Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revisionBoth sides next revision
peters_kickstarter_facts [2016/10/10 23:46] – [Peters Paid Himself Salary] correx typo Carlos Pedrazapeters_kickstarter_facts [2016/10/11 02:24] – Correcting grammar Carlos Pedraza
Line 83: Line 83:
   * Demonstrating Peters' definition of the term 'profit' isn't relevant to the direct financial benefit he is alleged to have gained from copyright infringement.   * Demonstrating Peters' definition of the term 'profit' isn't relevant to the direct financial benefit he is alleged to have gained from copyright infringement.
  
-This was further supported by federal [[judge_r._gary_klausner|Judge R. Gary Klausner]]In dismissing Axanar's motion to have the [[motion_to_dismiss|lawsuit dismissed]]. He ruled the idea of profit irrelevant to the analysis of copyright infringement in which Peters gained [[direct financial benefit]] from Axanar:+This was further supported by federal [[judge_r._gary_klausner|Judge R. Gary Klausner]] in dismissing Axanar's motion to have the [[motion_to_dismiss|lawsuit dismissed]]. He ruled the idea of profit irrelevant to the analysis of copyright infringement in which Peters gained [[direct financial benefit]] from Axanar:
  
 > Although it is unclear whether Defendants stand to earn a profit from the Axanar Works, <wrap hi>realizing a profit is irrelevant to this analysis</wrap>. The Court can easily infer that by raising $1 million to produce the Axanar Works and disseminating the Axanar Works on Youtube.com, the allegedly infringing material “acts as a ‘draw’ for customers” to watch Defendants’ films.((Civil Minutes, Judge R. Gary Klausner’s Order to Deny Motion to Dismiss, p. 5 §B(2), “Vicarious Infringement: Direct Financial Benefit Allegations Made on ‘Information and Belief,'” 5/9/16.)) > Although it is unclear whether Defendants stand to earn a profit from the Axanar Works, <wrap hi>realizing a profit is irrelevant to this analysis</wrap>. The Court can easily infer that by raising $1 million to produce the Axanar Works and disseminating the Axanar Works on Youtube.com, the allegedly infringing material “acts as a ‘draw’ for customers” to watch Defendants’ films.((Civil Minutes, Judge R. Gary Klausner’s Order to Deny Motion to Dismiss, p. 5 §B(2), “Vicarious Infringement: Direct Financial Benefit Allegations Made on ‘Information and Belief,'” 5/9/16.))
Line 95: Line 95:
 <wrap em>MISLEADING</wrap> **Non-Profit Fan Films** Peters' assertion that fan films by definition are not for profit is not based on any clear definition of what a fan film is; in fact, fans have divided into conflicting schools of thoughts regarding revenue from fan works.(([[wp>Fan_labor#Fan_products_and_money|Fan labor: Fan products and money, Wikipedia]], retrieved 10/10/16.)) <wrap em>MISLEADING</wrap> **Non-Profit Fan Films** Peters' assertion that fan films by definition are not for profit is not based on any clear definition of what a fan film is; in fact, fans have divided into conflicting schools of thoughts regarding revenue from fan works.(([[wp>Fan_labor#Fan_products_and_money|Fan labor: Fan products and money, Wikipedia]], retrieved 10/10/16.))
  
-In Axanar's case, the idea that a fan production must necessarily be a non-profit is contradicted by its alleged activities designed to create income, some of which involve the manufacture and [[merchandise|sale of products]] based on copyrighted works. In other words, fan films are not for profit until, as [[compel_discovery#axanar_s_not_a_fan_film|asserted by plaintiffs]] in the Axanar case, they're not:+In Axanar's case, the idea that a fan production must necessarily be a non-profit is contradicted by its alleged activities designed to create income, some of which involve the manufacture and [[merchandise|sale of products]] based on copyrighted works. In other words, fan films are not for profit until, as [[compel_discovery#axanar_s_not_a_fan_film|asserted by plaintiffs]] in the Axanar case, they are:
  
 > Defendant Peters and his colleagues expressly stated that they were not creating a “fan film.” <wrap hi>This case is about a commercial enterprise designed to take money from Star Trek fans</wrap>, which funds were used to pay Defendant Peters along with his friends and colleagues, to create, as Defendants describe it, “an independent Star Trek film.”((“Discovery Motion, Joint Stipulation Regarding Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery from Plaintiffs,” p. 4, 9/29/16.)) {{:axamonitor-ico.gif?nolink|}} > Defendant Peters and his colleagues expressly stated that they were not creating a “fan film.” <wrap hi>This case is about a commercial enterprise designed to take money from Star Trek fans</wrap>, which funds were used to pay Defendant Peters along with his friends and colleagues, to create, as Defendants describe it, “an independent Star Trek film.”((“Discovery Motion, Joint Stipulation Regarding Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery from Plaintiffs,” p. 4, 9/29/16.)) {{:axamonitor-ico.gif?nolink|}}