NationStates

So this is a little project that Sherp and I have been working on behind the scenes. Sherp thinks that we should switch options 1 and 3 around, but I'll leave that to the GI public to decide

This is based on the Kimba the White Lion/Lion King controversy. Option 3 is something which effects me personally, as my lawyer told me that this one of the biggest factors why I can't sue a big company

[title] The Lion's Share

[desc] David @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@, an independent film writer from overseas, wrote a cartoon called “Pimpa The Red Lion, a story about a lion who grows up to overthrow the tiger king. Later megalithic @@DENONYMADJECTIVE@@ film studio, Idney, wrote an animated movie called "Monarchy of the Lions"- a film about a lion who overthrows the tiger king. David claimed that Monarchy of the Lions violated his copyright, and came to @@NAME@@ to take legal action against Idney, only to discover that the power disparity would work against him.

[validity] co-author SherpDaWerp, capitalist, has a copyright system, has courts,

[option]"I came to @@NAME@@ to get justice!" complains David @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@, re-writing some of the scenes in order to exaggerate the similarities. "But I can't get any justice. Whilst my studio can bearly afford a second green screens, Idney has a billion @@CURRENCY@@ budget! I can't afford the best lawyers, but Idney can. This is unfair! Why does the law assume we're capable of equally representing ourselves? Make the state pay the legal fees of small businesses!"
[effect] kindergarteners sue television companies for copying their crayon drawings

[option] "This is @@NAME@@, justice should favour the rich, damnit!" accidently utters Goliath @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@, chief executive of Idney, "What I meant was, uh... our film is totally different. See, in Pimpa, the hippo is standing on both legs on the right, whilst in ours, the hippo is standing on one leg on the left. See, totally different! Mr. @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@ is just being ridiculous? Why should we have to pay for our own lawyers, so why should he get a free ride? We're still equal under the law”
[effect] changing minutiae gives @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ companies get-out-of-copyright-free cards

[option] @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ Hammill, one of @@NAME@@'s top lawyers, interjects. "The issue here is not that Mr @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@ cannot afford top lawyers, it's an issue of monetary compensation. The law here states that the loser has to pay the winner's court fees. Even if Mr @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@ is represented pro bono, losing the case would mean he has to pay for Idney's legal fees, a cost he cannot possibly bear. Change this law, @@LEADER@@, and you will do wonders for our legal system. Sure, it'll encourage more frivolous law suites, and decrease the amount of compensation, as part of it will be lost to legal fees, but it's the price we must pay for justice!”
[effect] court cases against companies have become remarkably more commonplace now that @@DENONYMPLURAL@@ can afford to lose

[option] "I can see another way out of this," proposes prominent TV executive @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Why don't we do away with copyright laws altogether? Then I could air both of these cartoons and let @@NAME@@ be the judge! @@LEADER@@, get rid of copyright now! That way, I can add advertisements to both fil... I mean, the population can enjoy both films!"
[effect] the same soup reheated is instead the same show rebranded

Australian rePublic wrote:...only to discover that the power disparity would work against his favour.

"that the power disparity would work against him." rolls off more easily from the tongue, even though one reads it in their mind

Australian rePublic wrote:[option]"I came to @@NAME@@ to get justice!" complains David @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@, re-writing some of the scenes in order to exaggerate the similarities. "But I can't get any justice. I can't afford the best lawyers, but Idney can. This is unfair! Why does the law treat us equally? Do something about the power parity!"
[effect] kindergarteners sue television companies for copying their crayon drawings

Perhaps you could specify what David is asking for here, as "do something" is very broad. What idea would David have to solve the power parity? Randomize lawyer appointments? Have the state pay for his legal expenses? I think specifying will help giving this option character. The effect line is funny, I like it!

Australian rePublic wrote:[option] "This is @@NAME@@, justice should favour the rich, damnit!" accidently utters Goliath @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@, chief executive of Idney, "What I meant was, uh... our film is totally different. See, in Pimpa, the hippo is standing on both legs on the right, whilst in ours, the hippo is standing on one leg on the left. See, totally different! Mr. @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@ is just bring ridiculous!"
[effect] changing minutiae gives @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ companies get-out-of-copyright-free cards

I see where you are going at with this, but if I might suggest the following:
[option] "This is @@NAME@@, justice should favour us rich folk, dammit!" hisses chief executive of Idney, Goliath @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@, at his lawyer, oblivious to the fact he is being overheard. "Er, I mean, what I was trying to say..."

