Slashdot Mirror


CBS Shuts Down Stage 9, a Fan-Made Recreation of the USS Enterprise (torrentfreak.com)

An anonymous reader writes: For those unfamiliar with the project, Stage 9 is a beautiful virtual recreation of the Enterprise ship from Star Trek: The Next Generation for Windows, Mac and Linux. More experience than game, Stage 9 was built by fans over two years in the Unreal Engine. "There were two things that we were always pretty careful with," says project leader 'Scragnog'. "We made it as clear as we possibly could that this was NOT an officially licensed project. We had no affiliation with CBS or Paramount and the IP we were trying our hardest to treat with respect was not our own. We were fans, just creating fan art."

In an announcement this week, Scragnog reminded fans that no one involved in the project was in it for any financial reason and everyone was well aware that throwing money into the mix could be a problem. However, the team says it has always known that they could be shut down at any time on the whim of a license holder because in this world, that's what can happen. Unfortunately, that day has come all too soon for the impressive project. Stage 9 was hit with an intellectual property complaint from CBS just over two weeks ago and has now been shut down.

"This letter was a cease-and-desist order," Scragnog explains. "Over the next 13 days we did everything we possibly could to open up a dialog with CBS. The member of the CBS legal team that issued the order went on holiday for a week immediately after sending the letter through, which slowed things down considerably."

209 comments

  1. That's not all they've shut down by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They've also shut down my desire to continue to watch Star Trek. Maybe I'll see what Picard is up to via the bay, though.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:That's not all they've shut down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corporate shill much?

    2. Re:That's not all they've shut down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IT'S A TRAP!!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLl17YXrAZY

    3. Re:That's not all they've shut down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hehehe mostly what I was about to suggest.... you wanna shut down nice things that don't cost you anything just because you can...
      Well I've got new for you.. I can also stop watching CBS all together.... hows that for your profit.
      Stupid money shit ,.... so tired of it....

    4. Re: That's not all they've shut down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I personally have created dozens of .torrents for stage9

      Not worried.

      sEED

    5. Re:That's not all they've shut down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The interesting thing is this move will cost them. Stage 9 was keeping interest in Star Trek alive. Shutting it down and moving current trek shows behind a wall discourage people from watching it.

    6. Re:That's not all they've shut down by genfail · · Score: 3, Informative

      ally CBS only shuts down fan projects for Star Trek when it's better than whatever they are making. For example, a fan project, Axanar about the first Federation Klingon war, was originally given the blessing of the studio to proceed so the fan production company made Prelude to Axanar and got a Kickstarter going to fund it. After CBS watched Prelude and realized that it had a more engaging story, more recognized actors and more faithful to canon (not to mention had a better-looking ship which is a big deal to ST fans) than their own property in development, the much-maligned abomination that is Star Trek: Discovery, they immediately began a legal war to stop the project for reasons that didn't become clear until ST:D launched. So this tells us two things, one they have a commercial project that uses a recreation of the Enterprise and two they don't want comparisons with whatever they're making with sweatshop pixel monkeys and something made with love by fans. I was going to pass on this whole thing because I figured it would suck but now they are doing this I'm going to find a place I can download it from as soon as I get home.

    7. Re:That's not all they've shut down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shutting it down and moving current trek shows behind a wall discourage people from watching it.

      I'd say the crappy writing is enough to discourage people from watching it.

      As a Trek fan since childhood, I've given up hope that any modern-day producer or director will truly "get" Star Trek.

    8. Re:That's not all they've shut down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got off on season 1 of enterprise.

      I was *really* into ST for a long time. If they made merch I bought it. 200+ books and comics, toys, board games, you name it. These days I no longer even watch the old stuff. Maybe I just got bored with it. But mostly I got tired of the slipshod content. TOS had its share of stinkers. But as time goes on it seems the stinkers outweighed the good ones.

      'Picard' coming back is nothing more than a gimmick. Maybe he can make a couple of good episodes. But that means having a writing team to back it up. But it comes off as a un-genuine gimmick. Maybe they have that maybe they don't but mostly I do not care about it anymore. Even on the 'bay' I will not watch it. That is how little it has become worth to me.

      They kept trying to 'tweak' the mix. Wildly missing what the mix was. I am about to the same point with Dr. Who. Much in the same way the show is losing that 'wow' factor. The closest I got to how I originally felt about ST was Andromeda, SG-1,and B5. Sadly those have ended. But I consider that a good thing. They crystallized it and did not drag it until it was a bloody stump (SG1 got close though).

    9. Re:That's not all they've shut down by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > Don't let the door hit you in the ass, freeloader.

      Star Trek is ad supported content.

      Payment avoidance has always been possible.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    10. Re:That's not all they've shut down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      I'm going to watch even more Star Trek now because I respect people who stand up for their rights and protect their trademarks, copyrights and other intellectual property.

      If you want to go create your own sci-fi universe and make your own little video game based on that, then go for it. But don't steal from other people. That's dishonest and disrespectful.

      Oh and BTW, the screenshots of "Stage 9" reveal it to be a joke. The visuals are like Elite Force level. Elite Force is a Star Trek video game that was created back in 2000 or so by responsible, respectful people who got permission BEFORE they started.

    11. Re:That's not all they've shut down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many people in the technical crowd, which Star Trek tends to appeal to, are willing to shell out actual real $$$ to watch their shows, but not to pay $$$ AND have to watch commercials. That's *not* payment avoidance.

    12. Re:That's not all they've shut down by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Many people in the technical crowd, which Star Trek tends to appeal to, are willing to shell out actual real $$$ to watch their shows, but not to pay $$$ AND have to watch commercials. That's *not* payment avoidance.

      Yep. We're about to let Prime expire, because the alleged two-day shipping isn't two-day if you live anywhere interesting (in this case, near Mendocino) and because Prime shows commercials. If either of those things weren't true we'd probably keep it, but... meh. Super fucking tired not just of the ads, but of how Amazon keeps showing the same completely misplaced ones over, and over, and over, and over...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re: That's not all they've shut down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      _This_ is why we cannot have nice things.

    14. Re: That's not all they've shut down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck these psychopaths. Cut their revenue stream!

    15. Re:That's not all they've shut down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, you can always go watch Murphy Brown.

    16. Re:That's not all they've shut down by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      To be fair Axanar was a scam. It might have been good anyway, but the guy behind it was basically using the opportunity to build himself a studio with the Kickstarter money.

      There are real fan efforts out there, like Star Trek Continues, that are both excellent and done right (as a registered charity).

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    17. Re: That's not all they've shut down by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sorry you can't afford to spend ten bucks a month in expedited shipping priority, and, I guess the music and movies and books they throw in for some people too.

      Sorry you can't afford an email address. It would let you get a Slashdot login, so people might care about your opinions.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re:That's not all they've shut down by Daralantan · · Score: 1

      Yep. We're about to let Prime expire, because the alleged two-day shipping isn't two-day if you live anywhere interesting

      I never had a huge urgent need for 2 day shipping, but it did get annoying when "free 5-8 shipping" meant that amazon wasn't going to ship to me until day 7 or midnight day 8. I've even had to complain 2 times about them not shipping until day 10 (with no holidays around at the time)

      I had prime for a while recently and canceled it about 2 months ago. Suddenly my last order, 5-8 day shipping, mailed that evening with 1 day delivery? Nice to suddenly get, but it made me triple check my order, thinking I'd accidentally picked 1 day shipping somehow.

    19. Re:That's not all they've shut down by Megane · · Score: 2

      They shut down my desire to watch more Star Trek a long time ago, with the "reboot" movies. But ST:D made me want to watch it even less.

      The good news is that season 2 of the Orville starts in three months.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    20. Re:That's not all they've shut down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were given permission, because they were commissioned to do that work. Not because the software developers asked, but because Paramount/Viacom practically hired them. Had the software developers asked, they would have been told no. There is nothing culturally significant about Star Trek anymore. It's just fiction that takes place in space.

      The conduct of CBS is like Wil Wheaton blocking half of twitter, but lacking any intelligent insight, that this is exactly why people dislike him. Not because he's smart, witty, maybe a Nice Guy; not because he played in Star Trek, or in some other movie; not because he's a very good writer. But because he has blocked people for no reason. Well, I blocked him back, and I hope, that more and more people will block him, and will continue to block him. He has no right to force us to unblock him.

    21. Re:That's not all they've shut down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We the people can choose to unblock him, if he unblocks most everyone he has has blocked for no reason, and if he kindly asks each and everyone of us blocked people through an intermediary to unblock him back.

    22. Re:That's not all they've shut down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AmiMoJo: Shilling for CBS now too?

    23. Re:That's not all they've shut down by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      if you live anywhere interesting (in this case, near Mendocino)

      That's a pretty part of the world you live in. Are they surfable beaches or do people swim there?

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  2. free advertising by wgoodman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When will media companies figure out that fan projects are good for them? They maintain/increase interest in an IP, even when the media company is being sloppy and putting out no/terrible content.

    1. Re:free advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its not necessarily that, AFAIK copyright law requires the holder to take reasonable actions to maintain and protect their copyright. Not doing so makes it more vulnerable to challenge (and in the worst case, invalidation).

      I won't get into why copyright in this country is effectively broken to the advantages of the corporations, but at some point CBS has to at least make a minimum of effort to chase away non-licensed projects. A letter probably cost them nothing since they have a legal team on staff.

    2. Re:free advertising by olsmeister · · Score: 1

      When they can assign a dollar amount to it.

    3. Re:free advertising by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      I'm shocked — shocked that the same company that cancelled the original Star Trek doesn't understand the geek market. The best thing CBS could do for Star Trek would be to sell off its interest in the series entirely.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    4. Re:free advertising by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Informative

      AFAIK copyright law requires the holder to take reasonable actions to maintain and protect their copyright. Not doing so makes it more vulnerable to challenge (and in the worst case, invalidation).

      I believe that is more applicable to trademarks than to copyright.

      And with copyright, you can license use of your copyrighted work...and you can do it for nothing or maybe like $1, which would be good to do with some fan project like this.

      If you actually sanctioned them, licensed them....you'd generate more goodwill and revenue for your commercial sales/uses of your copyrighted material.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    5. Re:free advertising by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      Why would they do that though? They don't need to understand the geek market or have any love for it in order to take advantage of it and crap out mediocre product to a fan base that's hungry enough to shovel corporate product down their gullets. The only way the sell it off is after they've driven it so far into the ground that everyone has lost all interest.

    6. Re:free advertising by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Good luck with that. They have CBS All-Access subscriptions to sell.

    7. Re:free advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      to whom? syfy might be hilarious, but probably not good.

    8. Re:free advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're thinking of a trademark. There is no requirement to defend your copyright.
      https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/stopping-internet-plagiarism/your-copyrights-online/3-copyright-myths/

    9. Re: free advertising by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      No both copyright holders and trademark holders must defend their IP. The difference is trademark holders must be more active in their defense. This makes sense as it is far easier to determine at a glance if some other party might be infringing on trademarks.

      With copyrights it may be harder to tell immediately whether it is a violation and courts give holders a little more leeway and time to pursue action. That however does not mean that a copyright holder can just sit on a violation. Generally, plaintiffs must take steps to mitigate any damages.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    10. Re:free advertising by commodore64_love · · Score: 2

      > the same company that cancelled the original Star Trek doesn't understand the geek market

      CBS didn't cancel the original

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    11. Re:free advertising by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      If course a no cost license agreement for them to continue would actually strengthen their trademark. More than this, actually as it is a formal recognition and agreement. This is less effective at defending trademark and pisses off their best customers.

    12. Re:free advertising by houstonbofh · · Score: 2

      Amazon Prime Video. I have enjoyed there productions quite a bit. The Tick was amazing!

    13. Re: free advertising by SirSlud · · Score: 2

      If a copyright holder wants to claim damages, they can't sit on it (waiting for damages to pile up for an example of what the incentive of doing that might be.)

      But you cannot lose your copyright ownership via inaction as you can trademark.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    14. Re: free advertising by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      In this case, the motivation is probably less a robotic assassin droid than it is preserving the IP to maximize the bids/fees from toy and game companies, who probably feel their chance of success is diminished (rightly or wrongly) because of reduced sale potential because, hey, some people got tuckered out wandering through that virtual ship, so are less interested in a similar official product.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    15. Re: free advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incorrect. Copyright protections begin 100% the moment the work is in a "fixed form" (written to disk, painted, whatever) and lasts until the law says it expires (Death of creator + 75 years IIRC). There is no requirement that you actively defend it at all times. Period. The part that confuses people is registered copyright versus unregistered. Both are equally protected under the eyes of the law. Registration just hands you more tools to help with enforcement.

      For example, say you're a photographer and someone uses one of your photos commercially without a license. Unregistered copyright entitles you to very little and before you can even do that you the court would require you to register the work to establish proof of the copyright*. After that a judge would determine what fair compensation is for the use and that's all you get. Most ethical attorneys won't even take such cases because you'd pay them more than what you got from the infringer. At best you'd get an injunction against further use.

      A registered copyright though entitles you to statutory damages and attorney costs. It also sends it to US Customs which helps fight importation of infringing material. In my example of a photographer, you can electronically register all your photos at one time. You just get them all together in JPEG or another accepted format, open the session, and then upload them along with the information and it's done. And federal law does make allowances that if the work is registered within 3 months of publication, then it will retroactively gain full protection. There's also a procedure to get a rush registration if you have pending litigation and pay the $685 fee.

      * The Supreme Court did strike down this requirement but lower courts will still dismiss claims for unregistered copyright citing lack of subject matter jurisdiction

    16. Re:free advertising by stevew · · Score: 2

      Yeah - I believe it was on NBC wasn't it?

      --
      Have you compiled your kernel today??
    17. Re: free advertising by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      And no one said that a copyright holder can lose their copyright by failing to mitigate. What was said is that generally plaintiffs must mitigate.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    18. Re:free advertising by lgw · · Score: 4, Informative

      When will media companies figure out that fan projects are good for them?

      The more successful ones have. George Lucas was always OK with fan content, even very insulting fan content. The most striking is Jim Davis, owner of possibly the most financially successful modern IP, reached out to the creator of the "Garfield without Garfield" web site and, instead of a cease and desist, said "hey, want to publish a book".

      Perhaps there's a reason those just made many billions of dollars.

      Marvel is aggressive in protecting trademarks, but is otherwise surprisingly OK with fan content that doesn't get in the way of their merch sales. Heck, the Comics Explained YouTube channel is exactly the sort of thing that inept IP owners (including other parts of Disney) routinely shut down, and he probably makes more money from his Patreon than Marvel does from comic book sales these days.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    19. Re: free advertising by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      You're confused about the implications of adding the word "must." It isn't true as stated.

      In the case of trademark, they "must" take action or risk the right to take action against anybody. In copyright, you'd don't have to. You can still force them to stop doing it later, even if your damages have to be claimed within a reasonable time of having been damaged. And you're not restricted by that in suing somebody else for damages.

      A true statement would be, "Trademark holders must defend their IP, but copyright holders don't have to."

    20. Re:free advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah - I believe it was on NBC wasn't it?

      Yes, and it was also more than 50 years ago! dgatwood is easily shocked it seems. Shocked!

    21. Re: free advertising by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      because, hey, some people got tuckered out wandering through that virtual ship, so are less interested in a similar official product.

      It shouldn't need to be said, but I'll say anyway that if a game is so pathetic that its value can be reduced by a navigable model of one vessel, it had no value to begin with.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    22. Re: free advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm ok, then just put a copyright sign on it. Problem
      Solved.

    23. Re: free advertising by mark-t · · Score: 4, Informative

      No both copyright holders and trademark holders must defend their IP

      You are mistaken. Trademark holders do, but there is absolutely no requirement that copyright holders do likewise. At most it sitting on a known copyright infringement without taking action may limit or even entirely block the damages that the copyright holder could collect for that particular infringement, but it would not at all impact one's ability to sue for later infringements by different parties, as would be the case for not taking action on a trademark violation.

