Yes, we don't know anything about what the motives of CBS or Disney to do things or not to do things and therefore it is all speculation. I find it reasonable that big companies don't care as much for petty things as for large matters. Everybody does and everybody makes a decision about what is petty and what is not. And therefore I am not surprised that not every PI thing possible is pursued.
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
Yes, we don't know anything about what the motives of CBS or Disney to do things or not to do things and therefore it is all speculation. I find it reasonable that big companies don't care as much for petty things as for large matters. Everybody does and everybody makes a decision about what is petty and what is not. And therefore I am not surprised that not every PI thing possible is pursued.
He was the one who noisily declared that a member of the group was threatening to break in to the "studio" and commit acts of violence/vandalism.
I worked for a firm that owned some valuable IP (nothing like Star Trek of course) and they made a habit of going after EVERY infringer. At the same time, it was usually just a C&D, never threats, and only one a handful of occasions did they ask for monetary damages (when they did it was to collect money the offender earned.
Point is, you really never know. It's never reasonable to assume anything about a big corporations tactics.
Jesus Christ, they're laying carpet in their offices - for a production that is supposed to take 3 weeks to shoot (Please recall Mr. Peter's claim that Ares Studios is ONLY being used for the production of Axanar. Yep, it appears they REALLY care about the backer funds going ONLY towards the production - but hey, they got the carpet at cost,,,WTG Alec!)
spending even more donations while knowing the operation faces considerable unresolved risk of legal shutdown sounds like a very risky action to take in term of future malfeasance claims from the donors. setting precedents in what can and can't be done with crowdsourced funds DOES sound like something a legal firm might want to argue - in favor of imposing normal state laws back onto the unregulated crowdfunding channel. smart move.
all that work... for nothing.
There is some serious denial going over there to the point it's scary. Once the injunction is issued and everything stops there is going to be major shock going on, then things will really get interesting.
There is some serious denial going over there to the point it's scary. Once the injunction is issued and everything stops there is going to be major shock going on, then things will really get interesting.
I was thinking much the same.
If (when) Axanar loses in court, the donors will have excellent cause for a class-action suit in my opinion. "They knew they were getting shut down... It was obvious... But they still spent all of our money, and hey! We never got a film!"
Of course, the disclaimers they surrounded themselves with, in combination with the Kickstarter/IGG terms of service, may protect them from ever being judged against in such a claim. There are no guarantees of delivery there.
I'm kinda starting to wonder if this was the point all along. Make as big a stink as possible while accepting as much in donations as possible -- and when the hammer comes down, suddenly you have all this money with which to start your own studio. You can't make the movie it was meant for, after all...
If they can't make the movie, and they won't refund the money, then I suppose it doesn't really matter how much carpet they buy.
I am not the one who says "At the end of the day Infriction is Infriction". I think what I said is rather flexible. All I said was that I can understand it they don't sue small short films.
And assuming things is the most normal thing in the world. I do that everywhere and I do that as a critical-rational and political person. And only because it's about CBS, Star Trek or whatever doesn't change how I apporach the world. And since I'm totally aware that is "assuming" is not "knowing" there nothing wrong with it. It simply means that I have to inform myself again (and again etc. ).
Has anyone heard whether VFX is proceeding as planned, or if it's on hold pending the outcome?
Well...Cash Markman was going to write the "official" making of book. No reason he can't sling that shit on his own when the dust settles.
Who knows? But according to Peters, everything is sunshine and lollipops at Axanar.
A lot of big businesses will do exactly what Peters & Co. are doing -- ignore that the lawsuit exists until an injunction comes down, on the theory that their legal department will come to some sort of amicable settlement. I'm thinking they forgot that they're not a big company that can arrange such a settlement.
I mean, it's not like CBS is gonna let Fox or WB or SyFy make a Trek film, so why would they let Peters do it?
I would hope Tobais has put it all on hold.
That's a *really* good question.
Another one: who would have first priority claim on any awarded funds in that scenario: the donors, or CBS? 'cause there ain't gonna be enough to pay both.
I would think there would need to be a separate suit. Though there probably will be nothing left by the time CBS is done with them.
The question is, does CBS really care about the money in this instance-- ie: would they waive the damages if it meant the donors could get their money back? Obviously i'm not asking because no one here knows, but it's interesting to ponder.
After all, asking for damages the way they did in this suit is typically a strong-arm tactic, nothing more.
After all, asking for damages the way they did in this suit is typically a strong-arm tactic, nothing more.
Unless CBS got creative to gain some goodwill, and added it to their damages request. Not sure if it would fly or not.
- Status