Partly. But I started to loathe her pretty early on in S2. And definitely the actress assisted in the deterioration of that character—she was very insistent on some backstory (and screentime) that the showrunners included which was fatal to the character and the show. IMO.

Levon on the final season of "Californication" manages to single-handedly sink that show and make it unwatchable.

I love the movie myself and am happy to see this affirmative review.

A murder occurred after someone realized there was always money in the banana stand.

You got me!

"Witness" — and there shall be no argument.

What the hell does Hilary Clinton have to do with this? Once those comparisons start being drawn, I know I'm arguing with someone unhinged and unable to make cogent points.

Sorry, but you're going to have to explain how this will be bad for business. It won't. This project will get halted and 6 months from now no one will remember that it happened. In the meantime, CBS/Paramount will still own all the rights to the TV show and movie franchise to license and merchandise as they wish. At…

If you think I'm a troll, you're as clueless about trolling as you are about what IP law is.

They are using someone else's IP for commercial gain. That is both a copyright and a trademark infringement. How difficult is this to understand, really?

The fact that there's a million dollar kickstarter campaign provides Paramount all the evidence it needs that there's a for profit project at work. Or is Axanar Productions really a 501(3)c?

Or you know, the law.

That's really not how brand confusion works here — brand confusion being more an issue of trademark than copyright.

Yes, it absolutely is something that they have to do. If they don't enforce against monetary IP infringement now, courts will not recognize if they try to later against the next infringers.

CBS has the rights to all those shows as well.

It isn't a matter of how good or bad a fan creation is or how good or bad the official reboots are. A rights holder has to protect their IP against infringement. By not enforcing this they would be basically sending a signal that anyone at any time could come infringe on their rights.

It really is not.

Not protecting their IP in this instance (which may or may not be benevolent) means they can never protect it again in the future.

Not sure I understand the headline—CBS bites itself in the ass? So the owners of this property should just let anyone and everyone infringe upon it? Intellectual property theft is…good?

"mild pedophilia" is to 2015 what "the female body has ways to shut that whole thing down" was to 2012.