      And even if this *were* being alleged to be a trademark violation, they could probably rightfully claim nominal use of the trademark and be done with it (as long as they also explicitly said that it was not endorsed by CBS or Paramount, etc).

    24. Re:free advertising by TomBauserman · · Score: 1

      At one point they understood their audience. We got The Next Generation and DS9, then something went wrong and we got Voyager and Enterprise.

    25. Re: free advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Completely untrue. A copyright holder has NO requirement to defend. Even though a trademark must be defended, that does not mean you have to sic your lawyers on them.

    26. Re:free advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time to break out the POV-Ray models in protest.

    27. Re:free advertising by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      All the modern Star Trek shows except for the most recent stuff were produced by Paramount. CBS just distributed them.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    28. Re:free advertising by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      > the same company that cancelled the original Star Trek doesn't understand the geek market

      CBS didn't cancel the original

      D'oh! Wrong three-letter acronym.

      Wait, how does CBS even have any standing to complain about this, then? I was thinking of NBC via moral rights, but CBS shouldn't have any rights whatsoever. They are just a distributor for these shows. It's Paramount's call whether to allow things like this, not CBS. They're the actual rightsholder for the show. These folks should contact Paramount and request formal permission, and then tell CBS to get bent.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    29. Re:free advertising by RandomFactor · · Score: 1

      I liked Voyager quite a bit and always thought Enterprise was seriously underrated.

      The 'In a Mirror, Darkly' episodes at the end of Enterprise's fourth season in particular were outstanding.

      --
      --- Mercutio was right.
    30. Re: free advertising by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      If you distribute or otherwise publish your copyrighted material without a copyright mark or statement of copyright, you just granted full license to the public domain to do anything they want with it.

      Hasn't been true for almost 30 years, so good luck with that.

      IP lawyer.

    31. Re: free advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Voyager was such a missed opportunity. The BSG reboot was closer to what Voyager should have been, a ship out in the middle of nowhere needing more repairs than they had resources, constantly just scraping by. More of that and fewer lizard babies please.

    32. Re: free advertising by k2r · · Score: 2

      > reasonable actions to maintain and protect their copyright.

      Whether trademark or copyright, a reasonable reaction could have been to license it to them for $0 until further notice.
      IIRC was the reasonable reaction of some food or beverage company a while (years) ago, but I canâ(TM)t find a reference.

    33. Re: free advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I kept watching DS9, Enterprice even Discovery, and ended up liking them.

    34. Re: free advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Voyager was the beat two seasons of Star Trek. The problem is they spaced it out over like seven years.

      Mirror Darkly, Emperor Sato, meow!

    35. Re:free advertising by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Did they cancel Enterprise? To be fair the last series wasn't the best, but cancellation was a bit premature.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    36. Re:free advertising by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I was surprised by how much The Tick didn't suck.

      The Man In The High Castle is great too. The first season is a bit of a slow burner, but season two was fantastic.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    37. Re:free advertising by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      CBS owns Star Trek.

      Long story short, Desilu owned Star Trek at the start, a bunch of buyouts later Desilu turns into Paramount Television and ended up owned by Viacom, and then eventually Viacom split into CBS Paramount Television, and Viacom (which still owned Paramount Pictures).

      In other words, for the purposes of television content, CBS *is* Paramount.

  3. Lucas by JBMcB · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Say what you want about Lucas, he was usually pretty cool with people doing Star Wars parodies and homages. He even voiced himself on the Robot Chicken Star Wars episode.

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    1. Re:Lucas by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Warner Brothers is also lenient when it comes to fan-made Babylon 5 sites. They only require we include a Trademark and Copyright notice on the bottom of the page to protect WB's IP.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    2. Re:Lucas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was a good move. Kept it relevant in that forgotten time when we weren't getting any new Star Wars, let alone having it rammed down our throats.

      The storm trooper guys paved the way. I was in the r2 builders club back then and I remember when we got the audio files for the beeps and boops straight from their archives and the conditional letter from Lucasfilm saying how we could use them.

    3. Re: Lucas by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Informative

      It depends on what is on the site and what the fans added to make their creation different or transformative. For example JK Rowling sued one Harry Potter encyclopedia fan site a few years back but whole heartedly endorses two others. So she's not against fan site but why did sue that one site?

      The site that was sued just quoted her book for nearly all of their articles. Many times, the articles didn't properly use quotation marks or attributions to note that the entirety of the text came from one of her books. Without any original text, it's hard to argue that that site didn't infringe. In this case, other than remaking it in another format, what original work was contributed?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    4. Re:Lucas by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Warner Brothers is also lenient when it comes to fan-made Babylon 5 sites. They only require we include a Trademark and Copyright notice on the bottom of the page to protect WB's IP.

      They can be like that, since they'll never allow another official project for the rest of the lifetime of the universe.

      </rant>

    5. Re:Lucas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Say what you want about Lucas, he was usually pretty cool with people doing Star Wars parodies and homages. He even voiced himself on the Robot Chicken Star Wars episode.

      Billy Dee Williams also voiced himself on Robot Chicken. That was freakin' awesome.

      I know a couple of neighbours who had a Star Wars wedding. Yeah, I know, but hey, that's their thing. At least they got to do what made them happy -- can you imagine if a Mercedes full of lawyers showed up before the vows were exchanged and shut everything down, just because "technically" they "legally" can?

      Fans should be allowed to do as they please. If they didn't want us to appropriate their art into our culture, they shouldn't have made it available to the public in the first place.

    6. Re:Lucas by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      You'll laugh! You'll Cry! You'll Kiss Three Bucks Goodbye!!!

      In the 80s the local university would put on a free screening of Hardware Wars every year.

    7. Re: Lucas by mrclevesque · · Score: 2

      " other than remaking it in another format, what original work was contributed? "

      I wonder what would have happened if the project hadn't also used the likenesses and voices of the original actors.

    8. Re:Lucas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      In the case of B5, I think that's more of a case of nobody giving a flying fuck.

      Aside for the rabid fans, who even remembers this tripe? *I* remember it because a buddy of mine tried to get me into it. I gave it a full year, which is more than fair.

    9. Re:Lucas by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Not only that, Lucasarts supplied some materials for people producing fan art (e.g. sound files for people building R2 clones), provided [essentially that no one make any money and they could change the rules later.]

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    10. Re:Lucas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the case of B5, I think that's more of a case of nobody giving a flying fuck.

      Aside for the rabid fans, who even remembers this tripe? *I* remember it because a buddy of mine tried to get me into it. I gave it a full year, which is more than fair.

      I only lasted a single episode. It was laughably bad.

  4. Fix the laws by Spinlock_1977 · · Score: 1

    They lose the right to sue people who really rip them off (as opposed to Stage 9) unless they defend their rights across the board. I wish this law was changed.

    --
    - The Kessel run is for nerf herders. I can circumnavigate the entire Central Finite Curve in a lot less than 12 parse
    1. Re:Fix the laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      They don't HAVE to shut everything down.

      They could just GIVE STAGE 9 A CONTRACT TO SIGN, stating that they will continue to be noncommercial and that CBS owns all the rights.

      So long as Stage 9 is authorized, then there is no issue with them suing other, unauthorized, people who rip them off.

    2. Re:Fix the laws by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Don't blame the law. They can license the trademarks with significant restrictions for $1 or similar tiny fee. Or they could officially work together. Lots of options and the law is not forcing this choice.

    3. Re:Fix the laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and if Stage 9 didn't agree to the terms of the contract?

    4. Re:Fix the laws by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      This is not true. It is often used for commercial transactions to confirm value, but never with charities. And as they did not charge, they could be called a charity (not for tax purposes) and gifted the license with restrictions.

    5. Re:Fix the laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It probably has something to do with Ubisoft having released next generation DLC for their Star Trek game. There was also the "Enterprise Construction Project" which was the same idea that got shut down at the same time. Exclusive rights or whatever.

    6. Re: Fix the laws by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      In the case of copyrights they don't lose their ability to sue others in the future. What it affects is the amount of damages if they wait.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    7. Re:Fix the laws by mark-t · · Score: 1

      You are thinking of trademark law. Copyright law has no such requirement.

