They could sue CBS for the rights to Star Trek and get them back.
I'm not saying that it will happen, but with the court rulings in
favor of the creators of "Superman" and "Lassie", it wouldn't surprise
me if Majel Barrett (the legendary Lwaxana Troi), Eugene W.
Roddenberry, etc. decided to sue CBS to regain the rights to the Great
Bird of the Galaxy's creation.

If this happened, the Roddenberry family would have my support as
we're seeing firsthand that Big Media doesn't care about the creators
of popular stuff like "Superman", "Lassie", and "Star Trek" and only
about the money they make from said stuff.

Big Media also isn't faithful to the creator's original vision,
and it shows that Big Media and its greedy executives don't know crap
about true creativity, vision, or anything. All they care about is
their own selfish aims.

I think its time to return Hollywood to the CREATORS of the
stories THEY choose to tell and the honest people who have a sincere
desire to help the creators in that endeavor. And the creators should
have the same Free Speech rights as everybody else.

Now I understand. Hollywood isn't the problem. It's Big Media
that's the problem.

And while I'm at it, Richard and Esther Shapiro could get the
rights to "Dynasty" back, too.

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:15:14 -0700 (PDT), Matt Casey wrote:

> If this happened, the Roddenberry family would have my support as
> we're seeing firsthand that Big Media doesn't care about the creators
> of popular stuff like "Superman", "Lassie", and "Star Trek" and only
> about the money they make from said stuff.

Gee, imagine that -- publicly traded companies that care about selling
stuff.

Maybe when we finally get to Roddenberry's Marxist utopia the
government can fund all Star Trek production so it won't have to be
entertaining enough to earn its producers and backers an actual
PROFIT.

> Big Media also isn't faithful to the creator's original vision,

When was the last time you watched season one of TNG? I'm glad
someone else started "running things" or the show would have gone down
in flames.

> and it shows that Big Media and its greedy executives don't know crap
> about true creativity, vision, or anything. All they care about is
> their own selfish aims.

Just curious: what do you do for a living? Be honest now.

--
Lance Corporal "Hammer" Schultz
Promote someone else.

On Jul 12, 1:52 pm, "Lance Corporal \"Hammer\" Schultz"
<starfist.at.gmail.dot.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:15:14 -0700 (PDT), Matt Casey wrote:
> > If this happened, the Roddenberry family would have my support as
> > we're seeing firsthand that Big Media doesn't care about the creators
> > of popular stuff like "Superman", "Lassie", and "Star Trek" and only
> > about the money they make from said stuff.
>
> Gee, imagine that -- publicly traded companies that care about selling
> stuff.
>
> Maybe when we finally get to Roddenberry's Marxist utopia the
> government can fund all Star Trek production so it won't have to be
> entertaining enough to earn its producers and backers an actual
> PROFIT.
>
> > Big Media also isn't faithful to the creator's original vision,
>
> When was the last time you watched season one of TNG? I'm glad
> someone else started "running things" or the show would have gone down
> in flames.
>
> > and it shows that Big Media and its greedy executives don't know crap
> > about true creativity, vision, or anything. All they care about is
> > their own selfish aims.
>
> Just curious: what do you do for a living? Be honest now.
>
> --
> Lance Corporal "Hammer" Schultz
> Promote someone else.

I was just expressing my opinion. And Star Trek isn't Marxist.

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:05:53 -0700 (PDT), Matt Casey wrote:

> I was just expressing my opinion.

Obviously. Can't your opinion withstand a small level of discussion?
Are you afraid you may realize your opinion is wrong?

> And Star Trek isn't Marxist.

Of course it is.

--
Lance Corporal "Hammer" Schultz
Promote someone else.

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 21:15:17 -0500, Lance Corporal "Hammer" Schultz
wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:05:53 -0700 (PDT), Matt Casey wrote:
>
>> And Star Trek isn't Marxist.
>
> Of course it is.

Well, more accurately, I should say that Gene Roddenberry's idealist
views that "created" the Federation of TNG seasons 1 and 2 were
certainly Marxist.

--
Lance Corporal "Hammer" Schultz
Promote someone else.

On Jul 12, 7:16 pm, "Lance Corporal \"Hammer\" Schultz"
<starfist.at.gmail.dot.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 21:15:17 -0500, Lance Corporal "Hammer" Schultz
> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:05:53 -0700 (PDT), Matt Casey wrote:
>
> >> And Star Trek isn't Marxist.
>
> > Of course it is.
>
> Well, more accurately, I should say that Gene Roddenberry's idealist
> views that "created" the Federation of TNG seasons 1 and 2 were
> certainly Marxist.
>
> --
> Lance Corporal "Hammer" Schultz
> Promote someone else.

Explain yourself, son.

In article <1l5l9leirh8x4$.dlg@starfist.thorsfinni>,
"Lance Corporal \"Hammer\" Schultz" <starfist.at.gmail.dot.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:05:53 -0700 (PDT), Matt Casey wrote:
>
> > I was just expressing my opinion.
>
> Obviously. Can't your opinion withstand a small level of discussion?
> Are you afraid you may realize your opinion is wrong?
>
> > And Star Trek isn't Marxist.
>
> Of course it is.

'of course it is'

What the **** kind of argument is that? The most you can say about ST
is that economics is intended to be a non-issue. The Fleet is military
and day to day necessities are provided. Since Fleet members can go
shopping on alien worlds (See 'Encounter at Far Point'), they obviously
possess access to their own funds, so it is likely to guess that they
earn a salary. Fortunately for the members, they are not obliged to buy
overpriced hamburgers from the shipboard McDonalds concession, as in the
US military. Bad Marxists, bad, bad marxists, not forcing the Fleet
members to buy overpriced crap.

Matt Casey <mattcaseymatt@gmail.com> writes:

> They could sue CBS for the rights to Star Trek and get them back.
>I'm not saying that it will happen, but with the court rulings in
>favor of the creators of "Superman" and "Lassie", it wouldn't surprise
>me if Majel Barrett (the legendary Lwaxana Troi), Eugene W.
>Roddenberry, etc. decided to sue CBS to regain the rights to the Great
>Bird of the Galaxy's creation.

Well, ahm ... the first question I'd have is, what would the
grounds for getting 'Star Trek' rights in the Roddenberry family's
hands be? Superman at least had the argument that its existence as a
trademarkable character was derived from work-for-hire stuff done by
Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. Lassie I haven't heard anything about,
but since the stuff comes about from a short story and then novel, so
despite the enormously many TV shows and movies spun off from it there
would be a set of rights derived from that.

Star Trek, though, started out as a TV show, a deal between
production company and TV studio, and I'd be very surprised if there
were any important rights which weren't identified and described in
precise detail in the original deal agreements. And why would Gene
Roddenberry be the one endowed with 'creator's rights' considering
the batallion of people needed to create it?

