Good luck with that.
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
Hey, I didn't say it would work. If nothing else, it's possible give him a little bit of leverage (meaning more than none) during settlement talks because there will be incentive to wrap it up quickly, knowing he has strong representation that won't just roll over.
If you say so. At this point, I don't believe that CBS has or will have any incentive to do anything except to go forward with their lawsuit.
A
Amaris
Guest
Do you have a nice stereo?
What they get from it is the threat of generating costs and dragging it out, which is leverage towards deflecting maximum monetary damages. They also get time to try to reverse engineer some plausible argument other than "the IP was abandoned because CBS/Paramount weren't doing it the way "real fans want". Dragging in unsettled subject matter like any new media ambiguities also allows clouding the pure IP argument and adds a threat of more costs. They also create a barrier of ambiguity against crowdfunding suits, because many fans may be willing to let their money ride pending an outcome for a considerable while.
Also, they get to postpone the day when their work product (script) is finally assessed by all the fans instead of being just an idealistic assertion anyone can align to.
I would imagine a permanent stipulation that Axanar would stop work on the film would NOT be a license, but the opposite. it would be Axanar agreeing to permanently cease doing their project at least with CBS IP, as a condition of CBS dropping the case.
If they get rid of the cause of their bad history and bad business judgment, and industry professionals take it over, then I think they might have a shot, otherwise I think it would be too difficult to keep inside legal and PR bounds. The more viable a new studio looks, the more likely I think that professionals may want to run it.
I think you misunderstand everything i'm saying so i'll quit while i'm behind.
Exactly what I was trying (and failing) at articulating.
It sounded to me like you said that Axanar having the legal representation that it does is some sort of incentive for CBS to settle. I flat out disagreed with that. But if that's not what you meant, then I retract my statement on the matter.
My fault for being inarticulate. See the comment above I quoted from muCephi.
Remember, another goal for Axanar is to come out of this with a positive image-- finding some sliver to cling to as a victory. If his camp can somehow get CBS to drop (or greatly reduce) monetary damages, and allow SOME form of the film to survive, there's a way to make that look like a win. At the same time he can then convince his supporters to stay on his side, painting CBS as the big bad corporate evil enemy that squashed "the real fans"-- but hey we sort of beat them, right?
If he's done anything tonight, it's earned a starring role in my next one.
My own thinking is the thing about the court system is that what may be very clear to various points of view in a case has sometimes been unclear during the court proceedings. For oh so many various reasons. This is why the innocent are not always exonerated, the guilty are not always convicted.
My concerns include a ripple effect on our fan productions at large. As well as trust in crowdfunding from this point. I've seen a shift in my own thinking about donating since this first week of January.
The New Media film rules are in flux at this time, far from in place, as the courts all over are struggling keep up with, as jespah mentions, the new social media advances that are blurring what has been clear in the past. Law regarding New Media is in play and will continue to be so for some time.
That a respected IP litigator with some history of case winnings has accepted a pro bono case suggests, for me personally, an unknown factor.
And I have great and very sincere sympathy for those who are experiencing or will be affected by the fallout as this proceeds to its unknown to me conclusion.
Last edited:
While that may be true, I would assume there are some severe limits. To put it another way, a non-Disney party selling a Mickey Mouse computer game was not immediately legal just because it was a computer game, even if computer games were new and fancy. I don't expect whatever "new media" law you're referring to, to cross that line either.
Frankly, I'm not even sure how it's relevant. Someone want to enlighten me on what I'm missing here? (And this is a serious question. I feel like there's something I'm missing.)
I do also find that interesting, and I'm not sure what to make of it. I can't see how they could get an actual win though. Maybe the point is just to keep them out of bankruptcy court, and for them that is a win?
- Status