No kidding.
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
Fun fact! Just because you write in journal doesn't make you a journalist; it makes you a diarist. That you leave it unlocked and shove it under people's noses doesn't change that fact.
I think with all the coverage done thus far by Hinman, Pedraza et al., the weight they've thrown behind their arguments and the extent to which they've covered topics, LFIM saw this as a threat and initially responded with his typical vitriol..........but later thought trying to push back in kind might be a good idea. Given how sloppy that writing has been and how it seems to match up with LFIM's own pattern of general sloppiness, I'd bet real money he or his acolytes had some hand in this...........
1. Lash out on social media about the suit.
2. Tell other people not to lash out about the suit.
3. Tell people you won't be talking about the suit until further notice.
4. Immediately talk about the suit.
5. Grant interviews about the suit.
6. Lash out about the interviews.
7. Tell people you won't be talking about the suit again.
8. Immediately talk about the suit.
9. Demand legal credentials for others to talk about the suit.
10. Ignore previous request. Allow anyone to talk about the suit.
11. Unless they say you don't have a case - ban them.
12. Lock down the group. Demand no one talk about the suit.
13. Compare Iran to Vulcan and Vampires to Elves.
14. Threaten to ban people who talk about the suit.
15. Immediately talk about the suit.
16. Only allow certain people to talk about the suit.
17. Call out people who don't agree with you about the suit.
18. Fail to count to 12.
19. Make predictions about the suit.
20. Immediately have your predictions squashed.
21. Post something you shouldn't have on social media.
22. Force an explanation under threat of sleeping on the couch
23. Tell everyone you're not using social media for the foreseeable future.
24. Immediately threaten people on social media
The Art of the Deal by Alec Peters
2. Tell other people not to lash out about the suit.
3. Tell people you won't be talking about the suit until further notice.
4. Immediately talk about the suit.
5. Grant interviews about the suit.
6. Lash out about the interviews.
7. Tell people you won't be talking about the suit again.
8. Immediately talk about the suit.
9. Demand legal credentials for others to talk about the suit.
10. Ignore previous request. Allow anyone to talk about the suit.
11. Unless they say you don't have a case - ban them.
12. Lock down the group. Demand no one talk about the suit.
13. Compare Iran to Vulcan and Vampires to Elves.
14. Threaten to ban people who talk about the suit.
15. Immediately talk about the suit.
16. Only allow certain people to talk about the suit.
17. Call out people who don't agree with you about the suit.
18. Fail to count to 12.
19. Make predictions about the suit.
20. Immediately have your predictions squashed.
21. Post something you shouldn't have on social media.
22. Force an explanation under threat of sleeping on the couch
23. Tell everyone you're not using social media for the foreseeable future.
24. Immediately threaten people on social media
The Art of the Deal by Alec Peters
Bloomberg News has published an article about the lawsuit today, "The Star Trek Fan Film That Went Too Far," which reads exactly like Mike Bawden's Axanar talking points. Nice work, Mike. Bloomberg is a good get 
I've documented the article's myriad factual and contextual problems, which I also posted in a series of 20 tweets on AxaMonitor's Twitter. The Bloomberg article:
I've documented the article's myriad factual and contextual problems, which I also posted in a series of 20 tweets on AxaMonitor's Twitter. The Bloomberg article:
- Focuses almost entirely on Prelude; it barely mentions Axanar until 6 paragraphs in out of 8, even though that's what most of the money was raised for.
- Misstates the amount raised by Axanar for Prelude as only $100,000, while they actually raised $113,000 and the short film went on to deficit-spend at a cost of $123,000.
- Minimizes the extent of Axanar's fundraising by separating Prelude from Axanar — a defense contention in the motion to dismiss in order to demonstrate the suit was premature. That was soundly rejected by Judge Klausner's May 9 order denying the dismissal.
- By separating Prelude from Axanar elides the fact Axanar has raised at least $1.1 million — a total not seen once in the article.
- Never mentions the $574,434 Axanar raised from Indiegogo, downplaying the scope of total project.
- Doesn't explain that Axanar's total fundraising goal topped $2 million — a scope beyond any fan production ever attempted.