Plus, there's that in the early 70s Paramount *was* ready to
make a deal to sell Star Trek to Gene Roddenberry, and he didn't get
the money together for it. It's hard to argue they cheated Gene
Roddenberry out of the rights when they were ready to give him all of
them for a song.


> If this happened, the Roddenberry family would have my support as
>we're seeing firsthand that Big Media doesn't care about the creators
>of popular stuff like "Superman", "Lassie", and "Star Trek" and only
>about the money they make from said stuff.

Well, maybe they don't, but how much should they care about
the creators? Roddenberry wasn't *seriously* hurting for money even
after his big creation was a middle-rated show of marginal success,
and he got better-paid when it started getting big. The actors were
except for Shatner pretty shabbily treated, at least until The Final
Frontier when Shatner got the other folks some money, but that wasn't
any noticeably worse than any actors for TV shows for the 60s got.


> I think its time to return Hollywood to the CREATORS of the
>stories THEY choose to tell and the honest people who have a sincere
>desire to help the creators in that endeavor. And the creators should
>have the same Free Speech rights as everybody else.

And ... that's some reason to think that Gene Roddenberry's
son, who as far as I know has never written anything more than a blog,
would have a particularly useful idea of what to do with the show that
isn't currently being done?

--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <nebusj.1215919321@vcmr-86.server.rpi.edu>, Joseph Nebus
<nebusj-@-rpi-.edu> wrote:

> Plus, there's that in the early 70s Paramount *was* ready to
> make a deal to sell Star Trek to Gene Roddenberry, and he didn't get
> the money together for it. It's hard to argue they cheated Gene
> Roddenberry out of the rights when they were ready to give him all of
> them for a song.


The deal was on the table for two years, from 1971 to 1973.
Roddenberry could have had the rights back for $100,000. He had the
money, but he passed. He just wasn't interested.

In article <130720080455455694%takebackamerica@2008.com>,
Audie Murphy's Ghost <takebackamerica@2008.com> wrote:

> In article <nebusj.1215919321@vcmr-86.server.rpi.edu>, Joseph Nebus
> <nebusj-@-rpi-.edu> wrote:
>
> > Plus, there's that in the early 70s Paramount *was* ready to
> > make a deal to sell Star Trek to Gene Roddenberry, and he didn't get
> > the money together for it. It's hard to argue they cheated Gene
> > Roddenberry out of the rights when they were ready to give him all of
> > them for a song.
>
>
> The deal was on the table for two years, from 1971 to 1973.
> Roddenberry could have had the rights back for $100,000. He had the
> money, but he passed. He just wasn't interested.

If he had bought the rights, they wouldn't have been worth anything.
Paramount wouldn't have done anything more with Trek, and nobody else
would have either.

--
Star Trek 09:

No Shat, No Show.

On Jul 13, 6:43 am, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article <130720080455455694%takebackamer...@2008.com>,
> Audie Murphy's Ghost <takebackamer...@2008.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <nebusj.1215919...@vcmr-86.server.rpi.edu>, Joseph Nebus
> > <nebu...@-rpi-.edu> wrote:
>
> > > Plus, there's that in the early 70s Paramount *was* ready to
> > > make a deal to sell Star Trek to Gene Roddenberry, and he didn't get
> > > the money together for it. It's hard to argue they cheated Gene
> > > Roddenberry out of the rights when they were ready to give him all of
> > > them for a song.
>
> > The deal was on the table for two years, from 1971 to 1973.
> > Roddenberry could have had the rights back for $100,000. He had the
> > money, but he passed. He just wasn't interested.
>
> If he had bought the rights, they wouldn't have been worth anything.
> Paramount wouldn't have done anything more with Trek, and nobody else
> would have either.
>
> --
> Star Trek 09:
>
> No Shat, No Show.

I'll concede that point, and it was best that Star Trek's ownership
remain with Paramount, which, by the way, is the only honest company
in Hollywood. It should get Star Trek back from CBS.

In article <ANIM8Rfsk-E585B2.06432813072008@news.west.cox.net>,
Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

> In article <130720080455455694%takebackamerica@2008.com>,
> Audie Murphy's Ghost <takebackamerica@2008.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <nebusj.1215919321@vcmr-86.server.rpi.edu>, Joseph Nebus
> > <nebusj-@-rpi-.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > Plus, there's that in the early 70s Paramount *was* ready to
> > > make a deal to sell Star Trek to Gene Roddenberry, and he didn't get
> > > the money together for it. It's hard to argue they cheated Gene
> > > Roddenberry out of the rights when they were ready to give him all of
> > > them for a song.
> >
> >
> > The deal was on the table for two years, from 1971 to 1973.
> > Roddenberry could have had the rights back for $100,000. He had the
> > money, but he passed. He just wasn't interested.
>
> If he had bought the rights, they wouldn't have been worth anything.
> Paramount wouldn't have done anything more with Trek, and nobody else
> would have either.


Exactly right.

In article
<b07bdede-5741-4eca-84a5-818223257608@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Matt Casey <mattcaseymatt@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jul 13, 6:43 am, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
> > In article <130720080455455694%takebackamer...@2008.com>,
> > Audie Murphy's Ghost <takebackamer...@2008.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <nebusj.1215919...@vcmr-86.server.rpi.edu>, Joseph Nebus
> > > <nebu...@-rpi-.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > > Plus, there's that in the early 70s Paramount *was* ready to
> > > > make a deal to sell Star Trek to Gene Roddenberry, and he didn't get
> > > > the money together for it. It's hard to argue they cheated Gene
> > > > Roddenberry out of the rights when they were ready to give him all of
> > > > them for a song.
> >
> > > The deal was on the table for two years, from 1971 to 1973.
> > > Roddenberry could have had the rights back for $100,000. He had the
> > > money, but he passed. He just wasn't interested.
> >
> > If he had bought the rights, they wouldn't have been worth anything.
> > Paramount wouldn't have done anything more with Trek, and nobody else
> > would have either.
> >
> > --
> > Star Trek 09:
> >
> > No Shat, No Show.
>
> I'll concede that point, and it was best that Star Trek's ownership
> remain with Paramount, which, by the way, is the only honest company
> in Hollywood. It should get Star Trek back from CBS.

LOL

Okay, now you're just trolling, right?

Paramount? Honest?

The company that committed to memo, re Harlan Ellison, Let's screw this
little Jew and steal his idea?

The company that an entire BOOk was written about it's crooked
accounting practices re Coming to America?

The company that claimed Star Trek was still showing a loss after 10
years of reruns, and wasn't paying the actors merchandising royalties
for their likenesses, and nobody got paid until the first movie?

--
Star Trek 09:

No Shat, No Show.

