• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar

Status
Not open for further replies.
What Ryan F said. This could have been a dull, dry, wait for the trial (or settlement) and see what the result means kind of legal dispute. Everyone involved in Axanar could have decided, when they were sued, to make a simple statement saying they disagreed with the complaint and would contest it in court while halting work and remaining quiet for the duration. And then actually shutting down and shutting up.

If that had happened, this thread would be many thousands of posts shorter, there'd be no pro- and anti-Axanar facebook groups, no Axamonitor, no sea lions, etc. And all it would have taken is people behaving like mature and responsible adults. But that's not the reality we find ourselves in.
 
bonesmccoy2014 said:
The presence of the video piece is in fact testimony to the fact that a potential violation of California Penal Code 631 occurred.
Click to expand...
Keeping saying this doesn't make it true. Californian law does not apply in Australia any more than it applies in Outer Mongolia or on Mars. No actus reus has taken place in California's jurisdiction, so you're out of luck. No breach of the law because the act took place where it was not illegal.

If your logic held true, any territory or country could announce via its Supreme Court, that its domestic law applied to the whole world and start demanding extraditions. It's a nonsense.
 
No matter the circumstances of the interview (anyone can feel free to debate that until they're blue in the face for all I care), none of it will change the fact that Alec & his cohorts (with the notable exception of Mike Bawden) conducted themselves in a completely abhorrent, inexcusable manner. It also has no bearing on what the courts in CA are likely to do to them.

So yeah, keep tossing that ball back and forth. The general public knows what kind of person Alec really is what kind of people he surrounds himself with (looking at you Terry.....) and thanks to the digging of Carlos & Michael (consider some of the questions posed in that interview......), they also know how egregiously they've stepped over the line set by C/P with Axanar - that and the legal outcome are what really matter.
 
@bonesmccoy2014 -- I'm not trying to silence you, but I do question why you are suggesting that @TREKZONE.org is guilty of wiretapping. It was stated in the video that Peters let Bawden know he was on with Matt. Bawden knew an interview was occurring. The idea of malice here is completely unfounded.

But even moreso, I question why @carlosp and @Michael Hinman are not allowed to report on this issue. This is almost as ridiculous as someone suggesting people who don't have experience with IP and IP infringement shouldn't be able to discuss this case. You've made the assertion their reporting damages the studios. Well, okay. Why? More than anything, they've been extremely fair handed in their reporting and while there might be a little bias towards the studios, I think they've done their best to report the facts as they are. Its hard in reporting not to let a little personal bias in. But I believe all three of these individuals have done it the best they can.

The truth is, yes, this is a ridiculous situation. Yes, it is clouding what should be a celebratory year for Star Trek. But at the moment, until something overshadows it, this is the story. I don't like it. I hate that I keep letting myself get pulled back into it, but here it is.
 
bonesmccoy2014 said:
Thank you for your response. It is good that you can clear up any questions regarding the pre-interview and post-interview circumstances.



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.



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.




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?



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).



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.



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.



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.
Click to expand...

How can there be an expectation of privacy once Peters granted an interview? When he called Bawden, both knew the interview was continuing.
 
bonesmccoy2014 said:
....

Therefore, if Alec Peters' testimony in this interview ....
Click to expand...

This is not testimony; it's reporting. This is not a Silverthorne case.

And even if it somehow was, by some odd stretch, many of the statements in the interview were made elsewhere beforehand. Hence, no poisonous tree. Furthermore, this matter isn't even at the discovery stage yet. Plaintiffs did not ask for the interview and are likely not even aware of it (telling them today is not going to be enough; they did not set the chain of events in motion that started the interview and they did not supply questions).

Even if the entire interview is somehow presented to Klausner as being evidence in this matter (hint: it's not. It's reportage), and it was 100% thrown out, all that would happen is the judge might get a tad peeved that the court's time was taken up by something so trivial (sorry @TREKZONE.org - I mean trivial in the sense that it's not a biggie for this case and it could never be considered as evidence).

The interview was:
  • Unsworn
  • Allowed for no cross examination
  • Not attended or transcribed by a court reporter or other stenographer
  • Notarized by no one
  • Never authenticated
In short, it has none of the hallmarks of testimony or even much with admissibility. Like all hearsay, it is both unsworn and should not be used to prove the veracity of the statements therein. Could it get over the hearsay rule? Potentially as a means of indicating a pattern of contradictions by the defense, but the defense has littered the social media landscape and donor communications with a pattern of contradictions as complex and substantial as the Bayeaux Tapestry.

And as for the choice to cover this matter instead of another, why not? Or are you saying that people who cover Star Trek should only be reporting on happy talk? Listeners and readers are interested in when Chris Pine is pulled over for drunk driving or Grace Lee Whitney talked about her alcoholism. Not all Trek news is positive, but people remain interested in it (and, yes, there is schadenfreude involved as well). But this topic has gone on for over 780 pages, and over 750 of them were before your arrival and your posts about the California Penal Code that really do not apply here or, even if they do at all, are not going to affect the outcome one iota.
 
