CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

[HIjol]

Been away for a week and just about to catch up on Trekzone intv Pt 2. But can someone kindly let me know if any other significant developments?

Hey, Lurok!

Welcome back! I have been in the same transport vessel, and have been reading to catch up. I highly recommend you do the same from where you left off in the Thread (I know its a lot to read, but worth you time). You get the flavor and the tone and can "smell the coffee" better. (Sorry - got carried away...)

However, here is what I understand has been happening. Anyone feel free to correct me if I get some details wrong.

One of the kids In the class, a new kid named Fringie, stole another kids homework during recess. When the kid who stole turned his work in, The Teacher (Mrs. Mount) recognized it, and called Fringie's parents. She told Mr. and Mrs. Mint (Fringie's parents) that they should tell Fringie it was wrong and stuff. But Fringie did it again, and this time the Teacher had to get the Principal, Miss Judge (I know, cool name for a Principal, huh?) involved. She gave Fringie a stern warning, and set up a Meeting with Fringie, his parents, Chuck and Barbara, the teacher, Sue, and the Social Worker, to record the meeting. The meeting is scheduled pretty soon, and we shall see if Fringie learns his lesson or has to go to detention.

And there you have it!

 

[mirrormatt86]

And of course, any action relies on our respective governments and legal systems giving enough of a shit to pursue the matter. Given the stakes, even something as simple as trying to serve probably wouldn't be deemed as worth it. That sort of power is usually reserved for literal life-or-death matters.

I've never seen anyone being extradited on a trivial claim like this. Especially when there's significant evidence that all parties knew that they were being recorded - either at the time, or before the broadcast of any material.

 

[Firebird]

Is this the guy some people here are holding to high esteem?

Account created today. Hmm, definitely not a troll account, not at all.

 

[Trekkin]

I've never seen anyone being extradited on a trivial claim like this. Especially when there's significant evidence that all parties knew that they were being recorded - either at the time, or before the broadcast of any material.

Even purely on a domestic level, you can have trouble pursuing things like this interstate. Especially if a party lives in Queensland.

 

[mirrormatt86]

Even purely on a domestic level, you can have trouble pursuing things like this interstate. Especially if a party lives in Queensland.

From Legal Aid QLD:

Even if you were involved in a conversation that was legally recorded, it’s still illegal to communicate the conversation or publish it without the permission of the other people involved in the conversation (with some exceptions). However, you may be able to use it as evidence in court proceedings.

One would argue implied consent by not opposing it's inclusion in part two.

 

[urbandefault]

I've never seen anyone being extradited on a trivial claim like this. Especially when there's significant evidence that all parties knew that they were being recorded - either at the time, or before the broadcast of any material.

Pointing out, again, that AP had full control over the camera and microphone on his end. He did not have to participate at all, much less keep talking, after he decilared that he was going "off the record."

To paraphrase the legendary thespian Joseph Tribbiani, "The point is moo."

 

[Indysolo]

Account created today. Hmm, definitely not a troll account, not at all.

For clarification, while I've debated with Hinman recently, the context of his post (and mine) should be presented. Those responses were to Terry McIntosh's post.

Neil

 

[Jam3s1701]

For clarification, while I've debated with Hinman recently, the context of his post (and mine) should be presented. Those responses were to Terry McIntosh's post.

Neil

That's not the Original one thou ... the wording is totally different and does not contain the word "spastic" which I HATE!

 

[Indysolo]

That's not the Original one thou ... the wording is totally different and does not contain the word "spastic" which I HATE!

There was another? This is the only one I know about.

Neil

 

[KRAD]

Did anyone notice Keith Decandido on that update? Was he supposed to be one of the Trek writers working for him? Will @KRAD tell us? Honestly I'm not sure I'd want to be seen with the guy.

Alec and I met at Treklanta last year and he's a friend. We had our picture taken together because we were both guests at Treklanta and, again, we're friends. Nothing more or less than that.

 

[Firebird]

There was another? This is the only one I know about.

Neil

I think there was a screencap of the original a few pages back.

EDIT: Found it! From @RedForman's post: http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/cbs-paramount-sues-to-stop-axanar.278077/page-769#post-11560757

 

[dmac]

I don't suggest going off on Terry, he has invested his time in Axanar and I doubt the source of the issues. A team player will stick up for his team through thick and thin, would you expect less? Besides I love the updates on the bird.

