CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
It would be in C/P's interests then to take this all the way to trial and take LFIM to the cleaners quite literally (lest some other joker 'pull an Axanar' and try to get away with a like-styled settlement). Given that LFIM reached back to FASA for his inspiration, it might also behoove them to issue some takedown notices, as some cursory googling shows a lot of that old FASA stuff still in circulation via torrent (old plot/storylines not used by C/P being ripe for the kind of exploitation you hypothesized).
But then the question becomes, How much does C/P want to pay their staff or outside counsel to scrub the Internet of any material that might *potentially* be exploited by a future infringer. This is one of the drawbacks of having such lengthy copyright terms with a property that generates tons of licensed and derivative works. There's a lot of peripheral material--and let's face it, the FASA stuff is pretty obscure, even to most Trek fans--that needs to be policed.
Since the beginning of this case I've been wondering about the alternate universe where Congress never expanded the copyright term beyond 14 years (which was established in 1790). By that standard the copyright on TOS would have expired in 1980.
If the potential threat to the IP is as dire as muCephi implied, the question might become irrelevant.....(assuming C/P want to take a similar 'scorched earth' approach as LFIM is now)
And I'd say that is an approach that will bring diminishing returns. The technology is only getting better while the legal system is becoming more expensive and inefficient. The truth of the matter is, 19th century concepts of copyright don't work in a 21st century where everyone owns a printing press and the marginal cost of making copies is zero.
And one can see this in the way aggregator blogs skim (excuse me, "fair use") the content of original authors in a cascading sequence of advertising supported linkthroughs, each taking revenue that might have gone to the original author.
I think the fan guidelines let loose of the property at the point of diminishing returns. Its smart to draw a line, even if it may change over time. But unless all one wants in entertainment media is "reality" shows devoid of any creative thought, and one shot movies that can't be preempted usefully by forgeries, one better hope that some effective way survives to protect the "hooks" of series scripted works.
The drive towards "reality" television and unscripted programming is largely driven by the high costs of employing union writers and actors. I'm not sure diminishing returns from IP are that significant a factor. Indeed, if you consider the C/P guidelines, it's notable they place an emphasis on limiting budgets and using only amateur (i.e., non-guild member) talent. The studios clearly don't mind the odd fan production. But they'll be damned--rightly so--if they're going to let people make professional films for pennies on the dollar while they have to pay "retail" price.
Actually, I wonder if in light of this litigation and the Trek guidelines if SAG-AFTRA, WGA West, and the other unions won't step in to ban their members from doing "fan" productions.
^^^
Doubtful, as that might spill over to the 'student film' area where a lot of new talent finds their niche. Hollywood doesn't want to curtail the method by which 'new talent' is created and discovered in a lot of cases.
I certainly agree that the unions are stakeholders in the current revenue stream and the studios have to pay those costs even if others don't.
As the other costs trend to zero it will be interesting to see how the unions fight it. The old style (studio equipment/stage hand/etc.) technical union members may just become obsolete since you may not need nearly as many of them for most productions. Don't know if the hoardes working on CGI are unionized.
They could ban going back (except perhaps as an advisor), but not coming from.
I was talking to my folks today about this (I was explaining what I've been blogging about, as they didn't really know).
And the way I put it was, there is a David/Goliath narrative going on, but if this sort of knock-off creation is allowed to continue, people are going to suffer. I don't mean Sumner Redstone or his ilk. Those folks are fine. I am talking, instead, about the layoffs that would occur if copyright was truly gutted as many of these 'fans' seem to want. These large corporations based many of their assets in intellectual property. They budget for years based on it. They hire, or expand operations, open new offices, etc., just like corporations which sell insurance or dog kibble.
Gut copyright, and the people who will suffer will be the IT department, the HR department, the security office, the custodial services, the cafeteria staff, etc. For everyone who wants to burn down copyright and suddenly take possession of Trek or any other IP because they, somehow, love it more and can do it better or any other such nonsense, that would be the results.
And further, those who want to release this IP into the public domain because, reasons, Christ on a cracker. For all the Chapter 11 they would wish to inflict on CBS and Paramount (or at least a massive retrenchment), don't think for one moment that they don't want those profits.
Hand over Trek to these over-entitled yahoos and, if they have any commercial sense at all, they will be looking to build it up to the same profitable heights - and they will be going to the mattresses to protect their interests just as much as Paramount and CBS are.
It's not about freedom.
It's about money.
Exactly. At least I'm honest that my support for Team Disney when it comes copyright is solely to do with the financial side of IP.
Of course it is. Caf workers? Let them eat patches. You'll note in the comicon BSG Youtube excerpt above Mr. Hatch spoke of "profit sharing". As has Alec in podcast.
The saving grace is at the moment I think is that this isn't a new tech industry innovator proposing it. It is a handful of hungry fans trying to hack their way into a place at the table. Somewhat lacking in knowledge required to actually redesign the technology and business processes that would lead to a true change. Rather, its just an attempt to do a quick grab of some low hanging fruit -- exploit a gap in the fan film exemption to get a studio and a cost-free for-profit license.
I think the studios still have to deal with the real threat of more serious innovators... and may they sink or swim on that. But give that argument all up in advance and open the door to a plague of low level locust for-profit 'fan productions' just to appease some fans who saw some money unattended on the table? I don't think so.
Last edited:
Spoken like a woman who has never had to sit through a conference of libertarian academics.
It also never occurs to people that big business can play the same card as the "fans." Years ago I covered an antitrust case that was basically a reverse Axanar scenario: A small startup developed potentially valuable IP and established companies that didn't want to pay the licensing fees cooked up an antitrust lawsuit (with help from the government) to try and have the IP declared a "free" standard.
On that note, my understanding is that Peters fired off C&Ds, copyright infringement notices, etc. to anyone he believed was profiting off Axanar.
They got law in place to force "fair market price" licensing of copyright/patent/trade secret protected ideas which they can successfully argue are "too critical" for their industry to be priced out of.
And I am a far happier person because of that, I'm sure.
And I am a far happier person because of that, I'm sure.
what, you don't have bandwidth for this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factions_in_the_Libertarian_Party_(United_States)- Status