From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Oct 25 15:14: 6 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 758) id 188F614C4E; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 15:14:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05A011CD43A; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 15:14:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@hub.freebsd.org) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 15:14:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Kris Kennaway To: David Schwartz Cc: jbryant@tfs.net, chat@freebsd.org Subject: RE: trek73 In-Reply-To: <000101bf1f28$2a498f40$021d85d1@youwant.to> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 25 Oct 1999, David Schwartz wrote: > > > "unauthorized" things for keeping Trek alive in the first place... If > > > it came out that Paramount ever tried litigation over such things, > > > they would lose a LOT of fans, and the money in their pockets! What > > > would come next? Sueing people at conventions for getting the > > > uniforms wrong? > > > > Or sueing fan websites, perhaps? > > Isn't this more or less precisely what happened once X-Files > became popular enough to not need them anymore? Yup - but my point was that at around the time of the debut of www.startrek.com, the Paramount lawyers went on a spree, marking their territory by threatening high-profile fan sites. Whether or not it's something which would stand up in court, it's hassle the project could do without, and leaving aside the issue of whether the existing trek(6) should remain I wouldn't want to tempt fate by adding a second. Amusingly, Paramount are now claiming trademark on the letter 'Q'. Kris To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message