Can't we get back to discussing how Alec Peters is really just misunderstood, he never meant to defraud anyone of $1.4 million, etc?
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
What were we talking about again?
I believe he is still shocked at what happened- how could something so simple be so misunderstood...
That's not a sea lion. It's a walrus.
That's why he's crying.
The dictionary disagrees with you.
Are you willfully being this obtuse? This is all in your response to your silly line of argument about how long a law has been in place for it to be taken seriously.
But, when you have little to stand on... I guess being indignant is the next best choice.
Of course there's a distinction between a chair and your novel. Who said otherwise?
I love the bubble argument. The bubble argument is hilarious. It's always the OTHER person who is living in a bubble. The accuser never once thinks maybe they are in a bubble.
But, then, what are bubbles? Are they natural? Are they esoteric? Is there a hard definition?
Not manipulation. Clarity. Simple clear words.
For someone that likes to split hairs.... I find this funny.
Please link where I said what's the big deal about copyright? Clearly, I think copyright and copyright law is important. I'm just not afraid that someone is out there cruising the internet ready to steal my characters. I'm certainly not worried that CBS is going to steal my character if I use in in a fan film. All things you expressed.
So, quit dressing me in my straw man costume.
I never said that you didn't think copyrights weren't important.
I've heard your objections. I simply don't agree or care.
Isn't this just moving the goal posts yourself? You made a claim that the guidelines has halted productions. I gave you an example of one that continues to produce--well within the guidelines, with all volunteers, by the way, and yet, that didn't satisfy you.
So... ball in your court? I don't know. How would you like to support your statement?
Why do you believe there has to be 1:1 parity between a chair and a novel in order for intellectual property to be property?
Could you WIN that lawsuit? I doubt it. I suspect it would fall into Fair Use. But, keep trying.
Great! I prefer theft. Stealing.
By stealing intellectual property that doesn't belong to you.
And the other doesn't. So?
I tried to last night but then I got to thinking.....
Come on people now
Don't be a hater
It's tires for his car
We're riding it this far
Donate to Axanar.
But then I thought no way, it's past my bedtime...lol
Oh, you know me. I probably just that made that up. I suppose I could look for it. Dum dee dum dee dum . . . Ah.
And we spoke some more on this, too. I'm surprised you don't remember. But the point was, you refrained from discussing hypotheticals since "they never happened" and suggested that was sufficient reason for you to ignore it, and by extension, anything I might have proven with it. Fair's fair.
Some people like sagas. But my advice, forget it. It's not worth fighting for. We're big enough to take a few insults. Now, drink your drink.
Oh, you know me. I probably just that made that up. I suppose I could look for it. Dum dee dum dee dum . . . Ah.
And we spoke some more on this, too. I'm surprised you don't remember. But the point was, you refrained from discussing hypotheticals since "they never happened" and suggested that was sufficient reason for you to ignore it, and by extension, anything I might have proven with it. Fair's fair.
Some people like sagas. But my advice, forget it. It's not worth fighting for. We're big enough to take a few insults. Now, drink your drink.
Clearly I don't remember. It's funny because I have been using hypotheticals with the other poster. The sort of "if you had an idea for a novel and you told me and I wrote it first, that would mean I stole your idea."
So. Yeah. I must be cool with hypotheticals. Got any?
I couldn't agree more. The devil is in the details and there's a lot detail in those court documents.
Congratulations, you provided a single definition to counter that there is no single definition. And it's virtually identical to my characterization of "intellectual property" as well. But that's for confirming you never read that EFF link.
My argument was never about length of time. It was about one thing being more natural and understandable to a human than another.
Oh, I'm sorry, did you really want to argue that equal rights for women is less intuitive than "you can't use this pattern of words without my permission because I got this document from the government". Don't let me stop you.
You are by suggesting the same term should be applied to both for different actions.
People lie and manipulate with simple, clear words all the time.
Pin!
I don't think so. You can't stand on morality at one moment and then suggest that I let those same actions you consider immoral slide simply because you judge them to be unlikely. Similarly, your whole basis for arguing in the first place is nonsensical, as this is a forum dedicated to what you consider theft, and yet you defend guidelines that neither prevent such action nor offer permission.
I guess you're just saying that MY copyrights would be unimportant. Who's "splitting hairs" now?
Ha! If you didn't care, what are all these replies about?
Except that you forget I already supplied a list in a previous post. But fine, I'll do it from scratch, if only to prove you won't be willing to put in the same amount of work.
After carefully reviewing http://axamonitor.com/doku.php?id=guidelines_aftermath:
- Absolution - Became an audio drama to avoid the guidelines.
- Ambush - Was never intented to be longer than 30 minutes. "The guidelines do mean the end of an awful lot of fan productions, which is such a shame."
- Anthology - Rebranded.
- Aurora - Completed an existing multi-part episode, then discontinued.
- Captain Pike - Continuing, but no details available.
- Cataja: The Falkenhorst Chronicles - Cancelled.
- Chance Encounter - Continuing.
- Constellation - Cancelled.
- Star Trek Continues - Reduced Number of Episodes.
- Dark Armada - Continuing. "It's not against the rules. We can follow every Guideline except one piece of #1 to guarantee that we will never be sued. I believe the intent and the policy of our production is very clear."
- Dark Isolation - Rebranding after completion of current episodes.
- Dreadnought Dominion - Will not distribute. " We can make these films for our enjoyment and watch them in the privacy of our homes and distribute to our friends like artwork.. Even the CBS/Paramount lawyers can't come into our homes and dictate what we do privately."
- Star Trekz Empire - Rebranding.
- Exeter Trek - Creating pilot. Awaiting Clarification on Guidelines.
- Farragut - Finish current episodes. Sequel Series Cancelled.
- Intrepid - Retooling. "Recurring characters and settings are not explicitly off limits, you just can't make it a series, per se. This requires a degree of creativity, but I'm confident in our ability to do that and stay within the guidelines."
- Melbourne - Awaiting clarification. "[...]if the clarifications go badly, i will shut down[...]"
- Minotaur - Rebranding. "At some time before we release MINOTAUR to the Internet world, we will remove the term of "Star Trek" from the main logo and distance ourselves further from the 'legal ambiance' which Paramount/CBS is trying to enforce on Star Trek fans in a feeble attempt to control their intellectual property."
- Nature's Hunger - Continuing
- New Voyages/Phase II - Cancelled before release of the guidelines.
- Outlaws - Considers itself "illustrated audio".
- Pacific 201 - Continuing, but shortened for compliance.
- Potemkin Pictures - Continuing.
- Raven - Continuing.
- Renegades - Rebranded.
- Red Squad - "Grandfathered" production.
- Reliant - "retired to the star fleet museum indefinitely". (A.k.a. cancelled.)
- Saladin - Finishing existing "grandfathered" episodes, then shutting down.
- Valiant - "Grandfathered" production. Doesn't appear to be a continuing series after "Ties that Bind".
- Yorktown: A Time To Heal - "Grandfathered" production. Not a series.
Rebranded to a non-Trek film series: 5
Cancelled outright: 4
Cancelling after completion limited number of episodes: 4
Will not release publicly: 1
Total Stopped or Cut Short as Star Trek Fan Films: 16
Completing as planned or Single Film: 5
Continuing (multiple episodes): 7
Total Continuing/Ending as Planned: 12
Awaiting Clarification: 2
I would say that loosing 16 while keeping 12 (and two ambiguous) isn't a great record. That's more than half either finishing up early or no longer existing as fan films.
The point has never been that they had to be equivalent. My point has always been that you choose language that implies a false equivalence and then encourage people to judge situations as if they were equivalent. What else would be the point of arguing vehemently for the broadest language possible?
I disagree. Lawsuits have been fought tooth-and-nail by major corporations on grounds far less substantial, like that dancing baby video. Proudly displaying a copyrighted painting is hardly transformative.
You were using a reference to transmission of SECRET information, and keeping things secret is not the function of copyright.
Plenty. And they're good. So they're Good & Plenty.
Oh oh, that's probably an infringement of some sort. I infringe a lot, apparently. But you might never know if you've gone too far until some IP owner, or Star Trek BBS moderator or similar, tells you you've gone too far and asks you to remedy the situation.
For example:
Is that too far here on Star Trek BBS? I dunno.
FYI, Jilerb is another name I use elsewhere.
Regarding the natural or not nature of copyright: it didn't seem natural for women to have the vote for many people until 100 years ago.
Maybe the issue of whether or not copyright is natural or not seems to be yours.
Copyright makes sense to me. Feels natural to me. And with hundreds of years of law behind it, seems to make a lot of sense to a lot of people.
And it feels natural to say, if you take my property without permission, you are stealing it.
PS: I never said copyright's job was to keep things secret. Being pedantic isn't a winning argument.
Last edited:
Plenty. And they're good. So they're Good & Plenty.
Oh oh, that's probably an infringement of some sort. I infringe a lot, apparently. But you might never know if you've gone too far until some IP owner, or Star Trek BBS moderator or similar, tells you you've gone too far and asks you to remedy the situation.
For example:
Is that too far here on Star Trek BBS? I dunno.
FYI, Jilerb is another name I use elsewhere.
You can't use names in scrabble anyway.
I'm pretty sure a lot of women throughout time would disagree with you (as well as quite a few men). But please, by all means, continue this argument. Here's a shovel.
If by "issue", you mean it's one of a number of distinctions between copyright and physical property, then yes.
Really? Because copyright has changed significantly within the past 100 years. In fact, it's changed considerably since I was born for that matter. When I was born, you had to explicitly claim copyright, or the work was automatically in the public domain. Or how about Eldred v Ashcroft, where SCOTUS determined that copyright could be retroactively extended basically an infinite number of times? Did you know that Thomas Jefferson wanted to pass an amendment to prevent that very thing from happening? But, hey, if this all seems simple and natural to you...
Whereas if I copy something you have, you still have it, so it's not stealing, not even in the context of thought, where you have not been deprived of the memory of your idea.
You were comparing copyright to an act of obtaining classified state secrets, so pointing out the secrets part seems totally fair to me, given the comparison you were making. If you don't want to be called out on it, make comparisons that actually make sense.
That's only for proper names; for example, Scrabble, or Gowron. But human and klingon and andorian and vulcan, etc. are names of species or races, too, and wouldn't necessarily be capitalized.
How many infringements can you count here?
You do realize in my example of women's suffrage and copyright, you are the straight white male who doesn't think women should be allowed the vote because it's not "natural"?
*hands shovel back*
- Status