Main Menu

Star Trek: Axanar

Started by Proudhuff, 25 August, 2014, 06:31:27 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

JOE SOAP

#60
Quote from: Robin Low on 21 January, 2017, 03:45:32 PM
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 21 January, 2017, 03:33:43 PMIf they really wanted to they could've crushed Peters and fan-films for good, they didn't, and they're still allowing Peters to make it according to the guidelines that apply to everyone.

True, but at the same time they don't want to come out of this looking like the bad guys, either.

QuoteIt was his actions that more or less forced their hand to create those guidelines.

Again, I accept that. But I don't accept they couldn't have moved their hand a little faster.

Regards,

Robin



I think it's quite clear that in this case it was Peters who pissed off and discouraged many future donors rather than it being the result of some forethought strategy hatched by CBS.

Robin Low

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 21 January, 2017, 03:47:12 PM
I think it's quite clear that in this case it was Peters who pissed off and discouraged many future donors rather than it being the result of some forethought strategy hatched by CBS.

Sorry, I'm not following, can you expand?

Regards,

Robin

Steve Green

And as I said, it's their IP and they can act however they want to.

I'd suggest that patches and t-shirts are one thing, if they're tied to a production (other IP holders may hold a different view on that), but when you start flogging models of trek ships, you're going to get firms who've paid licensing rights saying WTF - why am I paying for these rights.

JOE SOAP

Quote from: Robin Low on 21 January, 2017, 03:51:49 PM
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 21 January, 2017, 03:47:12 PM
I think it's quite clear that in this case it was Peters who pissed off and discouraged many future donors rather than it being the result of some forethought strategy hatched by CBS.

Sorry, I'm not following, can you expand?

It was Sharky's point that delaying action was a ploy to discourage donors; I think it was Peters - by embezzlement - who ultimately did that, not CBS.


Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 21 January, 2017, 10:38:26 AM
My cynical mind thinks the plan might have been to allow as many funders as possible to lose money so as to put them off any similar enterprises in the future.


Quote from: Robin Low on 21 January, 2017, 02:32:57 PM
That's after the kickstarters, so Shark's point still stands. Cynical it may be, but it would go some way to explaining why CBS waited until two kickstarters were over, with a yearlong gap between them, before sending in the lawyers. I mean seriously, an entire year? And seven days after the second one, not during?

Robin Low

Quote from: Steve Green on 21 January, 2017, 03:53:42 PM
And as I said, it's their IP and they can act however they want to.

Sure they can, but you-snooze-you-lose is a thing here.

And, why did they choose to act that way? Dunno, our lawyers just felt like it?

QuoteI'd suggest that patches and t-shirts are one thing, if they're tied to a production (other IP holders may hold a different view on that), but when you start flogging models of trek ships, you're going to get firms who've paid licensing rights saying WTF - why am I paying for these rights.

That is indeed a fair point. Perhaps the motivating factor was in fact complaints from licensees. But I come back to the question, why seven days after the second kickstarter and not, say, seven days before it ended?

Regards,

Robin

Robin Low

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 21 January, 2017, 03:58:42 PMIt was Sharky's point that delaying action was a ploy to discourage donors; I think it was Peters - by embezzlement - who ultimately did that, not CBS.

Ah, right, yes.

By the way, have we seen any actual evidence of embezzlement? Aside from looking at the various kickstarter pages I've not bothered looking much online, as the debate seems highly polarized.

Based on what I've seen on other kickstarters with unhappy donors, some folks are more than capable of taking legal action. If there's actual evidence, some of the 8,000+ donors will go after him.

Regards,

Robin

Steve Green

I've no idea why they chose to wait, and I'm not really that bothered.



"Further, Peters paid himself money he raised from fans to pay for his health insurance, his car insurance, to fill up his and his girlfriend's gas tank on a weekly basis for two years, to pay for his phone, his girlfriend's phone and his friend's phone charges for two years, to pay for new tires for his Lexus, to take his car in for servicing, to travel around the world to attend various science fiction conventions, and even to pay his annual AAA membership and TSA pre-check fees."

http://www.trektoday.com/content/2016/11/more-details-from-the-axanar-lawsuit/

JOE SOAP

#67
Quote from: Robin Low on 21 January, 2017, 04:15:35 PM
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 21 January, 2017, 03:58:42 PMIt was Sharky's point that delaying action was a ploy to discourage donors; I think it was Peters - by embezzlement - who ultimately did that, not CBS.

Ah, right, yes.


Quote from: Robin Low on 21 January, 2017, 04:15:35 PMBy the way, have we seen any actual evidence of embezzlement? Aside from looking at the various kickstarter pages I've not bothered looking much online, as the debate seems highly polarized.



Court documents have been put online that show him paying himself and others a salary and other indulgences but you can get all the pertinent info at axamonitor.

http://axamonitor.com/doku.php?id=summary_motions_filed

http://axamonitor.com/doku.php?id=summary_replies


Quote from: Robin Low on 21 January, 2017, 04:15:35 PM
Based on what I've seen on other kickstarters with unhappy donors, some folks are more than capable of taking legal action. If there's actual evidence, some of the 8,000+ donors will go after him.


Some of them are and the more zealous are turning on him now since the settlement - they perceive him as having "given in" and killed the cause.


Robin Low

Quote from: Steve Green on 21 January, 2017, 04:20:42 PM
I've no idea why they chose to wait, and I'm not really that bothered.

Well, I'm mildly interested in what I regard as curious behaviour, but I'm guessing you don't wish to discuss this any further. Fair enough.

Regards,

Robin

Robin Low

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 21 January, 2017, 04:26:31 PMCourt documents have been put online that show him paying himself and others a salary and other indulgences but you can get all the pertinent info at axamonitor.

Cheers. But oddly, a bit like Steve, I find myself being not that bothered.

QuoteSome of them are and the more zealous are turning on him now since the settlement - they perceive him as having "given in" and killed the cause.

Interesting times ahead for him.

Regards,

Robin

JOE SOAP

Quote from: Robin Low on 21 January, 2017, 04:47:38 PMCheers. But oddly, a bit like Steve, I find myself being not that bothered.

I suppose it could depend on the size of your donation.

Robin Low

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 21 January, 2017, 04:49:04 PM
Quote from: Robin Low on 21 January, 2017, 04:47:38 PMCheers. But oddly, a bit like Steve, I find myself being not that bothered.

I suppose it could depend on the size of your donation.

Indeed. But one would hope that the person who gave $15,000 backed according to the value they could afford to lose. You have to back these things with the understanding you may lose your money, for good reasons or bad. I see a number of people in the roleplaying community who treat crowdfunding as a guaranteed pre-order service. I don't have too much sympathy for their complaints when things go tits up. Some grumbling is acceptable; outright bitterness and hate, less so.

Regards,

Robin

JOE SOAP


Guidelines, what guidelines?


Steve Green

Is he going for an hour of audio only on top?

Multiple commentaries?

Or is he really asking for another kicking from CBS/Paramount?

Steve Green

http://axamonitor.com/doku.php?id=bailey_committee#public_end_run_private_donations

Oh, he's trying to put old stuff on there that he's in, produced by the New Voyages crew...

Wonder if they know that.