On Jul 13, 11:31 am, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article
> <b07bdede-5741-4eca-84a5-818223257...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> Matt Casey <mattcaseym...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 13, 6:43 am, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > In article <130720080455455694%takebackamer...@2008.com>,
> > > Audie Murphy's Ghost <takebackamer...@2008.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In article <nebusj.1215919...@vcmr-86.server.rpi.edu>, Joseph Nebus
> > > > <nebu...@-rpi-.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > > Plus, there's that in the early 70s Paramount *was* ready to
> > > > > make a deal to sell Star Trek to Gene Roddenberry, and he didn't get
> > > > > the money together for it. It's hard to argue they cheated Gene
> > > > > Roddenberry out of the rights when they were ready to give him all of
> > > > > them for a song.
>
> > > > The deal was on the table for two years, from 1971 to 1973.
> > > > Roddenberry could have had the rights back for $100,000. He had the
> > > > money, but he passed. He just wasn't interested.
>
> > > If he had bought the rights, they wouldn't have been worth anything.
> > > Paramount wouldn't have done anything more with Trek, and nobody else
> > > would have either.
>
> > > --
> > > Star Trek 09:
>
> > > No Shat, No Show.
>
> > I'll concede that point, and it was best that Star Trek's ownership
> > remain with Paramount, which, by the way, is the only honest company
> > in Hollywood. It should get Star Trek back from CBS.
>
> LOL
>
> Okay, now you're just trolling, right?
>
> Paramount? Honest?
>
> The company that committed to memo, re Harlan Ellison, Let's screw this
> little Jew and steal his idea?
>
> The company that an entire BOOk was written about it's crooked
> accounting practices re Coming to America?
>
> The company that claimed Star Trek was still showing a loss after 10
> years of reruns, and wasn't paying the actors merchandising royalties
> for their likenesses, and nobody got paid until the first movie?
>
> --

It was Paramount that made Star Trek what it is. CBS has no
business owning it. It's just liberal Viacom with a name change.
> Star Trek 09:
>
> No Shat, No Show

Matt Casey <mattcaseymatt@gmail.com> writes:

> It was Paramount that made Star Trek what it is.

Yes, and don't think they aren't going to suffer for the
making of 'Enterprise'.

> CBS has no
>business owning it. It's just liberal Viacom with a name change.

But as Viacom was simply CBS's television production company
spun off to comply with antitrust laws, Viacom buying CBS is no more
than CBS buying CBS. More, since CBS was created by Paramount's
investment into what had been the United Independent Broadcasters
corporation back in 1928, if CBS is just Viacom, then both of them
are just Paramount. So what point this all makes is a pretty good
question.

--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Jul 13, 5:43 pm, nebu...@-rpi-.edu (Joseph Nebus) wrote:
> Matt Casey <mattcaseym...@gmail.com> writes:
> > It was Paramount that made Star Trek what it is.
>
> Yes, and don't think they aren't going to suffer for the
> making of 'Enterprise'.
>
> > CBS has no
> >business owning it. It's just liberal Viacom with a name change.
>
> But as Viacom was simply CBS's television production company
> spun off to comply with antitrust laws, Viacom buying CBS is no more
> than CBS buying CBS. More, since CBS was created by Paramount's
> investment into what had been the United Independent Broadcasters
> corporation back in 1928, if CBS is just Viacom, then both of them
> are just Paramount. So what point this all makes is a pretty good
> question.
>
> --
> Joseph Nebus
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The point is that Star Trek belongs with Paramount, not CBS.

In article
<86c8e1ed-2f0c-45ac-9ec3-cb42326d6423@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Matt Casey <mattcaseymatt@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jul 13, 11:31 am, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <b07bdede-5741-4eca-84a5-818223257...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> > Matt Casey <mattcaseym...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jul 13, 6:43 am, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > > In article <130720080455455694%takebackamer...@2008.com>,
> > > > Audie Murphy's Ghost <takebackamer...@2008.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > In article <nebusj.1215919...@vcmr-86.server.rpi.edu>, Joseph Nebus
> > > > > <nebu...@-rpi-.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > Plus, there's that in the early 70s Paramount *was* ready to
> > > > > > make a deal to sell Star Trek to Gene Roddenberry, and he didn't
> > > > > > get
> > > > > > the money together for it. It's hard to argue they cheated Gene
> > > > > > Roddenberry out of the rights when they were ready to give him all
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > them for a song.
> >
> > > > > The deal was on the table for two years, from 1971 to 1973.
> > > > > Roddenberry could have had the rights back for $100,000. He had the
> > > > > money, but he passed. He just wasn't interested.
> >
> > > > If he had bought the rights, they wouldn't have been worth anything.
> > > > Paramount wouldn't have done anything more with Trek, and nobody else
> > > > would have either.
> >
> > > > --
> > > > Star Trek 09:
> >
> > > > No Shat, No Show.
> >
> > > I'll concede that point, and it was best that Star Trek's ownership
> > > remain with Paramount, which, by the way, is the only honest company
> > > in Hollywood. It should get Star Trek back from CBS.
> >
> > LOL
> >
> > Okay, now you're just trolling, right?
> >
> > Paramount? Honest?
> >
> > The company that committed to memo, re Harlan Ellison, Let's screw this
> > little Jew and steal his idea?
> >
> > The company that an entire BOOk was written about it's crooked
> > accounting practices re Coming to America?
> >
> > The company that claimed Star Trek was still showing a loss after 10
> > years of reruns, and wasn't paying the actors merchandising royalties
> > for their likenesses, and nobody got paid until the first movie?
> >
> > --
>
> It was Paramount that made Star Trek what it is. CBS has no
> business owning it. It's just liberal Viacom with a name change.
> > Star Trek 09:
> >
> > No Shat, No Show

It was Desilu that made Star Trek what it is; Paramount has no business
owning it.

--
Star Trek 09:

No Shat, No Show.

In article <nebusj.1215995749@vcmr-86.server.rpi.edu>,
nebusj-@-rpi-.edu (Joseph Nebus) wrote:

> Matt Casey <mattcaseymatt@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > It was Paramount that made Star Trek what it is.
>
> Yes, and don't think they aren't going to suffer for the
> making of 'Enterprise'.
>
> > CBS has no
> >business owning it. It's just liberal Viacom with a name change.
>
> But as Viacom was simply CBS's television production company
> spun off to comply with antitrust laws, Viacom buying CBS is no more
> than CBS buying CBS. More, since CBS was created by Paramount's
> investment into what had been the United Independent Broadcasters
> corporation back in 1928, if CBS is just Viacom, then both of them
> are just Paramount. So what point this all makes is a pretty good
> question.

The point was he said "Paramount, which, by the way, is the only honest
company in Hollywood." and we're still laughing hysterically.

--
Star Trek 09:

No Shat, No Show.