      Trademark would not be impacted by this project because this project could reasonably claim nominal use.

    8. Re: Fix the laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut em down then: it isn't hard.

    9. Re:Fix the laws by dissy · · Score: 2

      They lose the right to sue people who really rip them off (as opposed to Stage 9) unless they defend their rights across the board. I wish this law was changed.

      Care to point out the exact number in title 17 of this non-existent law?

      Here, this will get you started: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17

      With any luck, while searching for your non-existent law, it will have the side effect that you actually read and learn about what exactly is in copyright law.

      In fact I'd like to draw your attention to chapter 1, section 106a, under "E) Transfer and Waiver"
      Seems to me the law explicitly allows a waiver of rights, far from disallowing such a thing and forcing a copyright holder to lose any rights by not exercising such a wavier as you claim.

      Why would copyright law provide the optional ability to grant a waiver if as you say the law forces a holder to never be allowed to grant a waiver?

      And as I'm sure someone will reply such, let me explicitly say, I am not claiming Stage 9 is *entitled* to a wavier, nor is CBS required to even entertain the option.
      I only claim the *option* for CBS to do so is right there encoded into law, versus the parent poster claiming such a thing doesn't exist (it's awfully right here for not existing)

    10. Re:Fix the laws by dissy · · Score: 1

      and if Stage 9 didn't agree to the terms of the contract?

      Stage 9 agreeing or not agreeing would both continue to have no effect on the fact CBS is allowed to offer such a contract if they wished to do so, which was the claim being made.

      So yes, if Stage 9 declined the terms of any contract, that does NOT suddenly change copyright law to make all such contracts illegal. Nor would such contracts all be illegal if Stage 9 agreed to it.

      Rights holders are allowed to make whatever contract terms they want. Someone liking or disliking that has NO effect on that fact.

      Why even make a post suggesting that would be the case? Did you not even pay attention to what you are replying to?

    11. Re:Fix the laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dissy covered it well enough, but I'm the GP, so I'll also reply to this question you asked me.

      If Stage 9 didn't agree, then they would have to shut down. Obviously.

    12. Re:Fix the laws by omnichad · · Score: 1

      What thing are you saying is not true?

  5. Why not buy it? by pz · · Score: 1

    Why not just pay the people for their contributions and buy the damn thing? It's popular. It's apparently well-made. CBS could make money from it!

    Seems to work in other fields.

    --

    Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    1. Re:Why not buy it? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      That would involve having a brain. These networks don't have a clue about good Sci-Fi -- they are constantly cancelling them.

    2. Re:Why not buy it? by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      It had donated IP so they would need agreements with all contributors. The only way to "sell" it would be if all the contributors had licensed it to the coordinator.

  6. Still Haven't Seen The New Trek by Zorro · · Score: 1

    And I don't intend too now.

    1. Re:Still Haven't Seen The New Trek by Noishkel · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I did watch it... and I regret doing so as I will never get those hours of my life back. They basically just strip-minded the older serious' for troupes and glued it all together with some of the worst writing I've seen in any science fiction show to date. There's just no real excuse for Discovery... it's just bad.

    2. Re:Still Haven't Seen The New Trek by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You aren't missing anything with STD. It's crap.

      The Orville is the spiritual successor to Star Trek. I originally wrote it off as a dumb Galaxy Quest show but once you get past the first 2 episodes it starts to get good.

    3. Re:Still Haven't Seen The New Trek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Discovery Isn't crap, that is nonsense. It's different but in my opinion it's a great direction for Star Trek. Orville is not the spiritual successor, it's a dumber version of Galaxy Quest. It's funny and in the same vein of Family Guy where farts are super funny along with throwing up.

      If the babies who whine about Discovery didn't exist there would be little comparison of Orville to Star Trek.

    4. Re:Still Haven't Seen The New Trek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Discovery Isn't crap, that is nonsense.

      I only saw the first two episodes, but they were crap from start to finish.

    5. Re:Still Haven't Seen The New Trek by Megane · · Score: 1

      I still think Seth got Fox to buy into it by at first making it look like they were getting "Married with Crew". All the original promos of the show were like this. Then suddenly it was Star-Trek tier SF with a misfit crew and snarks. That generation ship story would have made a great Trek episode, and it was still great with a crew of misfits. Misfit crews usually make for a fun show, too. Galaxy Quest? My first misfit crew show was Quark.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  7. holiday for a week? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > The member of the CBS legal team that issued the order went on holiday for a week immediately after sending the letter

    What a fucking piece of shit that dick is.

    1. Re:holiday for a week? by LazarusQLong · · Score: 1

      isn't that the definition of a lawyer? Definition, Lawyer: a fucking piece of shit, see Dick.

      --
      "Governments have been dominated by the corporate entities and citizens have ceased to matter in public policy" true in
    2. Re:holiday for a week? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess who else are always going on holidays after ending a project due to excessive heat? Criminals.

    3. Re:holiday for a week? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The anti-lawyer sentiment that you are espousing largely serves to prevent ordinary people from lawyering up and calling large corporations on their bullshit.

      While it is true, working for a dick makes one a dick. The real dicks here are the large corporations that are paying layers to be dicks. We can pay lawyers to be dicks back, and get better behavior out of the large corporations.

  8. Don't want no klingons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I would be happy to pay for media with no advertising.

    But I refuse to pay you to sell to me.

    1. Re:Don't want no klingons by stevew · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yep - after CBS started playing commercials on their streaming service within TV shows that are available over-the-air I canceled my subscription. Only got it to watch Star Trek Discovery - and honestly it was the worst Trek yet! I've been a fan since the original show originally aired! I can live without this!

      --
      Have you compiled your kernel today??
    2. Re:Don't want no klingons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I agree Discovery might be a good scifi but not a Star Trek! I took the 1 month free CBS access and cancel it after 2 episodes.
      If I have to choose STAR TREK or CBS ? CBS can die right now.

      #boycottCBS

    3. Re:Don't want no klingons by LemonFire · · Score: 1

      Yep - after CBS started playing commercials on their streaming service within TV shows that are available over-the-air I canceled my subscription. Only got it to watch Star Trek Discovery - and honestly it was the worst Trek yet! I've been a fan since the original show originally aired! I can live without this!

      CBS is a dinosaur in the modern content streaming era.
      I don't think they're capable stewards of the Star Trek franchise.

      -- This SIG is copylefted

  9. Replacement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is the best Troi rag doll simulator in VR now?

  10. Corporations hold culture hostage ... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 5, Insightful

    /s I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you that Corporations hold culture hostage!

    There is something wrong when companies see fans as competition instead of free advertising.

    1. Re:Corporations hold culture hostage ... by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2

      You speak truth and wisdom. Remember in the 80's when the original Model 5150 IBM PC came out? Shortly thereafter there were clones of it all over the place. Did IBM throw a hissy-fit over it? Not really, and because of that the PC took off like a rocket. If CBS wasn't such total wankers about this their Star Trek-flavored shows might be doing better.

    2. Re:Corporations hold culture hostage ... by stevew · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Interesting point - but it was a lot more involved. IBM was just out of a years long case with the US government about them being a monopoly. They were walking on glass from that perspective. The were the 1000 lb elephant in the room - think Amazon or MS of not that long ago. They also learned a lesson from Apple and published technical schematics and the BIOS for the system! Apple didn't do that for the Mac, but had for the Apple II. Apple II was an open bus architecture - Mac not so much. IBM PC followed the open bus architecture paradigm and created a whole new industry. The clones were enabled by the concept of a Clean-room version of the BIOS becoming available. The rest as they say was history.

      --
      Have you compiled your kernel today??
    3. Re:Corporations hold culture hostage ... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      They also learned a lesson from Apple and published technical schematics and the BIOS for the system! Apple didn't do that for the Mac, but had for the Apple II.

