Or more likely "the settlement forbids their release."
CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
Which is why I say such a suit wouldn't fly. However a lawsuit, even one without merit, can be time consuming, expensive and stressful, which makes it perfect for harassing one's "enemies".^^^^
Remember - Alec claimed Axanar had no employees;m so unless he had every volunteer sign a Independent Contractor contract of some kind (and sent 1099-Misc forms out to them every year even if no one was paid) ...Alec might have done the former but he may not have done the latter meaning he's in breach of contract himself.
He might say that. But I doubt any settlement could preclude Axanar Productions from releasing its own financial information any way it wants. Otherwise, Axanar Productions could be precluded from things like qualifying for an Amex Centurion Card. Turn it around, could Axanar get records of CBS financials and then demand that CBS never disclose that information?
What I think can be silenced is the terms themselves, and any information received from the *other* side or records of interaction with them, and depositions which are not already made public in court filings, and any documents filed under seal. Someone correct this if it is wrong.
Last edited:
You are correct, Axanar could release its own financials, any confidentiality would be with respect to the other parties information.
I see what you did there...
Believe it or not it is 95% word for word and bar any umssss or arrrs by Jordan and John and potentially any misheard words it was extremely important to me to make sure it was this way.
Over the last 13 months we have had oh thats not true or thats taken out of context and my favourite thats not what was said.
So with that I listened to the podcast so much I can most likely tell you what these guys had for breakfast lol... (joke)
That said if you read anything and you're like erm wtf then please tell me the time index and I will correct it by listening to the engage podcast again lol.
Thank you for your kind words about me doing it though it was a chore but extremely important to me to do it.
Thanks
^^^^
Remember - Alec claimed Axanar had no employees;m so unless he had every volunteer sign a Independent Contractor contract of some kind (and sent 1099-Misc forms out to them every year even if no one was paid) ...Alec might have done the former but he may not have done the latter meaning he's in breach of contract himself.
S Corporation executives and shareholders are employees in the eyes of the IRS if the contribution is more than minor. I'm no expert in this, but if Alec tried to 1099 himself, he might be in for a problem in not withholding his own taxes, since Alec is listed as the CEO of Axanar Productions:
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/smal...employees-shareholders-and-corporate-officers
S Corporation Employees, Shareholders and Corporate Officers
Who is an Employee?
The definition of employee for FICA (Federal Insurance Contributions Act), FUTA (Federal Unemployment Tax Act) and federal income tax withholding under the Internal Revenue Code include corporate officers. When corporate officers perform a service for the corporation and receive or are entitled to payments, those payments are considered wages.
The fact that an officer is also a shareholder does not change this requirement. Such payments to the corporate officer are treated as wages. Courts have consistently held S corporation officers/shareholders who provide more than minor services to their corporation and receive, or are entitled to receive, compensation are subject to federal employment taxes.
If an officer does not perform any services or only performs minor services and is not entitled to compensation, the officer would not be considered an employee.
I do believe it. It was my great pleasure to find it too.
I know what you mean. My own enormous personal files keeping track of the statements, self contradictions, factual contradictions, posts, changes in direction, new developments, social media commenting, interviews, podcasts (with lots of transcribing of my own
), vlogs, changes in wording, outright reversals with accompanying denials the previous was said, and ohhhh sooo much more, has kept me spinning at times just trying to keep up with and map for accuracy as I kept searching for clarity and accuracy on what is going on with thiswholething. Word documents, highlighting, folders, screen caps, bookmarks, spreadsheets for cross referencing everything..... have been my good friends for the past 13 months. You did a terrific job and it was entirely my pleasure to find it in case I ever do get a hankering to peruse the content of the podcast with Mr. Van Citters again. Plus, over the past year I've done enough transcribing relevant to my reasearch portions of podcasts on my own to recognize and admire the amount work you put into it. Since the case is settled I have happily done a massive purge of the data I've collected over the last 13 months. The case & I are both settled now.
I feel confident in my in my conclusions and since the case Actual has settled I feel no need or interest in continuing tracking and mapping....... even if the final chapter in thiswholething does still have this continuing stuff happening. @jespah, @carlosp have all the reams of facts figures and legal stuff going on which they do so well and post updates for in this Thread. As do you too. So this is now my only touch stone for thiswholething, just to keep abreast of any day to day goings on and/or discoveries, changes, or revelations were they to occur.
Last edited:
Hopefully Terry gifts us with some of that juicy stuff that some of us thought would turn the situation 'nuclear' way back when......
