hey now, give B5 its due it was done in the mid90s and was some epic CG for the day. Today anyone with a little skill and a decent $800 computer can do better than what they could do in 95
Wow, reading that someone on the Axanar team (before the lawsuit) got on a podcast and took a verbal dump on JJ Abrams...you know, if it was bad enough, it could have caused Paramount to read Axanar's project as an aggressive move and intent to *compete* rather than intent to pay homage to or support the franchise. That may explain why Paramount is also a party to the lawsuit and why they and CBS came together. Bad move if that podcast indeed happened as reported.
It infuriated me, because it seemed so petty... and that the TRIBBLE from Trek.fm, Christopher Jones, didn't play peacemaker and instead joined in on "how much JJ Trek sucks" and how much Axanar was "true Star Trek"... blows me away.
They didn't use profanity or anything, IIRC, and the comments were a little tame to begin with... but, they just kept coming back, and saying how much the Abrams films suck. They wouldn't let it go. I would think one would want to talk about how great their product is, and examples of the great thing they are doing, and how it will be a positive love letter to the franchise.
I don't know much about IP law and what would be admissible in court, but to me... yeah, that could be quite damaging in a court of law.
Why shouldn't the guy express his opinion about JJ's films? Is he not entitled to freedom of speech, or is that only allowed if he's going to say nice (and utterly insincere) things about JJ's films?
"Freedom of speech" means the government doesn't arrest you for saying things they don't like(as long as you aren't breaking some law, such as inciting violence). "Freedom of speech" does *NOT* mean that what you say has no effect on your personal or professional life.
Which means to me, that potentially suing a production company, because one of their members slagged off JJ, is little more than pettiness and being unable to brush off what was said like an adult, but a case of 'telling teacher' like a child so puniahment would be inflicted... As I said, if they gave Axanar producers guidelines, and they then ignored them, then by all means, sue away, but if they're just doing it because they're butthurt that JJ was slagged off, or that they feel threatened by Axanar, then IMHO that's just pathetic :-\
I am glad to see CBS go after Axanar! After seeing how much of a joke Renegades was. CBS needs to stamp out these poor quality fan made movies that use their IP. Axanar had it coming though, as they didn't have permission from CBS, where others like Renegades did.
Are you seriously comparing the quality of Prelude to Axanar -- which was of distribution-quality -- with the shambles that was Renegades?? O_O If the Axanar producers didn't abide by some rules CBS stipulated, then by all means, let them face the consequences, but the quality of their production values were first rate...
While they were excellent for an indie project, they were far from "first rate" by today's standards. And any movie buff worth their salt could watch "Prelude to Axanar", and tell it was a low budget indie project. I sure as hell did.
Axanar is what some would call "direct to video" quality. That doesn't mean it's bad. It just means it's not up to modern production standards, like the current "NuTrek" films.
Perhaps I misremembered the quality of Prelude (and I admit, it was watched on a tablet, rather than a decent-sized monitor) but I thought it was as good as anything I've seen professionally released. The CGI appeared at least on a par with DS-9/Voyager, and IMHO better than Babylon 5 and Andromeda. That it's not at the same level as JJ's films, given the differences in budget and resources, I don't find surprising. But it is still significantly better than Renegades, which was truly only of amateur quality (in every aspect, from costumes through to writing) To compare Axanar to that, I felt was a tad unfair...
I agree that Prelude isn't on par with what I see in theaters, but it does look just as good if not better than what we have seen in previous Trek TV series.
This is pretty much what I remembered when I watched Prelude, and although I'm normally of the opinion that 'good enough never is', if Axanar was only going to be released onto DVD's which the majority are going to view on home systems, then that level of quality would be 'good enough', and probably wouldn't look 'too bad' on a big screen if they were to have a showing at a cinema or convention. Renegades, on the other hand, looked 'home-made', hence why thought it an unfair comparison...
hey now, give B5 its due it was done in the mid90s and was some epic CG for the day. Today anyone with a little skill and a decent $800 computer can do better than what they could do in 95
Yes, but my pointis that B5 was a professional release, and was considered acceptable quality for release. That today's standards are SuperHD3DScope, doesn't detract from the fact that B5 was (and likely still is) considered as acceptable professional quality, and Axanar far surpasses it. It's also of the level of official Star Trek TV series releases, which Renegades, I would argue is not... If Axanar were to have a JJTrek budget, then I'd be confident in betting that it would be its equal...
Sadly, even though I liked the reboot Star Treks I dont feel excited about seeing them anymore. Even less now that I've seen the new trailer. I was looking forward to this so much i shared with with my fellow trekkers. They too are looking forward to it. I know others like myself who feel the same way. It just doesn't feel Trek anymore. The gang who had the vision and love the of fans are gone. CBS wants to shut down the fan base who still have the vision and will to carry it on.
Sadly, even though I liked the reboot Star Treks I dont feel excited about seeing them anymore. Even less now that I've seen the new trailer. I was looking forward to this so much i shared with with my fellow trekkers. They too are looking forward to it. I know others like myself who feel the same way. It just doesn't feel Trek anymore. The gang who had the vision and love the of fans are gone. CBS wants to shut down the fan base who still have the vision and will to carry it on.
If that was true, then they wouldn't let Continues or Renegades operate.... and they do. so there is more to it than that... how much or what? That I'm not quite sure of...
Either way, Axanar had gotten way bigger than a "fan project".
Does criticising another director's work, and saying that you can do as well actually equal infringement?
No. Taking that "trash talk" and using it as a basis, holding multiple fundraising campaigns, and actually putting forth a finished product could easily be infringement, however.
It would be like me saying that Disney animation sucks, and I could do better... nothing about that is wrong. If I create the character of Rickey Rat, seek funds from others to help me make a project, and eventually release an animated short on YouTube... you don't think Disney would find out? I could tell them Walt Disney is a personal hero, and my work is a tribute to his imagination... but, if I got $1 million to make my project, you can bet Disney lawyers would hit my doorstep before I hit the 'Export file' button. And with a $1 million financial records in one hand, and my initial comments in the other... yeah...
And, to be clear, it doesn't matter what Axanar did really, or why CBS (and Paramount) is suddenly against them. It's their property. Period. The law, as it is now, is on their side.
This is pretty much what I remembered when I watched Prelude, and although I'm normally of the opinion that 'good enough never is', if Axanar was only going to be released onto DVD's which the majority are going to view on home systems, then that level of quality would be 'good enough', and probably wouldn't look 'too bad' on a big screen if they were to have a showing at a cinema or convention. Renegades, on the other hand, looked 'home-made', hence why thought it an unfair comparison...
Axanar looked like something professionally produced and released on blu-ray (I watched it on my regular TV from a USB device). The prelude montage has a very nice pacing, editing and it looks and sounds very nice. I have no idea how to spot "low budget" but the CGI was on the late Trek show's level in my opinion. Renegades' costumes and scenery looked much more amateurish but this could be due to Renegades just showing more. Prelude really only has actors in one shot in front of one green screen and the rest are short, rendered CGI clips. No idea how it looks in motion, if you look at the Vulcan scene it still looks good enough but you can spot the artificial background much easier.
The main problem Renegades has, aside from the writing, is terrible, terrible editing. That really makes it look like a fan production in the worst sense of the term and it is baffling that they allowed it to release in this state, claiming at least a few professionals worked on it.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Does criticising another director's work, and saying that you can do as well actually equal infringement?
No. Taking that "trash talk" and using it as a basis, holding multiple fundraising campaigns, and actually putting forth a finished product could easily be infringement, however.
It would be like me saying that Disney animation sucks, and I could do better... nothing about that is wrong. If I create the character of Rickey Rat, seek funds from others to help me make a project, and eventually release an animated short on YouTube... you don't think Disney would find out? I could tell them Walt Disney is a personal hero, and my work is a tribute to his imagination... but, if I got $1 million to make my project, you can bet Disney lawyers would hit my doorstep before I hit the 'Export file' button. And with a $1 million financial records in one hand, and my initial comments in the other... yeah...
And, to be clear, it doesn't matter what Axanar did really, or why CBS (and Paramount) is suddenly against them. It's their property. Period. The law, as it is now, is on their side.
I believe that, is the key to the issue... Given that CBS/Paramount allow Renegades, and actively went to bat for Continues, what Axanar did to suddently be on the receiving end is crucial to understanding the situation -- and at the end of the day, all I want to do is understand the situation. As I said, if the Axanar producers went against the guidelines CBS/Paramount gave, then they absolutely deserve to be hit with the legal stick. If they have not, then while CBS/would be legally within their rights to sue, ethically, it is pretty weak to sue someone for doing something but to ignore the others who are doing the same thing.
The thing that irritated me the most about the podcast element, was gulberat's 'school ma'am tone', over (regardless of if they agree with it or not) what is ultimately someone's God-given right to their own opinion and freedom of speech to express it. So what if someone takes a verbal TRIBBLE on JJ?? So what if someone criticizes him on air?? As far as I'm concerned, JJ more than deserves it. Even if he doesn't and his work is legitimately good, as 'a producer of work', he opens himself to critique of said work, and that kind of trash-talk is something which often happens not only on the radio, but between sporting competitors. And as long as the comments aren't slander/libel, someone not only has the freedom to make them, but it's an almost-expected 'part of the game'... Someone is not entitled to live in a bubble where they never hear anything other than the positive accolades they want to hear, over what is legitimately debatable public-arena work... By being a public figure, JJ opens himself to the opinions of others -- both good and bad -- and if he doesn't have the shoulders for that, then he should retire from the limelight and stop producing material (It's not as if he has to keep working to keep a roof over his family's head... The man could literally never work another day in his life and still afford to live a lifestyle most can only dream of) If someone wants to take him to task or call out his work, regardless of if it is 'bad taste' to do so by one person's moral standard, that is that someone's right as a free person with freedom of speech, and their own opinion.
So if the lawsuit is actually motivated by that, and not for some arrogant infringement of complaince guidelines, then that is nothing more than someone without the stones to defend himself/his work, without having to hide behind a legal team... It's petty schoolyard TRIBBLE which is best dealt with mano y mano, not by 'running to teacher... Running to teacher when you get bullied pisses off the bully and makes them bully you more. Hitting the bully and showing them you're not an easy mark and can stand up for yourself, will make them back off because they then know you have the power to defend yourself at any time, not just when there's a teacher there to enforce compliance of 'good behaviour'...
This is pretty much what I remembered when I watched Prelude, and although I'm normally of the opinion that 'good enough never is', if Axanar was only going to be released onto DVD's which the majority are going to view on home systems, then that level of quality would be 'good enough', and probably wouldn't look 'too bad' on a big screen if they were to have a showing at a cinema or convention. Renegades, on the other hand, looked 'home-made', hence why thought it an unfair comparison...
Axanar looked like something professionally produced and released on blu-ray (I watched it on my regular TV from a USB device). The prelude montage has a very nice pacing, editing and it looks and sounds very nice. I have no idea how to spot "low budget" but the CGI was on the late Trek show's level in my opinion. Renegades' costumes and scenery looked much more amateurish but this could be due to Renegades just showing more. Prelude really only has actors in one shot in front of one green screen and the rest are short, rendered CGI clips. No idea how it looks in motion, if you look at the Vulcan scene it still looks good enough but you can spot the artificial background much easier.
The main problem Renegades has, aside from the writing, is terrible, terrible editing. That really makes it look like a fan production in the worst sense of the term and it is baffling that they allowed it to release in this state, claiming at least a few professionals worked on it.
I agree... Axanar's CGI was of that level (a professional level, and as noted, better than early professional-level work like Babylon 5) so calling it 'low budget', to be honest, I thought was a bit snobby on oldravenman's part, rather than a legitimate critique, because the CGI is good, and of an acceptably professional level (which can't be said for really anything on Renegade's production...) I completely agree with you, editing is one of the most crucial parts of film-making. A good editor can cut laborious scenes together to be fast and snappy, but when the actors (who I actually put the least blame on) are wearing costumes which look no better than a mid-level cosplayer (some of the top-tier cosplayer's work, is absolutely On Point) reciting tedious dialogue (the writer's fault) then that's not so easy for an editor to hide, and quite rightly earns having those points noted. That they (the Renegades cast and crew) did their best, I would never deny, and I don't mean to TRIBBLE on someone's best work, but when it is not of professional quality, it doesn't need sympathy pity to bolster it, and shouldn't be used as a level of judgement for work which, IMHO, is of professional quality, such as Axanar, or the irritatingly-delayed Space Command.
Wow, reading that someone on the Axanar team (before the lawsuit) got on a podcast and took a verbal dump on JJ Abrams...you know, if it was bad enough, it could have caused Paramount to read Axanar's project as an aggressive move and intent to *compete* rather than intent to pay homage to or support the franchise. That may explain why Paramount is also a party to the lawsuit and why they and CBS came together. Bad move if that podcast indeed happened as reported.
It infuriated me, because it seemed so petty... and that the TRIBBLE from Trek.fm, Christopher Jones, didn't play peacemaker and instead joined in on "how much JJ Trek sucks" and how much Axanar was "true Star Trek"... blows me away.
They didn't use profanity or anything, IIRC, and the comments were a little tame to begin with... but, they just kept coming back, and saying how much the Abrams films suck. They wouldn't let it go. I would think one would want to talk about how great their product is, and examples of the great thing they are doing, and how it will be a positive love letter to the franchise.
I don't know much about IP law and what would be admissible in court, but to me... yeah, that could be quite damaging in a court of law.
Why shouldn't the guy express his opinion about JJ's films? Is he not entitled to freedom of speech, or is that only allowed if he's going to say nice (and utterly insincere) things about JJ's films? Is it petty? Sure. No worse than the times Simon Pegg has slagged off and condescended to fans on Twitter, but people still treat him (for Godknows what reason) like the sun shines out of his TRIBBLE... I remember reading an interview with him on SuicideGirls when Shaun of the Dead was released: He came across as an egotistical jackass then, and nothing I've heard since has changed my view of him (although I will freely admit that I do enjoy the movies he has done...)
the man should be playing both sides to get information and peacemaker where it is needed so the content of both the radio station stuff remains a good source of info and quality, by piling in the way you stated there it only tells me that this person on trek fm needs to be removed from his position. a jounalist or a radio presenter makes no difference, they need to be responsible when dealing with things like this because;
1. it casts trek.fm itself in a bad light when they allow TRIBBLE like this to happen and discrimination is a bad choice to ignore, regardless.
2. the radio presenter himself is only showing himself to be a jerk but thats his problem and not ours.
3. freedom to misuse the equipment and trek.fm itself to fill the wairwaves full of bile is hardly what you call free speech. especially considering it is a suggestion towards this product instead of that product.
4. advertising one over the other is also a bad thing to do, especially on something so public.
Regardless how much i hate jjcrapverse, for radio and any media type like this, the person bringing this information to the masses needs to keep an open mind and both sides should be taken seriously and given a voice.
just for the record, Axanar has not produced anything yet and as much as i am loathed to defend jj and his crapverse, he has at least got two official films out and a 3rd one coming by name only. So broadcasting that axanar is better without anything specific to point to is irresponsible anyway.
T6 Miranda Hero Ship FTW. Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
Does criticising another director's work, and saying that you can do as well actually equal infringement?
No. Taking that "trash talk" and using it as a basis, holding multiple fundraising campaigns, and actually putting forth a finished product could easily be infringement, however.
It would be like me saying that Disney animation sucks, and I could do better... nothing about that is wrong. If I create the character of Rickey Rat, seek funds from others to help me make a project, and eventually release an animated short on YouTube... you don't think Disney would find out? I could tell them Walt Disney is a personal hero, and my work is a tribute to his imagination... but, if I got $1 million to make my project, you can bet Disney lawyers would hit my doorstep before I hit the 'Export file' button. And with a $1 million financial records in one hand, and my initial comments in the other... yeah...
And, to be clear, it doesn't matter what Axanar did really, or why CBS (and Paramount) is suddenly against them. It's their property. Period. The law, as it is now, is on their side.
I believe that, is the key to the issue... Given that CBS/Paramount allow Renegades, and actively went to bat for Continues, what Axanar did to suddently be on the receiving end is crucial to understanding the situation -- and at the end of the day, all I want to do is understand the situation. As I said, if the Axanar producers went against the guidelines CBS/Paramount gave, then they absolutely deserve to be hit with the legal stick. If they have not, then while CBS/would be legally within their rights to sue, ethically, it is pretty weak to sue someone for doing something but to ignore the others who are doing the same thing.
