When someone behaves in a dishonest manner by, oh, I don't know, manipulating a fandom's good will to obtain money by deception (ie asking for money to make a specific film, and then using that money to build a studio which will make countless other for profit films)
I've said this before, but I'll say it again: Peters announced in the IndieGoGo alongside Prelude that donor funds would go towards the studio which would be used for for-profit activities. That means he wasn't deceiving people with regards to where that money was going.
When someone behaves in a dishonest manner by, oh, I don't know, manipulating a fandom's good will to obtain money by deception (ie asking for money to make a specific film, and then using that money to build a studio which will make countless other for profit films)
I've said this before, but I'll say it again: Peters announced in the IndieGoGo alongside Prelude that donor funds would go towards the studio which would be used for for-profit activities. That means he wasn't deceiving people with regards to where that money was going.
Really? Well, if he was upfront about it, then I guess that's that... I still stand by the assertion that many others have said he treated them like cr*p...
The entire suit is about illegal use of the Trek IP, by definition that is a criminal act. Not sure where you can even get the concept that the suit does not claim such acts were comitted when thats the entire point of the suit.
It is not a crime to make an unauthorized fan film. It is illegal to sell it in any way without license, but simply making a fan film or even raising funds to do so is not a crime. This is not a criminal case at all, in fact. There are no accusations of a crime, which would be prosecuted in criminal court by a District Attorney. This is a civil dispute. Nobody has been booked, arrested, indicted, or accused of a crime.
Mr. Peters, to the best of my knowledge, created a not-for-profit enterprise under California law, and there are strict guidelines, (with penalties for breaking them,) regarding how such enterprises acquire and dispose of materials and properties and how such entities pay its staff, employees, or contractors. Mr. Peters has not been accused of any violations of those regulations either.
To state or imply Mr. Peters acted criminally one must ignore the facts and impose ones' own narrative. He may well be the best scammer since Charles Ponzi, but there is absolutely no evidence to support that accusation.
So we are left with character assassination. Where I see a man overwhelmed with unexpected success, you see criminal intent. You may be proven correct in time, but as of right now there is no evidence to support your position and an abundance of evidence to support mine.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
It's like talking to a Donald Trump supporter. He'd believe Peters over his own eyeballs if Peters said the sky was done up in a lovely pink paisley print. Forget this, I'm out of here.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
The entire suit is about illegal use of the Trek IP, by definition that is a criminal act. Not sure where you can even get the concept that the suit does not claim such acts were comitted when thats the entire point of the suit.
It is not a crime to make an unauthorized fan film. It is illegal to sell it in any way without license, but simply making a fan film or even raising funds to do so is not a crime. This is not a criminal case at all, in fact. There are no accusations of a crime, which would be prosecuted in criminal court by a District Attorney. This is a civil dispute. Nobody has been booked, arrested, indicted, or accused of a crime.
Mr. Peters, to the best of my knowledge, created a not-for-profit enterprise under California law, and there are strict guidelines, (with penalties for breaking them,) regarding how such enterprises acquire and dispose of materials and properties and how such entities pay its staff, employees, or contractors. Mr. Peters has not been accused of any violations of those regulations either.
To state or imply Mr. Peters acted criminally one must ignore the facts and impose ones' own narrative. He may well be the best scammer since Charles Ponzi, but there is absolutely no evidence to support that accusation.
So we are left with character assassination. Where I see a man overwhelmed with unexpected success, you see criminal intent. You may be proven correct in time, but as of right now there is no evidence to support your position and an abundance of evidence to support mine.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
You do know he was selling Star Trek themed merch, don't you? Axanar coffee... Pretty sure it had the Star Trek name attached, and pretty sure that that constitutes an unlicensed use of IP...
Was he making money? Or was he fundraising for his movie?
Axanar Productions is an S-corporation under California law acting as a non- profit. This is the first step to qualify as a Federally tax exempt organization.
As for me being Mr. Peters, that's funny. I'm not blinded by hero worsip either. I can see clearly what is going on. A man risked his reputation trying to create something new and got caught, whether through his own devise or by the intervention of others, in a bad situation. The haters, none of whom have risked anything, not even their own reputation because they are protected by Internet anonymity no matter what they say. have rewritten the scene to make it appear that there is a valid reason for their hate, and they have supported their position with exaggerations, deliberate misinterpretations, and lies.