      I wonder what the last marketed, mass-produced desktop computer with available schematics was. My Amigas had full schematics in the manuals...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Corporations hold culture hostage ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are just doing it to uphold the capitalistic ideals of Gene Roddenberry and all the fans who love his creations. The entire premise of the show is about a group of capitalists scouring the galaxy in search of resources to exploit. That's why the prime directive is "Greed is good". They just know their fans so well and are assured that this move will not only jive with their sensibilities but actually show them that they understand this franchise and it's core values so well they actually live by them as a company.

      As Captain Yoda always says,
      Live forcefully and don't be a little bitch. /s
      Fuck CBS.

  11. I'm so sick of these mega-corp lawyers by hyades1 · · Score: 0

    In a decent world, there would be untouchable hackers who could aggressively e-attack corporations like CBS, that are kicking fans in the balls every chance they get. Maybe steal something genuinely valuable from them, like a major blockbuster movie the week before its release, and make it so universally available it becomes worthless. Then let them know every time they pull stuff like this, they can expect another financial bitch slap.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:I'm so sick of these mega-corp lawyers by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      I am just looking for the torrents. You know this has more attention now than it ever did.

    2. Re:I'm so sick of these mega-corp lawyers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the proper reaction to things like this is for fans to simply stop supporting the property that's being used as a hammer to beat fans with. The problem is there are a lot of fans that happy to line up for the BDSM side of the fan/property relationship. If people would just walk away from properties/corporations that pull this shit and stop supporting them with views/dollars/support of any kind? They'd get the message.

  12. That's for trademarks by DrYak · · Score: 1

    They lose the right to sue people who really rip them off (as opposed to Stage 9) unless they defend their rights across the board. I wish this law was changed.

    That's only for trademarks.

    If Scragnog has called the game "StarTrek: stage 9", Paramount and CBS must show that show that they have put effort into defending their trademark otherwise they lose it and "star trek" becomes generalized (such as band-aid, velcro, thermos, dumpster, aspirin, etc. Name that used to be brands but now just used as generic word for the category, not a specific brand-name).

    Note, though, that Paramount and CBS doesn't need to *win*, they only need to *show effort*. The judge can actually rule that there's no possible brand confusion. See Apple vs Apple (back when Apple was only making computer and could in no way be confused with the record company.

    Here, the main problem is that CBS doesn't even bother telling Scragnog what the problem is.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:That's for trademarks by lgw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      otherwise they lose it and "star trek" becomes generalized (such as band-aid, velcro, thermos, dumpster, aspirin, etc.

      The trademark to "Aspirin" was not lost due to "generalization" in the US: it, along with the trademark to "Heroin", was lost in the Treaty of Versailles as punishment to Bayer for making chemical weapons for the Germans.

      Band-Aid is still a trademark, and I wouln't bet on its lack of enforceability. Velcro is still a trademark, and they made this hilarious video as part of defending it, and they definitely sue over it.

      Loss of trademark due to "genericide" is incredibly rare - I think "thermos" is the only one on your list that is true.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  13. Rolled-over too easily by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Interesting

    >"This letter was a cease-and-desist order,"

    Most of these letters have ZERO legal weight, and get thrown-out when submitted to courts. While CBS owns the appearance of the TNG Enterprise, the law clearly allows derivative works (such as parodies and fan-inspired art).

    Only a JUDGE has the power to shutdown this endeavor, not some Intern at CBS writing cut-and-paste form letters.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    1. Re:Rolled-over too easily by wgoodman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hiring lawyers to go before the judge costs money and when you're doing something because you like it, spending all your money in court to fight the company that owns it isn't entirely worth it. CBS has infinite lawyer funds whereas fans don't.

    2. Re:Rolled-over too easily by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      But fighting companies as large as CBS is VERY EXPENSIVE and time consuming. I can not blame them for not wanting to risk everything they own.

    3. Re:Rolled-over too easily by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These letters serve as a threat to sue. Ignore the letter and CBS will almost certainly sue, since if they got in the habit of not suing, their C&Ds would get routinely ignored.

      I'll wager that nobody involved has the money to spend to defend such a lawsuit. Fair use defenses have to be proactively made and the burden of proof is on the defendant that it's fair use, which involves hiring a very good lawyer.

    4. Re:Rolled-over too easily by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 1

      Only a JUDGE has the power to shutdown this endeavor, not some Intern at CBS writing cut-and-paste form letters.

      You say this, and yet, the project got shut down. So clearly this is incorrect.

    5. Re:Rolled-over too easily by stevew · · Score: 2

      Read what the guys said. They knew who owned the IP - and what that could mean. Once they got called on it - they folded because they do know who owns the IP. It would have been great if the company had instead licensed the name to them for a nominal fee... but they didn't want too. Fighting this was a losing proposition legally. Pissing in the wind.

      --
      Have you compiled your kernel today??
    6. Re:Rolled-over too easily by commodore64_love · · Score: 2

      Most cease-and-desist letters go no further.
      There is no lawsuit, and no need to defend yourself in court.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    7. Re:Rolled-over too easily by commodore64_love · · Score: 2

      They VOLUNTARILY shutdown their project. They didn't have to shut it down..... not until a judge issues an official order, which did not happen in this case (there's not even a lawsuit yet). /u/stevew

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    8. Re:Rolled-over too easily by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      >"This letter was a cease-and-desist order,"

      Most of these letters have ZERO legal weight, and get thrown-out when submitted to courts. While CBS owns the appearance of the TNG Enterprise, the law clearly allows derivative works (such as parodies and fan-inspired art).

      Only a JUDGE has the power to shutdown this endeavor, not some Intern at CBS writing cut-and-paste form letters.

      Let me guess. You're not a lawyer. I'm not and at least I'll admit it, but I bet I know a lot more about US law than you do. I've got a handful of friends who are lawyers and they've taught me a lot. I also had a chance once to sit in a discussion on IP and fair use given by a real lawyer who worked in the field.

      Parody is protected. This is not parody. I agree that "fain-inspired art" could be OK, if for example, it was for the USS Bartok, a ship in the Star Trek Next Gen universe but never mentioned on the TV show. Doing a recreation of something that clearly belongs to CBS/Paramount, even if not for profit, is very different. Also, yes, a judge could in theory rule in favor of the website, but do you think they have infinite amounts of time and money to fight this? Also, judges are subject to their own personal biases and it's certainly possible that the case could get a judge who sees this as the website basically stealing from CBS/Paramount or if a jury hears it, you probably have to do even less to get them convinced it's outright robbery to do an online recreation. Real world people can't spend the time and money needed to fight these things for what is basically a hobby.

    9. Re: Rolled-over too easily by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Are you ready to bet your life on it? Because it's not yours on the line. Going up against a megacorp is suicide.

    10. Re:Rolled-over too easily by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the law clearly allows derivative works (such as parodies and fan-inspired art).

      please inform us how a project made to recreate exactly the ship is a parody or art, it's simply making a copy of their property, nothing derivative, therefore is a good reason to shut it down...

    11. Re:Rolled-over too easily by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      /u/stevew

      Careful, you might be mistaken for rstevew

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:Rolled-over too easily by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      While CBS owns the appearance of the TNG Enterprise, the law clearly allows derivative works (such as parodies and fan-inspired art).

      No it doesn't. Parodies usually fall under the banner of fair use, though not as often as people think. Fan inspired art has no defenses at all that I'm aware of. The law far from allowing derivative works usually restricts it.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    13. Re:Rolled-over too easily by genfail · · Score: 1

      This is true but a C&D is the first step to shut it down and not necessary if they weren't planning on it. This is Anaxar all over again.

    14. Re:Rolled-over too easily by Sperbels · · Score: 1

      But it's not an exact copy...unless there's already a 3-D model of the Enterprise D.

    15. Re: Rolled-over too easily by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine what it would do to the fanbase if there was a successful crowdfunding to pay for lawyers to fight for the right to make fan art. How far would CBS go against their own fans...

    16. Re:Rolled-over too easily by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't cost anything to show up yourself and get the judges ruling, you only need a lawyer if you don't like the judges ruling.

    17. Re: Rolled-over too easily by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its a civil matter, no death penalty involved. and that belief is why corp have power, if everyone just showed up for all this crap a lot of it would go no further.