- Buys the Axanar talking point about being puzzled why they're being sued. The article also buys their talking point that "Paramount" offered no explanation. Here's another clue that this was a Mike Bawden-led PR effort because it furthers the "don't mention CBS" narrative Alec Peters has always woven. Why's that? Because—
- CBS made its beef with Axanar very clear way back in August, when it told The Wrap:
CBS has not authorized, sanctioned or licensed this project in any way, and this has been communicated to those involved. We continue to object to professional commercial ventures trading off our property rights and are considering further options to protect these rights. - Ignores that the plaintiffs clearly outlined their reasons for suing as recently as the joint report, among them that "the Axanar Works are intended to be a professional quality 'prequel' to the original Star Trek television series, which use numerous copyrighted elements from the Star Trek Works, and for which the defendants have raised more than $1 million."
- Ignores the fact no other fan production has approached this scope, despite Axanar's talking point that it's just like all the others.
- Ignores Axanar's extensive ongoing Star Trek merchandising operation when considering Alec Peters' claim his production has done the plaintiffs no harm.
- Seems unaware of hundreds of thousand of donor dollars spent building out a revenue-generating studio that is now being rented out to other productions.
- Buys Axanar's "no harm to plaintiffs" talking point while ignoring that under copyright law, infringement itself is the only harm copyrightholders have to prove, and that Axanar has harmed the copyright holders' rights to control the creation of derivative works.
- Ignores the fact that Axanar's alleged direct financial benefit is central to harm, with Judge Klausner specifically citing Axanar's $1 million take as sufficient evidence against the defense's effort to strike out the "direct financial benefit" claim in the legal complaint.
- Finally, Mike Bawden, if you'd really wanted Bloomberg to portray Axanar in the best possible light, they should've chosen a different photo to illustrate this puff-piece than a still from "Spock's Brain."
To be fair to Mr. Peters, most recently, when he last said he wouldn't be talking about the lawsuit, he didn't immediately start talking about the lawsuit again -- he waited a WHOLE TWO HOURS before talking about the lawsuit on social media again.
I'll probably be shot down for this but I find the whole Axanar saga an amusing online distraction and one that I keep returning to despite my better judgement, there I admitted it. However, I'm sure I could avoid it in it's entirety if I was involved in a related lawsuit and yet Mr Peters seem's entirely unable to. He is addicted to trying to put everyone online straight about how he see's things and I wonder why? I previously thought it was down to everyone being, in his eyes at least, a potential donor but surely he must realise the people he's engaging with now will never donate a penny to him. So Alec, why bother? I apologise in advance for invoking the words that make parents of children at a certain age cringe and die a little inside but Alec, as a fellow human being, I say LET IT GO!
Crap you saw the older version before the site cached it out with my updates. I think I got most of the stuff you noted.Not talking about the content here but you might want to give it a once over for a final edit to improve the grammar. Some of the sentences could do with rearranging to make them read better.
For example the opening sentence. The "that" seems out of place:
Also further down the article this sentence is unwieldy and goes on far too long:
Als there are a few commas missing or in the wrong place:
Could do with just a final polish to improve the grammar.
I also updated the first paragraph of the conclusion as follows:
It seems clear that Paramount isn't interested in the Roddenberry vision of Star Trek. Instead of deep character development, philosophical questions and hard science fiction, J.J. Abrams & Paramount seem satisfied making big budget action films. Who can blame them really? Mindless action movies make money. But we're hopeful some future production team, whether in movies or on TV, can strike a balance between the needs of the market while returning Star Trek to its hard science fiction roots. Perhaps the upcoming CBS TV series can offer some hope.
Oh those pesky words "Roddenberry vision of Star Trek."
Pray tell... what is that again?
Reading Diana #2's post about the Playbill NOT A FLYER ad was quite painful. Poor thing.
That depends - which decade are we talking about? The original 1960s vision was as much about selling a successful TV series as anything else - i.e. making money!
When GR was alive the following was his real and primary vision for Star Trek:
1) $$$$ <-- to him.
2) (.)(.) <-- on a casting couch.
Letting Leonard Maizlish do things.
When GR was alive the following was his real and primary vision for Star Trek:
1) $$$$ <-- to him.
2) (.)(.) <-- on a casting couch.
#TRUTH anything else was merely a coincidence...........So actually maybe Alec and Gene are more alike than I previously thought.
Last edited:
- Status