Maybe this whole thing was planned a couple years ago, with CBS and AP in cahoots just so CBS has cause to inflict draconian rules on all fan-films / fan-fiction.
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
I agree. No doubt AP is going to get rules. Or perhaps a ruling from a jury he won't like at all would be more apt. AP claiming he and W&S are negotiating "official rules" for fan films sounds like a straw man with AP appealing to his fans, a diversion from what the lawsuits are about; copyright infringements and illegally obtained financial benefits from said infringements.
AP doesn't have any bargaining chips to begin with so I highly doubt AP and W&S are dictating the terms of the conversations other than trying to obfuscate negotiations with petty minutia. I could of course be completely wrong but IMO AP is just blowing smoke up people's collective posteriors.
I can't imagine Peters and his lawyers are involved in the making of the rules in anyway. Besides the fact they don't represent the fans, the settlement talks should be about their violations of CBS copyrights. CBS has no reason to listen to what Peters feels the rules should be. Zero. Zilch. It would be like listening to the guy who stole your TV about what sort of TV you should get in the future.
I'm sure Peters is worried about his own ass anyway. Everything else is PR.
Well said, I agree.
He deserves to have a totally new echelon of banning named after him. Like, make a new TBBS, invite him as an admin and then ban everyone leaving only him and then ban him.I'm a superfan too. Where the hell is my $1.3 million.
God, I hope Peters regs another dual so that I can BAN HIM AGAIN!
The way things are going I wouldn't be surprised if at some point Peters is banned entirely from Star Trek.I'm a superfan too. Where the hell is my $1.3 million.
God, I hope Peters regs another dual so that I can BAN HIM AGAIN!
Neil
stuporman superfan superban
That was creepy. Really C-R-E-E-P-Y.
"Buried Alive... Burrieeedddd Alive!"
Unless you know something the rest of us don't, there's no reason to believe he will get the chance. There's also no reason to believe he can deliver, if he DOES get the chance. Too many bridges burned with the people who would actually do the work.
Thanks for the vote of confidence in AxaMonitor, T'Bonz!
I noted in the comments on your TrekToday article that Morey Altman, Axanar's international PR representative, had some choice words about how "illegitimate" a source AxaMonitor is, writing:
Let me put it this way. Axamonitor is a blog that gets around 13K visitors a month. They have never once contacted me. On the other hand, I get requests for information from writers with Buzzfeed (260 MILLION monthly readers) and Yahoo (6 F'n BILLION readers a month.) That's what I mean by legitimate. They're obviously not as reliable as me since I'm actually connected to the production and speak to the filmmakers and legal team every day.
I replied in the comments:
Hi, Morey. It's nice to virtually meet you, despite your claim that my work on AxaMonitor is somehow illegitimate simply because I don't have the readership that Buzzfeed and Yahoo! do.
Surely you're not trying to suggest that the truth is something that is discovered by majority vote. I find that it more naturally comes from digging into things other news organizations ignore.
Has Buzzfeed done an in-depth analysis of Axanar's spending, fundraising and perk fulfillment? Has Yahoo! News examined Axanar's own data from its annual report, its Kickstarter and Indiegogo campaigns and compared them with a myriad of public statements made by Axanar principals in interviews, on Facebook and on their own podcasts and found specific and repeated contradictions between their claims on one website and their statements on others (including their own)?
And are you also trying to suggest that somehow you — spokesman for defendants with vested, financial interests in the outcome of a high-profile copyright infringement trial — should be considered a more reliable source simply because you have daily access to the filmmakers and legal team, who also have a vested interest in how their project is publicly portrayed?
And are you also suggesting that anything I write can only be legitimate if I reach out to you personally? Because you're listed in Axanar's e-press center as the "international" PR representative for the production, while Mike Bawden is listed as the domestic representative. Since I live in the United States (therefore "domestic"), by your press site's own recommendation, Mike Bawden is the person I should've contacted. And indeed I have communicated with him on a regular basis since I launched AxaMonitor in February. Five minutes on AxaMonitor would've confirmed this. Or, say, a phone call or email to Mike himself, who would've confirmed this. Or perhaps viewing the TrekZONE video interview in which I appeared side-by-side with Mike Bawden discussing Axanar for around an hour and a half?
And are you suggesting that the 13,000 unique readers we get a month makes AxaMonitor illegitimate but the 10,000-12,000 people Axanar claims as supporters is sufficient to somehow grant the production some moral authority justifying its alleged infringement?
And is TrekToday and other media interested in the case supposed to be reassured by your claims of legitimacy when you:
• Make assertions without foundation;
• Fail to have done basic research about the website you're criticizing; and, finally,
• Claim to be more reliable (which I assume includes unbiased) than a disinterested third party simply because you have daily access to people with a vested interest in the outcome of a legal dispute?
— Carlos Pedraza, editor
AxaMonitor.com
Surely you're not trying to suggest that the truth is something that is discovered by majority vote. I find that it more naturally comes from digging into things other news organizations ignore.
Has Buzzfeed done an in-depth analysis of Axanar's spending, fundraising and perk fulfillment? Has Yahoo! News examined Axanar's own data from its annual report, its Kickstarter and Indiegogo campaigns and compared them with a myriad of public statements made by Axanar principals in interviews, on Facebook and on their own podcasts and found specific and repeated contradictions between their claims on one website and their statements on others (including their own)?
And are you also trying to suggest that somehow you — spokesman for defendants with vested, financial interests in the outcome of a high-profile copyright infringement trial — should be considered a more reliable source simply because you have daily access to the filmmakers and legal team, who also have a vested interest in how their project is publicly portrayed?
And are you also suggesting that anything I write can only be legitimate if I reach out to you personally? Because you're listed in Axanar's e-press center as the "international" PR representative for the production, while Mike Bawden is listed as the domestic representative. Since I live in the United States (therefore "domestic"), by your press site's own recommendation, Mike Bawden is the person I should've contacted. And indeed I have communicated with him on a regular basis since I launched AxaMonitor in February. Five minutes on AxaMonitor would've confirmed this. Or, say, a phone call or email to Mike himself, who would've confirmed this. Or perhaps viewing the TrekZONE video interview in which I appeared side-by-side with Mike Bawden discussing Axanar for around an hour and a half?
And are you suggesting that the 13,000 unique readers we get a month makes AxaMonitor illegitimate but the 10,000-12,000 people Axanar claims as supporters is sufficient to somehow grant the production some moral authority justifying its alleged infringement?
And is TrekToday and other media interested in the case supposed to be reassured by your claims of legitimacy when you:
• Make assertions without foundation;
• Fail to have done basic research about the website you're criticizing; and, finally,
• Claim to be more reliable (which I assume includes unbiased) than a disinterested third party simply because you have daily access to people with a vested interest in the outcome of a legal dispute?
— Carlos Pedraza, editor
AxaMonitor.com
Thing is, it was coming sooner or later, Peters or otherwise. Renegades was getting bigger. You have Michael Dorn trying to do a Worf show. I think if not Axanar than at some point someone else would have gone too far. It's perhaps a testament to dear Alec's ego that he got there first!
All good and I agree 100%.
All I meant was IF he does get a chance, then he suddenly has to deliver.
No more delays, no more excuses.
A
Amaris
Guest
Well, he would probably pull the "we were just sued and even pro-bono ain't free" card. Alec Peters seems to be a pro at delaying tactics.
Bravo!
What does Axanar need with an international PR guy? 
- Status