The thing that irritated me the most about the podcast element, was gulberat's 'school ma'am tone', over (regardless of if they agree with it or not) what is ultimately someone's God-given right to their own opinion and freedom of speech to express it. So what if someone takes a verbal TRIBBLE on JJ?? So what if someone criticizes him on air?? As far as I'm concerned, JJ more than deserves it. Even if he doesn't and his work is legitimately good, as 'a producer of work', he opens himself to critique of said work, and that kind of trash-talk is something which often happens not only on the radio, but between sporting competitors. And as long as the comments aren't slander/libel, someone not only has the freedom to make them, but it's an almost-expected 'part of the game'... Someone is not entitled to live in a bubble where they never hear anything other than the positive accolades they want to hear, over what is legitimately debatable public-arena work... By being a public figure, JJ opens himself to the opinions of others -- both good and bad -- and if he doesn't have the shoulders for that, then he should retire from the limelight and stop producing material (It's not as if he has to keep working to keep a roof over his family's head... The man could literally never work another day in his life and still afford to live a lifestyle most can only dream of) If someone wants to take him to task or call out his work, regardless of if it is 'bad taste' to do so by one person's moral standard, that is that someone's right as a free person with freedom of speech, and their own opinion.
So if the lawsuit is actually motivated by that, and not for some arrogant infringement of complaince guidelines, then that is nothing more than someone without the stones to defend himself/his work, without having to hide behind a legal team... It's petty schoolyard TRIBBLE which is best dealt with mano y mano, not by 'running to teacher... Running to teacher when you get bullied pisses off the bully and makes them bully you more. Hitting the bully and showing them you're not an easy mark and can stand up for yourself, will make them back off because they then know you have the power to defend yourself at any time, not just when there's a teacher there to enforce compliance of 'good behaviour'...
You're missing the forest for the trees...
No one is saying that Paramount sued Axanar Productions because of a podcast. We don't know what triggered the suit, or both CBS' and Paramount's involvement. Shoot, for all we know, this could have been months in the making. I don't think someone at Paramount woke up one morning last week, called CBS, and said "Hey, those guys at Axanar? They hate what we're doing, and they're gonna compete with what you're doing... SO, EFF THOSE GUYS! LET'S SUE!" But, again, with the way US copyright law stands... they could pull the plug at any time, for any reason.
I think @gulberat was only pointing out that, in a court of law, public comments like those on a podcast could come back and bite Team Axanar in the TRIBBLE. This suit is about money, not because someone said something mean on the internet six months ago.
EDIT TO ADD: You're also making the mistake of seemingly blaming JJ Abrams for this (not sure if this is what you meant, but your last comments gave me that impression). JJ Abrams and Bad Robot are not named in the suit, as far as I know, and both are separate entities from Paramount and CBS. This suit has nothing to do with "trash talk", or Abrams' supposed pouting over said trash talk.
Way to go CBS and Paramount for coming off as paranoid as an old school Romulan. Feeling a little threatened by the quality of a publicly and privately funded project because it may be on par with anything they could produce? A little embarrassed that the script may be far and away more intelligent than that nonsensical Jar Jar Trek drivel? Obvious corporate trolls are obvious.
I don't care if I'm coming off as being overly emotional. I don't care if I'm not being objective on the subject. I'm of the opinion, and yes I understand it may just be my opinion, that CBS has done little to nothing to promote the franchise and I'll go as far as saying that Paramount has actually damaged it. Instead of embracing and endorsing the Axanar project and thus sowing some goodwill from Trek fans all over the world(not to mention the potential profit from such an endevour) they come off as being petty and vindictive. God forbid someone might actually produce a quality piece of Trek entertainment that CBS and Paramount didn't have a hand in and thus earn profit from. And please don't cite IP infringement. If that were the case then why haven't gone after every other fanfic production ever made? The argument can be made that they all infringed on the IP the moment they put Star Trek in the name of their project. No, this is just an attempt to sink their claws into an independent Trek project that they had no hand in creating simply to profit from it. Quark would be proud of such a display of Ferengi values.
STO: Where men are men and the women probably are too.
I support the Star Trek Battles channel.
The thing that irritated me the most about the podcast element, was gulberat's 'school ma'am tone', over (regardless of if they agree with it or not) what is ultimately someone's God-given right to their own opinion and freedom of speech to express it. So what if someone takes a verbal TRIBBLE on JJ?? So what if someone criticizes him on air?? As far as I'm concerned, JJ more than deserves it. Even if he doesn't and his work is legitimately good, as 'a producer of work', he opens himself to critique of said work, and that kind of trash-talk is something which often happens not only on the radio, but between sporting competitors. And as long as the comments aren't slander/libel, someone not only has the freedom to make them, but it's an almost-expected 'part of the game'... Someone is not entitled to live in a bubble where they never hear anything other than the positive accolades they want to hear, over what is legitimately debatable public-arena work... By being a public figure, JJ opens himself to the opinions of others -- both good and bad -- and if he doesn't have the shoulders for that, then he should retire from the limelight and stop producing material (It's not as if he has to keep working to keep a roof over his family's head... The man could literally never work another day in his life and still afford to live a lifestyle most can only dream of) If someone wants to take him to task or call out his work, regardless of if it is 'bad taste' to do so by one person's moral standard, that is that someone's right as a free person with freedom of speech, and their own opinion.
You still don't get it. This has NOTHING to do with "freedom of speech". Once again, "freedom of speech" means the GOVERNMENT doesn't arrest you for saying things they don't like. It does *NOT* mean you are not affected personally or professionally by what you say. Sure, you can call it "petty" or "childish" or whatever other term you want to use, but that still has NOTHING to do with "freedom of speech". Regardless of what may or may not have "sparked" CBS/Paramount to make this move, the actual lawsuit that Axanar got hit with was for copyright infringement, not "saying things we don't like". You are confusing 2 completely different issues that have nothing to do with one another.
The suit is not about the Axanar crew crapping on the reboot movies or CBS/Paramount being scared that the Axanar movie was going to be better than theirs. The suit is about Axanar making a profit which was against the rules stated by CBS. If you take "Star Trek" out of the equation you'll see that CBS/Paramount really had no choice.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Wow, reading that someone on the Axanar team (before the lawsuit) got on a podcast and took a verbal dump on JJ Abrams...you know, if it was bad enough, it could have caused Paramount to read Axanar's project as an aggressive move and intent to *compete* rather than intent to pay homage to or support the franchise. That may explain why Paramount is also a party to the lawsuit and why they and CBS came together. Bad move if that podcast indeed happened as reported.
It infuriated me, because it seemed so petty... and that the TRIBBLE from Trek.fm, Christopher Jones, didn't play peacemaker and instead joined in on "how much JJ Trek sucks" and how much Axanar was "true Star Trek"... blows me away.
They didn't use profanity or anything, IIRC, and the comments were a little tame to begin with... but, they just kept coming back, and saying how much the Abrams films suck. They wouldn't let it go. I would think one would want to talk about how great their product is, and examples of the great thing they are doing, and how it will be a positive love letter to the franchise.
I don't know much about IP law and what would be admissible in court, but to me... yeah, that could be quite damaging in a court of law.
Why shouldn't the guy express his opinion about JJ's films? Is he not entitled to freedom of speech, or is that only allowed if he's going to say nice (and utterly insincere) things about JJ's films? Is it petty? Sure. No worse than the times Simon Pegg has slagged off and condescended to fans on Twitter, but people still treat him (for Godknows what reason) like the sun shines out of his TRIBBLE... I remember reading an interview with him on SuicideGirls when Shaun of the Dead was released: He came across as an egotistical jackass then, and nothing I've heard since has changed my view of him (although I will freely admit that I do enjoy the movies he has done...)
the man should be playing both sides to get information and peacemaker where it is needed so the content of both the radio station stuff remains a good source of info and quality, by piling in the way you stated there it only tells me that this person on trek fm needs to be removed from his position. a jounalist or a radio presenter makes no difference, they need to be responsible when dealing with things like this because;
1. it casts trek.fm itself in a bad light when they allow TRIBBLE like this to happen and discrimination is a bad choice to ignore, regardless.
2. the radio presenter himself is only showing himself to be a jerk but thats his problem and not ours.
3. freedom to misuse the equipment and trek.fm itself to fill the wairwaves full of bile is hardly what you call free speech. especially considering it is a suggestion towards this product instead of that product.
4. advertising one over the other is also a bad thing to do, especially on something so public.