I do check facts, and while there is a great deal of grey area yet to be colored in, the facts do not indicate any crime or intent to commit crime. To continue to claim criminal motives in the absence of supporting evidence is slander, (which can be a crime, by the way.) My challenge to the haters: if you can't back a statement with anything but a personal attack, you probably have no real reason for your hate than a clever web of lies which you cannot critically examine for fear that the truth will expose you for the slanderer you are.
Peters was living off of donations. So yes, whether the organization was "non-profit" or not Peters WAS personally profiting. It doesn't matter whether organizations like the Red Cross pays their employees. The Red Cross does not follow the same rules as fan-films.
Also, being a non-profit organization(if Axanar ever counted as such) does not allow you to ignore IP laws when doing fundraising. Which, as others pointed out, Peters did repeatedly.
Was he making money? Or was he fundraising for his movie?
Axanar Productions is an S-corporation under California law acting as a non- profit. This is the first step to qualify as a Federally tax exempt organization.
As for me being Mr. Peters, that's funny. I'm not blinded by hero worsip either. I can see clearly what is going on. A man risked his reputation trying to create something new and got caught, whether through his own devise or by the intervention of others, in a bad situation. The haters, none of whom have risked anything, not even their own reputation because they are protected by Internet anonymity no matter what they say. have rewritten the scene to make it appear that there is a valid reason for their hate, and they have supported their position with exaggerations, deliberate misinterpretations, and lies.
I do check facts, and while there is a great deal of grey area yet to be colored in, the facts do not indicate any crime or intent to commit crime. To continue to claim criminal motives in the absence of supporting evidence is slander, (which can be a crime, by the way.) My challenge to the haters: if you can't back a statement with anything but a personal attack, you probably have no real reason for your hate than a clever web of lies which you cannot critically examine for fear that the truth will expose you for the slanderer you are.
Just because you call it a 'web of lies', does not make it one. Statements which are truthful, are not slander. The evidence of Axanar branded coffee, is undeniable. The money Alec Peters was paying himself from the donations, is also unquestionable - that was revealed by the man himself in a financial disclosure... People were donating money so a film could be produced, not for him to take a salary and other perks like cars/travel, etc... That should all have been coming from his pocket, not donations...
From the tone of your writing, it's clear that you're not Alec Peters. You are, however, as I said before, allowing your personal experiences to influence your judgement, and thus defending someone who does not deserve defending, and clearly nothing I, or anyone else, says, will make you revise your opinion...
Gee, I'm strangely willing to let the courts settle it.
Though I have zero doubt of the outcome.
I'm willing to let the courts settle it as well, though I do have doubts about the outcome.
You see, there is a chance Axanar might win, and a chance CBS could offer a settlement Axanar could accept.
A copyright holder who does not police the use of his copyright can find that some part or all of that copyright has fallen into public domain. For fifty years Trek has aggressively defended their merchandising rights, but has never interfered in the production or dissemination of not-for-profit fan art. By not taking action, establishing guidelines, or otherwise showing interest in fan works, it could be construed that tacit permission was given to do so. I'll be happy to let the judge make that call.
CBS might also realize that Trek fanfic has no impact on their box office returns. Face it: Prelude got 200,000 YouTube views and thought it was a big deal. If every Axanar viewer refused to see licensed products it would hardly make a dent in the millions who will pay to see the next installment of Official Trek. However, the studios discovered on opening day of Beyond that there was a problem getting out the viewers. CBS/Paramount would have done well to advertise on fanTrek sites, as opposed to making enemies of any one of them.
I can see a potential benefit for the studios, begining with brand recognition and culminating in free advertising on sites bought and maintained by fans. As an example, suppose CBS required their latest trailer or other ad be run before the fanfic. This would allow fans to pay for a portion the advertising bill as well as make it clear that such fiction is not competing with Trek. This is but one win-win scenario; there are many more possibilities.
A copyright holder who does not police the use of his copyright can find that some part or all of that copyright has fallen into public domain. For fifty years Trek has aggressively defended their merchandising rights, but has never interfered in the production or dissemination of not-for-profit fan art. By not taking action, establishing guidelines, or otherwise showing interest in fan works, it could be construed that tacit permission was given to do so. I'll be happy to let the judge make that call.
I glad you are because you seem to have no understanding as to how copyright laws work or indeed how to keep your own argument straight.
...has never interfered in the production or dissemination of not-for-profit fan art. By not taking action, establishing guidelines, or otherwise showing interest in fan works...
They can't be both defending their IP and not defending it.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Was he making money? Or was he fundraising for his movie?