Saying something accidentally sounds a bit sweet and innocent to me, which, from what I am gathering, is not what you want to convey

Also, as with David, what exactly will Goliath demand of @@LEADER@@? Will they demand looser copyright laws? Do they want tariffs for lawyers to be raised so the "common rabble" won't be able to afford them? I am missing the choice a bit in the wording of the option. Very witty use of David and Goliath though!

Australian rePublic wrote:[option] @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ Hammill, one of @@NAME@@'s top lawyers, interjects. "The issue here is not that Mr @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@ cannot afford top lawyers, it's an issue of monetary compensation. The law here states that the loser has to pay the winner's court fees. Even if Mr @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@ is represented pro bono, losing the case would mean he has to pay for Idney's legal fees, a cost he cannot possibly bear. Change this law, @@LEADER@@, and you will do wonders for our legal system."
[effect] court cases against companies have become remarkably more commonplace now that @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ can afford to lose

This is exactly what I mean, you present a clear choice here for the player to pick from. The wording makes the option clear and it's very well-written. The effect line is very nice and it's heading in a good direction, but perhaps you could make it even better with a slight touch of humor? It's good as it is though, so if you prefer the effect line in its current form, definitely keep it!

Australian rePublic wrote:[option] "I can see another way out of this," proposes prominent TV executive @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Why don't we do away with copyright laws altogether? Then I could air both of these cartoons and let @@NAME@@ be the judge! And the advertising, yes, the advertising revenue would be fantastic. @@LEADER@@, get rid of copyright now!"
[effect] the same soup reheated is instead the same show rebranded

The direction this is headed is good, but it doesn't entirely hit its mark, I believe, I am missing something. You mention the advertising, but how exactly does it tie into the abolishing of copyright laws? Do you mean that they'll be able to advertise both movies? Or get sponsoring for both movies? Perhaps you could clarify this a bit more.

As to the options order, I think the current order works better than switching 1 and 3 around, as it appears more logical to me that David would appear first, then Goliath and then the third alternative option.

All in all, it's a very good issue with an interesting core problem. In my opinion, it only needs a bit of polishing in the places I mentioned and then it will be perfect!

I'll get back to you when I learn more about why the loser pays the winner's court. I'm sure I learnt during my law subject at university, but I just don't remember.

Australian rePublic wrote:"Why does the law treat us equally?"

...That should be "doesn't", right?

Australian rePublic wrote:I'll get back to you when I learn more about why the loser pays the winner's court. I'm sure I learnt during my law subject at university, but I just don't remember.

It's to prevent people from constantly harrassing their enemies with frivolous lawsuits.

Imagine the situation reversed: a larger corporation suing a smaller one. Even if the court rules for the defendant, the legal fees could ruin the smaller corporation and drive it out of business anyway.

Another solution would be to just limit how much money you're allowed to spend on lawyers, as per #601 3.

Daarwyrth wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:[option] "I can see another way out of this," proposes prominent TV executive @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Why don't we do away with copyright laws altogether? Then I could air both of these cartoons and let @@NAME@@ be the judge! And the advertising, yes, the advertising revenue would be fantastic. @@LEADER@@, get rid of copyright now!"
[effect] the same soup reheated is instead the same show rebranded

The direction this is headed is good, but it doesn't entirely hit its mark, I believe, I am missing something. You mention the advertising, but how exactly does it tie into the abolishing of copyright laws? Do you mean that they'll be able to advertise both movies? Or get sponsoring for both movies? Perhaps you could clarify this a bit more.

As to the options order, I think the current order works better than switching 1 and 3 around, as it appears more logical to me that David would appear first, then Goliath and then the third alternative option.

He mentions that he could air both cartoons, and (I don't have netflix etc, free-to-air TV for me!) movies/cartoons are often accompanied by ads for whatever so that the company can earn money. Although it might be worth adding in one sentence to explain further.