On Jul 13, 9:10�pm, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article
> <86c8e1ed-2f0c-45ac-9ec3-cb42326d6...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> �Matt Casey <mattcaseym...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 13, 11:31 am, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <b07bdede-5741-4eca-84a5-818223257...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > �Matt Casey <mattcaseym...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 13, 6:43 am, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > > > In article <130720080455455694%takebackamer...@2008.com>,
> > > > > �Audie Murphy's Ghost <takebackamer...@2008.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > In article <nebusj.1215919...@vcmr-86.server.rpi.edu>, Joseph Nebus
> > > > > > <nebu...@-rpi-.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > �Plus, there's that in the early 70s Paramount *was* ready to
> > > > > > > make a deal to sell Star Trek to Gene Roddenberry, and he didn't
> > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > the money together for it. �It's hard to argue they cheated Gene
> > > > > > > Roddenberry out of the rights when they were ready to give him all
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > them for a song.
>
> > > > > > The deal was on the table for two years, from 1971 to 1973.
> > > > > > Roddenberry could have had the rights back for $100,000. �He had the
> > > > > > money, but he passed. �He just wasn't interested.
>
> > > > > If he had bought the rights, they wouldn't have been worth anything.
> > > > > Paramount wouldn't have done anything more with Trek, and nobody else
> > > > > would have either.
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > Star Trek 09:
>
> > > > > No Shat, No Show.
>
> > > > I'll concede that point, and it was best that Star Trek's ownership
> > > > remain with Paramount, which, by the way, is the only honest company
> > > > in Hollywood. It should get Star Trek back from CBS.
>
> > > LOL
>
> > > Okay, now you're just trolling, right?
>
> > > Paramount? �Honest?
>
> > > The company that committed to memo, re Harlan Ellison, Let's screw this
> > > little Jew and steal his idea?
>
> > > The company that an entire BOOk was written about it's crooked
> > > accounting practices re Coming to America?
>
> > > The company that claimed Star Trek was still showing a loss after 10
> > > years of reruns, and wasn't paying the actors merchandising royalties
> > > for their likenesses, and nobody got paid until the first movie?
>
> > > --
>
> > � � �It was Paramount that made Star Trek what it is. CBS has no
> > business owning it. It's just liberal Viacom with a name change.
> > > Star Trek 09:
>
> > > No Shat, No Show
>
> It was Desilu that made Star Trek what it is; Paramount has no business
> owning it.


Except that Desilu was sold to Paranoiamount. Therefore, they *do*
have the business to own it.

Star Trek was never on CBS, but NBC.

"Matt Casey" <mattcaseymatt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfe935b6-fd4b-47c5-8b99-fa4e47dde354@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> They could sue CBS for the rights to Star Trek and get them back.
> I'm not saying that it will happen, but with the court rulings in
> favor of the creators of "Superman" and "Lassie", it wouldn't surprise
> me if Majel Barrett (the legendary Lwaxana Troi), Eugene W.
> Roddenberry, etc. decided to sue CBS to regain the rights to the Great
> Bird of the Galaxy's creation.
>
> If this happened, the Roddenberry family would have my support as
> we're seeing firsthand that Big Media doesn't care about the creators
> of popular stuff like "Superman", "Lassie", and "Star Trek" and only
> about the money they make from said stuff.
>
> Big Media also isn't faithful to the creator's original vision,
> and it shows that Big Media and its greedy executives don't know crap
> about true creativity, vision, or anything. All they care about is
> their own selfish aims.
>
> I think its time to return Hollywood to the CREATORS of the
> stories THEY choose to tell and the honest people who have a sincere
> desire to help the creators in that endeavor. And the creators should
> have the same Free Speech rights as everybody else.
>
> Now I understand. Hollywood isn't the problem. It's Big Media
> that's the problem.
>
> And while I'm at it, Richard and Esther Shapiro could get the
> rights to "Dynasty" back, too.

In article <bzLek.15363$uE5.8216@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com>, Nick Nuclear
<12457gw@transwestairlines.net> wrote:

>
> "Matt Casey" <mattcaseymatt@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:dfe935b6-fd4b-47c5-8b99-fa4e47dde354@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > They could sue CBS for the rights to Star Trek and get them back.
> > I'm not saying that it will happen, but with the court rulings in
> > favor of the creators of "Superman" and "Lassie", it wouldn't surprise
> > me if Majel Barrett (the legendary Lwaxana Troi), Eugene W.
> > Roddenberry, etc. decided to sue CBS to regain the rights to the Great
> > Bird of the Galaxy's creation.
> >
> > If this happened, the Roddenberry family would have my support as
> > we're seeing firsthand that Big Media doesn't care about the creators
> > of popular stuff like "Superman", "Lassie", and "Star Trek" and only
> > about the money they make from said stuff.
> >
> > Big Media also isn't faithful to the creator's original vision,
> > and it shows that Big Media and its greedy executives don't know crap
> > about true creativity, vision, or anything. All they care about is
> > their own selfish aims.
> >
> > I think its time to return Hollywood to the CREATORS of the
> > stories THEY choose to tell and the honest people who have a sincere
> > desire to help the creators in that endeavor. And the creators should
> > have the same Free Speech rights as everybody else.
> >
> > Now I understand. Hollywood isn't the problem. It's Big Media
> > that's the problem.
> >
> > And while I'm at it, Richard and Esther Shapiro could get the
> > rights to "Dynasty" back, too.
>
>
> Star Trek was never on CBS, but NBC.


First, top-posting fixed.

Second, NBC never owned Star Trek, either. Matt is referring to CBS
Paramount Television, formerly Desilu Productions, formerly Paramount
Television. CBS Paramount Television is a division of CBS. CBS owns
Star Trek, and Matt is right.

In article
<036fc687-60e1-4dc9-bb67-ce442b6de697@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
"DeeEss57@aol.com" <DeeEss57@aol.com> wrote:

> On Jul 13, 9:10?pm, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <86c8e1ed-2f0c-45ac-9ec3-cb42326d6...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> > ?Matt Casey <mattcaseym...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jul 13, 11:31 am, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <b07bdede-5741-4eca-84a5-818223257...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > ?Matt Casey <mattcaseym...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Jul 13, 6:43 am, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > > > > In article <130720080455455694%takebackamer...@2008.com>,
> > > > > > ?Audie Murphy's Ghost <takebackamer...@2008.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > In article <nebusj.1215919...@vcmr-86.server.rpi.edu>, Joseph
> > > > > > > Nebus
> > > > > > > <nebu...@-rpi-.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > ?Plus, there's that in the early 70s Paramount *was* ready to
> > > > > > > > make a deal to sell Star Trek to Gene Roddenberry, and he
> > > > > > > > didn't
> > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > the money together for it. ?It's hard to argue they cheated
> > > > > > > > Gene
> > > > > > > > Roddenberry out of the rights when they were ready to give him
> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > them for a song.
> >
> > > > > > > The deal was on the table for two years, from 1971 to 1973.
> > > > > > > Roddenberry could have had the rights back for $100,000. ?He had
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > money, but he passed. ?He just wasn't interested.
> >
> > > > > > If he had bought the rights, they wouldn't have been worth
> > > > > > anything.
> > > > > > Paramount wouldn't have done anything more with Trek, and nobody
> > > > > > else
> > > > > > would have either.
> >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Star Trek 09:
> >
> > > > > > No Shat, No Show.
> >
> > > > > I'll concede that point, and it was best that Star Trek's ownership
> > > > > remain with Paramount, which, by the way, is the only honest company
> > > > > in Hollywood. It should get Star Trek back from CBS.
> >
> > > > LOL
> >
> > > > Okay, now you're just trolling, right?
> >
> > > > Paramount? ?Honest?
> >
> > > > The company that committed to memo, re Harlan Ellison, Let's screw this
> > > > little Jew and steal his idea?
> >
> > > > The company that an entire BOOk was written about it's crooked
> > > > accounting practices re Coming to America?
> >
> > > > The company that claimed Star Trek was still showing a loss after 10
> > > > years of reruns, and wasn't paying the actors merchandising royalties
> > > > for their likenesses, and nobody got paid until the first movie?
> >
> > > > --
> >
> > > ? ? ?It was Paramount that made Star Trek what it is. CBS has no
> > > business owning it. It's just liberal Viacom with a name change.
> > > > Star Trek 09:
> >
> > > > No Shat, No Show
> >
> > It was Desilu that made Star Trek what it is; Paramount has no business
> > owning it.
>
>
> Except that Desilu was sold to Paranoiamount. Therefore, they *do*
> have the business to own it.

Then so does CBS.

--
Star Trek 09:

No Shat, No Show.

In rec.arts.startrek.current Matt Casey <mattcaseymatt@gmail.com> wrote:
> They could sue CBS for the rights to Star Trek and get them back.
> I'm not saying that it will happen, but with the court rulings in
> favor of the creators of "Superman" and "Lassie", it wouldn't surprise
> me if Majel Barrett (the legendary Lwaxana Troi), Eugene W.
> Roddenberry, etc. decided to sue CBS to regain the rights to the Great
> Bird of the Galaxy's creation.


Does anyone have a cite for these "Superman" and "Lassie" rulings?


Kevin Nelson

In article <g5ipv0$3s9$1@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
Kevin <ktn3654@linux3.ph.utexas.edu> wrote:

> In rec.arts.startrek.current Matt Casey <mattcaseymatt@gmail.com> wrote:
> > They could sue CBS for the rights to Star Trek and get them back.
> > I'm not saying that it will happen, but with the court rulings in
> > favor of the creators of "Superman" and "Lassie", it wouldn't surprise
> > me if Majel Barrett (the legendary Lwaxana Troi), Eugene W.
> > Roddenberry, etc. decided to sue CBS to regain the rights to the Great
> > Bird of the Galaxy's creation.
>
>
> Does anyone have a cite for these "Superman" and "Lassie" rulings?
>
>
> Kevin Nelson

In the case of "Superman" they probably actually mean "Superboy"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superboy#Legal_status

I have no idea what they're talking about with Lassie.

--
Star Trek 09:

No Shat, No Show.

Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> wrote in news:ANIM8Rfsk-78395F.12105215072008
@news.west.cox.net:

> In article <g5ipv0$3s9$1@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
> Kevin <ktn3654@linux3.ph.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>> In rec.arts.startrek.current Matt Casey <mattcaseymatt@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > They could sue CBS for the rights to Star Trek and get them back.
>> > I'm not saying that it will happen, but with the court rulings in
>> > favor of the creators of "Superman" and "Lassie", it wouldn't surprise
>> > me if Majel Barrett (the legendary Lwaxana Troi), Eugene W.
>> > Roddenberry, etc. decided to sue CBS to regain the rights to the Great
>> > Bird of the Galaxy's creation.
>>
>>
>> Does anyone have a cite for these "Superman" and "Lassie" rulings?
>>
>>
>> Kevin Nelson
>
> In the case of "Superman" they probably actually mean "Superboy"
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superboy#Legal_status
>
> I have no idea what they're talking about with Lassie.
>

David posted this
<http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/lassie-comes-home-9th-circuit-
upholds-dog-story-rightsholder-against-big-media/>

about Lassie on the 1th of this month.

tinyurl to the same article:
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/5horjm>

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:10:52 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

>In article <g5ipv0$3s9$1@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
> Kevin <ktn3654@linux3.ph.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>> In rec.arts.startrek.current Matt Casey <mattcaseymatt@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > They could sue CBS for the rights to Star Trek and get them back.
>> > I'm not saying that it will happen, but with the court rulings in
>> > favor of the creators of "Superman" and "Lassie", it wouldn't surprise
>> > me if Majel Barrett (the legendary Lwaxana Troi), Eugene W.
>> > Roddenberry, etc. decided to sue CBS to regain the rights to the Great
>> > Bird of the Galaxy's creation.
>>
>>
>> Does anyone have a cite for these "Superman" and "Lassie" rulings?
>>
>>
>> Kevin Nelson
>
>In the case of "Superman" they probably actually mean "Superboy"
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superboy#Legal_status
>
>I have no idea what they're talking about with Lassie.

For the (very recent) Lassie ruling see
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117988870.html?categoryId=13&cs=1

For the (slightly less recent) Superman ruling see
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/business/media/29comics.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Both, of course, can be appealed, and it seems pretty certain that the
Superman ruling will be, although it wouldn't be amazing if Time-Warner
struck a deal with the Siegels.

However these reversions of copyright based on the 1974 law changes have to
be requested in certain time-windows (the article mentions that Shuster's
heirs' next window is 2013) IANAL so I can't answer how the time-windows
are determined, but it may be that Rod and Majel (and Darleen's kids, Dawn
isn't an heir because she contested the will which had a 'contest this and
lose, and you're disinherited' clause) aren't in a time-window that would
allow them to pursue reversion at the moment.


