[SUBMITTED] The Lion's Share

[SherpDaWerp]

I've taken over main authorship of this project I was working on with Aussie a while ago. He's obviously still co-author, though. I've tried to slim it down a bit, and elaborate more on the decisions being presented.

The Lion's Share

Description
David @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@, an independent film writer from overseas, has claimed that the massive @@DEMONYM@@ film studio Idney violated his copyright when they produced the hit film, "The Lion Prince". However, upon travelling to @@NAME@@ to take legal action, he discovered that his limited funds simply couldn't hold up against Idney's massive legal budget.
Validity
Capitalist, has Copyright, has Courts
Co-Authored by Australian rePublic

Option 1
"I came to @@NAME@@ to get justice!" complains David @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@, cherry-picking scenes to exaggerate the similarities. "But I can't get any! While I can barely afford animation software, Idney has rooms and rooms of animators! 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 the little guy!"
Validity
All
Outcome
the state pays children to sue television companies for copying their crayon drawings

Option 2
"This is @@NAME@@, justice should favour the rich, damnit!" utters Goliath @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@, chief executive of Idney, "What I meant was, uh... our film is totally different. See, in David's work, 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! We have to pay for our own lawyers, so why should he get a free ride? We're still equal under the law."
Validity
All
Outcome
changing minutiae gives companies get-out-of-copyright-free cards

Option 3
@@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ 'Slingshot' @@RANDOMLASTNAME@@, a small-time lawyer representing David, interjects. "Ahem. The issue here isn't that Mr @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@ cannot afford good lawyers, it's an issue of monetary compensation. The law here states that the loser of a lawsuit must pay the winner's court fees, subject to judicial approval. It's a risk Mr @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@ cannot afford to take - paying Idney's legal fees would bankrupt him! Change this law, @@LEADER@@, and you will do wonders for our legal system."
Validity
All
Outcome
company executives spend more time in the courtroom than the boardroom

Option 4
"Ah, but there is another way!" exclaims TV executive @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Why don't you do away with copyright laws altogether? Then, my company could air both of these cartoons and let the people be the judge! Not to mention the advertising revenue - if I can cram both movies with sponsorships, my prof- ahem, my company's profits would skyrocket!"
Validity
All
Outcome
the same soup reheated is instead the same show rebranded

[Australian rePublic]

I assumed you were gonna TG me when the thread was ready. I guess I was wrong

[SherpDaWerp]

I assumed you were gonna TG me when the thread was ready. I guess I was wrong

I was in the middle of writing a TG... oh well. It's relatively similar to the last one in terms of content and story, but slimmed down a little bit.

[Australian rePublic]

I assumed you were gonna TG me when the thread was ready. I guess I was wrong

I was in the middle of writing a TG... oh well. It's relatively similar to the last one in terms of content and story, but slimmed down a little bit.

Really? Sorry about that. Considering we already discussed this earlier, I assumed you were just gonna send the link. That's what I wouldda done. Looking great, but there are a few typos

[SherpDaWerp]

there are a few typos

oops... Caught one, but the rest looks a-ok to me.

[Baggieland]

re-writing some of the scenes in order to exaggerate the similarities

If he's doing the above, he wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on. How about just showing the script to highlight the similarities?

[Australian rePublic]

re-writing some of the scenes in order to exaggerate the similarities

If he's doing the above, he wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on. How about just showing the script to highlight the similarities?

Good point

[SherpDaWerp]

If he's doing the above, he wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on. How about just showing the script to highlight the similarities?

Good point

Alright, edited.

[Authoritaria-Imperia]

The law here states that the loser of a lawsuit must pay the winner's court fees, subject to judicial approval.

It does? That seems like too strange a law for you to assume @@NAME@@ has.

[SherpDaWerp]

The law here states that the loser of a lawsuit must pay the winner's court fees, subject to judicial approval.

It does? That seems like too strange a law for you to assume @@NAME@@ has.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_(attorney%27s_fees)

The English rule provides that the party who loses in court pays the other party's legal costs.
...
Nearly every Western democracy other than the United States follows the English rule.

[Authoritaria-Imperia]

Regarding the English Rule: huh! You learn something new every day! In the issue, an explanatory remark about how that's a common law might help. But maybe that's just me.
Something else:

Make the state pay the legal fees of the little guy!"

This isn't very clear. Legally, what defines "little guy"? And isn't the problem that Mr. David's lawyers are bad? It sounds like he doesn't need the state to pay his fees and get him a lawyer. Unless he wants the state to buy him a big expensive lawyer — but don't crazy options go at the end? I mean, that's not viable in any way, and it's certainly not being presented as the wacky option.