I didn't really articulate what I meant by switch 1 and 3 to Aussie, so it's reasonable that he said what he did in the OP. But I really meant have a closer look at who goes where, because the basic structure of the issue is:

1. 'david' wants equality in the legal process
2. 'goliath' disagrees
3. Lawyer appears and makes a better argument for equality than david
4. TV executive wants money

I think this could be better put by having:

1. david's (underpaid) lawyer (@@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ 'Slingshot' @@RANDOMLASTNAME@@, of course) explaining why the legal structure needs to change
2. 'goliath' disagrees
3. david himself saying "what I want is to not have to pay those monstrous legal fees".
4. TV executive wants money

Although that would result in goliath coming before david, which would be a bit weird.

Trotterdam wrote:It's to prevent people from constantly harrassing their enemies with frivolous lawsuits.

Imagine the situation reversed: a larger corporation suing a smaller one. Even if the court rules for the defendant, the legal fees could ruin the smaller corporation and drive it out of business anyway.

Not sure if I've entirely got what you're saying here. If a large corporation sues a small corporation, then the small corporation wins, then the loser (large corporation) pays the winner (small corporation)'s legal fees. This kinda only works with the small corporation suing the large one, cause then large corporation wins, then the loser (small corporation) pays the winner (large corporation)'s legal fees, which drives them out of business cause large corporation's legal fees are immense.

SherpDaWerp wrote:Not sure if I've entirely got what you're saying here. If a large corporation sues a small corporation, then the small corporation wins, then the loser (large corporation) pays the winner (small corporation)'s legal fees.

I was answering Australian Republic's question why that's done by demonstrating what would result if it wasn't. If the loser isn't forced to pay the winner's costs, then a large corporation could use this to harrass a smaller one into backruptcy without ever actually winning a case. If the loser is forced to pay the winner's costs, then this at least means that anybody who actually consistently wins lawsuits won't get in trouble - the problem is when you're not 100% certain you can win.

In any case, I don't believe real courts are as clearcut as "loser always pays winner's legal fees". I think it's often to the judge's discretion whether that happens, or both parties bear their own costs. (Admittedly, my only source for that is this.) Of course, this just makes things harder for the underdog, since if you don't know in advance how much you'll have to pay, you have to prepare for the worst-case scenario (which means that you both risk still having to pay your own costs if you win, and risk also having to pay your opponent's costs if you lose).

And I suppose it's also possible to just force the loser to pay part of the winner's legal fees, enough to cover reasonable legal fees for a normal person, but if a rich corporation decides to spend beyond that then they're not getting a refund, win or lose.

Thanks for your help guys. I've posted the second draft. I'll come back with specific replies later

Daarwyrth wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:...only to discover that the power disparity would work against his favour.

"that the power disparity would work against him." rolls off more easily from the tongue, even though one reads it in their mind

Australian rePublic wrote:[option]"I came to @@NAME@@ to get justice!" complains David @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@, re-writing some of the scenes in order to exaggerate the similarities. "But I can't get any justice. I can't afford the best lawyers, but Idney can. This is unfair! Why does the law treat us equally? Do something about the power parity!"
[effect] kindergarteners sue television companies for copying their crayon drawings

Perhaps you could specify what David is asking for here, as "do something" is very broad. What idea would David have to solve the power parity? Randomize lawyer appointments? Have the state pay for his legal expenses? I think specifying will help giving this option character. The effect line is funny, I like it!

Thanks. David now wants the state to pay for the legal fees of small business

Australian rePublic wrote:[option] "This is @@NAME@@, justice should favour the rich, damnit!" accidently utters Goliath @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@, chief executive of Idney, "What I meant was, uh... our film is totally different. See, in Pimpa, the hippo is standing on both legs on the right, whilst in ours, the hippo is standing on one leg on the left. See, totally different! Mr. @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@ is just bring ridiculous!"
[effect] changing minutiae gives @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ companies get-out-of-copyright-free cards

I see where you are going at with this, but if I might suggest the following:
[option] "This is @@NAME@@, justice should favour us rich folk, dammit!" hisses chief executive of Idney, Goliath @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@, at his lawyer, oblivious to the fact he is being overheard. "Er, I mean, what I was trying to say..."