Axanar Productions is an S-corporation under California law acting as a non- profit. This is the first step to qualify as a Federally tax exempt organization.
As for me being Mr. Peters, that's funny. I'm not blinded by hero worsip either. I can see clearly what is going on. A man risked his reputation trying to create something new and got caught, whether through his own devise or by the intervention of others, in a bad situation. The haters, none of whom have risked anything, not even their own reputation because they are protected by Internet anonymity no matter what they say. have rewritten the scene to make it appear that there is a valid reason for their hate, and they have supported their position with exaggerations, deliberate misinterpretations, and lies.
I do check facts, and while there is a great deal of grey area yet to be colored in, the facts do not indicate any crime or intent to commit crime. To continue to claim criminal motives in the absence of supporting evidence is slander, (which can be a crime, by the way.) My challenge to the haters: if you can't back a statement with anything but a personal attack, you probably have no real reason for your hate than a clever web of lies which you cannot critically examine for fear that the truth will expose you for the slanderer you are.
Just because you call it a 'web of lies', does not make it one. Statements which are truthful, are not slander. The evidence of Axanar branded coffee, is undeniable. The money Alec Peters was paying himself from the donations, is also unquestionable - that was revealed by the man himself in a financial disclosure... People were donating money so a film could be produced, not for him to take a salary and other perks like cars/travel, etc... That should all have been coming from his pocket, not donations...
From the tone of your writing, it's clear that you're not Alec Peters. You are, however, as I said before, allowing your personal experiences to influence your judgement, and thus defending someone who does not deserve defending, and clearly nothing I, or anyone else, says, will make you revise your opinion...
Is Axanar brand coffee an abuse of Star Trek's copyright? It was a fund raising device that was used to support the proposed movie using that movie's title. Not only is it not illegal, there isn't even anything immoral about it.
Neither is it illegal to pay officers of a not for profit corporation. In fact, the only way you know about it is because it was never concealed, and was made public by Mr. Peters himself. It would have been a simple thing to simply keep the books closed, as Renegades did, and say nothing. However, long before the lawsuit, Mr. Peters announced that he would be transparent with what he called "the fans' money."
My point is, one must distort these things by viewing them through a narrative which pre-supposes guilt and criminal intent to make them so.
Whether Mr. Peters is a bad man or not, (or even a man, for that matter,) I have no proof either way. Unless you know the man personally you have no proof either. If such proof is ever forthcoming I am perfectly prepared to accept it. So far all I have seen, other than exit remarks by a former cast member, is revisionism, innuendo, lies, and personal attacks.
Whether a person is bad or good is irrelevant to the issue. If you dislike Mr. Peters for whatever reason, that is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. However, someone being a bad man or being disliked is not a good excuse to pile on and repeat lies, innuendo, and distortions of the truth. So long as people say things like, "...defending someone who does not deserve defending," there is a problem. Everyone deserves defending. (This is the point of Cape Fear, by the way. The one with Kirk Douglas.) I hope you never find yourself the subject of a campaign of lies.
Here is my challenge to the anti- Axanar group: make your case based on fact, not interpretations of them, and make your case without involving a personal attack on Mr. Peters. I don't think you can do it.
Was he making money? Or was he fundraising for his movie?
Axanar Productions is an S-corporation under California law acting as a non- profit. This is the first step to qualify as a Federally tax exempt organization.
As for me being Mr. Peters, that's funny. I'm not blinded by hero worsip either. I can see clearly what is going on. A man risked his reputation trying to create something new and got caught, whether through his own devise or by the intervention of others, in a bad situation. The haters, none of whom have risked anything, not even their own reputation because they are protected by Internet anonymity no matter what they say. have rewritten the scene to make it appear that there is a valid reason for their hate, and they have supported their position with exaggerations, deliberate misinterpretations, and lies.
I do check facts, and while there is a great deal of grey area yet to be colored in, the facts do not indicate any crime or intent to commit crime. To continue to claim criminal motives in the absence of supporting evidence is slander, (which can be a crime, by the way.) My challenge to the haters: if you can't back a statement with anything but a personal attack, you probably have no real reason for your hate than a clever web of lies which you cannot critically examine for fear that the truth will expose you for the slanderer you are.
Just because you call it a 'web of lies', does not make it one. Statements which are truthful, are not slander. The evidence of Axanar branded coffee, is undeniable. The money Alec Peters was paying himself from the donations, is also unquestionable - that was revealed by the man himself in a financial disclosure... People were donating money so a film could be produced, not for him to take a salary and other perks like cars/travel, etc... That should all have been coming from his pocket, not donations...