Regardless how much i hate jjcrapverse, for radio and any media type like this, the person bringing this information to the masses needs to keep an open mind and both sides should be taken seriously and given a voice.
just for the record, Axanar has not produced anything yet and as much as i am loathed to defend jj and his crapverse, he has at least got two official films out and a 3rd one coming by name only. So broadcasting that axanar is better without anything specific to point to is irresponsible anyway.
'Should be'? I'm not even going to start listing names of journalists who are inflammatory in their writing, or broadcasters who are inflammatory in their programming, it would fill a thread by itself, but a few who immediately come to mind, are Katie Hopkins, Jeremy Clarkson, Chris Evans and Howard Stern. I don't necessarily agree with everything, or even most of what they say, but their job is to provide opinions for discussion, discussing opinions, and all that comes with it. I haven't heard the podcast, so I can't comment soecifically on what the guy said about JJ. That it was percieved by some as taking a dump on him, as before: So what? That's what comes with the territory of doing what JJ does, and is paid very handsomely for. I agree, it is irresponsible, but bragging and trash-talking seem to be American cultural traits, and what some may consider 'trash-talk', can simply be 'ball-breaking' and 'tough love' (although of course, sometimes it is just arrogant rudeness) hardly something to get butthurt over...
Does criticising another director's work, and saying that you can do as well actually equal infringement?
No. Taking that "trash talk" and using it as a basis, holding multiple fundraising campaigns, and actually putting forth a finished product could easily be infringement, however.
It would be like me saying that Disney animation sucks, and I could do better... nothing about that is wrong. If I create the character of Rickey Rat, seek funds from others to help me make a project, and eventually release an animated short on YouTube... you don't think Disney would find out? I could tell them Walt Disney is a personal hero, and my work is a tribute to his imagination... but, if I got $1 million to make my project, you can bet Disney lawyers would hit my doorstep before I hit the 'Export file' button. And with a $1 million financial records in one hand, and my initial comments in the other... yeah...
And, to be clear, it doesn't matter what Axanar did really, or why CBS (and Paramount) is suddenly against them. It's their property. Period. The law, as it is now, is on their side.
I believe that, is the key to the issue... Given that CBS/Paramount allow Renegades, and actively went to bat for Continues, what Axanar did to suddently be on the receiving end is crucial to understanding the situation -- and at the end of the day, all I want to do is understand the situation. As I said, if the Axanar producers went against the guidelines CBS/Paramount gave, then they absolutely deserve to be hit with the legal stick. If they have not, then while CBS/would be legally within their rights to sue, ethically, it is pretty weak to sue someone for doing something but to ignore the others who are doing the same thing.
The thing that irritated me the most about the podcast element, was gulberat's 'school ma'am tone', over (regardless of if they agree with it or not) what is ultimately someone's God-given right to their own opinion and freedom of speech to express it. So what if someone takes a verbal TRIBBLE on JJ?? So what if someone criticizes him on air?? As far as I'm concerned, JJ more than deserves it. Even if he doesn't and his work is legitimately good, as 'a producer of work', he opens himself to critique of said work, and that kind of trash-talk is something which often happens not only on the radio, but between sporting competitors. And as long as the comments aren't slander/libel, someone not only has the freedom to make them, but it's an almost-expected 'part of the game'... Someone is not entitled to live in a bubble where they never hear anything other than the positive accolades they want to hear, over what is legitimately debatable public-arena work... By being a public figure, JJ opens himself to the opinions of others -- both good and bad -- and if he doesn't have the shoulders for that, then he should retire from the limelight and stop producing material (It's not as if he has to keep working to keep a roof over his family's head... The man could literally never work another day in his life and still afford to live a lifestyle most can only dream of) If someone wants to take him to task or call out his work, regardless of if it is 'bad taste' to do so by one person's moral standard, that is that someone's right as a free person with freedom of speech, and their own opinion.
So if the lawsuit is actually motivated by that, and not for some arrogant infringement of complaince guidelines, then that is nothing more than someone without the stones to defend himself/his work, without having to hide behind a legal team... It's petty schoolyard TRIBBLE which is best dealt with mano y mano, not by 'running to teacher... Running to teacher when you get bullied pisses off the bully and makes them bully you more. Hitting the bully and showing them you're not an easy mark and can stand up for yourself, will make them back off because they then know you have the power to defend yourself at any time, not just when there's a teacher there to enforce compliance of 'good behaviour'...
You're missing the forest for the trees...
No one is saying that Paramount sued Axanar Productions because of a podcast. We don't know what triggered the suit, or both CBS' and Paramount's involvement. Shoot, for all we know, this could have been months in the making. I don't think someone at Paramount woke up one morning last week, called CBS, and said "Hey, those guys at Axanar? They hate what we're doing, and they're gonna compete with what you're doing... SO, EFF THOSE GUYS! LET'S SUE!" But, again, with the way US copyright law stands... they could pull the plug at any time, for any reason.
I think @gulberat was only pointing out that, in a court of law, public comments like those on a podcast could come back and bite Team Axanar in the TRIBBLE. This suit is about money, not because someone said something mean on the internet six months ago.
EDIT TO ADD: You're also making the mistake of seemingly blaming JJ Abrams for this (not sure if this is what you meant, but your last comments gave me that impression). JJ Abrams and Bad Robot are not named in the suit, as far as I know, and both are separate entities from Paramount and CBS. This suit has nothing to do with "trash talk", or Abrams' supposed pouting over said trash talk.
The thing that irritated me the most about the podcast element, was gulberat's 'school ma'am tone', over (regardless of if they agree with it or not) what is ultimately someone's God-given right to their own opinion and freedom of speech to express it. So what if someone takes a verbal TRIBBLE on JJ?? So what if someone criticizes him on air?? As far as I'm concerned, JJ more than deserves it. Even if he doesn't and his work is legitimately good, as 'a producer of work', he opens himself to critique of said work, and that kind of trash-talk is something which often happens not only on the radio, but between sporting competitors. And as long as the comments aren't slander/libel, someone not only has the freedom to make them, but it's an almost-expected 'part of the game'... Someone is not entitled to live in a bubble where they never hear anything other than the positive accolades they want to hear, over what is legitimately debatable public-arena work... By being a public figure, JJ opens himself to the opinions of others -- both good and bad -- and if he doesn't have the shoulders for that, then he should retire from the limelight and stop producing material (It's not as if he has to keep working to keep a roof over his family's head... The man could literally never work another day in his life and still afford to live a lifestyle most can only dream of) If someone wants to take him to task or call out his work, regardless of if it is 'bad taste' to do so by one person's moral standard, that is that someone's right as a free person with freedom of speech, and their own opinion.
You still don't get it. This has NOTHING to do with "freedom of speech". Once again, "freedom of speech" means the GOVERNMENT doesn't arrest you for saying things they don't like. It does *NOT* mean you are not affected personally or professionally by what you say. Sure, you can call it "petty" or "childish" or whatever other term you want to use, but that still has NOTHING to do with "freedom of speech". Regardless of what may or may not have "sparked" CBS/Paramount to make this move, the actual lawsuit that Axanar got hit with was for copyright infringement, not "saying things we don't like". You are confusing 2 completely different issues that have nothing to do with one another.
I believe it was gulberat who said that they wondered if the comments on the podcast had drawn attention to Axanar's work:
Wow, reading that someone on the Axanar team (before the lawsuit) got on a podcast and took a verbal dump on JJ Abrams...you know, if it was bad enough, it could have caused Paramount to read Axanar's project as an aggressive move and intent to *compete* rather than intent to pay homage to or support the franchise. That may explain why Paramount is also a party to the lawsuit and why they and CBS came together. Bad move if that podcast indeed happened as reported.
I was stating that those people had the right to air their views on JJ's work, whatever they may be (providing they aren't violating any federal broadcast statutes for morality/obscenity etc) and that if that was what had caused the lawsuit, it was a pretty weak move. As mentioned, I've seen Simon Pegg (and other celebrities) tackling 'hecklers' on Twitter and facebook, so I would consider it a pretty lame move if JJ called in the legal hounds, rather than either giving the guys some banter in return, or just telling them to take a hike. I'm not blaming JJ for this, I'm just saying that if that is anything to do with it (and to be honest, I seriously doubt that it is) then it would be pretty weak.
