• 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.
Smoked Salmon said:
He still is. He's still crying about what they got away with and his latest is to cry about Cawley's set tours.
Click to expand...
There's a method to the madness. Complaining about the other productions helps make his public (though not legal) case against a large damage award. The more he can portray this as a greedy studio going after the little guy, the more favorable publicity he hopes to secure. Which he's going to need if he gets to an appeal and his current lawyers bail on him.
 
RedForman said:
CwCr9GlXEAA1kU_.jpg:large
Click to expand...

Ok, I see. The morons by this analysis are his defense counsel, and the haters are the studios. There's nothing embarrassing about the financials because what Axanar does is by definition ethical. And everyone *else* is the cause of all the problems, because they don't read the "facts" from the Axanar website [walled garden of endless new story seasons], or ask for "clarification" [banned if you question the answer you get, or the absence of answer you get].

If everything were pure as driven snow, all he had to do was release all the information last year (and all along the way), and actually, not fake-answer the questions put to him by donors. But even a year later, he fights it being disclosed from source documents in court, and asserts some sort of disclosure will come from him instead. Calls anyone asking for clarification of contradiction, or questioning the official version of events seeking the bottom line a hater. Again^^again. Logical, flawlessly logical.
 
Last edited:
oswriter said:
There's a method to the madness. Complaining about the other productions helps make his public (though not legal) case against a large damage award. The more he can portray this as a greedy studio going after the little guy, the more favorable publicity he hopes to secure. Which he's going to need if he gets to an appeal and his current lawyers bail on him.
Click to expand...
Yup. It's equally about firefighting the inevitability disgruntled donors when Axanar officially sinks down the shitter. Spin is what he's been about for years. I think the problem for Alec now though is that the spotlight is no longer small enough for him to get away with it.
 
Smoked Salmon said:
Yup. It's equally about firefighting the inevitability disgruntled donors when Axanar officially sinks down the shitter. Spin is what he's been about for years. I think the problem for Alec now though is that the spotlight is no longer small enough for him to get away with it.
Click to expand...

The strategy depends on a walled garden and suppression of dissenters. Once you invite JJ in to be deposed about your conduct in Trek, your walled garden is Terran Space.
 
Some of AP's argument (that others were doing it, so he felt it was okay) is essentially the estoppel argument. This was argued in the defense motion to dismiss (second one, IIRC). It was thrown out by the court but the standards for allowing a motion to dismiss differ from what will fly as a defense.

Hard to not see this as willful and knowing infringement, given the released emails and any number of statements on Twitter, etc., plus the KS information where defense says one of the risks inherent in the project is of being shut down by the rights holders.

A lot of what we are seeing also seems to go to how defense is trying to argue fair use. They may be going with a lack of actual damages or minimal actual damages, but that only matters and helps them if plaintiffs only want actual damages. By plaintiffs' attorney (David Grossman, I believe), by his own statement, plaintiffs are likely to pursue statutory damages. And then the actual damages don't matter at all.

And now here are a bunch of exclamation marks (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) and STATEMENTS IN CAPITAL LETTERS. Just in case anyone adds more credibility to my statements if I use them.

If you want emojis, you're on your own.
 
jespah said:
Some of AP's argument (that others were doing it, so he felt it was okay) is essentially the estoppel argument. This was argued in the defense motion to dismiss (second one, IIRC). It was thrown out by the court but the standards for allowing a motion to dismiss differ from what will fly as a defense.

Hard to not see this as willful and knowing infringement, given the released emails and any number of statements on Twitter, etc., plus the KS information where defense says one of the risks inherent in the project is of being shut down by the rights holders.

A lot of what we are seeing also seems to go to how defense is trying to argue fair use. They may be going with a lack of actual damages or minimal actual damages, but that only matters and helps them if plaintiffs only want actual damages. By plaintiffs' attorney (David Grossman, I believe), by his own statement, plaintiffs are likely to pursue statutory damages. And then the actual damages don't matter at all.

And now here are a bunch of exclamation marks (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) and STATEMENTS IN CAPITAL LETTERS. Just in case anyone adds more credibility to my statements if I use them.

If you want emojis, you're on your own.
Click to expand...


pies.png
 
Meanwhile, in non-Axanar copyright news, the Supreme Court may take up an appeal involving takedown notices under the DMCA.