--
"Oh Buffy, you really do need to have
every square inch of your *** kicked."
- Willow Rosenberg

In article <cbvp74d8qop6hri0a2988sggdh7663jsbk@4ax.com>,
William George Ferguson <wmgfrgsn@newsguy.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:10:52 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <g5ipv0$3s9$1@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
> > Kevin <ktn3654@linux3.ph.utexas.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> In rec.arts.startrek.current Matt Casey <mattcaseymatt@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > They could sue CBS for the rights to Star Trek and get them back.
> >> > I'm not saying that it will happen, but with the court rulings in
> >> > favor of the creators of "Superman" and "Lassie", it wouldn't surprise
> >> > me if Majel Barrett (the legendary Lwaxana Troi), Eugene W.
> >> > Roddenberry, etc. decided to sue CBS to regain the rights to the Great
> >> > Bird of the Galaxy's creation.
> >>
> >>
> >> Does anyone have a cite for these "Superman" and "Lassie" rulings?
> >>
> >>
> >> Kevin Nelson
> >
> >In the case of "Superman" they probably actually mean "Superboy"
> >
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superboy#Legal_status
> >
> >I have no idea what they're talking about with Lassie.
>
> For the (very recent) Lassie ruling see
> http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117988870.html?categoryId=13&cs=1
>
> For the (slightly less recent) Superman ruling see
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/29/business/media/29comics.html?_r=1&oref=slogi
> n

Well there's a stupid caption:

"In 2006, Warner Brotherss Superman Returns, with Brandon Routh, earned
$200 million at the domestic box office."

How about the more accurate:

"In 2006, Warner Brotherss Superman Returns, with Brandon Routh, lost
$100 million at the domestic box office."

> Both, of course, can be appealed, and it seems pretty certain that the
> Superman ruling will be, although it wouldn't be amazing if Time-Warner
> struck a deal with the Siegels.
>
> However these reversions of copyright based on the 1974 law changes have to
> be requested in certain time-windows (the article mentions that Shuster's
> heirs' next window is 2013) IANAL so I can't answer how the time-windows
> are determined, but it may be that Rod and Majel (and Darleen's kids, Dawn
> isn't an heir because she contested the will which had a 'contest this and
> lose, and you're disinherited' clause) aren't in a time-window that would
> allow them to pursue reversion at the moment.

--
Star Trek 09:

No Shat, No Show.

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 15:52:17 -0500, "Lance Corporal \"Hammer\"
Schultz" <starfist.at.gmail.dot.com> wrote:

>When was the last time you watched season one of TNG? I'm glad
>someone else started "running things" or the show would have gone down
>in flames.

....Except that those same "someone elses" are the ones who destroyed
the franchise.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

On 13 Jul 2008 01:03:24 -0400, nebusj-@-rpi-.edu (Joseph Nebus) wrote:

>Superman at least had the argument that its existence as a
>trademarkable character was derived from work-for-hire stuff done by
>Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.

....And getting the rights back doesn't guarantee it'll do a particular
franchise any good. The Siegel heirs may now co-own the rights to
Superboy, but in the process the character - after having been
retconned into something completely nonrelated to the original
"Adventures of Superman when he was a Boy" concept - was killed off
unnecessarily and unceremoneously just to keep the Siegels from
getting what the judge claimed was their half. In the end the Siegels
didn't get one dime out of the deal, and the fans got ****ed.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

Gene Roddenberry's family have done absolutely nothing to justify a
prediction that they would handle the franchise better than Brannon or
Braga.

Hell, none of them even have a fanzine article to their credit.

Actually, they would make the situation worse ---- if they won a victory
in court, they would celebrate the estrangement of the money men needed
to fund the big budgets a respectable Star Trek reinvention would need.
I've seen it happen: dopey litigants win Blackacre, lack the cash
needed to run Blackacre properly, and in a decade or so, the rundown
property is sold for a pittance to someone with the resources to treat
it right.

Face it, a Roddenberry run STAR TREK would be a cash cow for trust fund
babies, not a powerhouse of creativity.

I agree with you Matt fully.

And I was going to ask this awhile ago.

In the case of Stan Lee, the federal district court
ruled that he gets 10% of all Box Office Receipts.

I would have loved to see Gene and now Gene's family
been making 10% back to Star Trek: TMP back to 1979.

Screw this crooked movie house big shots.....they can ante
up for the rightful intellectual property owners in my opinion.



"Matt Casey" <mattcaseymatt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfe935b6-fd4b-47c5-8b99-fa4e47dde354@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> They could sue CBS for the rights to Star Trek and get them back.
> I'm not saying that it will happen, but with the court rulings in
> favor of the creators of "Superman" and "Lassie", it wouldn't surprise
> me if Majel Barrett (the legendary Lwaxana Troi), Eugene W.
> Roddenberry, etc. decided to sue CBS to regain the rights to the Great
> Bird of the Galaxy's creation.
>
> If this happened, the Roddenberry family would have my support as
> we're seeing firsthand that Big Media doesn't care about the creators
> of popular stuff like "Superman", "Lassie", and "Star Trek" and only
> about the money they make from said stuff.
>
> Big Media also isn't faithful to the creator's original vision,
> and it shows that Big Media and its greedy executives don't know crap
> about true creativity, vision, or anything. All they care about is
> their own selfish aims.
>
> I think its time to return Hollywood to the CREATORS of the
> stories THEY choose to tell and the honest people who have a sincere
> desire to help the creators in that endeavor. And the creators should
> have the same Free Speech rights as everybody else.
>
> Now I understand. Hollywood isn't the problem. It's Big Media
> that's the problem.
>
> And while I'm at it, Richard and Esther Shapiro could get the
> rights to "Dynasty" back, too.

On Sep 21, 10:27 pm, "David Halpern" <nanophoto...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I agree with you Matt fully.
>
> And I was going to ask this awhile ago.
>
> In the case of Stan Lee, the federal district court
> ruled that he gets 10% of all Box Office Receipts.
>
> I would have loved to see Gene and now Gene's family
> been making 10% back to Star Trek: TMP back to 1979.
>
> Screw this crooked movie house big shots.....they can ante
> up for the rightful intellectual property owners in my opinion.
>
> "Matt Casey" <mattcaseym...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:dfe935b6-fd4b-47c5-8b99-fa4e47dde354@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >     They could sue CBS for the rights to Star Trek and get them back.
> > I'm not saying that it will happen, but with the court rulings in
> > favor of the creators of "Superman" and "Lassie", it wouldn't surprise
> > me if Majel Barrett (the legendary Lwaxana Troi), Eugene W.
> > Roddenberry, etc. decided to sue CBS to regain the rights to the Great
> > Bird of the Galaxy's creation.
>
> >    If this happened, the Roddenberry family would have my support as
> > we're seeing firsthand that Big Media doesn't care about the creators
> > of popular stuff like "Superman", "Lassie", and "Star Trek" and only
> > about the money they make from said stuff.
>
> >    Big Media also isn't faithful to the creator's original vision,
> > and it shows that Big Media and its greedy executives don't know crap
> > about true creativity, vision, or anything. All they care about is
> > their own selfish aims.
>
> >    I think its time to return Hollywood to the CREATORS of the
> > stories THEY choose to tell and the honest people who have a sincere
> > desire to help the creators in that endeavor. And the creators should
> > have the same Free Speech rights as everybody else.
>
> >    Now I understand. Hollywood isn't the problem. It's Big Media
> > that's the problem.
>
> >    And while I'm at it, Richard and Esther Shapiro could get the
> > rights to "Dynasty" back, too.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I'd like to start some kind of
petition drive to get Star Trek returned to the Roddenberry estate and
maybe find some way to make it illegal for studios to either assume
sole ownership of intellectual properties and require them to share
ownership with the owners or make it illegal for studios to own any
intellectual property that they didn't own to begin with. Studios
should be required to have a LICENSE from the intellectual property
owners to produce anything they don't own and anything they do with
the property needs to be done with the permission of the owner.

