test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Options
The "Lawsuit"...
daveyny
Member Posts: 8,227 Arc User
... is in the headlines again...
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/star-trek-lawsuit-heats-up-934130
I guess Mr. Peters and his lawyers have decided to go full "Chuck Norris" again...
smh
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/star-trek-lawsuit-heats-up-934130
I guess Mr. Peters and his lawyers have decided to go full "Chuck Norris" again...
smh
STO Member since February 2009.
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
0
Comments
Yes... I'm THAT amazed that he just won't let it go... I'm showing it with frickin' pastel ponies!
Can't Peters just take Kirk's advice for once on his hopes for making money off Star Trek?
That one is so stupid, he lost a Rock/Paper/Scissors game to a Pony.
but... him spending donations on "Tires, Gas and insurance" is what made my blood boil, not only does he have the cheek to use donations to build his new studio which BTW has a new name and client (Industry Studios and some TRIBBLE actor or summit is his new client) but he pays for things that should be paid for by himself!!!
but that is not the greatest his lawyers long list of fan films they want info on is amazing its like WTF seriously! why not just go and torch their studios while your at it.
No, no. You're looking at that all wrong - treating a vehicle as a company vehicle is how you get it seized as a company asset when the ruling goes against the company. Now civil California courts have a long standing tradition of leaving people with one vehicle just so they can stay productively part of society, but if he's got more than one, smart money is he's losing a car for that particularly brand of stupid.
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!
Apparently...
Mr. Peters and his Lawyers... That's who.
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
heh...
Silly thing is, all they have to do is check out YouTube for that kinda info., they don't need a court order to find it.
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
dont insult the late slim pickens like that lol
Please do not inject me into a conversation with which I have had no part, or I will once again demonstrate that you have no clue what you are talking about. You have villified me because you cannot refute my arguments, and now you want to treat me with the same lack of respect you have demonstrated for someone else you don't even know.
It is true that a person resorts to ad hominem attacks when they cannot support the ideas they espouse. If all you have are personal attacks, then you obviously know nothing about the subject. In that case, it is better to remain silent.
You want to know where the copyright and trademark infringement starts from? Canon character Garth of Izar. The Battle of Axanar. The f*cking title of the show, Star Trek: Axanar.
Are you seriously going to claim that CBS and Paramount do not own these concepts and that therefore according to United States intellectual property laws a person who does not have permission, in writing, from C/P, cannot profit off of the concepts?
Go ahead, keep running that mouth. I've got popcorn and everything.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
You can have at Mr. Peters and/or CBS (whichever your preference) all you want, but let's not start attacking each other, OK.
Remember, Opinion's are like butt-holes...
We all got one, nobody's smells like a rose and they all start with a bit of a crack.
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
To which I counter that you don't have an opinion on factual matters. You accept the evidence. It's not a matter of opinion: Peters factually and flagrantly broke the law.
Works for anthropogenic climate change, works for this. You can argue about how you would like to see it fixed, you can argue about whether the law is a good thing, but you cannot argue that it didn't happen.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Since I never asserted any of these things, I don't particularly feel inclined to defend them. This is another tactic used by someone who has no clue what he's talking about. Change the argument to something else when you have no evidence to support your original assertion.
What I have maintained all along is that there is no evidence to support accusations that Mr. Peters intended to scam anyone, but posters have maintained, based on pretty much nothing except the idea that Mr. Peters is obviously a bad person based on many years of... well, why he's bad is never clearly explained, but people posted bad things about him on the internet so they must be true...
Lets turn that argument around and apply it to you. Oh, yeah, that would be unfair since I know nothing about you aside from a few thoughtless rants on the internet. I lack any evidence to make any fair and rational judgement about your character and intentions.
And that is my position on Mr. Peters. It has been all along. The people who are acting irrationally are the Hate Axanar crowd who revile a person they do not know and attribute all sorts of evil motivations to him based on nothing more than an echo chamber of hate where one person's hateful rantings are used as proof to support more hateful rants.
Enjoy the popcorn.
The evidence that was made available is pretty damning.
For the record, I am NOT one of the "Hate Axanar" people. I'm actually pretty neutral on the subject of Axanar itself. Its Peters actions that I'm taking issue with. And so far the evidence points to misconduct on the part of Peters.
Fact of the matter is, the minute Peters tried to make money off the Star Trek IP (which he does NOT hold any rights to)... he crossed the line.
Also, Axanar's not a "fan film," but a "professional production produced by professionals." Alec only changed his tone about that when he got sued.
I made no claims regarding Mr. Peters' honesty. What I said is there is no evidence of criminal intent. Several posters on these forums have reasserted that Axanar was a scam in the absence of any evidence to support that statement.
