This is a big win for CBS and Paramount and I congratulate them on their win. Thing is, Axanar does not own Star Trek and they had no permission from either studio to make such a big budget movie. That would be like making a Star Wars movie without the permission of Disney or Lucasfilm.
If you did not create the franchise, then you need to get permission from the people who created it.
Axanar's main theme was to make a lot of these Star Trek feature films (while not paying CBS or Paramount a single dime for doing so). When you borrow something that someone else created, YOU NEED TO GET PERMISSION OR A LICENSE TO DO SO.
Alec Peters simply tried to scam CBS, Paramount, The Courts and The Fans and while they only scammed the fans, neither the studios nor the courts saw it that way.
Now, Alec Peters has a bigger problem. He could face a potential class action lawsuit on account of those investors for his movie. He can call the donations all he wants but that Kickstarter projects are not donations. Alec Peters can shout donations all he wants but that he is legally bound to produce the feature length film he received that $1.1 million dollars for.
Just because he settled his conflict with CBS and Paramount doesn't absolve his responsibility with his investors. I expect that he'll soon be facing a class action lawsuit on behalf of those who pledged that money for this Star Trek film.
Everyone is missing the point. Civil rights have not been granted to anyone until they were physically present on this planet. It doesn't matter what protected group. Women, black people, immigrants, homosexuals ... these groups were not granted civil rights or equal rights until they were an actual class of people.
Artificial Intelligence simply cannot be granted a protected class or rights until they exist.
This is ridiculous. It's akin to granting rights to people who don't even exist yet. While they're at it, why not grant legal rights to Satan, Jesus Christ or Odin? They don't exist either but they're part of our religious faith and mythology. Legal rights cannot be granted to someone or something because they don't exist until they present themselves in a physical form.
The point I was trying to make is that website owners and administrators need to force themselves to adopt policies to prevent things like this. Posting articles with titles designed as click-bait, i.e., provocative headlines, then you deserve what you get.
I'm not saying I'd like to see techdirt go but that website administrators often set themselves up for lawsuits like this.
With my website and forum communities, I have developed site policies designed for every possible occurrence and allow for content to be removed if either myself or my forum staff decide that the content is inappropriate for my community. I have to say that content is usually caught pretty quickly before it causes any damage.
Personally, I don't agree with techdirt's assessment. The same constitutional rights that protect techdirt's first amendment claim are also the same constitutional rights that can penalize sites like techdirt from running articles without backing up its information.
Far too often I see techdirt running articles that are first posted by other sites, quoting the same quotes that those other sites are quoting from.
I simply think that techdirt, if they cave in or lose, might be on its last legs because I don't think they do any research except generate a few quotes from people involved with the subject matter they are posting about.
This is why I have policies set in place on my site that prevent registered members from posting messages without any sources or research.
Unfortunately, techdirt could lose just from the attrition of this lawsuit.
If I had ever been caught doing something like that and the police offered me a deal like that, I would agree to it but only after it was placed in a written agreement, signed by the police department, the company that got hacked, witnessed by a lawyer and approved by the courts.
There's no way I would just trust the police to abide by the agreement.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show the comment.
Karl Bode must have been one of those "I Love Hillary" supporters because this article REAKS of a sore loser who is angry that Hillary lost. I think he forgot to mention that what our country didn't need is another Democrat president who will add another staggering 11 trillion dollars to our national debt.
I never heard Democrats bitching about when Obama and the Democrats were spending our tax dollars without passing a single federal budget. For the first two years in office, when Democrats controlled everything, they were handing Obama blank checks with no control on spending. They wasted our money and what did we get?
We got a black president who increased food stamps recipients two-fold, we got a mandatory health insurance law that forced Americans to have health insurance or suffer a tax penalty (WTF?) and we got 11 trillion dollars in debt.
Obama did the one thing that Republicans never have done. Obamacare was never about access to health care, it was about protecting the health insurance racket that the Democrats were in bed with. They gave back to Democrats by giving them unprecedented campaign donations.
Democrats got got their celebrity in Obama. Now, Republicans got their own celebrity in Trump. Trump will restore this country back to what it was, a country that is not dependent on food stamps and health insurance.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show the comment.
Fact is, I'm glad Trump is president. Our country definitely did not need another 11 trillion dollars in national debt.
Obama joins the ranks of infamous black politicians who have added a massive amount of debt onto our country to which our children will now have to pay for.
Woodrow Stanley, Kwame Kilpatrick, Barrack Obama. The only thing those morons did was raid our treasuries and saddled our country with staggering amounts of debt. Woodrow Stanley and Kwame Kilpatrick saddled Michigan cities with enormous debt, and left office, leaving Emergency Financial Managers in charge, stripping our elected officials of their powers.
Barrack Obama is the worst offender. he's added a staggering amount of debt, more than any Republican has ever did. Obama has saddled our country with $11 trillion dollars in debt. He should be thrown in prison, along with Hillary Clinton.
That's like saying Obama takes credit for jobs he didn't create. When are people going to wake up and realize that our government does not create jobs, they never have. Last time I checked, companies like McDonalds, Sprint, Best Buy, Target, hotels, Casinos ... these are employers who create jobs, not the government. But what's fucked up is the liberals who are under the delusion that the government creates jobs. That is simply a fallacy perpetrated by Democrats spreading their liberal agenda.
Trump Still Falsely Taking Credit For Sprint Jobs He Had Nothing To Do With
Who would be dumb enough to fall for these scams? My webhost provider sends me email messages via a support ticket when my domain renewal is up. Neither ICANN nor ENOM ever sends me any messages regarding my domain. I've had to contact ENOM because my previous webhost refused to unlock my domain name so I could transfer and that's the only contact I've had with ENOM.
What I want to know is why the various State Bars aren't hauling these government lawyers before ethics hearings for the egregious violations of civil and constitutional rights against defendants.
Someone would think this would force the state bars, which exist in each and every state, from hauling these government lawyers before disbarment hearings. Last time I checked, the state bar doesn't grant immunity to lawyers, no matter if they work the for the federal government.
WOW! I just discovered the real reason behind this mandated surveillance camera regulation. Madison, Mississippi, is trying a novel idea to strip citizens of their constitutional rights to privacy.
Accidentally, I came across another article that exposed the real season, that Madison officials want to strip the confidentiality arrangements that exists between lawyers and their clients as well as between doctors and their patients.
If this ordnance is allowed to remain intact, other cities, other states and perhaps even Congress will be encouraged to produce similar laws mandating surveillance in businesses that rely on privileged communications between lawyers, doctors and their clients and patients.
This is being used a testing ground to see how far city, state and federal governments can strip those very rights. This goes far beyond surveillance and goes to the very heart of privilege and confidential communications between professionals and their clients.
Don't expect this ordnance to survive a court challenge. Businesses that are owned by private individuals cannot be force into such an ordnance passed by the government. There's a reason why we have a constitution and if someone doesn't want to install surveillance cameras, then they aren't required to do so.
While business are regulated by such ordnances and laws, this particular ordnance violates the rights of these businesses not to mention attorneys and their offices. I just don't see this surviving a court challenge.