If the studios buy the rights to the property from the owner,
that's okay but the original owner should be allowed to retain a
percentage of said property or be allowed to participate in the
development of said property or at least earn royalties.

And if the studio is no longer in using said property, then said
property should be returned to said owner or just left alone.

This is one reason I'd like to see atlernatives to Hollywood when
it comes to TV and movies. I'd like to see studios set up in other
locations so writers, producers, and directors can make movies
according to their visions and not have to go through Hollywood.

On Oct 4, 9:16�pm, Matt Casey <mattcaseym...@gmail.com> wrote:
> � � This is one reason I'd like to see atlernatives to Hollywood when
> it comes to TV and movies. I'd like to see studios set up in other
> locations so writers, producers, and directors can make movies
> according to their visions and not have to go through Hollywood.- Hide quoted text -


This is already possible. It's called 'Independent Film'.

Uhhh, what is the point?

Why change the law so that the franchise belongs to people who have
never demonstrated any ability to work with the material. and who lack
the money and connections to get a class A movie produced and
distributed? Admittedly, studios suck, but why imagine that the grand
nephew of a dead producer is fit to be the showrunner?

On Oct 8, 5:59 pm, rays...@webtv.net (Raymond Speer) wrote:
> Uhhh, what is the point?
>
> Why change the law so that the franchise belongs to people who have
> never demonstrated any ability to work with the material. and who lack
> the money and connections to get a class A movie produced and
> distributed?  Admittedly, studios suck,  but why imagine that the grand
> nephew of a dead producer is fit to be the showrunner?

According to William Shatner, Gene Roddenberry always owned Star
Trek but Paramount didn't include him in any Trek projects. But nobody
knows if that's true. Anyhow, if the Roddenberry estate got Star Trek
back and had a smaller, independent studio produce it, then it would
be better.

I predict that in the future projects like Star Trek and other
movie and television will be produced by independent studios located
in Los Angeles or in places like Las Vegas, New Orleans, and Atlanta
instead of Hollywood because its expensive to make movies in
Hollywood, the studios meddle too much, there's too much corruption in
Hollywood, Hollywood has too many problems, and actors seeking a movie
career, as well as present actors, don't want to move to Hollywood and
stay in their home towns if possible.

They want to make movies without all the problems and stress of
Hollywood. Pamela Sue Martin had the right idea when she traded the
glitz and glamor of Hollywood for a nice home in a small town in Idaho
and does independent films only.

"Raymond Speer <raystwo@webtv.net>" wrote:
> Why change the law so that the franchise belongs to people who have
> never demonstrated any ability to work with the material. and who
> lack the money and connections to get a class A movie produced and
> distributed? Admittedly, studios suck, but why imagine that the
> grand nephew of a dead producer is fit to be the showrunner?

How about we change the law back to what it was earlier, so copyrights
don't last for a century?

Under the rules when the Republic was founded, "Star Trek" would
already be in the public domain.

Then, as with retellings of Snow White, or whatever, lots of people
could take a crack at it and the audiences could support whichever
one(s) they like best.

Disney's "Beauty and the Beast" was outstanding -- but would we have
ever gotten it if they'd had to pay royalties to the family and/or
corporation who owned the rights to the story from way back when?


Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"In some ways film critics are probably better equipped to assess the
political theater of today's presidential campaigns, since our campaigns
are -- as has surely been obvious for some time -- far more about theater
and image creation than politics." -- Patrick Goldstein

On Oct 9, 3:42 pm, Dr Nancy's Sweetie <kil...@elvis.rowan.edu> wrote:
> "Raymond Speer <rays...@webtv.net>" wrote:
> > Why change the law so that the franchise belongs to people who have
> > never demonstrated any ability to work with the material. and who
> > lack the money and connections to get a class A movie produced and
> > distributed?  Admittedly, studios suck,  but why imagine that the
> > grand nephew of a dead producer is fit to be the showrunner?
>
> How about we change the law back to what it was earlier, so copyrights
> don't last for a century?
>
> Under the rules when the Republic was founded, "Star Trek" would
> already be in the public domain.
>
> Then, as with retellings of Snow White, or whatever, lots of people
> could take a crack at it and the audiences could support whichever
> one(s) they like best.
>
> Disney's "Beauty and the Beast" was outstanding -- but would we have
> ever gotten it if they'd had to pay royalties to the family and/or
> corporation who owned the rights to the story from way back when?
>
> Darren Provine ! kil...@elvis.rowan.edu !http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
> "In some ways film critics are probably better equipped to assess the
>  political theater of today's presidential campaigns, since our campaigns
>  are -- as has surely been obvious for some time -- far more about theater
>  and image creation than politics." -- Patrick Goldstein

I'm not a copyright lawyer so I can't answer that one. But the
Roddenberry family should have Trek back.

In article
<201be794-f2d7-4e6f-9aff-3ebc34e2fa3b@75g2000hso.googlegroups.com>,
Matt Casey <mattcaseymatt@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sep 21, 10:27 pm, "David Halpern" <nanophoto...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > I agree with you Matt fully.
> >
> > And I was going to ask this awhile ago.
> >
> > In the case of Stan Lee, the federal district court
> > ruled that he gets 10% of all Box Office Receipts.
> >
> > I would have loved to see Gene and now Gene's family
> > been making 10% back to Star Trek: TMP back to 1979.
> >
> > Screw this crooked movie house big shots.....they can ante
> > up for the rightful intellectual property owners in my opinion.
> >
> > "Matt Casey" <mattcaseym...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:dfe935b6-fd4b-47c5-8b99-fa4e47dde354@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > >     They could sue CBS for the rights to Star Trek and get them back.
> > > I'm not saying that it will happen, but with the court rulings in
> > > favor of the creators of "Superman" and "Lassie", it wouldn't surprise
> > > me if Majel Barrett (the legendary Lwaxana Troi), Eugene W.
> > > Roddenberry, etc. decided to sue CBS to regain the rights to the Great
> > > Bird of the Galaxy's creation.
> >
> > >    If this happened, the Roddenberry family would have my support as
> > > we're seeing firsthand that Big Media doesn't care about the creators
> > > of popular stuff like "Superman", "Lassie", and "Star Trek" and only
> > > about the money they make from said stuff.
> >
> > >    Big Media also isn't faithful to the creator's original vision,
> > > and it shows that Big Media and its greedy executives don't know crap
> > > about true creativity, vision, or anything. All they care about is
> > > their own selfish aims.
> >
> > >    I think its time to return Hollywood to the CREATORS of the
> > > stories THEY choose to tell and the honest people who have a sincere
> > > desire to help the creators in that endeavor. And the creators should
> > > have the same Free Speech rights as everybody else.
> >
> > >    Now I understand. Hollywood isn't the problem. It's Big Media
> > > that's the problem.
> >
> > >    And while I'm at it, Richard and Esther Shapiro could get the
> > > rights to "Dynasty" back, too.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Thanks for the vote of confidence. I'd like to start some kind of
> petition drive to get Star Trek returned to the Roddenberry estate and
> maybe find some way to make it illegal for studios to either assume
> sole ownership of intellectual properties and require them to share
> ownership with the owners or make it illegal for studios to own any
> intellectual property that they didn't own to begin with. Studios
> should be required to have a LICENSE from the intellectual property
> owners to produce anything they don't own and anything they do with
> the property needs to be done with the permission of the owner.
>
> If the studios buy the rights to the property from the owner,
> that's okay but the original owner should be allowed to retain a
> percentage of said property or be allowed to participate in the
> development of said property or at least earn royalties.

