CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
This.
I still see Axanar supporters trying to figure out why the lawsuit happened, coming up with bizarre theories, but never looking at the publicly available document where, by law, CBS is required to say exactly why it's suing.
Every page of the complaint can be seen here. You can ignore Janet's comments, though they're helpful, and just read the official document if you want to form your own opinion unaffected by someone else's interpretations and opinions. http://www.gandtshow.com/axanar-plaintiffs-file-amended-complaint/
Beyond that, there's the depositions and the emails filed during discovery that show exactly what the Axanar people were thinking and doing. You cannot read this material and then honestly say, well, everybody's doing that, why was Axanar picked on? Because nobody but Axanar was doing some of the stuff they were doing.
By entertaining people, i.e. pleasing people. That's how they get butts in seats. As many as they can.
I don't know why you speak of the "fans" as a monolithic block that only has one opinion.
You don't know how 501c works. It has nothing to do with how many professional actors are in it or not.
How many theater companies in the country are 501c and hire actors? A lot. A ton. All of the not for profits.
How are a list of guidelines micromanagement?
It's not my attitude, it's literally the law. The law doesn't require money to be made, if you make a Star Trek film, fan or not, you are stealing someone else's IP.
Again, not attitude, it's copyright law.
The law says they don't have to. The law says they can sue if they choose.
It sounds like you don't know what a non-profit organization is, as defined by the IRS. It doesn't mean people don't get paid.
Not making money on something, the first former unwritten rule, is not the same thing as a non profit organization.
In this thread, on this subject, yeah.
You keep saying legally raised money.
1. What is an example of illegally raised money?
2. It doesn't matter if money is raised or not, it's still a breach of copyright.
Fanfilms, by their very nature are breaches of copyright law.
We keep revisiting it because you are ignorant, it seems, about copyright law. You keep saying things about legally raised money, that you don't want anything illegal.
Money has nothing to do about copyright violations. Money isn't considered when determining with copyright has been violated.
Pick a lane. Either you don't like illegal things or you do. Or you recognize the hypocrisy of your position and you just want to go back to the way they were. Hint: they won't.
I need a drink. Anyone else?
I sure do.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
If the point of the guidelines isn't to lower production quality, what does it matter?
With the fifteen minute limit, it's mostly a moot point, because at that runtime, the amount of money allowed by the guidelines on a per minute basis is roughly equivalent to the cost of Anna Akana's short film "Miss Earth". A film the length of Star Trek Horizon, at $50,000 dollars for every 15 minutes, would cost roughly $341,000. I think that's in line with something like Star Trek Continues. $50,000 for 30 minutes is a little less reasonable, though.
To be fair, though, it would cost more to accurately imitate the look of later movies and series.
A time limit to play with someone else's toys: the nerve!!
That happens to a lot of folks. You get a taste of succes--start to spend in profligate ways--and it all gets out of hand.
There's nothing I enjoy more than good conversation.
In progress, thanks.
You seem to think I have to come over and play at all. If they don't want to share their toys, they can play alone.
And they are tots cool with that. They aren't in business to give away their toys. But they are generous that they don't mind off you want to play, as long as you play nicely.
The majority of professional behind the scenes people involved in producing and bringing out Prelude bailed (due to Alec Peters mismanagement of the project and suddenly not wanting to really spend money on the project beyond refurbishing a studio - which all the professionals stated was a waste of money/time). That all happened a full year before the lawsuit (and AFTER Alec Peters had already PASSED the initial filming start dates outlined in the Kickstarter.)
It's not generosity when they don't actually give you permission and simply hint that they won't break your fingers while you're playing with them if you do as they say.
Well, you are coming in and taking something that isn't yours to begin with...
Any meat pies there? Carnivore here, and I'm a bit peckish.
----
Is there any other fandom that has this sense of entitlement that Trek fans seem to have? Where else is there a group, that could be described as a cult, that demands that the owners of a property give it over to them to do with as they please? Where else outside extreme Trek fanaticism would it be even a question that the owners of a property be accused of not respecting the fans unless they allow a self-proclaimed savior to collect money and spend it on whatever he likes, with no accountability?
That's what has happened with His Lord Alex, Keeper of All Trek, Father of the Next Millennium of Trek Fandom. (or so he'd have us believe.)
Alec Peters, Lord Axahat, has a pattern of screwing over people who do business with him. It's documented; just look it up. I'm amazed that people still try to put this whole thing on CBS and Paramount.
Can you see me rolling my eyes?
- Status