 

[Amaris]

I don't suggest going off on Terry, he has invested his time in Axanar and I doubt the source of the issues. A team player will stick up for his team through thick and thin, would you expect less? Besides I love the updates on the bird.

I think he's a massive tool. No one is perfect, but I saw what he was saying to people who were just asking questions, how he treated donors who just wanted to know what was going on, outright banning whole groups of forum members, including backers who paid to have access, and there's no excuse for that kind of behavior.

 

[bonesmccoy2014]

I was not operating in California at the time, therefore I am not subject to those laws.

First, thank you for directly responding to my question. I could tell that the video was edited and that clips were being played. Therefore, if you look back at my original comment (prior to when Mr. Hinman and Mr. Pedraza start their straw man arguments), I was very clear that the video made me "uncomfortable".

Second, to answer your question, I disagree with your statement that "I am not subject to those laws." Indeed, your rights to not be recorded are protected by the same statute (Section 631). Had you declared to Mr. Peters that you were not authorizing recording of the call, you would be protected. However, if unplayed portions of the call were recorded without your consent, you would be able to object to those recordings even if you are not a US citizen. The reason these laws apply to your conversation is that Mr. Peters is reportedly in California and his project is in California.

Therefore, because ONE party to the call is from California, ALL parties on the call must concur to recording while any one party can withdraw authorization at any one time.

Why? Please elaborate as to how CBS/P's rights and interests are harmed by two people who are not employees?
I can assure you that the timings are all coincidental, we do not discuss to plan releases.

Thank you again for your clarification regarding the ironic and coincidental nature of the timing of these public relations moves by Mr. Pedraza, Mr. Hinman, and perhaps others. I accept at face value your statement but am rather curious as to when you first contacted MB and CP for the interview? What precipitated your interest in the story and why the decision to cover this matter rather than some other aspect to the huge Star Trek fan base. In the same interval, you have other fan films raising money for unrelated projects. There are also indications from Paramount that a fan appreciation event is pending in just a few weeks for Star Trek Beyond. There is also the news that the Intrepid Air & Space Museum in New York City is hosting the Enterprise orbiter and Galileo shuttle from Star Trek to unite the two objects in the same space. There is also the Star Trek Ultimate Voyage. So, with so many different positive stories to cover, why cover the relatively uninformed speculation of CP and MB?

Regarding the C/P rights and interests being harmed by Pedraza and Hinman, the California Penal Code statute states:

(c) Except as proof in an action or prosecution for violation of this section, no evidence obtained in violation of this section shall be admissible in any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding.​

Therefore, if Alec Peters' testimony in this interview becomes a material fact to the CBS v. Axanar case, his counsel will likely throw out the matter by this statute. Although I have not thoroughly reviewed the other facts surrounding this case (nor do I have the time or interest), I do know that the testimony of litigants in a case can become material fact when present in a public forum. Without digressing into jurisprudence and esoteric legalities, my view is that the continued behavior of Hinman and Pedraza over the past few weeks has been responsible for enlarging this case beyond the original scope of the specific legal matter (between CBS v. Axanar).

By Hinman and Pedraza writing on so many blogs, posting on various internet bulletin boards, and distributing conjecture via multiple social media services, a potentially false narrative of CBS/Paramount taking legal action against other fan films has been created.

This false narrative has had a negative effect on the fund raising efforts of other projects, casts dispersions on the character of people unrelated to the CBS v. Axanar matter, and creates a pall at a time when the Star Trek community should be celebrating the incredible mark of 50 years of entertainment in the same franchise. There are very few intellectual properties as significant as "Star Trek" and yet instead of celebrating these wonderful accomplishments, fans like me must sift through the public relations chaff to find the wheat. It should be the wheat being brought to the attention and letting the chaff blow to the wind.

During an interview. At no point did Alec request for me to stop recording, at no point did Alec end the Skype call, at no point following the interview did MB request those parts not air.

Of course not. The presence of the video piece is in fact testimony to the fact that a potential violation of California Penal Code 631 occurred. Why would they want you to remove the video if they can use it in court to specifically muddy the arguments, demonstrate the public relations attack, and potentially argue that all related information should be removed from the case?

As a person interested in Star Trek, Viacom, CBS, and other positive fan projects (of which films are just one type), there are surely other stories worth covering which are more positive and do not offer needless and non-contributory speculation.

 

[dmac]

I think he's a massive tool. No one is perfect,

Thank you for your words, before this he always seemed respectful of other fan films although it was rarely discussed. I would hope anyone here would fare better if caught up in these events.
I just miss the bird updates.