    18. Re: Rolled-over too easily by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      If you're bankrupted for life with all wages garnished, you may wish you'd got the death penalty.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    19. Re:Rolled-over too easily by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only a JUDGE has the power to shutdown this endeavor, not some Intern at CBS writing cut-and-paste form letters.

      Guessing you've never had to deal with hosting companies? They WILL pull your entire server before any judge sees it.

      Nice idea though.

    20. Re:Rolled-over too easily by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly this.

      And if you're using a third-party provider to distribute content, the C&D is usually enough grounds for them to freeze and delete the account.

  14. He's too busy swallowing Santorum to answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Corporate shill much?

    He can't answer. He's too busy washing Moonves's and Parsons's Santorium off his lips (based on his username, I suspect it's one of his favorite things to imbibe.

  15. As predicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    QAnon predicted this would happen.

  16. They can say it's okay, just not ignore it by raymorris · · Score: 1

    They could license the project, and it might be a good idea to charge $1 and put some terms on it. Since it's a non-profit project, the terms could even say CBS gets 100% of the profits (which is $0).

    What they need to avoid under current law is IGNORING infringement, which would imply that they don't care about the trademarks anymore amd anyone is allowed to use them for any purpose.

    "100% of the profits" (which don't exist) would also further protect CBS from a future commercial infringer trying to use this as estoppel, saying "CBS acted like it's okay for people to use the trademark". The very same act that the future infringer would try to use against CBS would indicate that the infringer must pay CBS 100% of the profit.

  17. Yep, license it for 100% of the $0 profit by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Exactly. CBS could just license the project.
    Because the project is non-profit, it may be a good idea for the terms of the license to say CBS gets 100% of any profits in order to protect themselves in the future. (There are none.)

    See also:
    https://tech.slashdot.org/comm...

    *Copyright* abandonment was more of a thing before the Copyright Act of 1976. Now, it requires an overt act showing intent to abandon. It's essentially the same as publishing the material under CC0 or WtfPL - explicitly allowing others to use and copy it with no restrictions.

  18. Barking up the wrong tree. by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You don't want to contact the legal team; they're job is to secure everything they can for their client, regardless of whether it is reasonable or even legally justifiable. In their world view there's no reason to ever back down from a C&D letter unless that letter is somehow itself illegal, and it's not illegal to exaggerate your rights.

    The people you want to get to are the marketing and PR types, who are more concerned about the court of public opinion.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Barking up the wrong tree. by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 2

      Exactly.

      Most likely...

      Stage 9 was probably found by an outsourced contractor that looks for copyright violations, and submitted the information to fill out the forms to its client, the law office. The law office had a moderately paid clerk print out a monthly batch of these things, to be "robosigned" by an actual lawyer who spends as little time as possible. The law office bills Paramount for all this wonderful work, with an hourly pricing for everyone involved that includes a fat profit for the law office.

      When you contact the lawyer, a clerk prepares a response letter, and hands the original and response to the lawyer. The lawyer inspects the original C&D, signs the response (which says nothing more than "The original C&C is in order. Yes, you must comply."), and charges Paramount for an hour of the clerk and the lawyers time. Ka-ching! Even moar money.

      They are never going to back down unless you actually pay for enough lawyer fees yourself to see this into a courtroom, but Paramounts lawyers here are going to laugh all the way to the bank. They are not going to apply their brains to the question of Stage 9 IP unless it looks like they might actually lose big in front of a real judge.

    2. Re:Barking up the wrong tree. by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      They tried to get in touch with the CBS executive who is specifically quoted as saying that stuff like Stage 9 is OK and they won't go after them. They were never able to get a response.

  19. Fuck CBS sideways with a rusty chainsaw by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    I will NEVER watch any of their shitty Star Trek artificially-flavored shows, not even downloaded for FREE illegally, because they're being such assholes about things like this. Also makes me consider not watching any CBS shows even OTA for free, except it wouldn't hurt them one bit due to them not even knowing if I'm watching or not. Shutting down the Star Trek fanbase is not going to make them any friends.

    1. Re:Fuck CBS sideways with a rusty chainsaw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just watch the Orville instead. It's a hundred times better than anything labeled Trek has been in a generation, and more true to the original Trek concepts while actually being entertaining.

      And it'd be especially funny to see the Orville outlast Trek proper if CBS keeps up this attitude with its fans.

    2. Re:Fuck CBS sideways with a rusty chainsaw by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have, do, and will watch The Orville, it's a good show even from what little there's been of it so far, and I'm surprised it's on Fox.

  20. Corporations holding THEIR culture hostage ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not as shocking as the notion that we think the entirety of our culture is a creation of corporations. It's almost like the rest of us have been doing nothing with our time but sitting in front of a TV for the purposes of soaking in ads, and empowering the fast-food industry.

  21. Sounds like they lost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Virtually everything.

  22. Scotfree by The+Snazster · · Score: 1

    CBS will probably rue the day, but the idiots that made such poor decisions will evade personal responsibility by moving on, retiring, or just playing the bureaucrat should it be necessary.

    1. Re:Scotfree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was thinking they ought to put the person's name to sent the letter, and his contact information, on the web. Let those who are the contacts at corporations be subject to negative fan feedback. And any execs who approve such actions.

    2. Re:Scotfree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Les Moonves's most recent severance package has been suspended, Bucknell University removed references to him on their website, University of Southern California suspended his name from their Media Center, and then, finally, he had to resign from CBS on the day Star Trek was born in 1966. He has already been subpoenaed. That's quite a negative fan reaction. I'm sure it will go on and on.

      While it's nice t gloat about that, then Stage9 shut down their project well after Moonves resigned. OTOH, I hope for more #MeToo announcements and more resignations from CBS, especially at their legal department.

  23. Music labels already upload since the early 2000s. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is well-known in the music "industny". Small labels started to notice, that their "sales" went up a lot, if the songs were available via file sharing in the early 2000s. So they started doing it intentionally.
    Big labels followed later in the decade. Most notably, Warner was caught red-handed.

    But apart from actually reading a license (a very unlikely scenario), this was the one thing that risked that people would find out that their whole "intellectual property" lie was in fact not only a lie, but that they know it is a lie. (OK, the public having even a single clue about physics and what information actually is, would also ruin their crime scheme, but that's usually too unrealistic to even mention.)
    So they kept acting like it was "OMGTEHPIRATETHIEVES". While they themselves were of course the ones stealing money and not working for it. From artists, from fans, from everyone but their coke dealers and coke semi truck drivers.
    Two living room elephants with one legal swatter.

  24. Complain to them: by GarySalter · · Score: 3, Informative
    1. Re: Complain to them: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just did.
      Thanks for the link.

      I hope the stresiand effect gets them.

    2. Re:Complain to them: by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Wow, that's an old web site. Do you think the complaints actually go somewhere, other than /dev/null I mean?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  25. Greed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I saw the first few episodes...
    It's bad news that CBS is operating on GREED.
    * I'm not interested beyond the 7 day trial.... To much GREED.

  26. In a decent world, there would be no "i.p." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As in physical reality, the concept of "stealing" or "owning" in incompatibly with the concept of information.
    Please check it yourself. Look up what information actually is, and why the natural laws of information space are not the same as those of matter-energy space. (Esp. the differences in copying information vs copying e.g. a chair.)
    And then look up what "theft" is. (Hint: Theft is when you take something, that the original "owner" doesn't then have anymore, and that needs work to make again. This does not apply to information. It does apply to the money you lose when they "sell" you a copy of information though. Or to the part of the income that is not actually earned with work, but called "profit".)

    1. Re:In a decent world, there would be no "i.p." by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Theft is when you take something, that the original "owner" doesn't then have anymore

      Like exclusivity, for instance?

      Copyright infringement literally does deprive the copyright holder of the exclusivity of control over who is allowed to make copies, after all..

      But of course, that exclusivity is intangible, and therefore cannot be argued to be of any real worth, right?

    2. Re:In a decent world, there would be no "i.p." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just intangible, it's 100% artificial and created by human law, not natural law.

      Before computers, all copies required physical resources. Now they only require reconfiguration of existing resources.

