CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
Hey, I have kicked in my own money to start a Keep the park green charity. Please support it. Your money will go towards the park, after I use donations to build a restaurant in the park for my future profit, and after any other things like hot dog carts etc. that I see fit to own. Act fast, I will be taking my investment back out through a company charge card once the flow of donor money makes the scheme self perpetuating. The city has approved everything (I use the park all the time and no one has stopped anything I did yet).
Last edited:
Sorry, I just kicked in to a keep the screen green campaign
I compiled a list of Fan Films/Productions that have continued etc here.
https://trekfanproductions.com/2017/01/10/thefanfilmschangedforever/
https://trekfanproductions.com/2017/01/10/thefanfilmschangedforever/
The defendant complained that an independent professional audit of Axanar's books on behalf of the donors would be prohibitively expensive. This week, several qualified donors stepped up and offered to cover the entire cost.
The defendant proceed to go on a childish tantrum and call them liars, and ceased communication.
The defendant proceed to go on a childish tantrum and call them liars, and ceased communication.
Lol - got a link?
It was a combination of IM's and FB posts on the C/P v. Axanar page. Pretty sure Carlos is going to do a piece on it.
Gosh!! That list is terrific! So glad you made it, so glad you posted it here.
Now I'm busy reading your site. Just finished your interview with the creator of that magnificent fan film Chasing The Infinite Sky, Albert Martinez. I've now bookmarked your site to become a regular reader.
Good, let Carlos report this.
Per this comment, Alec refuses to have a free full audit sponsored by donors themselves (and therefore presumably subject to any smell test they would want to impose). He insults the donors who offer.
If this interpretation stands, it should completely invalidate a cherrypicked "review" audit in the eyes of 90% of donors, and in the eyes of the press.
^^^
It follows Alec Peters' pattern of having to be 100% in control of the Axanar Productions narrative as it's presented to the public.
So now the profits are offset by a "deductible expenses" analysis in the "improved" second set of books, and they are doubling down on saying Axanar didn't *actually* cut into any profits of the studios. And Reece bought more Trek toys and/or media because he was enthusiastic about Axanar, so the studios actually came out better.
Hm. Just because you spend money to get an asset and you can deduct the spending as an expense for taxes doesn't mean the acquisition itself has 0 value (studio), or that the receiver of that deducted expense received 0 value (tires, sushi, etc.). Are they really making such a simplistic argument?
And they go to some length to say that statutory damages need to be judged not just on punitive aspects but also be reasonable wrt/ the actual damages the IP holder suffered.
Clearly you wouldn't want people to sue and collect for hypothetical "future losses".
As for arguments from the defense 'economic analysis' that fan films increase revenue to the studios, and this offsets any 'profits', I think defense has a tough path to prove that fan films have created any quantifiable value to the studios, or that revenues given to an infringer are actually a multiplier of the IP holder's value as a general concept.
I suspect that the idea that fan films were doing some of the studio's work in helping keep interest alive in an otherwise dormant (or perhaps more accurately, underutilized) franchise might be one of the reasons Paramount/CBS turned a blind eye to fan productions for so long. They would never admit it though (I wouldn't either) and trying to put a number on the possible added value just doesn't seem possible to me. As for the idea of a "Multiplier" effect, all I can say is...gimme a break.
On AxaMonitor: Federal Judge R. Gary Klausner‘s rulings on almost two dozen motions to throw out evidence in the Axanar copyright lawsuit turn out to be more tentative than originally thought. And Axanar makes a last-ditch effort to include testimony from J.J. Abrams and Justin Lin.
Could they be angling for saying Alec's payments on the rent and any other donations "offset" all value he and others received, including net value of the studio?
Accused of taking someone else's customers, my ability to pay my pirate business expenses got blocked. So the loss I suffer due to this lawsuit intervention is deductible from the value I am accused of taking?
Only recoverable if I win and the lawsuit was tortuous interference, I'd think, and I'd have to sue to get it back. But arguable as a loss/deduction in weighing the merits of whether "you took the value of our customers" is a fact?
Last edited:
Doesn't matter he LISTED that he received a direct salary - and that Diana Kingsbury received a deferred salary. You can't pay yourself a salary; and then decide 18 months later that it wasn't a salary; or claim that any business payments you made somehow offset the fact you had paid yourself a salary. U.S. Business law, and the IRS DON'T work that way.Could they be angling for saying Alec's payments on the rent and any other donations "offset" all value he and others received, including net value of the studio?
Accused of taking someone else's customers, my pirate profits and ability to pay my pirate business expenses got blocked. So the loss I suffer due to this is deductible from the value I took before I was stopped?
^^^^On AxaMonitor: Federal Judge R. Gary Klausner‘s rulings on almost two dozen motions to throw out evidence in the Axanar copyright lawsuit turn out to be more tentative than originally thought. And Axanar makes a last-ditch effort to include testimony from J.J. Abrams and Justin Lin.
And hwere is where the attoneys for BOTH sides earn their 'money' as it were (since W&S are working Pro Bono). It will be interesting to see the final outcome; but I have to say Judge klausner so far hasn't been to amenable to Erin Ranahan's 'everything and the kitchen sick too...' approach - and overall, I don't think that attitude is going to change.
If W&S are indeed sticking around for any appeals should Axanar be found liable for damages - it appears Ms. Ranahan will continue to pad the record with the same types of motions so they have a broader range of 'causes' (in her eyes) for an appeal.
Last edited:
Yeah, this is pad, pad, pad, hoping something will work. The numbers and offsets are a real last ditch, hail Mary effort.
Mr. Watkins is not going to be testifying. His 'survey' was performed utterly unscientifically. He did not have a reasonable or random sample size. He's basically just one person. And the judge is not going to really care, I suspect. One person buying more merchandise is lovely. But it means squadoo. Hell, I bought merch this year and I hadn't before. Does this mean there's a cause and effect? It's good-ol' post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
I believe Mr. Lane also will not be testifying. The 'document', such as it is, which he produced, is not much more than a list. It does not need his testimony to be introduced into evidence - and it won't necessarily make it into evidence, anyway.
As for Professor Jenkins, in that one, I'm kinda wondering. The judge may rethink that one, I'm not sure of course. Jenkins is a pretty big macher in fandom studies but he's probably not so relevant. Furthermore, his 'report' is legal conclusions that he is not qualified to make. If he does get to testify, expect to see him manhandled on cross.
Mr. Watkins is not going to be testifying. His 'survey' was performed utterly unscientifically. He did not have a reasonable or random sample size. He's basically just one person. And the judge is not going to really care, I suspect. One person buying more merchandise is lovely. But it means squadoo. Hell, I bought merch this year and I hadn't before. Does this mean there's a cause and effect? It's good-ol' post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
I believe Mr. Lane also will not be testifying. The 'document', such as it is, which he produced, is not much more than a list. It does not need his testimony to be introduced into evidence - and it won't necessarily make it into evidence, anyway.
As for Professor Jenkins, in that one, I'm kinda wondering. The judge may rethink that one, I'm not sure of course. Jenkins is a pretty big macher in fandom studies but he's probably not so relevant. Furthermore, his 'report' is legal conclusions that he is not qualified to make. If he does get to testify, expect to see him manhandled on cross.
On AxaMonitor: In what may be the first of a line of coming evidentiary rulings, Judge Klausner ruled today against efforts by defense attorneys to have evidence hurtful to defendants Alec Peters and his Axanar Productions sealed from public view, including more about its questioned finances.
Just as Prof. Jenkins isn't qualified to come to legal conclusions, I suspect the judge may decide he's also not qualified to give economic ones. The defense is hoping that he can speak to Peters' state of mind regarding willfulness in his infringement. But unless he knew Peters at the time, I can't see how Jenkins could say much more than 'some' fans think it's OK to infringe if you're making a fan work.
- Status