[Prev][Next][Thread Index][Subject Index]
Re: NEWS: Paramount is Shutting Down Trek Websites!!!
In article <codex-2609960859240001@ip176.tus.primenet.com>, codex@primenet.com (codex) says:
>
>In article <sjrobyDyCI1n.1Dv@netcom.com>, sjroby@netcom.com (Steve Roby) wrote:
>
>> >>The clamp is coming. Some might say it's here.
>>
>The fundamental purpose of this exercise is to demonstrate that Paramount
>is active and involved in the protection of its intellectual property.
>Paramount has to demonstrate that it is actively protecting its franchise
>or they establish a negative precedent in possible future litigation. In
>other words, if they let A, B, & C slide without comment it makes it
>difficult to mount a case against Violator D.
>
And based on this premise, if someone had deep enough pockets, it can
be justifiably argued that, in the time interval from the end of TOS
until ST:TMP, and possibly as late as ST:TSFS, Paramount did NOT
take any actions to protect their intellectual property. There is,
as I recall, legal precedent which treats this as de facto public
domain.
Seeing as I do not have deep pockets, I leave that as an excercise to
others.
But the point of the post is accurate. Star Trek belongs to Paramount.
If you do not like the actions of Paramount, you have two choices:
1) boycott Star Trek
2) attempt to persuade Paramount to change its mind
The second might be accomplished by a letter-writing campaign to
Paramount (precedent in TOS), or by enlisting the advertisers in
such a campaign. Advertisers seldom hear thanks for supporting a
show. An expression of such gratitude, coupled with a concern of
how Paramount's actions might reduce the ranks of fans and thus the
audience for the advertisements, probably will get the attention of
the marketing suits at those companies which advertise during Star
Trek. These, in turn, will get the attention of Viacom/Paramount
executives.
There are other mechanisms by which people can attempt to get the
attention of Paramount - for example, massive creation of Web sites and
abuse of the trademarks (as has been previously suggested) - but
these are not legal and I cannot advocate.
Of the two paths, I know which one I'll take.
Norman C. Kluksdahl
nkluksda@ghgcorp.com
Follow-Ups: