In other words, I got yer JJ right here!
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
THIS! I am now filled as well. #ZombieGene
I don't think that's exactly what it means. I think those statements about not having the knowledge or information are legalese for meaning "we are not explaining why, but we deny the allegation, anyway." In other words, they are claiming they simply do not have sufficient understanding of the allegation (from a legal standpoint) to make any response other than a general denial.So, I've started to read this reply and it sounds, at least as far as I've read, that they're using the "I'm a dumb fk and don't know any better" defense. Am I reading that right?
In my opinion, if this is the best they can respond to the allegations, then they are in trouble. I'd think a judge would want or need more specific reasons for denials of allegations that could be used to justify a dismissal or one, two, or all of the allegations. As it is, this is a "non-responsive response," so I think it won't hold water.
At least that's how I interpret it. Bear in mind I'm not a lawyer and I've never even played one on TV.
But did you stay at a Holiday Inn last night?
I'm glad my keyboard survived me reading that.
from paragraph 46 "...and further deny that Soval’s robe in Prelude to Axanar contains “ancient Vulcan script” (the robe contains Chinese letters)." REALLY? So Vulcan is now a province of China? Tell me how Vulcan script looks Chinese to anybody who's seen Chinese script? .
.No... by spending several pages talking about how wonderful and great Alec Peters is. He's a standup guy who just loves start trek and nothing more.
Axanar... snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
"10. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because they impliedly authorized Defendants’ allegedly infringing use of their works." Somehow, I think this statement from the Wrap puts lie to this cause of action:
“CBS has not authorized, sanctioned or licensed this project in any way, and this has been communicated to those involved,” a representative from the network told TheWrap. “We continue to object to professional commercial ventures trading off our property rights and are considering further options to protect these rights.”
Don'cha think?
"11. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because they have forfeited or abandoned their copyrights."
I thought copyrights couldn't be forfeited. I thought the could expire, be sold, or given away, not forfeited. Aren't they making a trademark arguement?
“CBS has not authorized, sanctioned or licensed this project in any way, and this has been communicated to those involved,” a representative from the network told TheWrap. “We continue to object to professional commercial ventures trading off our property rights and are considering further options to protect these rights.”
Don'cha think?
"11. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred because they have forfeited or abandoned their copyrights."
I thought copyrights couldn't be forfeited. I thought the could expire, be sold, or given away, not forfeited. Aren't they making a trademark arguement?
This is pretty common. In the first answer you don't want to tip your hand too much. All the denial on every point due to not having facts or infomation is basically saying "you have the burden to prove it so we are going to make you prove it"
So yeah basically a genera denial
The counterclaim and the pages of how great Peters is... and the tweets... and using JJ/Jin's statement.. ugh..
The would have been better doig the general denial, list the affirmative defenses (abandonment of copyright..lol) and leave it at that. The other superflous stuff was cringeworth.
I could be wrong, but I see the judge's reaction as he reads the response going one of two ways:
1.
2.
1.
2.
"Mr. Peters understood from these discussions that as long as his works stayed non-commercial they would be tolerated, and that CBS would let him know if he had “gone too far.”
Doesn't this say, they've gone too far (sorry for the repeat quote, but it is valid):
“CBS has not authorized, sanctioned or licensed this project in any way, and this has been communicated to those involved,” a representative from the network told TheWrap. “We continue to object to professional commercial ventures trading off our property rights and are considering further options to protect these rights.”
Sounds like they were put on notice to me.
Doesn't this say, they've gone too far (sorry for the repeat quote, but it is valid):
“CBS has not authorized, sanctioned or licensed this project in any way, and this has been communicated to those involved,” a representative from the network told TheWrap. “We continue to object to professional commercial ventures trading off our property rights and are considering further options to protect these rights.”
Sounds like they were put on notice to me.
I could be wrong, but I see the judge's reaction as he reads the response going one of two ways:
1.
2.
I wonder if he might consider sending out one of his clerks to find a short rope and a tall tree.
I could be wrong, but I see the judge's reaction as he reads the response going one of two ways:
1.
2.
Well, yes, but motion practise like this is allowed in the defendant's rights, so it is expected. Attorneys can apparently file whatever might sell as plausible (unless they know it is false) in hopes of getting their client off the hook.
pretty sure Mrs. Abrams and Lin are about now thinking "we'll do a special on you!"
Last edited:
That's recent, have you ever noted video of this? Just personally, I'd like to see it. Not expressing doubt.
This goes back to the impovisational definition of 'nonprofit'. He seeks to define non-commercial and 'dont make a profit' to be met by product-for-donation and donations-invested-into-assets-and-salary-aren't-commercial-or-profit.
Exploiting the ambiguity created by 'donation' vs 'sale'.
They talk about the Star Trek New Voyages, as if this was an open forum for fans.
IIRC the publisher and IP rights holders maintain all rights to the submitted stories, published or not.
So how do the two equate?
IIRC the publisher and IP rights holders maintain all rights to the submitted stories, published or not.
So how do the two equate?
- Status