The original owner should be allowed to sell the rights in any way he
wants.
>
> And if the studio is no longer in using said property, then said
> property should be returned to said owner or just left alone.

Nonsense. They buy it, they do what they want with it.
>
> This is one reason I'd like to see atlernatives to Hollywood when
> it comes to TV and movies. I'd like to see studios set up in other
> locations so writers, producers, and directors can make movies
> according to their visions and not have to go through Hollywood.

You have to get rid of the unions first.

--
Third root canal - averted.

Hip Hip Hurrah!

On Oct 9, 9:28 pm, Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article
> <201be794-f2d7-4e6f-9aff-3ebc34e2f...@75g2000hso.googlegroups.com>,
>  Matt Casey <mattcaseym...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 21, 10:27 pm, "David Halpern" <nanophoto...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > I agree with you Matt fully.
>
> > > And I was going to ask this awhile ago.
>
> > > In the case of Stan Lee, the federal district court
> > > ruled that he gets 10% of all Box Office Receipts.
>
> > > I would have loved to see Gene and now Gene's family
> > > been making 10% back to Star Trek: TMP back to 1979.
>
> > > Screw this crooked movie house big shots.....they can ante
> > > up for the rightful intellectual property owners in my opinion.
>
> > > "Matt Casey" <mattcaseym...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:dfe935b6-fd4b-47c5-8b99-fa4e47dde354@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com....
>
> > > >     They could sue CBS for the rights to Star Trek and get themback.
> > > > I'm not saying that it will happen, but with the court rulings in
> > > > favor of the creators of "Superman" and "Lassie", it wouldn't surprise
> > > > me if Majel Barrett (the legendary Lwaxana Troi), Eugene W.
> > > > Roddenberry, etc. decided to sue CBS to regain the rights to the Great
> > > > Bird of the Galaxy's creation.
>
> > > >    If this happened, the Roddenberry family would have my support as
> > > > we're seeing firsthand that Big Media doesn't care about the creators
> > > > of popular stuff like "Superman", "Lassie", and "Star Trek" and only
> > > > about the money they make from said stuff.
>
> > > >    Big Media also isn't faithful to the creator's original vision,
> > > > and it shows that Big Media and its greedy executives don't know crap
> > > > about true creativity, vision, or anything. All they care about is
> > > > their own selfish aims.
>
> > > >    I think its time to return Hollywood to the CREATORS of the
> > > > stories THEY choose to tell and the honest people who have a sincere
> > > > desire to help the creators in that endeavor. And the creators should
> > > > have the same Free Speech rights as everybody else.
>
> > > >    Now I understand. Hollywood isn't the problem. It's Big Media
> > > > that's the problem.
>
> > > >    And while I'm at it, Richard and Esther Shapiro could get the
> > > > rights to "Dynasty" back, too.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> >      Thanks for the vote of confidence. I'd like to start some kind of
> > petition drive to get Star Trek returned to the Roddenberry estate and
> > maybe find some way to make it illegal for studios to either assume
> > sole ownership of intellectual properties and require them to share
> > ownership with the owners or make it illegal for studios to own any
> > intellectual property that they didn't own to begin with. Studios
> > should be required to have a LICENSE from the intellectual property
> > owners to produce anything they don't own and anything they do with
> > the property needs to be done with the permission of the owner.
>
> >      If the studios buy the rights to the property from the owner,
> > that's okay but the original owner should be allowed to retain a
> > percentage of said property or be allowed to participate in the
> > development of said property or at least earn royalties.
>
> The original owner should be allowed to sell the rights in any way he
> wants.
>
>
>
> >     And if the studio is no longer in using said property, then said
> > property should be returned to said owner or just left alone.
>
> Nonsense.  They buy it, they do what they want with it.
>
>
>
> >     This is one reason I'd like to see atlernatives to Hollywood when
> > it comes to TV and movies. I'd like to see studios set up in other
> > locations so writers, producers, and directors can make movies
> > according to their visions and not have to go through Hollywood.
>
> You have to get rid of the unions first.
>
> --
> Third root canal - averted.
>
> Hip Hip Hurrah!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If anyone should own Star Trek, it should be the Roddenberry
family.

In article
<87cdbd26-ec3d-4656-9b4e-8364678f4c45@q9g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Matt Casey <mattcaseymatt@gmail.com> wrote:

> If anyone should own Star Trek, it should be the Roddenberry
> family.


In the early 1970s, Paramount offered to sell Star Trek lock, stock and
barrel to Gene Roddenberry for $100,000. Gene said no. (You'll find
this mentioned in the record of Dawn Roddenberry's unsuccessful case
against Gene's estate.)

In other words, he had his chance.

In article <111020081839320903%takebackamerica@2008.com>,
Audie Murphy's Ghost <takebackamerica@2008.com> wrote:

> In article
> <87cdbd26-ec3d-4656-9b4e-8364678f4c45@q9g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> Matt Casey <mattcaseymatt@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If anyone should own Star Trek, it should be the Roddenberry
> > family.
>
>
> In the early 1970s, Paramount offered to sell Star Trek lock, stock and
> barrel to Gene Roddenberry for $100,000. Gene said no. (You'll find
> this mentioned in the record of Dawn Roddenberry's unsuccessful case
> against Gene's estate.)
>
> In other words, he had his chance.

Exactly. And if he had purchased it, it wouldn't be worth squat today,
because Paramount wouldn't have kept funneling the money into it.

--
Third root canal - averted.

Hip Hip Hurrah!