Campe98 said:
@bonesmccoy2014 -- I'm not trying to silence you, but I do question why you are suggesting that @TREKZONE.org is guilty of wiretapping. It was stated in the video that Peters let Bawden know he was on with Matt. Bawden knew an interview was occurring. The idea of malice here is completely unfounded.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I think it @bonesmccoy2014 might be attempting to frighten @TREKZONE.org into being silent on the topic of Axanar. Vague enough not to be an out and out threat, but certainly the feel of "If you know what's good for you..."
 
YMZaBBI.jpg
 
jespah said:
This is not testimony; it's reporting. This is not a Silverthorne case.

And even if it somehow was, by some odd stretch, many of the statements in the interview were made elsewhere beforehand. Hence, no poisonous tree. Furthermore, this matter isn't even at the discovery stage yet. Plaintiffs did not ask for the interview and are likely not even aware of it (telling them today is not going to be enough; they did not set the chain of events in motion that started the interview and they did not supply questions).

Even if the entire interview is somehow presented to Klausner as being evidence in this matter (hint: it's not. It's reportage), and it was 100% thrown out, all that would happen is the judge might get a tad peeved that the court's time was taken up by something so trivial (sorry @TREKZONE.org - I mean trivial in the sense that it's not a biggie for this case and it could never be considered as evidence).

The interview was:
  • Unsworn
  • Allowed for no cross examination
  • Not attended or transcribed by a court reporter or other stenographer
  • Notarized by no one
  • Never authenticated
In short, it has none of the hallmarks of testimony or even much with admissibility. Like all hearsay, it is both unsworn and should not be used to prove the veracity of the statements therein. Could it get over the hearsay rule? Potentially as a means of indicating a pattern of contradictions by the defense, but the defense has littered the social media landscape and donor communications with a pattern of contradictions as complex and substantial as the Bayeaux Tapestry.

And as for the choice to cover this matter instead of another, why not? Or are you saying that people who cover Star Trek should only be reporting on happy talk? Listeners and readers are interested in when Chris Pine is pulled over for drunk driving or Grace Lee Whitney talked about her alcoholism. Not all Trek news is positive, but people remain interested in it (and, yes, there is schadenfreude involved as well). But this topic has gone on for over 780 pages, and over 750 of them were before your arrival and your posts about the California Penal Code that really do not apply here or, even if they do at all, are not going to affect the outcome one iota.
Click to expand...
Well, anything said by Peters would be a party admission, so the hearsay rule wouldn't apply.
 
Oh, BTW YouTube from yesterday's show is up!
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
Sorry for my technical difficulties. I blame space elves.

Thank you, as always, for your kind support. Blog on the defense reply to the plaintiffs' response to the second MtD (try saying that three times, fast) will be up tomorrow.

Back to homework.
 
bonesmccoy2014 said:
Therefore some other driver exists for why Hinman, Pedraza, and others are speculating. I am writing these comments in order to understand this.
Click to expand...

Dude, what is the deal with having Hinman, Pedraza referenced in almost every one of your posts? Boy, somebody has an axe to grind. So what part of the Axanar production are you involved in? Or are you a Axanar Marine? just wondering.
 
bonesmccoy2014 said:
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.
Click to expand...

And that's why there's a 15,000 post thread discussing it. Because it's not newsworthy.

Uh huh.

So I suppose your local new station should stop reporting murders? I mean, those happen all the time in the United States. Must not be news.

bonesmccoy2014 said:
I don't go looking at Alex Peters blog and before this coverage by Pedraza, I had never heard of the issues with Axanar. Peters is also clearly not a public relations guy. However, Hinman, Pedraza, et al are experienced in public relations.

Therefore, I can not excuse the timing and coordination of the behavior. The number of Trek related sites and the number of Trek related blogs that have been repeating these speculations is not coincidental.
Click to expand...

You might want to have a friend grab your shoulders and yank. Hard. Your head is stuck far too firmly in the sand.

The "timing" and "coordination" is because it's news. What do you expect, for one of them to wait until it's not news to report on it?

Ever hear the phrase, "don't kill the messenger?"

It applies.
 
bonesmccoy2014 said:
The reason my words were primarily targeted at Hinman and Pedraza was that Hinman, Pedraza, and a few others clearly have public relations experience.

I don't go looking at Alex Peters blog and before this coverage by Pedraza, I had never heard of the issues with Axanar. Peters is also clearly not a public relations guy. However, Hinman, Pedraza, et al are experienced in public relations.

Therefore, I can not excuse the timing and coordination of the behavior. The number of Trek related sites and the number of Trek related blogs that have been repeating these speculations is not coincidental.

When there are so many positive things going on, I just want to encourage people to get focused on the real fun stuff. Arguing over the legalities is idiotic. It's the 50th Anniversary of Star Trek! Can you name any other TV show that is going to have literally thousands of people celebrating the Golden Anniversary of the show?

The timing of the hand-wringing is not "coincidence". In Public Relations, timing is literally everything.
Click to expand...
They also run Star Trek news blogs so in effect you are asking reporters NOT to report and also advocating by that that their rights to free speech should be curtailed? Yep, sorry, but you do sound like a student of Alec Peters philosophy of:

"Hey, laws and rights are fine as long as mine are protected, and I'm allowed to exercise them; but if I don't like something or want something (like say to use the Star Trek IP to get funds for a business and pay myself a salary); my rights supercede everyone else's because hey - I'm special."

Sorry, but that is exactly how you come across.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top