you have it. Copyright infringement doesn't deprive the IP owner of their property, nor negate their right to say who can use the IP or not and for what. Nor does it confer onto the "taker" those IP rights. So they have not stolen the IP, but are infringing upon the owner's rights. And depending on to what degree they do this, and how much the owner cares or does not, will largely determine if the infringement is theft or not.
That copyright laws are NOT particularly simple - certainly not as simple, or as black and white, or all or nothing, as you are suggesting. They are certainly not as simple as the basic concepts behind most garden-variety theft and stealing we have known and used for thousands of years, and their definitions, and the terms most often associated with them, and the examples used to convey their meanings, and the connotations they typically carry, do not always apply to newer concepts like copyright laws and IPs. Copyright laws are more involved than those more simple examples of theft and stealing.
I don't know why you are taking something that is NOT so simple and needlessly simplifying it to the point where anyone who suggests infringement and stealing are not equivalent or interchangeable terms is wrong to think that or wrong to say that. But I do know why I'm pushing in the other direction. Because otherwise ALL fan film are made by thieves, and many other fan inspired works are also made by thieves, and all viewers of those things are accepting stolen goods, and every one is morally wrong to do either. IF, as you say, ALL copyright infringement is theft, those are the logical conclusions. But I say it's not always theft. I say you can make a fan film without being a thief and having a morally questionable nature, and you can watch a fan film without being an accomplice after the fact, and therefore also being of questionable morality or having only lax scruples.
I don't like hypotheticals? Where did I say that?
It's a long story, I'm going to bed
There's a simple two-click solution to that.
"Told you, dude. Sea lions."
Actually, there's no hard definition of what "intellectual property" is, aside from including copyrights, patents and trademarks, and grouping those together conceptually was why the term was invented by lawyers in the first place.
Copyright infringement has been a contributing factor to how many deaths? You have to consider motive when you consider history.
Okay, you're comparing copyright infringement to a woman's right to participate in democracy. Wow! Just...wow! Although I shouldn't be that surprised after you making a comparison to fictional war-time espionage.
The point was that depriving people of physical property is less esoteric and more natural than having a government enforce a monopoly on the distribution of thought. To pretend you don't understand the distinction is silly.
With all due respect, it's been my observation that this BBS is very much it's own bubble with regard to views on copyright, and those who express certain differing opinions here, particularly with regard to copyright issues, face unusually aggressive criticism.
If, by "deliberately", you mean deliberately use words to manipulate the audience emotionally rather than communicate actual ideas for a proper debate, I would agree.
For all intents and purposes, you don't have one until you register. It's simply that the registration is retroactive for purposes of suing for infringement.
If "lighten up" were your message, you won't have bothered to reply.
Nice try at trying to paint me a hypocrit, but it would work better if you weren't actively being one while doing it. You can't say "What's the big deal about copyright?" and also say "It's stealing, and my mamma told me stealing is wrong" and not be seen as a hypocrite.
As for my supposed hypocrisy, I never stated that I didn't think that copyrights weren't important, or that copyright infringement was okay. I merely objected to painting a civil matter with the same brush used for criminal activity. It's simply a matter of wanting to have the right debate instead of vilifying a section of the population (the fan film community, in this case) for my own benefit.
So when I'm done with a comprehensive statistical analysis of the impact of the guidelines on fan film production that this will ineviably turn into, you won't just move the goal posts later? Why should I work so hard for answers that someone isn't going to listen to?
All that means it that when the right person holds control of the property, fans hold greater influence.
Did your mamma tell you you had to give up your property after 95 years? Or that you had to let people make fair use of your property? Or that if you didn't re-register after a certain time limit, you might loose your property? Or that property you got before 1978 should have a notice on it saying that it belongs to you? No, she didn't, because she wasn't talking about copyright.
And by the way, ownership of physical objects related to the copyright don't transfer ownership of copyright:
So, you could own an original painting and be sued for copyright infringement by placing a picture of yourself with the painting on Facebook.https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf said:
Back atcha.
It's about as correct, from a legal standpoint, but you already know what term I'd prefer: copyright infringement.
We have separate laws regarding trade secrets, and they don't apply to fan films, so your comparison isn't just exaggerated, it's wrong.
No, it's just infringing on copyright.
No, both are copying ideas, but one requires people who have promised not to reveal secrets to break their oaths.
Last edited:
Yep, used it twice this week in this thread. All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one.There's a simple two-click solution to that.
- Status