Public commentary such as the podcast could, and hopefully would be, declared as circumstantial, and not truly germane to the point of copyright infringement. The Axanar guys can claim their project is better than JJ's all they want. That's not infringing on the copyright, it's expressing an opinion. If, as I've said above, the producers ignored any guidelines they were given by CBS/Paramount, them, or they are making profit, then yes, they deserve to be issued with a C&D notice and any other legal redresses. But. If CBS/Paramount are suing because they feel that Axanar threatens Beyond, the upcoming series and the subscription service, or because they put someone's back up with some harsh critique, then that isn't particularly reasonable, and they would hopefully not win a suit. Also, as mentioned upthread, I don't believe that CBS/Paramount are suing over 'copyright infringement' (unless of course, the Axanar producers are actually making coin from it) because they have not gone after Renegades, and have actively supported Continues against das YouTube. But I believe that is how the suit has been drafted, because a suit for 'being scared by an unofficial competitor' would be laughed out of court...
Right, Hawk, as even if such statements are not admitted in court as evidence of intent to compete--it could well be the sort of thing that could cause any negotiations that were in progress or deals that were made to break down. If CBS felt like Axanar wasn't dealing in good faith (regardless of how Axanar was really intending it to be...this is perception we're talking about here), it could well have led to this even though thus far the crux of CBS' complaint appears to be on substantive actions as opposed to any words spoken.
In this day and age, whether or not one agrees with the practice, employers do take action if an employee is irresponsible on social media (even hiring and firing on such grounds), and same if a business partner does something that is compromising in Internet venues. Unless legislation is passed barring businesses from such a practice, this is part of why I recommend behaving on any social media in a manner you would not be embarrassed of if your professional relations saw it.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
I was stating that those people had the right to air their views on JJ's work, whatever they may be (providing they aren't violating any federal broadcast statutes for morality/obscenity etc) and that if that was what had caused the lawsuit, it was a pretty weak move. As mentioned, I've seen Simon Pegg (and other celebrities) tackling 'hecklers' on Twitter and facebook, so I would consider it a pretty lame move if JJ called in the legal hounds, rather than either giving the guys some banter in return, or just telling them to take a hike. I'm not blaming JJ for this, I'm just saying that if that is anything to do with it (and to be honest, I seriously doubt that it is) then it would be pretty weak.
Public commentary such as the podcast could, and hopefully would be, declared as circumstantial, and not truly germane to the point of copyright infringement. The Axanar guys can claim their project is better than JJ's all they want. That's not infringing on the copyright, it's expressing an opinion. If, as I've said above, the producers ignored any guidelines they were given by CBS/Paramount, them, or they are making profit, then yes, they deserve to be issued with a C&D notice and any other legal redresses. But. If CBS/Paramount are suing because they feel that Axanar threatens Beyond, the upcoming series and the subscription service, or because they put someone's back up with some harsh critique, then that isn't particularly reasonable, and they would hopefully not win a suit. Also, as mentioned upthread, I don't believe that CBS/Paramount are suing over 'copyright infringement' (unless of course, the Axanar producers are actually making coin from it) because they have not gone after Renegades, and have actively supported Continues against das YouTube. But I believe that is how the suit has been drafted, because a suit for 'being scared by an unofficial competitor' would be laughed out of court...
Once again, you are confusing 2 completely separate issues:
1) what was said by "the Axanar guy"(the *possible* motivation)
2) what was done by the Axanar project/team(the ACTUAL offense)
Here is a little example: let's say you are "friends" with a cop. Because you are friends, he "looks the other way" and doesn't pull you over or write you a ticket for your (modest) speeding. But then something happens, and you have a falling out. Suddenly he doesn't "look the other way", and you get a ticket. Regardless of WHY he changed his view, you are STILL in the wrong. You were STILL speeding. You were STILL breaking the law. You are STILL guilty. Honestly, it doesn't matter whether what the "Axanar guy" said pissed off CBS/Paramount/JJ/anybody else. Regardless of the *possible* motivation, Axnar is (supposedly) still breaking the copyright law.
And again, all of this has NOTHING to do with "freedom of speech". That involves the government, not private parties.
Right, as even if such statements are not admitted in court as evidence of intent to compete--it could well be the sort of thing that could cause any negotiations that were in progress or deals that were made to break down. If CBS felt like Axanar wasn't dealing in good faith (regardless of how Axanar was really intending it to be...this is perception we're talking about here), it could well have led to this even though thus far the crux of CBS' complaint appears to be on substantive actions as opposed to any words spoken.
In this day and age, whether or not one agrees with the practice, employers do take action if an employee is irresponsible on social media (even hiring and firing on such grounds), and same if a business partner does something that is compromising in Internet venues. Unless legislation is passed barring businesses from such a practice, this is part of why I recommend behaving on any social media in a manner you would not be embarrassed of if your professional relations saw it.
'Could', being the operative word, because this is all just pure conjecture and speculation on your part, based on (a presumption, I admit) that you found the comments against JJ as objectionable... Until the reasons for the suit are made public, it is all just speculative theory-crafting. As writers, that's what we do. But it also massively over-complicates what can be, very simple issues... At the end of the day, it all comes down to i)why CBS/Paramount have now decided to sue the Axanar producers, when visibly supporting Continues, and ignoring Renegades: What did the Axanar producers do which the other producers did not, which triggered the suit. And ii) How and why is the suit being drafted...
And absolutely, someone should always treat social media interactions as they would any other communication or interaction, but I would counter that there should be boundaries and layers of involvement, and that a person's colleagues and employers, do not necessarily have the right to know what a person says or does online in a private capacity (until it affects their work or is harmful to their employer's business) I believe legislation will eventually be passed, because I believe a person's online activities should fall under the same right to privacy, as another aspect of their life: An employer who followed an employee into a bar, or who is even invited by them to come to the bar with them, and who then gets offended by and fires them because of something they may say or do out of the workplace, would be considered intrusive, and I think that standard should apply to a person's online presence...
Wow, reading that someone on the Axanar team (before the lawsuit) got on a podcast and took a verbal dump on JJ Abrams...you know, if it was bad enough, it could have caused Paramount to read Axanar's project as an aggressive move and intent to *compete* rather than intent to pay homage to or support the franchise. That may explain why Paramount is also a party to the lawsuit and why they and CBS came together. Bad move if that podcast indeed happened as reported.
It infuriated me, because it seemed so petty... and that the TRIBBLE from Trek.fm, Christopher Jones, didn't play peacemaker and instead joined in on "how much JJ Trek sucks" and how much Axanar was "true Star Trek"... blows me away.
They didn't use profanity or anything, IIRC, and the comments were a little tame to begin with... but, they just kept coming back, and saying how much the Abrams films suck. They wouldn't let it go. I would think one would want to talk about how great their product is, and examples of the great thing they are doing, and how it will be a positive love letter to the franchise.
I don't know much about IP law and what would be admissible in court, but to me... yeah, that could be quite damaging in a court of law.
Why shouldn't the guy express his opinion about JJ's films? Is he not entitled to freedom of speech, or is that only allowed if he's going to say nice (and utterly insincere) things about JJ's films? Is it petty? Sure. No worse than the times Simon Pegg has slagged off and condescended to fans on Twitter, but people still treat him (for Godknows what reason) like the sun shines out of his TRIBBLE... I remember reading an interview with him on SuicideGirls when Shaun of the Dead was released: He came across as an egotistical jackass then, and nothing I've heard since has changed my view of him (although I will freely admit that I do enjoy the movies he has done...)
the man should be playing both sides to get information and peacemaker where it is needed so the content of both the radio station stuff remains a good source of info and quality, by piling in the way you stated there it only tells me that this person on trek fm needs to be removed from his position. a jounalist or a radio presenter makes no difference, they need to be responsible when dealing with things like this because;
1. it casts trek.fm itself in a bad light when they allow TRIBBLE like this to happen and discrimination is a bad choice to ignore, regardless.
2. the radio presenter himself is only showing himself to be a jerk but thats his problem and not ours.
3. freedom to misuse the equipment and trek.fm itself to fill the wairwaves full of bile is hardly what you call free speech. especially considering it is a suggestion towards this product instead of that product.
4. advertising one over the other is also a bad thing to do, especially on something so public.
Regardless how much i hate jjcrapverse, for radio and any media type like this, the person bringing this information to the masses needs to keep an open mind and both sides should be taken seriously and given a voice.
just for the record, Axanar has not produced anything yet and as much as i am loathed to defend jj and his crapverse, he has at least got two official films out and a 3rd one coming by name only. So broadcasting that axanar is better without anything specific to point to is irresponsible anyway.