Related - Seuss v. Gerrold, et al cites Axanar - I have bloggerized about it:
http://www.semanticshenanigans.com/seuss-v-gerrold-et-al-pro-hac-vice-antics/
Thank you, as always, for your kind support.
http://www.semanticshenanigans.com/seuss-v-gerrold-et-al-pro-hac-vice-antics/
Thank you, as always, for your kind support.
Terry is always making noises about doing stuff and about how he could bring Alec down with one press of a button, about how he's planning on suing him for "stealing" his donor store software and yet he never does. He's a bag of wind like many of the others. Wasn't it just last week that both Peters and Hinman were promising to file defamation lawsuits against each other? I'm going to stick my neck out hugely and suggest neither of them have.
On AxaMonitor — SETTLEMENT AFTERMATH Many loose threads remain in the aftermath of the settlement of Axanar’s copyright lawsuit, including whether producer Alec Peters in fact admitted he ran afoul of copyright law or if director Robert Meyer Burnett would stay with the shortened production. Read more »
Yipes! That is confusing. I updated one paragraph with new information but neglected to update the other. I'll fix that right away. Thanks!
In the Engage podcast, John Van Citters said CBS would not seek to take down already produced fan films available for streaming or download that don’t conform to the guidelines, only productions created henceforward.
The "already produced" and "henceforward" parts are what have been generally interpreted as grandfathering completed fan films and those that were in production at the time the guidelines were announced in June 2016. That's as close as you're going to get.
The financial review report is supposedly still pending, just delayed by the settlement. Note, however, that while Peters was touting a release on the schedule he announced, his committee members stated they were on their own timetable. Kevin Rubio told AxaMonitor, " “We are … working on our own timeline NOT [Axanar’s].”
Time index – 00:26:30
{} JVC {}
Fan films that are already out there and there’s a long and rich history of Star Trek fan productions we’re not then there’s definitely ones that exceed the length requirement and exceed do you know requirement of you know not having professional Trek actors and things like that those are those were not going and chasing things down retroactively we’re not going to be contacting YouTube or internet service providers and trying to you know scrub the internet of the fan Star Trek that is not the intent of this anything that is already out there will remain out there we have no intention of taking anything down.
https://trekfanproductions.com/fanproductionsblogs/engagepodcasttranscript/
On AxaMonitor — SETTLEMENT AFTERMATH Many loose threads remain in the aftermath of the settlement of Axanar’s copyright lawsuit, including whether producer Alec Peters in fact admitted he ran afoul of copyright law or if director Robert Meyer Burnett would stay with the shortened production. Read more »
"We fooled the interstellar ships by flying out from behind the planet" never fails to bring a chuckle. Oh, toy boardgame pew pew, how I remember you from 7 years old...
well now, this is interesting isn't it. I'm sure there's a very acceptable alternative facts story .....
I'm hearing same-ole same-ole.
(paraphrasing)
"The shipping company I found with the lowest charges to ship the merchandise I handled in the auction didn't contact me to tell me it was going to cost more."
however.......
"Well, okay, it was my own company I started for this auction's shipping. Here are the alternative facts on what happened which clearly absolve me of any responsibility in this."
And as the world turns.....
leopard - spots
history - repeat
same song, just another verse
I'm currently inclined to think ArsTechina had the correct information, but that info was part of the settlement non-disclosure agreement, therefore was not suppose to be disclosed. This is the clue I'm working with:
" However, my information was 'incomplete' having not been privy to the settlement agreement. … I spoke out of turn."
'If' I were to be accurate in my conjecture I'd call it a very nice 'leak' with plausible deniability built right in.
http://axamonitor.com/doku.php?id=settlement_aftermathI'm thinking 'now why would a spokesman for anything just pull up something out of the air to tell a public 'publication' in an email on a matter like this one?'
I'm hearing same-ole same-ole.
(paraphrasing)
"The shipping company I found with the lowest charges to ship the merchandise I handled in the auction didn't contact me to tell me it was going to cost more."
however.......
"Well, okay, it was my own company I started for this auction's shipping. Here are the alternative facts on what happened which clearly absolve me of any responsibility in this."
And as the world turns.....
leopard - spots
history - repeat
same song, just another verse
I'm currently inclined to think ArsTechina had the correct information, but that info was part of the settlement non-disclosure agreement, therefore was not suppose to be disclosed. This is the clue I'm working with:
" However, my information was 'incomplete' having not been privy to the settlement agreement. … I spoke out of turn."
'If' I were to be accurate in my conjecture I'd call it a very nice 'leak' with plausible deniability built right in.
Last edited:
- Status