From the tone of your writing, it's clear that you're not Alec Peters. You are, however, as I said before, allowing your personal experiences to influence your judgement, and thus defending someone who does not deserve defending, and clearly nothing I, or anyone else, says, will make you revise your opinion...
Is Axanar brand coffee an abuse of Star Trek's copyright? It was a fund raising device that was used to support the proposed movie using that movie's title. Not only is it not illegal, there isn't even anything immoral about it.
Neither is it illegal to pay officers of a not for profit corporation. In fact, the only way you know about it is because it was never concealed, and was made public by Mr. Peters himself. It would have been a simple thing to simply keep the books closed, as Renegades did, and say nothing. However, long before the lawsuit, Mr. Peters announced that he would be transparent with what he called "the fans' money."
My point is, one must distort these things by viewing them through a narrative which pre-supposes guilt and criminal intent to make them so.
Whether Mr. Peters is a bad man or not, (or even a man, for that matter,) I have no proof either way. Unless you know the man personally you have no proof either. If such proof is ever forthcoming I am perfectly prepared to accept it. So far all I have seen, other than exit remarks by a former cast member, is revisionism, innuendo, lies, and personal attacks.
Whether a person is bad or good is irrelevant to the issue. If you dislike Mr. Peters for whatever reason, that is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. However, someone being a bad man or being disliked is not a good excuse to pile on and repeat lies, innuendo, and distortions of the truth. So long as people say things like, "...defending someone who does not deserve defending," there is a problem. Everyone deserves defending. (This is the point of Cape Fear, by the way. The one with Kirk Douglas.) I hope you never find yourself the subject of a campaign of lies.
Here is my challenge to the anti- Axanar group: make your case based on fact, not interpretations of them, and make your case without involving a personal attack on Mr. Peters. I don't think you can do it.
Yes! Because it is an infringement on Star Trek's IP! If you don't even grasp that, there's no point in me even reading the rest of your post...
Infringement is not as clear cut as you seem to believe, and it is the point of the case.
In this case CBS/Paramount claims to own an IP, but has not proven that in court. It may be that Desilu still owns Trek. But that issue aside, (I happen to believe CBS/Paramount owns it for all practical purposes, either directly or through some legal mechanism such as derived through their acquisition of Desilu.)
Then there is the situation in which CBS established a precedent under which unlicensed works making use of the Trek IP including far more eggregious 'infringements' than have been seen or implied in Axanar's work. Axanar had every right to expect similar treatment. In fact, one way a trademark or copyright can lose some or all of its protections occurs when an IP holder fails to police its brand.
As an example, most moving staircase and vertical personnel lifts are made by companies other than Escallator or Elevator because those original owners of the brand names failed to police the use of their trademark. Similarly, the fact that many other entities created Trek fan fiction unchallenged can be legally construed as tacit consent by CBS to create such works.
This means that use of another's IP opens a can of worms which is best settled between the two parties, but which will be settled in court in a way most likely to be equally bad for both sides.
As you can see, I do grasp the entire concept of copyright infringement. It is by not listening to (reading) the thoughts of others that a closed mind is created.
Infringement is not as clear cut as you seem to believe, and it is the point of the case.
In this case CBS/Paramount claims to own an IP, but has not proven that in court. It may be that Desilu still owns Trek. But that issue aside, (I happen to believe CBS/Paramount owns it for all practical purposes, either directly or through some legal mechanism such as derived through their acquisition of Desilu.)
Then there is the situation in which CBS established a precedent under which unlicensed works making use of the Trek IP including far more eggregious 'infringements' than have been seen or implied in Axanar's work. Axanar had every right to expect similar treatment. In fact, one way a trademark or copyright can lose some or all of its protections occurs when an IP holder fails to police its brand.
As an example, most moving staircase and vertical personnel lifts are made by companies other than Escallator or Elevator because those original owners of the brand names failed to police the use of their trademark. Similarly, the fact that many other entities created Trek fan fiction unchallenged can be legally construed as tacit consent by CBS to create such works.
This means that use of another's IP opens a can of worms which is best settled between the two parties, but which will be settled in court in a way most likely to be equally bad for both sides.
As you can see, I do grasp the entire concept of copyright infringement. It is by not listening to (reading) the thoughts of others that a closed mind is created.