As to why, CBS said it was both the advance of technology which allows low budget operations to produce studio quality works and the ability of crowdfunding to bankroll those operations far in excess of what was possible a decade ago. Axanar happened to be the first to break the million dollar threshold, and as they say, money talks.
He promised a finished product, but in December of last year, just before Axanar's posted shooting schedule which was to begin in the end of January of this year. Axanar put their project on hiatus until the suit was addressed. The money, according to Axanar, was either spent on production costs or reserved for later use, as you can discover by reading Axanar's financial summary which was posted before the lawsuit was filed. If you want to complain about not having a finished product, you can with justification blame CBS, but there is zero evidence Mr. Peters never intended to make a movie and loads of evidence to support the idea that he was making progress toward that goal.
As far as what he did with the money: so far as I know, crowdfunding sites do not require the fund recipient account for what he did with it. However, Mr. Peters claimed he was operating as a not-for-profit entity. Such corporations have long lists of what they can and cannot do with their money. Neither the State of California nor the IRS have made accusations or allegations of wrongdoing as of yet. (Paying officers of a not-for-profit entity is not illegal, nor is reimbursement for expenses.) It may well be that such charges will come in time, but my bet is that he has neither violated the tax code nor endangered his corporation's not- for- profit status. I could be wrong about that, but so far there is no evidence to support any other view.
As for what would have happened to the studio, cameras, props, and all the other real property owned by Axanar after the movie was completed, this is also covered in the laws regarding not-for-profit enterprises. Red Cross can buy and sell property, for example, or retain it for future use, but the CEO of Red Cross cannot donate Red Cross property to himself. Axanar will likewise be required to account for the real property disposed of after the film is completed or permanently barred from completion unless the not-for-profit corporation continues to function as a not-for-profit entity.
So, while you may believe what you like, you have not presented a case for criminal intent. What you are doing is quite simply character assassination, and you justify that by believing what other character assassins have written without ever critically examining the issue from a fact-based point of view.
It is a sad commentary on society when implication and innuendo are superior to fact in the court of public opinion. I saw an illuminating statement in the Goblins webcomic recently. To paraphrase, when two people of good nature disagree they both invariably assume the other is evil. Mr. Peters may not be the 'good guy,' but there is still no evidence to support accusations that he intended to scam anyone.
My character Tsin'xing
I do have to ask though, Star Trek is ultimately a franchise which exists solely to make money, why were no regulations put in place by the rights holders laying out what they considered acceptable. The BBC had one set out for Doctor Who 30 years ago and they're non-profit!
I'm not saying the Axanar team are innocent, but the Trek teams really did have it coming.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Looking back at other fanfilm projects, NONE of them attracted the attention of CBS/Paramount. Of Gods and Men, Renegades, Continues... none of them attracted their attention. Axanar did. So you can't say that Axanar didn't do something wrong. If the IP holders were fine with the others, why slam Axanar unless they broke some rule or law?
Said statement showed that he had paid himself a "modest" salary that was enough for him to live off of donations alone. Even if the project wasn't making a profit overall... which is impossible to determine as it didn't go far enough along to have countable production costs. Peters personally profited off of it. Which is where it's different from Renegades and Star Trek Continues. They'd actually raised quite a lot of money, but you could see where the money went, and it didn't go into the pockets of the producers.
My character Tsin'xing
Heck for that matter, CBS actually told YouTube to ignore a third-party copyright complaint against Continues and put it back on the web...
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
I can't believe that this discussion has gotten this far, considering everyone here that has posted is completely and utterly ignorant to the full facts of the case and on top of all that, I highly doubt that anyone here that has posted has a law degree and has full access to the case at hand .
That would mean that the opinions expressed in this thread here are completely based off of complete ignorance..
Which also means that no one has the right to dispute the opinions of another person,
Unless you're a lawyer and have complete and full access to the case that's being discussed here . other than that the only right that anyone has here is the right to disagree with the other persons opinion, nothing else.
Circular logic is circular. The tail wags the dog. It must be true because I read it on the internet.
In the USA we have a presumption of innocence, and guilt must be proven. You are doing it backwards. Your argument is that I should presume guilt based on the fact of the accusation. I hope you never find yourself facing a jury of your peers, because the fact that you get accused of a crime proves you committed it, right?
Is it the quantity of funds raised? Probably not since there have been others that raised large sums.
Is it the quality of the work? They waited quite a long time after Prelude was released to act, so this is unlikely.
Is it the way Peters used the funds? This seems likely as the suit came shortly after Peters released a document that showed how much of the funds he'd used for things other than the film.
My character Tsin'xing