      It's absurd to pretend distribution of digital copies costs the same as physical copies, but that is what the PTB are insisting on with this artificial scarcity, and the world is calling bullshit on it.

    3. Re:In a decent world, there would be no "i.p." by mark-t · · Score: 1

      The concept of "ownership" itself is created by human law and not natural law...

      By natural law, I don't own my house whenever I leave it to go to work, for instance.

    4. Re:In a decent world, there would be no "i.p." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, but the concept of personal property goes back to prehistory, in every culture around the world.

      The ownership of ideas and artistic expressions is much, much more recent, and only became enabled by technology like the printing press.

  27. Someone: Please post download link! by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    The Internet never forgets. Someone must have a download link for this, please post it before it get too scarce to find easily, thanks!

    1. Re: Someone: Please post download link! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask and yee shall receive captain.

      https://www.reddit.com/r/startrek/comments/9iut0x/stage_9_tng_recreation_project_confirms_they_were/e6on5pf/

  28. CAPTAIN, WE ARE BEING SAUCED! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1
    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:CAPTAIN, WE ARE BEING SAUCED! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you.

  29. So they say it's violation, but don't say how??? by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Something's amiss there...

    CBS has published fan art guidelines for Star Trek, so I would suggest that they continue to appeal to those to keep the project going, unless or until CBS can tell them explicitly how it is not in accordance with those guidelines, they should reasonably be able to continue to use those guidelines as a defense.

  30. Because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Les Moonvies wants to probe your anus.

  31. still widely available by jlv · · Score: 5, Informative

    As pointed out a HN (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18085119), the Internet Archive of the download page still has the well-seeded torrent links...

    magnet:?xt=urn:btih:ce1cf2847d8303a8e7e708cb378d9e7ab1534628&dn=Stage9-Mac-v009.zip
    magnet:?xt=urn:btih:f2b84daf5a60ad9a452c933523de7ec786bbb0bd&dn=Stage9-Windows-v10.exe

    1. Re:still widely available by caseih · · Score: 1

      Is this the VR version? The latest version I downloaded a few months ago didn't have VR support for whatever reason.

    2. Re:still widely available by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      VR version included here:

      https://tech.slashdot.org/comm...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    3. Re:still widely available by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And v10 for Mac is at:
      magnet:?xt=urn:btih:73E600D76A9A2BA9FDB18237A2BF31FB51B517DA&dn=%5Bmonova.org%5D+Stage9-Mac-v10.zip&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fopen.demonii.com%3A1337&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.coppersurfer.tk%3A6969&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fexodus.desync.com%3A6969

  32. Who is CBS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My local cable stopped broadcasting them ages ago because they were bastards and too expensive. Now i have a dead channel there on my cable service.

    1. Re:Who is CBS? by DewDude · · Score: 1

      This sadly is only going to get worse as time goes on. As more and more broadcasters go under and ownership of these stations gets consolidated; the amount of money being asked goes up. I can't tell you how many times as a dish subscriber I couldn't watch ABC because the local affiliates wanted some amount of money that was considered unjust.

      Of course the DTV switchover really fucked a lot of people and made the situation even better for affiliates. Anyone intelligent knew that 8VSB was going to be a horrible choice for modulation; granted OFDM wasn't ready when they developed the standard...this is what happens when you develop a standard and set it in stone YEARS before it's even adopted. IIRC ATSC was "adopted" in 1995; test transmissions didn't start till 1996; I don't think the first ATSC HDTV tuners hit the market till 1999. By 1999 OFDM technology was easily available...in fact they were still in the testing phase when everyone else started looking at it. But there was ZERO incentive to change. Broadcasters wanted this inferior system. They knew damn well a large portion of viewers in some areas would lose all programming via antenna....and this made them happy. It meant they would finally be able to start demanding more money as more and more people became dependant on this for keeping up with the local news and network programming.

      The original idea was to keep out-of-market channels off cable systems; prior to this most of what a cable system could bank on was being able to pull in "out of market" television channels; in fact that was the original idea behind cable. CATV doesn't stand for CAble TV; but for Community Antenna TeleVision. You live in a valley? No one can get TV? Got a lot of money? Then you just put a tower up on the ridge, tune to all the TV channels coming off the air, run distribution to people, charge them a few bucks for it. Much in the same way a lot of radio stations were owned by radio manfacturers or radio dealers.....the very first "cable" system was owned by a TV dealer looking for a way to sell TV's in a community that had lousy reception.

      The sad part is if your local affilate gets dropped from your provider due to contract issues; current regulations prohibit the provider from piping in someone else. Hell, back before DBS started offering locals I was required to get waivers from the local channels due to the fact I couldnt' get them OTA. They all refused. To this day I still don't watch local news or network TV because...I went so many years not being able to why start now?

    2. Re:Who is CBS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I bought a first generation HDTV, and of course at the time (2002?) the only way to watch HD content (which I desperately wanted to do) was over the air.

      I was pretty disappointed that I could only pick up a couple of channels from very nearby. The stations I used to watch from neighboring cities were out of the question - they didn't even show up on a channel scan.

      I haven't bothered with TV much at all since then, because watching terrible network broadcast stuff isn't worth my time now that I'm older.

    3. Re:Who is CBS? by Matt · · Score: 1

      Of course the DTV switchover really fucked a lot of people and made the situation even better for affiliates. Anyone intelligent knew that 8VSB was going to be a horrible choice for modulation; granted OFDM wasn't ready when they developed the standard...

      I don't know about the "business" issues (you're probably right about that) but I read that 8VSB was going to be overly vulnerable to multipath distortion, and my experience seems to show that. I'm in a strong signal area with many transmitters, but I get dropouts all the time from trucks driving by, airplanes, police helicopters, etc. With analog, the video would get ghost images and audio would usually be unaffected. Now the video pixelates (OK) and the audio frequently drops out (unacceptable). They should have at least left audio as analog...

    4. Re:Who is CBS? by Matt · · Score: 1

      I was pretty disappointed that I could only pick up a couple of channels from very nearby.

      Maybe I'm fortunate in the urban jungle I live in. I get dozens of channels when I have my TV re-scan. Of course, the majority of them are foreign languages, home shopping networks, religious stations, etc. It takes a long time working the TV's preferences to whittle it down to the ~30 I might ever actually watch.

      I haven't bothered with TV much at all since then, because watching terrible network broadcast stuff isn't worth my time now that I'm older.

      Thanks to low signal-to-noise ratios, find I usually can't stand watching much other than live sports (the ones I want to watch are rarely on now, thanks to "business issues") or public TV shows.

    5. Re:Who is CBS? by Megane · · Score: 1

      The stations I used to watch from neighboring cities were out of the question - they didn't even show up on a channel scan.

      If this was before the switch-over, most likely they were dual broadcasting, with the digital on a lower-powered transmitter. Where I lived, I didn't watch the local Fox station for a couple of years because I got a digital-only tuner, and their digital transmitter power was 500 watts. Yes, 500 watts, as in five light bulbs. To be fair though, there were probably some restrictions preventing more power, and IIRC they eventually cut over to digital on their original channel 7 frequency. (Low VHF 2-6 is bad for ATSC, but high VHF 7-13 works very well as long as you don't use a UHF-only antenna.)

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  33. To Hell with the fans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's right CBS, piss the fans off - what could go wrong with being a Corporate bunch of assholes?

  34. Torrent by Miser · · Score: 1

    Anyone have a torrent? :)

    I have not heard of this until now.

    1. Re: Torrent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://www.reddit.com/r/startrek/comments/9iut0x/stage_9_tng_recreation_project_confirms_they_were/e6on5pf/

      There's the thread with a link to the torrents.

  35. Anyone know if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have considered just having the media assets leak, so that others can continue the project as an international 'black market' open source project? It always infuriates me that we don't have a thriving open source scene for content deemed too legally precarious to develop on clearnet/publicly.

  36. “Shutdown” is not a verb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cripes. Literacy matters.

  37. Unfortunately IBM did by cybersquid · · Score: 1

    Did IBM throw a hissy-fit over it? Not really, and because of that the PC took off like a rocket.