'Should be'? I'm not even going to start listing names of journalists who are inflammatory in their writing, or broadcasters who are inflammatory in their programming, it would fill a thread by itself, but a few who immediately come to mind, are Katie Hopkins, Jeremy Clarkson, Chris Evans and Howard Stern. I don't necessarily agree with everything, or even most of what they say, but their job is to provide opinions for discussion, discussing opinions, and all that comes with it. I haven't heard the podcast, so I can't comment soecifically on what the guy said about JJ. That it was percieved by some as taking a dump on him, as before: So what? That's what comes with the territory of doing what JJ does, and is paid very handsomely for. I agree, it is irresponsible, but bragging and trash-talking seem to be American cultural traits, and what some may consider 'trash-talk', can simply be 'ball-breaking' and 'tough love' (although of course, sometimes it is just arrogant rudeness) hardly something to get butthurt over...
yes "should be" because if i just put an absolute on the point, that would be wrong because some humans do not conform to common sense... even if they walked into it, and some play stupid even knowing they can make a point without needing to cause chaos in the process. cast-offs like those you mentioned are like reality tv types, non-entities only fuelled by bad publicity and when they are noticed they would say or do anything to stay in the spotlight.
why would you throw good after bad for?
T6 Miranda Hero Ship FTW. Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
The suit is not about the Axanar crew crapping on the reboot movies or CBS/Paramount being scared that the Axanar movie was going to be better than theirs. The suit is about Axanar making a profit which was against the rules stated by CBS. If you take "Star Trek" out of the equation you'll see that CBS/Paramount really had no choice.
I've come to see it this way as well. They just flew too high. As I said earlier, though, I STILL am mad that CBS&Paramount didn't simply learn from that and settle the issue instead of shutting it all down. Axanar is something made with real passion and attention to Trek which, unfortunately, none of th eofficial features produced since DS9 could come up with.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
The suit is not about the Axanar crew crapping on the reboot movies or CBS/Paramount being scared that the Axanar movie was going to be better than theirs. The suit is about Axanar making a profit which was against the rules stated by CBS. If you take "Star Trek" out of the equation you'll see that CBS/Paramount really had no choice.
I've come to see it this way as well. They just flew too high. As I said earlier, though, I STILL am mad that CBS&Paramount didn't simply learn from that and settle the issue instead of shutting it all down. Axanar is something made with real passion and attention to Trek which, unfortunately, none of th eofficial features produced since DS9 could come up with.
that could of very well happened if the group in question decided to do the right thing from the start and get approval for a fan made film, they can keep it professional even bring in those same people and make as close to the other films all they like but they chose this direction instead.
T6 Miranda Hero Ship FTW. Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
Once again, you are confusing 2 completely separate issues:
1) what was said by "the Axanar guy"(the *possible* motivation)
2) what was done by the Axanar project/team(the ACTUAL offense)
I am not confusing the issue... I was giving my opinion based upon gulberat's theory-crafting that that could have been a factor. I don't believe that it is a factor, I was giving an opinion on those hypothetical circumstances...
Here is a little example: let's say you are "friends" with a cop. Because you are friends, he "looks the other way" and doesn't pull you over or write you a ticket for your (modest) speeding. But then something happens, and you have a falling out. Suddenly he doesn't "look the other way", and you get a ticket. Regardless of WHY he changed his view, you are STILL in the wrong. You were STILL speeding. You were STILL breaking the law. You are STILL guilty. Honestly, it doesn't matter whether what the "Axanar guy" said pissed off CBS/Paramount/JJ/anybody else. Regardless of the *possible* motivation, Axnar is (supposedly) still breaking the copyright law.
And again, all of this has NOTHING to do with "freedom of speech". That involves the government, not private parties.
And in that example, all the former friend has to do, is report the cop's failure to uphold the law on past occasions, and, although it is admitting wrong on their part, it also then throws the cop's judgement and conduct into question on all those occasions. It opens the possibility that the former friend is now not just 'upholding the law', but being 'excessively rigid in its enforcement' out of sour-grapes and abusing their position as a police officer to exert a little power over the former friend.
This is why I keep saying that I do not believe that CBS/Paramount is truly suing over copyright infringement, because if they were, they would be suing the producers of Continues, Renegades, and a dozen other fan-films neither of us has lively even heard of. The fact that they are not and have not done so, shows that the suit against the Axanar producers is either i) fear of an unofficial competitor showing them up ii) because the Axanar producers have broken a notified guideline (most likely profiting from the production) or iii) some other reason. Anything beyond that, is simply speculative theory-crafting, and pointlessly debating potential hypotheticals...
My point about freedom of speech, is simply to illustrate a 'so what?' to if someone considered the comments on the podcast as taking a dump on JJ and his work... As above, he's a public figure releasing work into the public domain which people have the right to have and share an opinion about (which others may agree or disagree with) and as above, under similar circumstances, actors, directors, socialites and reality queens are all quite capable of taking to social media to confront any critics themself (if they even deem the comments worthy of response)
Wow, reading that someone on the Axanar team (before the lawsuit) got on a podcast and took a verbal dump on JJ Abrams...you know, if it was bad enough, it could have caused Paramount to read Axanar's project as an aggressive move and intent to *compete* rather than intent to pay homage to or support the franchise. That may explain why Paramount is also a party to the lawsuit and why they and CBS came together. Bad move if that podcast indeed happened as reported.
It infuriated me, because it seemed so petty... and that the TRIBBLE from Trek.fm, Christopher Jones, didn't play peacemaker and instead joined in on "how much JJ Trek sucks" and how much Axanar was "true Star Trek"... blows me away.
They didn't use profanity or anything, IIRC, and the comments were a little tame to begin with... but, they just kept coming back, and saying how much the Abrams films suck. They wouldn't let it go. I would think one would want to talk about how great their product is, and examples of the great thing they are doing, and how it will be a positive love letter to the franchise.
I don't know much about IP law and what would be admissible in court, but to me... yeah, that could be quite damaging in a court of law.
Why shouldn't the guy express his opinion about JJ's films? Is he not entitled to freedom of speech, or is that only allowed if he's going to say nice (and utterly insincere) things about JJ's films? Is it petty? Sure. No worse than the times Simon Pegg has slagged off and condescended to fans on Twitter, but people still treat him (for Godknows what reason) like the sun shines out of his TRIBBLE... I remember reading an interview with him on SuicideGirls when Shaun of the Dead was released: He came across as an egotistical jackass then, and nothing I've heard since has changed my view of him (although I will freely admit that I do enjoy the movies he has done...)
the man should be playing both sides to get information and peacemaker where it is needed so the content of both the radio station stuff remains a good source of info and quality, by piling in the way you stated there it only tells me that this person on trek fm needs to be removed from his position. a jounalist or a radio presenter makes no difference, they need to be responsible when dealing with things like this because;
1. it casts trek.fm itself in a bad light when they allow TRIBBLE like this to happen and discrimination is a bad choice to ignore, regardless.
2. the radio presenter himself is only showing himself to be a jerk but thats his problem and not ours.
3. freedom to misuse the equipment and trek.fm itself to fill the wairwaves full of bile is hardly what you call free speech. especially considering it is a suggestion towards this product instead of that product.
4. advertising one over the other is also a bad thing to do, especially on something so public.
Regardless how much i hate jjcrapverse, for radio and any media type like this, the person bringing this information to the masses needs to keep an open mind and both sides should be taken seriously and given a voice.
just for the record, Axanar has not produced anything yet and as much as i am loathed to defend jj and his crapverse, he has at least got two official films out and a 3rd one coming by name only. So broadcasting that axanar is better without anything specific to point to is irresponsible anyway.
'Should be'? I'm not even going to start listing names of journalists who are inflammatory in their writing, or broadcasters who are inflammatory in their programming, it would fill a thread by itself, but a few who immediately come to mind, are Katie Hopkins, Jeremy Clarkson, Chris Evans and Howard Stern. I don't necessarily agree with everything, or even most of what they say, but their job is to provide opinions for discussion, discussing opinions, and all that comes with it. I haven't heard the podcast, so I can't comment soecifically on what the guy said about JJ. That it was percieved by some as taking a dump on him, as before: So what? That's what comes with the territory of doing what JJ does, and is paid very handsomely for. I agree, it is irresponsible, but bragging and trash-talking seem to be American cultural traits, and what some may consider 'trash-talk', can simply be 'ball-breaking' and 'tough love' (although of course, sometimes it is just arrogant rudeness) hardly something to get butthurt over...
yes "should be" because if i just put an absolute on the point, that would be wrong because some humans do not conform to common sense... even if they walked into it, and some play stupid even knowing they can make a point without needing to cause chaos in the process. cast-offs like those you mentioned are like reality tv types, non-entities only fuelled by bad publicity and when they are noticed they would say or do anything to stay in the spotlight.
why would you throw good after bad for?
