CBS/Paramount sues to stop Axanar
- Thread starter Richard Baker
- Start date
- Status
The "Superfan" defense? lol.
Perhaps CBS could gift him on the stand a first-ever-seen set of screen-made Trek jammies.
People are getting paid to read this board?!
More to the point, people may be billing C/P by the hour to read this board. Not sure what L&L charge but back in my paralegal days, the attorney usually billed a paralegal's time about $90-$125 per hour.People are getting paid to read this board?!
This is presumably what Van Critters' testimony will focus on.
I would be surprised if the judge allows either to testify. Their testimony has no relevance and is clearly prejudicial. The defense wants to attract media attention by having two high-profile directors appear in court. But Abrams and Lin's knowledge of Star Trek characters and their personal opinions about fan films has no bearing on the defendants' liability.
And even if the judge somehow allowed it, I imagine the cross-examination would go something like this:
Counsel: Mr. Abrams, you created the television series "Alias," is that right?
Abrams: Yes.
Counsel: Now if someone setup a professional studio in the Los Angeles area and produced a 90-minute film based on the characters and storylines you created for "Alias," would you consider that copyright infringement?
Abrams: Yes, I would.
Counsel: Even if the person who owned the studio was also a dedicated fan of "Alias"?
Abrams: I don't see what difference that would make.
Counsel: And if that studio and film had been paid for by crowdfunding which invited Alias fans to donate, how would you assess that?
Abrams: Shazbat. Oops, sorry. Mom let me stay up and watch when I was a kid.
Last edited:
Do we know if the CBS/P attorneys are aware of the podcasts, and if not is there a way to recommend they check them out to see if they are usable as evidence?
I believe they have mentioned them a bit in filings. Have they transcribed them all and sent them through software to cull evidence? Wouldn't be that surprised, such tech exists for things like capturing and analyzing all the things people say while on the phone to call centers. (Yes, your sidebar abuse of the poor "press 1" automaton is being analyzed by an AI... food for thought...)
C/P, make an intern crash project and cull those podcasts.
To any paralegals being forced to read this thread, let me apologize right now for repeatedly posting this picture.
But at least you can "Bill" for it and make some "Cash".
Neil
Regarding the extract from the Witness List...
"[Peters] will testify regarding his innocent intent with respect to any infringement, and his reliance on the longstanding fan film tradition in Star Trek. He will testify regarding the history of his own Star Trek fandom."
...how would that bold highlighted phrase come into matters? How is that relevant?
BTW, in such civil cases as this lawsuit, is it recorded video wise? Would such recordings, if made, be accessible to the public in future. That would be some car crash TV!
"[Peters] will testify regarding his innocent intent with respect to any infringement, and his reliance on the longstanding fan film tradition in Star Trek. He will testify regarding the history of his own Star Trek fandom."
...how would that bold highlighted phrase come into matters? How is that relevant?
BTW, in such civil cases as this lawsuit, is it recorded video wise? Would such recordings, if made, be accessible to the public in future. That would be some car crash TV!
No, cameras are generally not permitted in federal district courts. The Ninth Circuit actually runs a pilot program allowing cameras in certain civil cases, but this does not cover the Central District of California. The parties may request transcripts or audio recordings that could, in theory, be released to the public, but we're not going to see any video footage of the trial.
I am very much for cameras in all courtrooms (I got used to them covering trials in Florida where they are taken for granted and are no longer a novelty or distraction). Trials should be conducted "publicly" and in today's electronic communications era, I believe that "publicly" means anyone who wants to see a trial anywhere should be able to. That's not because there's any great entertainment value in any given trial. Most courtroom proceedings are full of stuff that would put a cage full of hyenas to sleep and drama of the Perry Mason or Law&Order variety is usually lacking. It's also worth remembering that even when cameras are allowed they can paint a false picture of the outcome since the jurors only see what the judge decides is relevant and there is no way to gauge the interpersonal dynamics that happen in a jury room. (Imagine yourself trapped with 5 or 11 strangers picked at random to hear a case with complicated legal issues and only your "common sense" to guide all of you). I guess what I"m driving at, is that even if we could watch the whole thing unfold on our TV or computer screens it wouldn't be all that exciting (although our esteemed Madame Chief Justice Jespah and some of our other posters with legal backgrounds or journalistic experience in covering trials might find it enjoyable) for most of us. I recall the highest profile civil case I ever covered, which was a widow's lawsuit against the manufacturer of the F-16 jet her husband was killed in. At one point the lawyer was almost giddy with excitement after one day's testimony where he had gotten a defense witness to admit under cross-examination that the design of the jet's wiring was defective. It was a point that I really hadn't given the proper weight; possibly due to the absence of outraged objections from the defense and dramatic music to cue me in that something big had just happened. The case was turned into a movie (I think it was on Showtime or HBO and no I wasn't in it) and I'm sure the case was portrayed as much more exciting than I remember it. These days I'm perfectly happy to let real experts MCJJ, OSWriter and Carlosp walk me through things. It's a damn hard slog to cover such a complex case and try to help an audience make sense of it when you have limited time and little or no legal training.
You mean like the time Lord Cupcake and RMB were fantasizing about their "Netflix of Sci Fi" idea and thought they could potentially get 100 million subscribers at $5 a pop per month? Yup, that's out there.
Federal courts tend to be more skeptical of cameras. The U.S. Supreme Court won't allow them at all. (Retired Justice David Souter once famously remarked that Supreme Court arguments would be televised "over my dead body.") And as I noted in my last post, the Judicial Council of the United States has only approved a "pilot program" for televising civil cases only in a handful of district courts. However, many intermediate appellate courts, including the Ninth Circuit, do now televise arguments.
As @MikeH92467 noted, cameras aren't a big deal for many state-level courts. It's also more accepted abroad. I've covered the British courts, and the UK Supreme Court televises all arguments, such as the recent Brexit appeal. (Although to be fair, I'm not sure they actually televise civil trials in the UK.) One difference between trial and appeal is with the latter there are no concerns about protecting witnesses or jurors from public exposure.
All that said, this discussion reminded me of a California corruption trial some years ago where a local news station--barred from televising the proceedings live--decided to reenact the proceedings using audio recordings and puppets. Just imagine doing the Axanar trial with Meego action figures.
Internet Idea of The Week!
One of the arguments federal judges use against cameras is that they would be a distraction. In Florida, the camera has to be in place before the proceedings start and it's just one camera and one camera operator. In a big federal trial there was always at least one sketch artist who would be late. The crumpling of papers and the scratching of chalk was a lot more distracting in my book than any camera in the court ever was in my experience. That said I always find well-drawn courtroom sketches compelling and enjoyable to look at. Another argument is that lawyers will showboat for the camera(s). I never saw that happen in any case I covered, but of course, the OJ Simpson trial showed just how bad it could get. I blame the judge for letting that happen, though. No one would have thought of trying to turn a trial into a circus in the courtrooms of the federal judges whose trials I covered. Judge Klausner doesn't strike me as someone to be trifled with, either.
- Status