To make a long story (relatively) short:
  • Woman posts video of her kids dancing to a Prince song on YouTube.
  • Prince's record label sends YouTube a takedown notice.
  • Woman sends counter-notice and YouTube restores the video.
  • Woman--backed by copyright reform groups--sues Universal for damages, claiming it made a "bad faith" claim of infringement.
  • Universal said it had a "good faith," if mistaken belief there was infringement.
  • Both sides argue over the legal standard of what constitutes a "good faith" belief.
  • The Ninth Circuit basically said it's a "subjective" standard and that Universal may not be liable for damages even if it failed to consider whether or not the petitioner's video was "fair use" before sending the takedown notice.
  • The petitioner disagrees with the Ninth Circuit and wants the Supreme Court to set an "objectively reasonable" standard for copyright holders.
  • The Supreme Court hasn't decided whether to hear the case, but this morning it asked the Solicitor General, speaking for the federal government, for its opinion on what to do.
This case could have some interesting implications for fair use and posting of fan films, so I thought I'd mention it here.
 
oswriter said:
There's a method to the madness. Complaining about the other productions helps make his public (though not legal) case against a large damage award. The more he can portray this as a greedy studio going after the little guy, the more favorable publicity he hopes to secure. Which he's going to need if he gets to an appeal and his current lawyers bail on him.
Click to expand...

But surely the method can only reach so far. Considering the tipping point (Axanar financials) and L&L making it clear that's a major concern - if that element plays out in court the way L&L are aiming for, then all he'll be doing is making himself a wider audience to hear what Ranahan states is going to be an embarrassment.

There's only so far you can deflect a point before you get caught in the lie - the short term gain has far too much potential to lead to long term damage.

My journalist trainings well out of date - and I was trained for the tabloids - but the story yet to come (which I imagine as the written equivalent of the GOT walk of Shame) seems to be a far better one to tell than the one Axanar's telling now.
 
Last edited:
oswriter said:
Meanwhile, in non-Axanar copyright news, the Supreme Court may take up an appeal involving takedown notices under the DMCA.

To make a long story (relatively) short:
  • Woman posts video of her kids dancing to a Prince song on YouTube.
  • Prince's record label sends YouTube a takedown notice.
  • Woman sends counter-notice and YouTube restores the video.
  • Woman--backed by copyright reform groups--sues Universal for damages, claiming it made a "bad faith" claim of infringement.
  • Universal said it had a "good faith," if mistaken belief there was infringement.
  • Both sides argue over the legal standard of what constitutes a "good faith" belief.
  • The Ninth Circuit basically said it's a "subjective" standard and that Universal may not be liable for damages even if it failed to consider whether or not the petitioner's video was "fair use" before sending the takedown notice.
  • The petitioner disagrees with the Ninth Circuit and wants the Supreme Court to set an "objectively reasonable" standard for copyright holders.
  • The Supreme Court hasn't decided whether to hear the case, but this morning it asked the Solicitor General, speaking for the federal government, for its opinion on what to do.
This case could have some interesting implications for fair use and posting of fan films, so I thought I'd mention it here.
Click to expand...

But if the Supreme Court hears the case and upholds the Ninth Circuit original ruling (which it could) - no change.

Also, if the Supreme Court declines to hear the case - no change.

So, as per usual, it ALL depends on what is finally adjudicated. That said, they could make a ruling regarding the use of music in personal videos. It's the use of the music that prompted the DCMA notice in the fist place here.

jespah said:
Some of AP's argument (that others were doing it, so he felt it was okay) is essentially the estoppel argument. This was argued in the defense motion to dismiss (second one, IIRC). It was thrown out by the court but the standards for allowing a motion to dismiss differ from what will fly as a defense.

Hard to not see this as willful and knowing infringement, given the released emails and any number of statements on Twitter, etc., plus the KS information where defense says one of the risks inherent in the project is of being shut down by the rights holders.

A lot of what we are seeing also seems to go to how defense is trying to argue fair use. They may be going with a lack of actual damages or minimal actual damages, but that only matters and helps them if plaintiffs only want actual damages. By plaintiffs' attorney (David Grossman, I believe), by his own statement, plaintiffs are likely to pursue statutory damages. And then the actual damages don't matter at all.