 

[mirrormatt86]

I was very clear that the video made me "uncomfortable".

Thanks for your feedback.

Therefore, because ONE party to the call is from California, ALL parties on the call must concur to recording while any one party can withdraw authorization at any one time.

You can't have it both ways. You can't agree to an interview then reject the interview when you don't like the questions.

am rather curious as to when you first contacted MB and CP for the interview? What precipitated your interest in the story and why the decision to cover this matter rather than some other aspect to the huge Star Trek fan base.

I first reached out to Alec on the 31st of December as soon as the news broke. I have been trying since then to secure the interview.

There is also the news that the Intrepid Air & Space Museum in New York City is hosting the Enterprise orbiter and Galileo shuttle from Star Trek to unite the two objects in the same space. There is also the Star Trek Ultimate Voyage. So, with so many different positive stories to cover, why cover the relatively uninformed speculation of CP and MB?

I would struggle to cover those stories because they're in the US and I'm in Australia (not sure if that's been pointed out at any point.)

I'm not going to begin a discussion on my story selection or my research methods. Frankly that's none of your business.

if Alec Peters' testimony in this interview becomes a material fact to the CBS v. Axanar case, his counsel will likely throw out the matter by this statute.

I'm confused, you have been pro-Axanar and now you're pro-CBS/P? I think you are placing A LOT of weight on media commentary and how courts use them.

and creates a pall at a time when the Star Trek community should be celebrating the incredible mark of 50 years of entertainment in the same franchise.

Yes, you are right... we should be celebrating the incredible mark of 50 years, instead we are left to wonder how much damage will amass from Alec's insistence on fighting the current rights holder of the Star Trek IP.

The presence of the video piece is in fact testimony to the fact that a potential violation of California Penal Code 631 occurred.

I'm not subject to 'Penal Code 631.' I am not a United States citizen, a Californian resident or even a visitor at the time of the interview.

there are surely other stories worth covering which are more positive and do not offer needless and non-contributory speculation.

I wholeheartedly agree. However Axanar has set fire to the golden age of fan films and Axanar is a newsworthy event.

 

[Noname Given]

I don't suggest going off on Terry, he has invested his time in Axanar and I doubt the source of the issues. A team player will stick up for his team through thick and thin, would you expect less? Besides I love the updates on the bird.

IDK (and IMO) - a smart player would run for the hills (and ditch the 'team') in this case as it's pretty open and shut; and I'm sure (assuming the hearing on 5/9 occurs and the case isn't dismissed and any further parties are named by C/P and the case moves into the discovery phase) - all the remaining Axanar supporters will see how a lawsuit works and any does named will have a new view on the situation.

 

[Sgt_G]

If a party to a conversation is in California, the California laws apply no matter the point of origin of the other call participants. This matter was adjudicated in a US Supreme Court case between a person in California who was litigating against a financial firm in the South. The firm in the South argued that the California law could not apply to their firm which was located in a different state. The Supreme Court clarified that the California law did apply.

Apples and oranges, dude. Apples and oranges. A financial firm (e.g., bank, investment company, insurance company) must be licensed within the state even if their headquarters is not and so they must therefore abide by the laws of the state their customer is in.

And should a bar-certified lawyer try to use this case as an argument in court to be applied to a reporter's phone/web-cam interview ......

 

[dmac]

IDK (and IMO) - a smart player would run for the hills (and ditch the 'team') in this case as it's pretty open and shut; and I'm sure (assuming the hearing on 5/9 occurs and the case isn't dismissed and any further parties are named by C/P and the case moves into the discovery phase) - all the remaining Axanar supporters will see how a lawsuit works and any does named will have a new view on the situation.

Slam dunk just for being C/P's sandbox at a minimum. Some of us always had concerns that social crowd funding would lead to this. Bigger, Better and Faster always requires more money and true self funding fan films studios will never match the speed, quality or promotion of $100,000 crowd funding.
In a few short years you have 4-5 studios raising some nice funds to launch to next big event and with each episode a few more dollars are required to become bolder than the last. An Axanar event was just a matter of time and even if Axanar got a pass, it wouldn't be long before someone else came along and went for a $5 million deal.
C/P has to cap their sand box at some point, on my mind is how tight that cap will be.

 

[bonesmccoy2014]

Thanks for your feedback.

Thank you for your response. It is good that you can clear up any questions regarding the pre-interview and post-interview circumstances.

You can't have it both ways. You can't agree to an interview then reject the interview when you don't like the questions.