Saying something accidentally sounds a bit sweet and innocent to me, which, from what I am gathering, is not what you want to convey

No. Goliath says this by accident. Why would Goliath say this on purpose?

Also, as with David, what exactly will Goliath demand of @@LEADER@@? Will they demand looser copyright laws? Do they want tariffs for lawyers to be raised so the "common rabble" won't be able to afford them? I am missing the choice a bit in the wording of the option. Very witty use of David and Goliath though!

Fixed, thanks. Now Goliath wants to employ a team of lawyers

Australian rePublic wrote:[option] @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ Hammill, one of @@NAME@@'s top lawyers, interjects. "The issue here is not that Mr @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@ cannot afford top lawyers, it's an issue of monetary compensation. The law here states that the loser has to pay the winner's court fees. Even if Mr @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@ is represented pro bono, losing the case would mean he has to pay for Idney's legal fees, a cost he cannot possibly bear. Change this law, @@LEADER@@, and you will do wonders for our legal system."
[effect] court cases against companies have become remarkably more commonplace now that @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ can afford to lose

This is exactly what I mean, you present a clear choice here for the player to pick from. The wording makes the option clear and it's very well-written. The effect line is very nice and it's heading in a good direction, but perhaps you could make it even better with a slight touch of humor? It's good as it is though, so if you prefer the effect line in its current form, definitely keep it!

This was actually Sherp's doing

Australian rePublic wrote:[option] "I can see another way out of this," proposes prominent TV executive @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Why don't we do away with copyright laws altogether? Then I could air both of these cartoons and let @@NAME@@ be the judge! And the advertising, yes, the advertising revenue would be fantastic. @@LEADER@@, get rid of copyright now!"
[effect] the same soup reheated is instead the same show rebranded

The direction this is headed is good, but it doesn't entirely hit its mark, I believe, I am missing something. You mention the advertising, but how exactly does it tie into the abolishing of copyright laws? Do you mean that they'll be able to advertise both movies? Or get sponsoring for both movies? Perhaps you could clarify this a bit more.

As to the options order, I think the current order works better than switching 1 and 3 around, as it appears more logical to me that David would appear first, then Goliath and then the third alternative option.

All in all, it's a very good issue with an interesting core problem. In my opinion, it only needs a bit of polishing in the places I mentioned and then it will be perfect!

Fixed, thanks!

Trotterdam wrote:...That should be "doesn't", right?

No- "doesn't" sound as if the judge looks at David and thinks "You're too poor for justice"- I reworded it to remove this ambiguity

It's to prevent people from constantly harrassing their enemies with frivolous lawsuits.

Imagine the situation reversed: a larger corporation suing a smaller one. Even if the court rules for the defendant, the legal fees could ruin the smaller corporation and drive it out of business anyway.

Another solution would be to just limit how much money you're allowed to spend on lawyers, as per #601 3.

Well my lawyer told me that the legal fees come out of the winnings, which is pretty shitty either way.
Also, yea, if there's already an option about limiting legal fees, then I'm not rehashing it

SherpDaWerp wrote:

Daarwyrth wrote:
The direction this is headed is good, but it doesn't entirely hit its mark, I believe, I am missing something. You mention the advertising, but how exactly does it tie into the abolishing of copyright laws? Do you mean that they'll be able to advertise both movies? Or get sponsoring for both movies? Perhaps you could clarify this a bit more.

As to the options order, I think the current order works better than switching 1 and 3 around, as it appears more logical to me that David would appear first, then Goliath and then the third alternative option.

He mentions that he could air both cartoons, and (I don't have netflix etc, free-to-air TV for me!) movies/cartoons are often accompanied by ads for whatever so that the company can earn money. Although it might be worth adding in one sentence to explain further.