    I'm afraid they did. IBM sued several early PC clone makers claiming they had copied their BIOS.
    It wasn't until Phoenix made a clean-room BIOS implementations that clone makers could flourish.

    1. Re:Unfortunately IBM did by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Point taken but they could have gone full guns on the hardware manufacturers, too, and they apparently didn't.

    2. Re:Unfortunately IBM did by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      Depends on if the hardware manufacturers did break any copyrights held by IBM when they made their clones. Software patents wasn't really a thing back then and copyright only covers so much.

    3. Re:Unfortunately IBM did by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean Columbia Data Products, not Phoenix.

  38. Fan Films Style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Start doing satire & parodies: there is legal fair use for them.

    A evil corporation is merged with the Borg and the Borg start acting like lawyers and serve papers on everyone.

    Q presides over the court and proceed to torment all with glee.

    and the Borg collapse into a white hole of paperwork suing themselves.

  39. Fully automated luxury communism by Noishkel · · Score: 1

    I find it rather amusing that a IP built around the idea of 'fully automated luxury communism' in space has to rely so heavily on intellectual propriety law.

    Just kidding... there's nothing amusing about communism, even in a fiction.

    1. Re:Fully automated luxury communism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Star Trek is antithetical to the modern Left.

      - In trials, people are presumed innocent until guilty
      - People value STEM subjects at least as much as or more than humanities
      - Admission to study is highly meritocratic and based on objective test scores
      - Minority aliens serving on the Enterprise have only the minimal special allowance their physiology requires
      - Minority aliens serving on the Enterprise don't claim the majority has "privilege"
      - The word "aliens" is regularly used to identify something "other" than humans
      - Races have behavioral traits that tend to apply even if they don't always apply
      - In discussions, people attempt to understand the point of view of other people, and when in doubt about what they meant, either ask them a brief plain question about it, or apply a charitable "most positive of several possibilities" interpretation of what they said
      - When good people make accusations, the accusations tend to be about concrete behaviors with clearly identified and observable effects ("you planted a bomb" instead of "your misogyny oppresses deck 14")
      - Guilt-by-remote-association is virtually nonexistant
      - People have access to different levels of goods and resources (even if this is hidden a lot of the time by being enrolled in an active duty military force that provides food and tools to its soldiers just like any modern army)

      The traits that distance the modern left from Star Trek heavily relate to psychopathy and sociopathy.

      For example, we all _know_ that you should ideally attempt to understand other people's point of view, and when in doubt about what someone means, either ask them a brief plain question about it, or apply a charitable "most positive of several possibilities" interpretation. But the psychopath will feign outrage, pretend the opponent intended something else, apply the least charitable interpretation and portray this as a certainty and attack it at length, and so on.

      Leftists see the positive working environment of Star Trek and how liked it is, and wish they could claim this for themselves, like they wish to claim everything good for themselves. But their own psychopathy and sociopathy makes them utterly incompatible with anything Star Trek.

    2. Re:Fully automated luxury communism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not from the left, but comments like these make me want to stay far away from commenting forums. You all suck, left or right.

    3. Re:Fully automated luxury communism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you suck in particular. Your behavior is actually also antithetical to Star Trek.

      Imagine Riker telling Picard: "I just want to say, that I don't want to talk to you, and I don't want to tell you why either!"

      You clearly have a problem with the comment I wrote. You don't want to say what the problem is. You comment saying that you don't want to comment. You feel this is a reasonable course of action.

      On Star Trek, if people had a problem with something, they simply used their mouth or the written word to communicate what the problem was. They identified whether there was some observation of facts or judgement of cause and effect they disagreed with, or if they didn't like the result of something for them or someone else.

      That behavior was effective, problem-solving and laudable. Today, so much is just shitty posturing, and when it's not psychopathic, it's obfuscated and passive-aggressive. So Fuck off. You really, really suck and don't make the world any better whatsoever.

    4. Re: Fully automated luxury communism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides in Star Trek nobody gets offended by mere words. Uhura didn't care about being called a "charming negress" by ersatz Lincoln.

    5. Re:Fully automated luxury communism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine Riker telling Picard: "I just want to say, that I don't want to talk to you, and I don't want to tell you why either!"

      Riker did exactly that to Captain Jellico.

      You [...] don't make the world any better whatsoever.

      Neither do you.

  40. When fans stop paying to be treated badly. by jbn-o · · Score: 1

    When will fans stop paying for the bad treatment they receive in response?

    Disney was a principal figure in a US copyright term extension (which was exported abroad), much to the chagrin of Americans and the world. Bringing this up at that time elicited some responses like one of the highly-upvoted posts in this /. thread saying they'll not buy more of the products. But when the next Star Wars work comes out, fans here who know of the role Disney played then (which people are still seeing the effects of) will pay to see the new Star Wars thing.

    A Star Trek copyright holder puts down ridiculous and provably unnecessary restrictions on making derivative Star Trek works (which didn't exist for most of Star Trek's existence). It doesn't really matter how this came to be or if you want to blame one party (say, Axanar) for speaking out of turn. What matters is what you're going to do in response, particularly if you believe that you have some say along the logic of "voting with your money".

    The opportunities to show some spine abound. The question is whether you're going to reject paying for Star Trek stuff on the basis of being treated badly by Star Trek's copyright holders or show them that you'll knuckle under?

    1. Re:When fans stop paying to be treated badly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is nothing to stop people from creating their own shows and VR experiences. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee of success for a "me too" spaceship project.

      Should it become successful against all the odds, then there is no real-life way of letting all other people watch one's new and creative science fiction show, and at the same time to have a very effective way to block current and former people from official Star Trek-related properties from getting to watch this new one-person (or -project-made) sci-fi show. One could make an exception to let the favourite actors watch, and maybe some well-known production personnel. But not the bigwigs and their legal department.

      Technology has enabled people to create a wholly original spaceship show, and publish it on YouTube with just about the same means that a fan show would be made with; but technology makes it possible to block only the channels and user accounts of Star Trek, Viacom, CBS, Paramount, and some official accounts of associated acts.

      But that's not enough.

      Because if someone has wronged me, or other people I like; or might potentially use legal force to wrong me, then I would like to block them and their descendants from ever having any right to enjoy my creative works.

  41. Star Wreck by Antony+T+Curtis · · Score: 2

    Can they reskin their work to be for Star Wreck?

    --
    No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
  42. Don't code in a proprietary game system by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    If Hollywood sends its thugs after you, you can't just move your server to the free world, like Sci-Hub.

  43. No freedom of expression by uncoveror · · Score: 1

    Locking up ideas as property is ultimately no less a form of censorship than trying to suppress them. If I cannot say or write words that have been said or written before, or even something similar because someone owns those words, I do not have freedom of expression. Copyright belongs in the dustbin of history.

    --
    The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
  44. Yeah right. by TheDarkener · · Score: 1

    The member of the CBS legal team that issued the order went on holiday

    Suuuuuuuuuuuuure they did. You know, there are a few people over the course of my adulthood, dealing with different things financial, etc. that seem to "go on holiday" a lot when it's most inconvenient for my particular case. Maybe I'm naive, though, and just realizing that this is a common tactic to get people to forget about whatever it is they were upset or concerned about and leave you alone. Amirite?

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  45. Cord Cutters Ammo by WindowsStar · · Score: 1

    All CBS did was give the "Cord Cutters" one more reason to get rid of TV. CBS is only hurting themselves.

  46. The customer is the enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a perfect example of an ever increasing trend to treat the customer or potential customer as an enemy.

    I suppose no one ever told them that, "Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery."

    There is a very large difference between creating something beautiful and getting rewarded by pay through your efforts (if you're lucky, too); and, taking what you or others have created, sealing it off from the world, and turning it into a money-cow-god to be endlessly milked. The public becomes a sort of domesticated creature in which money is derived from. If they try to hop the fence or do things they shouldn't do, they get the cattle prod.

  47. salty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    man, f*ck cbs.

  48. question for the CBS shills by astrofurter · · Score: 1

    Here's an honest question for all the CBS shills in the audience: why do you hate your fans so much?