I can see that you think you do... Copyright and Trademark properties are apparently handled differently. This issue has been discussed repeatedly in other threads, and apparently, that CBS/Paramount 'have not defended' their IP, is not a robust defense to the stance you are presenting (that it is public domain/etc) CBS/Paramount reserve ALL RIGHTS. That means they reserve the right to allow some infringements and not allow other infringements, at their own discretion.
The coffee is the best example of someone making money off an unlicenced use of the Trek IP, and thus actionable...
Is Axanar brand coffee an abuse of Star Trek's copyright? It was a fund raising device that was used to support the proposed movie using that movie's title. Not only is it not illegal, there isn't even anything immoral about it.
Actually it is VERY illegal. That's why you DON'T see other people doing it constantly. A properly executed fundraiser that used the name and logo of Star Trek would get approval first. Obviously that wasn't going to happen here and Peters didn't even try.
Was he making money? Or was he fundraising for his movie?
Axanar Productions is an S-corporation under California law acting as a non- profit. This is the first step to qualify as a Federally tax exempt organization.
As for me being Mr. Peters, that's funny. I'm not blinded by hero worsip either. I can see clearly what is going on. A man risked his reputation trying to create something new and got caught, whether through his own devise or by the intervention of others, in a bad situation. The haters, none of whom have risked anything, not even their own reputation because they are protected by Internet anonymity no matter what they say. have rewritten the scene to make it appear that there is a valid reason for their hate, and they have supported their position with exaggerations, deliberate misinterpretations, and lies.
I do check facts, and while there is a great deal of grey area yet to be colored in, the facts do not indicate any crime or intent to commit crime. To continue to claim criminal motives in the absence of supporting evidence is slander, (which can be a crime, by the way.) My challenge to the haters: if you can't back a statement with anything but a personal attack, you probably have no real reason for your hate than a clever web of lies which you cannot critically examine for fear that the truth will expose you for the slanderer you are.
Just because you call it a 'web of lies', does not make it one. Statements which are truthful, are not slander. The evidence of Axanar branded coffee, is undeniable. The money Alec Peters was paying himself from the donations, is also unquestionable - that was revealed by the man himself in a financial disclosure... People were donating money so a film could be produced, not for him to take a salary and other perks like cars/travel, etc... That should all have been coming from his pocket, not donations...
From the tone of your writing, it's clear that you're not Alec Peters. You are, however, as I said before, allowing your personal experiences to influence your judgement, and thus defending someone who does not deserve defending, and clearly nothing I, or anyone else, says, will make you revise your opinion...
Is Axanar brand coffee an abuse of Star Trek's copyright? It was a fund raising device that was used to support the proposed movie using that movie's title. Not only is it not illegal, there isn't even anything immoral about it.
Neither is it illegal to pay officers of a not for profit corporation. In fact, the only way you know about it is because it was never concealed, and was made public by Mr. Peters himself. It would have been a simple thing to simply keep the books closed, as Renegades did, and say nothing. However, long before the lawsuit, Mr. Peters announced that he would be transparent with what he called "the fans' money."
My point is, one must distort these things by viewing them through a narrative which pre-supposes guilt and criminal intent to make them so.
Whether Mr. Peters is a bad man or not, (or even a man, for that matter,) I have no proof either way. Unless you know the man personally you have no proof either. If such proof is ever forthcoming I am perfectly prepared to accept it. So far all I have seen, other than exit remarks by a former cast member, is revisionism, innuendo, lies, and personal attacks.
Whether a person is bad or good is irrelevant to the issue. If you dislike Mr. Peters for whatever reason, that is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. However, someone being a bad man or being disliked is not a good excuse to pile on and repeat lies, innuendo, and distortions of the truth. So long as people say things like, "...defending someone who does not deserve defending," there is a problem. Everyone deserves defending. (This is the point of Cape Fear, by the way. The one with Kirk Douglas.) I hope you never find yourself the subject of a campaign of lies.
Here is my challenge to the anti- Axanar group: make your case based on fact, not interpretations of them, and make your case without involving a personal attack on Mr. Peters. I don't think you can do it.
Team Axanar is very proud to once again set the standard for financial accountability and transparency in the world of crowd funded projects with the revised Axanar Annual Report. This 23 page document outlines the finances of the Prelude to Axanar and Axanar Kickstarters, taking donors up through July 31st, 2015. This document includes:
Prelude to Axanar Financials – A line by line accounting of how that $101,171 was spent.
Axanar Kickstarter Financials – A category breakdown of the $638,471 raised and how it was spent, including an analysis of what changed from our initial expectations and why costs have risen or changed.
Also included is a section on lessons learned and accomplishments, as well as what is up for 2016.