I didn't really articulate what I meant by switch 1 and 3 to Aussie, so it's reasonable that he said what he did in the OP. But I really meant have a closer look at who goes where, because the basic structure of the issue is:

1. 'david' wants equality in the legal process
2. 'goliath' disagrees
3. Lawyer appears and makes a better argument for equality than david
4. TV executive wants money

I think this could be better put by having:

1. david's (underpaid) lawyer (@@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ 'Slingshot' @@RANDOMLASTNAME@@, of course) explaining why the legal structure needs to change
   

Ha? Why would slingshot accept a job where he's underpaid? (Unless he works for a larger firm, or the government, in which case, his gripe is with his employer, not the legal system. And in either case, why would Slingshot admit he's underqualified? Doesn't make sense.

'goliath' disagrees

david himself saying "what I want is to not have to pay those monstrous legal fees".

TV executive wants money

Although that would result in goliath coming before david, which would be a bit weird.

I think we should leave it the way it is now

Australian rePublic wrote:"In fact, we should increase the number of lawyers one is permitted to have in a single court case.”

Is there ever a limit on this?

Even if only a single lawyer is allowed to officially make statements to the court, there's no rule saying he can't receive advice from any number of other lawyers behind the scenes.

Trotterdam wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:"In fact, we should increase the number of lawyers one is permitted to have in a single court case.”

Is there ever a limit on this?

Even if only a single lawyer is allowed to officially make statements to the court, there's no rule saying he can't receive advice from any number of other lawyers behind the scenes.

Good point. I'll have to think of what to change it to

I've changed option 2 to suggest that paying more for lawyers makes no difference, but since it was a minor edit, I didn't bother with a new draft

Last call

[desc] David @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@, an independent film writer from East Lebatuk, wrote a cartoon called “Pimpa The Red Lion.” Later @@DENONYMADJECTIVE@@ film studio, Idney, wrote an animated movie called "Monarchy of the Lions". David claimed that Monarchy of the Lions violated his copyright, and came to @@NAME@@ to take legal action against Idney, only to discover that the power disparity would work against him.

I get the scenario you're referencing, but it reads badly, with just a slew of made up names one after another.

You've introduced East Lebatuk (sic) without giving any context -- don't forget that this could be a player's first encounter with that nation. You've named two movies, and given no indication that they are similar or overlap in anyway. You've introduced Idney and David whoever. You've had this David person claim there's a copyright violation but not said why he believes this. You've said there's a legal action but given no reason for it to be a national issue. You've said "only to discover that the power disparity would work against him" but not said what power disparity you're talking about, or who is more powerful, or why that power disparity works against him.

I'd suggest stripping it back and getting to the core of the issue, which is the unfairness of corporations being able to hire expensive and well-resourced legal teams when acting in court against individuals who can barely afford representation. Communicate that dilemma, and cut back the window dressing to a minimum.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:

[desc] David @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@, an independent film writer from East Lebatuk, wrote a cartoon called “Pimpa The Red Lion.” Later @@DENONYMADJECTIVE@@ film studio, Idney, wrote an animated movie called "Monarchy of the Lions". David claimed that Monarchy of the Lions violated his copyright, and came to @@NAME@@ to take legal action against Idney, only to discover that the power disparity would work against him.

I get the scenario you're referencing, but it reads badly, with just a slew of made up names one after another.

You've introduced East Lebatuk (sic) without giving any context -- don't forget that this could be a player's first encounter with that nation. You've named two movies, and given no indication that they are similar or overlap in anyway. You've introduced Idney and David whoever. You've had this David person claim there's a copyright violation but not said why he believes this. You've said there's a legal action but given no reason for it to be a national issue. You've said "only to discover that the power disparity would work against him" but not said what power disparity you're talking about, or who is more powerful, or why that power disparity works against him.

I'd suggest stripping it back and getting to the core of the issue, which is the unfairness of corporations being able to hire expensive and well-resourced legal teams when acting in court against individuals who can barely afford representation. Communicate that dilemma, and cut back the window dressing to a minimum.

Thanks. I basically cleared it up and said that Idney has a billlion @@CURRENCY@@ budget, whilst Idney can't afford a second green screen

I thinks its a well-writen issue but playing the devil's advocate. Why would the lawyer be trying to reduce his own legal fees? (especially one of their top lawyers)
In my opinion, you could make it from a court-approved lawyer originally representing his case as this to me solves both problems.