True from the standpoint of a reporter covering a story. However, AP calls MB during the interview and also states it is "off the record." While yes he could have stopped the Skype application, the other issue is that AP may not have advised MB during the call that he was being recorded and on the record. It would be odd for the one party to say "we're off the record" and then call another person immediately and acknowledge being on the record anyway.

I first reached out to Alec on the 31st of December as soon as the news broke. I have been trying since then to secure the interview.

That was not my question. My question was really one of why you chose to put CP and MB on the air at this specific time.

I would struggle to cover those stories because they're in the US and I'm in Australia (not sure if that's been pointed out at any point.)
I'm not going to begin a discussion on my story selection or my research methods. Frankly that's none of your business.

Actually, with all due respect, your story selection and your decision to prioritize attention on the CBS v. Axanar case would certainly be in my business if in fact I am a former shareholder, present shareholder, or considering purchases of shares of Viacom or CBS. As I stated in the prior message, there are many positive stories to cover in the Star Trek property space. Why this story now?

I'm confused, you have been pro-Axanar and now you're pro-CBS/P? I think you are placing A LOT of weight on media commentary and how courts use them.

My primary intent with these messages is to request that Mr. Hinman, Mr. Pedraza, and other parties related to their initiatives please consider carefully the collateral damage done by poor choice of words (with implications that may not truly exist) and by poor sense of timing (detracting from other very positive and fun stories in the Star Trek fan space).

Yes, you are right... we should be celebrating the incredible mark of 50 years, instead we are left to wonder how much damage will amass from Alec's insistence on fighting the current rights holder of the Star Trek IP.

Regarding Mr. Peter's legal woes, I honestly wish him the best. I hope he can rapidly resolve this issue because the longer it stretches, the more damaging it is for him personally. Therefore, I repeat my request to others to allow the legal process work without needless speculation on how the proceedings impact other unrelated organizations and fan projects. Needless and harmful speculation can negatively impact other fan projects and harms the fan base more than CBS or Viacom itself.

Pedraza, Hinman, and other's comments is that other fan based efforts are "in trouble" or "have received calls" or "will stop producing" or "will be made to halt". These comments are not informed. They are speculative and are not informed by direct information from Viacom or CBS itself.

I'm not subject to 'Penal Code 631.' I am not a United States citizen, a Californian resident or even a visitor at the time of the interview.

Sir, I understand that you are not sitting in California and you are not even in the United States. However, both subjects being interviewed are in the United States. Mr. Peters appears to have been in California at the time of the recording. Therefore, you are in fact subject to California state law because California's state courts have deemed that you are responsible for compliance with California laws despite being outside the borders of the state. This matter is not open to much interpretation because the point of Penal Code 631 is to enforce the rights of California citizens to privacy. In this regard, my communication with you is not to take sides in the debate du jour. It is in fact to inform the community on this board and to inform you of one of interpretation of the law. Please take my comment as informative and not as a criticism of your work.

I wholeheartedly agree. However Axanar has set fire to the golden age of fan films and Axanar is a newsworthy event.

Axanar may or may not have initiated more strenuous enforcement effort from CBS and Viacom. Until a CBS representative makes this clear publicly, there can be no certainty in the broader implication of the action against Axanar.

More significantly, I would argue with the "newsworthy" nature of the case.
To me, the case appears to be a standard copyright infringement matter. These is really very little to question legally in this space because copyright matters are debated all the time in the United States.

Regarding the accounting required on the donor's money, while I feel really bad for the donors. The review by the people at the Sunday G and T show nails it. There is no guarantee on the funds expended. There is also no legal basis to withdraw the donation. Once the donation is made, the money is gone. If donors are disgruntled, then they should seek counsel with an attorney and gain legal counsel and representation to review the matter. Even in those circumstances, the case would be a standard civil tort claim or small claim matter. From a legal perspective, there is really nothing special about the case.

From the standpoint of Star Trek fandom, I can understand the concerns in the fan base about the ability of some highly creative and energetic projects to continue. Pedraza, Hinman, and others are associated with New Voyages, 1701News and/or other Trek-related fan projects. When needless speculation begins touting claims of an overly broad enforcement action, this irresponsible speculation damages those other projects which may have absolutely nothing to do with Axanar's issues.

I do not believe that the executive management team of CBS, the legal counsel at Loeb &Loeb, or the legal counsel for those involved with Axanar appreciate the coverage. It's click-bait and it's irresponsible.