Donors can download this report on the Facebook Axanar Donors Group, or find it in their Ares Digital Accounts.
There are many Star Trek fan films that are raising 6 figure amounts. But none show you exactly where that money is going. None gives you daily updates or visibility into the operations as Axanar does. This is our commitment to you.
And below, he questions why he should have to reveal the information to non-donors. (with the clear implication that the information would not be released...) That is not 'transparency'... That question could have been coming from a potential investor, who wants to see how money is being used before they invest themself. To keep that information 'donors only', is a direct contradiction of his high-handed claim to be 'setting the standard'...
Then there is the claim that there are 'many' Star Trek fan films raising six figure sums. I'm not aware of a single one, other than Axanar, to raise a six figure sum...
Are you now questioning that Alec Peters is even a man?? Seriously?? Are you on drugs, or just trolling... Unless there is someone allowing his photo to be taken, who is then calling himself Alec Peters, you really have stepped into the realms of the ludicrous... And no, not everyone deserves defending. A murderer or r*pist caught in the act does not deserve defending: their guilt is beyond question, and something directly observed... Alec Peters has consistently been misleading and manipulative in this matter, and even deleted The Vulcan Scene to try and erase its existence (but there are apparently still copies out there...) Personal testimonies written by those involved in the production of Prelude, support just how manipulative and mercurial he is.
As for your own point about being the victim of a campaign of lies, I once had the misfortune of moderating a political debate forum. I am all too aware of what it is like. And as such, I have no hesitation in forming an opinion of Alec Peters' conduct, and see him as anything but an innocent victim...
I'm willing to let the courts settle it as well, though I do have doubts about the outcome.
You see, there is a chance Axanar might win, and a chance CBS could offer a settlement Axanar could accept.
Yeah... No. It's going to be -- and should be -- a massacre. You know what the number one way of getting slapped with contempt of court is? It's being contemptuous of the court. And while I don't expect the typical SoCal judge will recognize Vulcan script at a glance, I DO expect them to recognize Chinese, just from the inevitable exposure to signage driving in to work at the LA County Dept. of Justice. Stunts like claiming the costume robes had Chinese, not Vulcan embroidery are pretty much textbook ways of showing a judge "I think I am so damn clever and that you're a moron." That man has dug his own grave.
Really, the only funny thing to come out of is was watching JJ Abrams incinerate a ****ing mountain of political capital sticking his **** in a fight that was none of his damn business. I have no doubt that CBS's legal department all but put a death mark on his prospects for future work there. They'll conclude their current contracts with Bad Robot to the letter, but don't look for a renewal.
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
and that just proves my point...execs of ANY brand are seldom intelligent, and the ones who turned down what turned into one of the biggest sci-fi franchises known today were even less so
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
That's just it... the original pilot was NOT what most think of as Star Trek. It was similar, but ultimately not the same.
I mean.... in it one of the main plot point was dealing with an alien race who could create telepathic fantasies. Which Pike solved in a rather.... interesting way. But to understand what was going on you had to pay attention to what the characters said to understand what they were doing.
Why do people think you'd have to be stupid to recognize that as a network television provider most of your audience ain't that bright and that something that might appeal to your 6% of really clever viewers will fatally belly flop in front of your larger audience? Calling Star Trek too cerebral ain't stupid. It's rather savvy in fact.
Being a TV watcher doesn't actually equip you to be a TV producer... Very, VERY different outlooks on the process of creating television for profit.
Comments
I've said this before, but I'll say it again: Peters announced in the IndieGoGo alongside Prelude that donor funds would go towards the studio which would be used for for-profit activities. That means he wasn't deceiving people with regards to where that money was going.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
It is not a crime to make an unauthorized fan film. It is illegal to sell it in any way without license, but simply making a fan film or even raising funds to do so is not a crime. This is not a criminal case at all, in fact. There are no accusations of a crime, which would be prosecuted in criminal court by a District Attorney. This is a civil dispute. Nobody has been booked, arrested, indicted, or accused of a crime.
Mr. Peters, to the best of my knowledge, created a not-for-profit enterprise under California law, and there are strict guidelines, (with penalties for breaking them,) regarding how such enterprises acquire and dispose of materials and properties and how such entities pay its staff, employees, or contractors. Mr. Peters has not been accused of any violations of those regulations either.
To state or imply Mr. Peters acted criminally one must ignore the facts and impose ones' own narrative. He may well be the best scammer since Charles Ponzi, but there is absolutely no evidence to support that accusation.