Then that is something which the bosses of Trek.fm should take them to task over, if they have broken a broadcast statute, or espoused a view which Trek.fm doesn't endorse.
And yes, I absolutely agree with your assessment of those people I listed. However, they are journalists and broadcasters, and they are paid to espouse the views which they do (and which are often not easily palatable or necessarily politically correct) As I noted, it's all just part of the game, and until the bosses of Trek.fm specifically refute the comments against JJ's work, the implication will be that they endorse them...
This is why I keep saying that I do not believe that CBS/Paramount is truly suing over copyright infringement,
No, they definitely ARE suing over copyright infringement. What you mean is that you do not believe that is what motivated them to do it. And you might be right. But you know what? It. doesn't. Matter. If(key word) the Axanar project is actually breaking copyright law, then they are guilty. It doesn't actually matter why CBS/Paramount decided to go after them. All that actually matters is if(key word) they have done something wrong.
This is why I keep saying that I do not believe that CBS/Paramount is truly suing over copyright infringement,
No, they definitely ARE suing over copyright infringement. What you mean is that you do not believe that is what motivated them to do it. And you might be right. But you know what? It. doesn't. Matter. If(key word) the Axanar project is actually breaking copyright law, then they are guilty. It doesn't actually matter why CBS/Paramount decided to go after them. All that actually matters is if(key word) they have done something wrong.
Exactly. The most plausible issues, based on above comments, are that the Axanar producers have i) ignored guidelines given to them by CBS/Paramount (That right there is grounds for a C&D letter) and/or ii) Made profit from it, which I believe, is also against the guidelines. Those reasons would be supported by the fact that CBS/Paramount have not gone after Continues, Renegades, or other fan-productions, ergo, Axanar must have done something to actually make CBS/Paramount serve them.
However. To compare to other recent legal wrangles, Sean Penn is suing the producer of Empire for defamation of character, Ryan Sweeting filed for spousal support from Kaley Cuoco, and Bill Cosby has countersued one of the women who accused him of sexual assault (despite the fact he has now been found guilty of others) It's a fair observation to make, that Americans are litigious, even when the circumstances are not in their favor, and to extend that to corporations like CBS and Paramount...
People do things for stupid, emotional reasons. Major corporations (which, certain SCOTUS decisions aside, are not people) don't have any emotions other than greed. If they make any move like this, it's over money - whether it be actual folding money someone made at their expense, or fear over their future ability to make theoretical money from a product.
The legal teams at CBS and Paramount are not going to be filing legal briefs and running their multimillion-dollar engine of attorneys and interns because some executive at, let's be honest, one of their second-tier franchises got his feelings hurt by something someone else said on a podcast.
Comments
Either way, Axanar had gotten way bigger than a "fan project".
My character Tsin'xing
No. Taking that "trash talk" and using it as a basis, holding multiple fundraising campaigns, and actually putting forth a finished product could easily be infringement, however.
It would be like me saying that Disney animation sucks, and I could do better... nothing about that is wrong. If I create the character of Rickey Rat, seek funds from others to help me make a project, and eventually release an animated short on YouTube... you don't think Disney would find out? I could tell them Walt Disney is a personal hero, and my work is a tribute to his imagination... but, if I got $1 million to make my project, you can bet Disney lawyers would hit my doorstep before I hit the 'Export file' button. And with a $1 million financial records in one hand, and my initial comments in the other... yeah...
And, to be clear, it doesn't matter what Axanar did really, or why CBS (and Paramount) is suddenly against them. It's their property. Period. The law, as it is now, is on their side.
Axanar looked like something professionally produced and released on blu-ray (I watched it on my regular TV from a USB device). The prelude montage has a very nice pacing, editing and it looks and sounds very nice. I have no idea how to spot "low budget" but the CGI was on the late Trek show's level in my opinion. Renegades' costumes and scenery looked much more amateurish but this could be due to Renegades just showing more. Prelude really only has actors in one shot in front of one green screen and the rest are short, rendered CGI clips. No idea how it looks in motion, if you look at the Vulcan scene it still looks good enough but you can spot the artificial background much easier.
The main problem Renegades has, aside from the writing, is terrible, terrible editing. That really makes it look like a fan production in the worst sense of the term and it is baffling that they allowed it to release in this state, claiming at least a few professionals worked on it.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
The thing that irritated me the most about the podcast element, was gulberat's 'school ma'am tone', over (regardless of if they agree with it or not) what is ultimately someone's God-given right to their own opinion and freedom of speech to express it. So what if someone takes a verbal TRIBBLE on JJ?? So what if someone criticizes him on air?? As far as I'm concerned, JJ more than deserves it. Even if he doesn't and his work is legitimately good, as 'a producer of work', he opens himself to critique of said work, and that kind of trash-talk is something which often happens not only on the radio, but between sporting competitors. And as long as the comments aren't slander/libel, someone not only has the freedom to make them, but it's an almost-expected 'part of the game'... Someone is not entitled to live in a bubble where they never hear anything other than the positive accolades they want to hear, over what is legitimately debatable public-arena work... By being a public figure, JJ opens himself to the opinions of others -- both good and bad -- and if he doesn't have the shoulders for that, then he should retire from the limelight and stop producing material (It's not as if he has to keep working to keep a roof over his family's head... The man could literally never work another day in his life and still afford to live a lifestyle most can only dream of) If someone wants to take him to task or call out his work, regardless of if it is 'bad taste' to do so by one person's moral standard, that is that someone's right as a free person with freedom of speech, and their own opinion.
So if the lawsuit is actually motivated by that, and not for some arrogant infringement of complaince guidelines, then that is nothing more than someone without the stones to defend himself/his work, without having to hide behind a legal team... It's petty schoolyard TRIBBLE which is best dealt with mano y mano, not by 'running to teacher... Running to teacher when you get bullied pisses off the bully and makes them bully you more. Hitting the bully and showing them you're not an easy mark and can stand up for yourself, will make them back off because they then know you have the power to defend yourself at any time, not just when there's a teacher there to enforce compliance of 'good behaviour'...
the man should be playing both sides to get information and peacemaker where it is needed so the content of both the radio station stuff remains a good source of info and quality, by piling in the way you stated there it only tells me that this person on trek fm needs to be removed from his position. a jounalist or a radio presenter makes no difference, they need to be responsible when dealing with things like this because;
1. it casts trek.fm itself in a bad light when they allow TRIBBLE like this to happen and discrimination is a bad choice to ignore, regardless.
2. the radio presenter himself is only showing himself to be a jerk but thats his problem and not ours.
3. freedom to misuse the equipment and trek.fm itself to fill the wairwaves full of bile is hardly what you call free speech. especially considering it is a suggestion towards this product instead of that product.
4. advertising one over the other is also a bad thing to do, especially on something so public.
Regardless how much i hate jjcrapverse, for radio and any media type like this, the person bringing this information to the masses needs to keep an open mind and both sides should be taken seriously and given a voice.
just for the record, Axanar has not produced anything yet and as much as i am loathed to defend jj and his crapverse, he has at least got two official films out and a 3rd one coming by name only. So broadcasting that axanar is better without anything specific to point to is irresponsible anyway.
Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
You're missing the forest for the trees...
No one is saying that Paramount sued Axanar Productions because of a podcast. We don't know what triggered the suit, or both CBS' and Paramount's involvement. Shoot, for all we know, this could have been months in the making. I don't think someone at Paramount woke up one morning last week, called CBS, and said "Hey, those guys at Axanar? They hate what we're doing, and they're gonna compete with what you're doing... SO, EFF THOSE GUYS! LET'S SUE!" But, again, with the way US copyright law stands... they could pull the plug at any time, for any reason.
I think @gulberat was only pointing out that, in a court of law, public comments like those on a podcast could come back and bite Team Axanar in the TRIBBLE. This suit is about money, not because someone said something mean on the internet six months ago.