And now here are a bunch of exclamation marks (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) and STATEMENTS IN CAPITAL LETTERS. Just in case anyone adds more credibility to my statements if I use them.

If you want emojis, you're on your own.
Click to expand...
The other thing being glossed over by many people (not saying Jespah is; as she's not), is the STILL OPERATIONAL 'Axanar Donor Store'; and the fact Axanar made it's own proprietary platform (twice) to facilitate said 'Store'; which continues to sell unlicensed Star Trek merchandise. The Store has been mentioned in Briefs by L&L so it's a material part of the infringement case as well.
^^^
If the Axanar financials include info on the funds the store generated - that would be further proof of willful infringement and also go directly to market harm/damages.

Yes, other fan film groups have given material perks in exchange for Pledges via the Kickstarter/Indegogo paradigm - but I don't believe any other group had/has set up what is in effect a working online store that allows you to pay for and receive unlicensed merchandise as you go. (IE there are no 'Pledge Tiers' involved here.)
 
Last edited:
Noname Given said:
The other thing being glossed over by many people (not saying Jespah is; as she's not), is the STILL OPERATIONAL 'Axanar Donor Store'; and the fact Axanar made it's own proprietary platform (twice) to facilitate said 'Store'; which continues to sell unlicensed Star Trek merchandise. The Store has been mentioned in Briefs by L&L so it's a material part of the infringement case as well.
^^^
If the Axanar financials include info on the funds the store generated - that would be further proof of willful infringement and also go directly to market harm/damages.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen anyone "gloss over" that (well, except Peters).
 
oswriter said:
It's presented in a different style--i.e., documentary--than most existing "Star Trek" properties; it mostly features original characters; and it is arguably a social commentary on war.
Click to expand...

I'm going to disagree with that. Using a documentary style to tell a fictional narrative isn't "transformative." It's using a documentary style to tell a narrative. "In the Pale Moon Light" on DS9 is a doc storytelling convention. "Heroes" on Stargate SG-1, is an entire episode told as a documentary. It's not transformative, though. It's a stylistic choice.

Documentaries are actually transformative, as non-fiction is different than fiction. If Axanar makes a documentary about their struggles, they are well within the law to do so. In fact, I'd defend their right to make a documentary about how their efforts to make their own version of Star Trek caused controversy.

But saying using non-fiction style to tell a fictional story is transformative? I just roll my eyes at that.
 
Noname Given said:
...The other thing being glossed over by many people (not saying Jespah is; as she's not), is the STILL OPERATIONAL 'Axanar Donor Store'; and the fact Axanar made it's own proprietary platform (twice) to facilitate said 'Store'; which continues to sell unlicensed Star Trek merchandise. ...
Click to expand...

If you look reeely reeely closely at the Klingon model, you can see that all the rivets have little smiley faces on them, making it parody. :klingon::hugegrin::klingon::hugegrin::klingon:
 
Jody Wheeler said:
I'm going to disagree with that. Using a documentary style to tell a fictional narrative isn't "transformative." It's using a documentary style to tell a narrative. "In the Pale Moon Light" on DS9 is a doc storytelling convention. "Heroes" on Stargate SG-1, is an entire episode told as a documentary. It's not transformative, though. It's a stylistic choice.

Documentaries are actually transformative, as non-fiction is different than fiction. If Axanar makes a documentary about their struggles, they are well within the law to do so. In fact, I'd defend their right to make a documentary about how their efforts to make their own version of Star Trek caused controversy.

But saying using non-fiction style to tell a fictional story is transformative? I just roll my eyes at that.
Click to expand...
I would agree, but what we are debating is whether or not there is the basis for an argument, not what will ultimately prevail.
 
Thank you @RedForman :)

What's the name of the Prince/DMCA case, @oswriter ? I'll toss it on the ever-growing TBR/TBBA (to be read/to be blogged about) Semantic Shenanigans pile. Many thanks in advance.

Back to dealing with the aftereffects of 30+ hours up (feels like a hangover, still, and I didn't even have any alkyhol).

Zzzzz
 
Well, that's a technical denial, but the most important part was still granted.

I'm sure Mr. Lane will try and put a spin on this, but the long and the short of it is that Peters has to cough up further evidence orally, and that will inevitably mean an explanation for the missing emails.
 
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