So we are left with character assassination. Where I see a man overwhelmed with unexpected success, you see criminal intent. You may be proven correct in time, but as of right now there is no evidence to support your position and an abundance of evidence to support mine.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
My character Tsin'xing
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Axanar Productions is an S-corporation under California law acting as a non- profit. This is the first step to qualify as a Federally tax exempt organization.
As for me being Mr. Peters, that's funny. I'm not blinded by hero worsip either. I can see clearly what is going on. A man risked his reputation trying to create something new and got caught, whether through his own devise or by the intervention of others, in a bad situation. The haters, none of whom have risked anything, not even their own reputation because they are protected by Internet anonymity no matter what they say. have rewritten the scene to make it appear that there is a valid reason for their hate, and they have supported their position with exaggerations, deliberate misinterpretations, and lies.
I do check facts, and while there is a great deal of grey area yet to be colored in, the facts do not indicate any crime or intent to commit crime. To continue to claim criminal motives in the absence of supporting evidence is slander, (which can be a crime, by the way.) My challenge to the haters: if you can't back a statement with anything but a personal attack, you probably have no real reason for your hate than a clever web of lies which you cannot critically examine for fear that the truth will expose you for the slanderer you are.
Though I have zero doubt of the outcome.
Also, being a non-profit organization(if Axanar ever counted as such) does not allow you to ignore IP laws when doing fundraising. Which, as others pointed out, Peters did repeatedly.
My character Tsin'xing
From the tone of your writing, it's clear that you're not Alec Peters. You are, however, as I said before, allowing your personal experiences to influence your judgement, and thus defending someone who does not deserve defending, and clearly nothing I, or anyone else, says, will make you revise your opinion...
I'm willing to let the courts settle it as well, though I do have doubts about the outcome.
You see, there is a chance Axanar might win, and a chance CBS could offer a settlement Axanar could accept.
A copyright holder who does not police the use of his copyright can find that some part or all of that copyright has fallen into public domain. For fifty years Trek has aggressively defended their merchandising rights, but has never interfered in the production or dissemination of not-for-profit fan art. By not taking action, establishing guidelines, or otherwise showing interest in fan works, it could be construed that tacit permission was given to do so. I'll be happy to let the judge make that call.
CBS might also realize that Trek fanfic has no impact on their box office returns. Face it: Prelude got 200,000 YouTube views and thought it was a big deal. If every Axanar viewer refused to see licensed products it would hardly make a dent in the millions who will pay to see the next installment of Official Trek. However, the studios discovered on opening day of Beyond that there was a problem getting out the viewers. CBS/Paramount would have done well to advertise on fanTrek sites, as opposed to making enemies of any one of them.
I can see a potential benefit for the studios, begining with brand recognition and culminating in free advertising on sites bought and maintained by fans. As an example, suppose CBS required their latest trailer or other ad be run before the fanfic. This would allow fans to pay for a portion the advertising bill as well as make it clear that such fiction is not competing with Trek. This is but one win-win scenario; there are many more possibilities.
I glad you are because you seem to have no understanding as to how copyright laws work or indeed how to keep your own argument straight.
They can't be both defending their IP and not defending it.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Is Axanar brand coffee an abuse of Star Trek's copyright? It was a fund raising device that was used to support the proposed movie using that movie's title. Not only is it not illegal, there isn't even anything immoral about it.
Neither is it illegal to pay officers of a not for profit corporation. In fact, the only way you know about it is because it was never concealed, and was made public by Mr. Peters himself. It would have been a simple thing to simply keep the books closed, as Renegades did, and say nothing. However, long before the lawsuit, Mr. Peters announced that he would be transparent with what he called "the fans' money."
My point is, one must distort these things by viewing them through a narrative which pre-supposes guilt and criminal intent to make them so.
Whether Mr. Peters is a bad man or not, (or even a man, for that matter,) I have no proof either way. Unless you know the man personally you have no proof either. If such proof is ever forthcoming I am perfectly prepared to accept it. So far all I have seen, other than exit remarks by a former cast member, is revisionism, innuendo, lies, and personal attacks.
Whether a person is bad or good is irrelevant to the issue. If you dislike Mr. Peters for whatever reason, that is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. However, someone being a bad man or being disliked is not a good excuse to pile on and repeat lies, innuendo, and distortions of the truth. So long as people say things like, "...defending someone who does not deserve defending," there is a problem. Everyone deserves defending. (This is the point of Cape Fear, by the way. The one with Kirk Douglas.) I hope you never find yourself the subject of a campaign of lies.