EDIT TO ADD: You're also making the mistake of seemingly blaming JJ Abrams for this (not sure if this is what you meant, but your last comments gave me that impression). JJ Abrams and Bad Robot are not named in the suit, as far as I know, and both are separate entities from Paramount and CBS. This suit has nothing to do with "trash talk", or Abrams' supposed pouting over said trash talk.
I don't care if I'm coming off as being overly emotional. I don't care if I'm not being objective on the subject. I'm of the opinion, and yes I understand it may just be my opinion, that CBS has done little to nothing to promote the franchise and I'll go as far as saying that Paramount has actually damaged it. Instead of embracing and endorsing the Axanar project and thus sowing some goodwill from Trek fans all over the world(not to mention the potential profit from such an endevour) they come off as being petty and vindictive. God forbid someone might actually produce a quality piece of Trek entertainment that CBS and Paramount didn't have a hand in and thus earn profit from. And please don't cite IP infringement. If that were the case then why haven't gone after every other fanfic production ever made? The argument can be made that they all infringed on the IP the moment they put Star Trek in the name of their project. No, this is just an attempt to sink their claws into an independent Trek project that they had no hand in creating simply to profit from it. Quark would be proud of such a display of Ferengi values.
I support the Star Trek Battles channel.
You still don't get it. This has NOTHING to do with "freedom of speech". Once again, "freedom of speech" means the GOVERNMENT doesn't arrest you for saying things they don't like. It does *NOT* mean you are not affected personally or professionally by what you say. Sure, you can call it "petty" or "childish" or whatever other term you want to use, but that still has NOTHING to do with "freedom of speech". Regardless of what may or may not have "sparked" CBS/Paramount to make this move, the actual lawsuit that Axanar got hit with was for copyright infringement, not "saying things we don't like". You are confusing 2 completely different issues that have nothing to do with one another.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
My character Tsin'xing
I was stating that those people had the right to air their views on JJ's work, whatever they may be (providing they aren't violating any federal broadcast statutes for morality/obscenity etc) and that if that was what had caused the lawsuit, it was a pretty weak move. As mentioned, I've seen Simon Pegg (and other celebrities) tackling 'hecklers' on Twitter and facebook, so I would consider it a pretty lame move if JJ called in the legal hounds, rather than either giving the guys some banter in return, or just telling them to take a hike. I'm not blaming JJ for this, I'm just saying that if that is anything to do with it (and to be honest, I seriously doubt that it is) then it would be pretty weak.
Public commentary such as the podcast could, and hopefully would be, declared as circumstantial, and not truly germane to the point of copyright infringement. The Axanar guys can claim their project is better than JJ's all they want. That's not infringing on the copyright, it's expressing an opinion. If, as I've said above, the producers ignored any guidelines they were given by CBS/Paramount, them, or they are making profit, then yes, they deserve to be issued with a C&D notice and any other legal redresses. But. If CBS/Paramount are suing because they feel that Axanar threatens Beyond, the upcoming series and the subscription service, or because they put someone's back up with some harsh critique, then that isn't particularly reasonable, and they would hopefully not win a suit. Also, as mentioned upthread, I don't believe that CBS/Paramount are suing over 'copyright infringement' (unless of course, the Axanar producers are actually making coin from it) because they have not gone after Renegades, and have actively supported Continues against das YouTube. But I believe that is how the suit has been drafted, because a suit for 'being scared by an unofficial competitor' would be laughed out of court...
In this day and age, whether or not one agrees with the practice, employers do take action if an employee is irresponsible on social media (even hiring and firing on such grounds), and same if a business partner does something that is compromising in Internet venues. Unless legislation is passed barring businesses from such a practice, this is part of why I recommend behaving on any social media in a manner you would not be embarrassed of if your professional relations saw it.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Once again, you are confusing 2 completely separate issues:
1) what was said by "the Axanar guy"(the *possible* motivation)
2) what was done by the Axanar project/team(the ACTUAL offense)
Here is a little example: let's say you are "friends" with a cop. Because you are friends, he "looks the other way" and doesn't pull you over or write you a ticket for your (modest) speeding. But then something happens, and you have a falling out. Suddenly he doesn't "look the other way", and you get a ticket. Regardless of WHY he changed his view, you are STILL in the wrong. You were STILL speeding. You were STILL breaking the law. You are STILL guilty. Honestly, it doesn't matter whether what the "Axanar guy" said pissed off CBS/Paramount/JJ/anybody else. Regardless of the *possible* motivation, Axnar is (supposedly) still breaking the copyright law.
And again, all of this has NOTHING to do with "freedom of speech". That involves the government, not private parties.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
And absolutely, someone should always treat social media interactions as they would any other communication or interaction, but I would counter that there should be boundaries and layers of involvement, and that a person's colleagues and employers, do not necessarily have the right to know what a person says or does online in a private capacity (until it affects their work or is harmful to their employer's business) I believe legislation will eventually be passed, because I believe a person's online activities should fall under the same right to privacy, as another aspect of their life: An employer who followed an employee into a bar, or who is even invited by them to come to the bar with them, and who then gets offended by and fires them because of something they may say or do out of the workplace, would be considered intrusive, and I think that standard should apply to a person's online presence...
yes "should be" because if i just put an absolute on the point, that would be wrong because some humans do not conform to common sense... even if they walked into it, and some play stupid even knowing they can make a point without needing to cause chaos in the process. cast-offs like those you mentioned are like reality tv types, non-entities only fuelled by bad publicity and when they are noticed they would say or do anything to stay in the spotlight.
why would you throw good after bad for?
Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
I've come to see it this way as well. They just flew too high. As I said earlier, though, I STILL am mad that CBS&Paramount didn't simply learn from that and settle the issue instead of shutting it all down. Axanar is something made with real passion and attention to Trek which, unfortunately, none of th eofficial features produced since DS9 could come up with.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
that could of very well happened if the group in question decided to do the right thing from the start and get approval for a fan made film, they can keep it professional even bring in those same people and make as close to the other films all they like but they chose this direction instead.
Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
And in that example, all the former friend has to do, is report the cop's failure to uphold the law on past occasions, and, although it is admitting wrong on their part, it also then throws the cop's judgement and conduct into question on all those occasions. It opens the possibility that the former friend is now not just 'upholding the law', but being 'excessively rigid in its enforcement' out of sour-grapes and abusing their position as a police officer to exert a little power over the former friend.
This is why I keep saying that I do not believe that CBS/Paramount is truly suing over copyright infringement, because if they were, they would be suing the producers of Continues, Renegades, and a dozen other fan-films neither of us has lively even heard of. The fact that they are not and have not done so, shows that the suit against the Axanar producers is either i) fear of an unofficial competitor showing them up ii) because the Axanar producers have broken a notified guideline (most likely profiting from the production) or iii) some other reason. Anything beyond that, is simply speculative theory-crafting, and pointlessly debating potential hypotheticals...
My point about freedom of speech, is simply to illustrate a 'so what?' to if someone considered the comments on the podcast as taking a dump on JJ and his work... As above, he's a public figure releasing work into the public domain which people have the right to have and share an opinion about (which others may agree or disagree with) and as above, under similar circumstances, actors, directors, socialites and reality queens are all quite capable of taking to social media to confront any critics themself (if they even deem the comments worthy of response)
And yes, I absolutely agree with your assessment of those people I listed. However, they are journalists and broadcasters, and they are paid to espouse the views which they do (and which are often not easily palatable or necessarily politically correct) As I noted, it's all just part of the game, and until the bosses of Trek.fm specifically refute the comments against JJ's work, the implication will be that they endorse them...
No, they definitely ARE suing over copyright infringement. What you mean is that you do not believe that is what motivated them to do it. And you might be right. But you know what? It. doesn't. Matter. If(key word) the Axanar project is actually breaking copyright law, then they are guilty. It doesn't actually matter why CBS/Paramount decided to go after them. All that actually matters is if(key word) they have done something wrong.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
However. To compare to other recent legal wrangles, Sean Penn is suing the producer of Empire for defamation of character, Ryan Sweeting filed for spousal support from Kaley Cuoco, and Bill Cosby has countersued one of the women who accused him of sexual assault (despite the fact he has now been found guilty of others) It's a fair observation to make, that Americans are litigious, even when the circumstances are not in their favor, and to extend that to corporations like CBS and Paramount...
The legal teams at CBS and Paramount are not going to be filing legal briefs and running their multimillion-dollar engine of attorneys and interns because some executive at, let's be honest, one of their second-tier franchises got his feelings hurt by something someone else said on a podcast.