Here is my challenge to the anti- Axanar group: make your case based on fact, not interpretations of them, and make your case without involving a personal attack on Mr. Peters. I don't think you can do it.
In this case CBS/Paramount claims to own an IP, but has not proven that in court. It may be that Desilu still owns Trek. But that issue aside, (I happen to believe CBS/Paramount owns it for all practical purposes, either directly or through some legal mechanism such as derived through their acquisition of Desilu.)
Then there is the situation in which CBS established a precedent under which unlicensed works making use of the Trek IP including far more eggregious 'infringements' than have been seen or implied in Axanar's work. Axanar had every right to expect similar treatment. In fact, one way a trademark or copyright can lose some or all of its protections occurs when an IP holder fails to police its brand.
As an example, most moving staircase and vertical personnel lifts are made by companies other than Escallator or Elevator because those original owners of the brand names failed to police the use of their trademark. Similarly, the fact that many other entities created Trek fan fiction unchallenged can be legally construed as tacit consent by CBS to create such works.
This means that use of another's IP opens a can of worms which is best settled between the two parties, but which will be settled in court in a way most likely to be equally bad for both sides.
As you can see, I do grasp the entire concept of copyright infringement. It is by not listening to (reading) the thoughts of others that a closed mind is created.
I can see that you think you do... Copyright and Trademark properties are apparently handled differently. This issue has been discussed repeatedly in other threads, and apparently, that CBS/Paramount 'have not defended' their IP, is not a robust defense to the stance you are presenting (that it is public domain/etc) CBS/Paramount reserve ALL RIGHTS. That means they reserve the right to allow some infringements and not allow other infringements, at their own discretion.
The coffee is the best example of someone making money off an unlicenced use of the Trek IP, and thus actionable...
My character Tsin'xing
Revisionism and distortions? Let's hear from the master himself:
Alec Peters claims that they are being transparent. Others disagree with him...
And below, he questions why he should have to reveal the information to non-donors. (with the clear implication that the information would not be released...) That is not 'transparency'... That question could have been coming from a potential investor, who wants to see how money is being used before they invest themself. To keep that information 'donors only', is a direct contradiction of his high-handed claim to be 'setting the standard'...
Then there is the claim that there are 'many' Star Trek fan films raising six figure sums. I'm not aware of a single one, other than Axanar, to raise a six figure sum...
Are you now questioning that Alec Peters is even a man?? Seriously?? Are you on drugs, or just trolling... Unless there is someone allowing his photo to be taken, who is then calling himself Alec Peters, you really have stepped into the realms of the ludicrous... And no, not everyone deserves defending. A murderer or r*pist caught in the act does not deserve defending: their guilt is beyond question, and something directly observed... Alec Peters has consistently been misleading and manipulative in this matter, and even deleted The Vulcan Scene to try and erase its existence (but there are apparently still copies out there...) Personal testimonies written by those involved in the production of Prelude, support just how manipulative and mercurial he is.
As for your own point about being the victim of a campaign of lies, I once had the misfortune of moderating a political debate forum. I am all too aware of what it is like. And as such, I have no hesitation in forming an opinion of Alec Peters' conduct, and see him as anything but an innocent victim...
Yeah... No. It's going to be -- and should be -- a massacre. You know what the number one way of getting slapped with contempt of court is? It's being contemptuous of the court. And while I don't expect the typical SoCal judge will recognize Vulcan script at a glance, I DO expect them to recognize Chinese, just from the inevitable exposure to signage driving in to work at the LA County Dept. of Justice. Stunts like claiming the costume robes had Chinese, not Vulcan embroidery are pretty much textbook ways of showing a judge "I think I am so damn clever and that you're a moron." That man has dug his own grave.
Really, the only funny thing to come out of is was watching JJ Abrams incinerate a ****ing mountain of political capital sticking his **** in a fight that was none of his damn business. I have no doubt that CBS's legal department all but put a death mark on his prospects for future work there. They'll conclude their current contracts with Bad Robot to the letter, but don't look for a renewal.
My character Tsin'xing
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
I mean.... in it one of the main plot point was dealing with an alien race who could create telepathic fantasies. Which Pike solved in a rather.... interesting way. But to understand what was going on you had to pay attention to what the characters said to understand what they were doing.
My character Tsin'xing
Being a TV watcher doesn't actually equip you to be a TV producer... Very, VERY different outlooks on the process of creating television for profit.