[SherpDaWerp]

Regarding the English Rule: huh! You learn something new every day. In the issue, an explanatory remark about how that's a common law might help. But maybe that's just me.

I think it should be fine - it would be difficult to fit in such a remark without the lawyer making a counterpoint to his own argument. If he says "the current law is commonly used worldwide" and then goes on to explain why it's bad, then he's defeating his own argument.

And isn't the problem that Mr. David's lawyers are bad? It sounds like he doesn't need the state to pay his fees. Unless he wants the state to buy him a big expensive lawyer — but don't crazy options go at the end? I mean, that's not viable in any way, and it's certainly not being presented as the wacky option.

The point is that David's lawyers aren't as good as the mega fancy lawyers that Idney can hire, so he wants the state to pay for him to get mega fancy lawyers. Traditionally, crazy options go at the end, but tradition is not law, and the issue as a whole flows much better having David -> Goliath -> Slingshot -> TV Exec.

There are a couple tweaks I'll make out of this though - namely, Option 3 now has a little bit of a joke about David complaining his lawyers are bad in front of his actual lawyer.

This isn't very clear. Legally, what defines "little guy"?

editors like linguistic ambiguity more than most people

I think it's clear enough that David wants the state to pay his legal fees, and it's reasonable that someone who is not a lawyer or official speaks somewhat conversationally - it doesn't matter that "little guy" doesn't have a legal definition, the meaning of his statement should be clear.

[Authoritaria-Imperia]

If he says "the current law is commonly used worldwide" and then goes on to explain why it's bad, then he's defeating his own argument.

Fair enough.

The point is that David's lawyers aren't as good as the mega fancy lawyers that Idney can hire, so he wants the state to pay for him to get mega fancy lawyers. Traditionally, crazy options go at the end, but tradition is not law, and the issue as a whole flows much better having David -> Goliath -> Slingshot -> TV Exec.

I get that flow is important, but the option did not come across as crazy to me. I think it needs something in there to make its craziness clear to players so it isn't just confusing.

I think it's clear enough that David wants the state to pay his legal fees, and it's reasonable that someone who is not a lawyer or official speaks somewhat conversationally - it doesn't matter that "little guy" doesn't have a legal definition, the meaning of his statement is clear.

I take back what I said. You have a good point, and also this is a crazy option, which I didn't realise. There are some different rules for those…

[Australian rePublic]

Hey Sherp, you seem to be on the ball with this one, I think I'll leave you most autonomy

[SherpDaWerp]

Hey Sherp, you seem to be on the ball with this one, I think I'll leave you most autonomy

Thanks to you for coming up with a good idea in the first place...

[Australian rePublic]

Hey Sherp, you seem to be on the ball with this one, I think I'll leave you most autonomy

Thanks to you for coming up with a good idea in the first place...

[Australian rePublic]

The law here states that the loser of a lawsuit must pay the winner's court fees, subject to judicial approval.

It does? That seems like too strange a law for you to assume @@NAME@@ has.

IRL: There's probably more countries which have this law than countries that don't. Therefore, it's probably safe to assume that @@NAME@@ does

[Baggieland]

Monarchy of the Lions

Any chance you could come up with a better name than this? It's so... Aussie. I don't know, the Wombat Prince or something.

[SherpDaWerp]

Monarchy of the Lions

Any chance you could come up with a better name than this? It's so... Aussie. I don't know, the Wombat Prince or something.

Alright, some changes have been made. Do you think the new issue title is still clear enough in the idiom it references (The Lion's Share), or should I try and figure out a new one?

[Baggieland]

The title's fine.

[Australian rePublic]

The first line from option 2 is a quote from the Simpson's character Mr. Burns "This is America, justice should favour the rich", as such, I was thinking, should we make the guy's surname be "Burns"?

[SherpDaWerp]

The title's fine.

Sweet.

The first line from option 2 is a quote from the Simpson's character Mr. Burns "This is America, justice should favour the rich", as such, I was thinking, should we make the guy's surname be "Burns"?

Possibly, but I don't want to mess with the David/Goliath/Slingshot reference too much - cramming two references into one name would make it more difficult to get either reference.

[Australian rePublic]

The title's fine.

Sweet.

The first line from option 2 is a quote from the Simpson's character Mr. Burns "This is America, justice should favour the rich", as such, I was thinking, should we make the guy's surname be "Burns"?

Possibly, but I don't want to mess with the David/Goliath/Slingshot reference too much - cramming two references into one name would make it more difficult to get either reference.

If the title's fine, why did you change it?

[SherpDaWerp]

If the title's fine, why did you change it?

I think Baggie means the new title, given that I asked about it when I put it up - I didn't want to confuse the idiom by changing the animal.

Do you think the new issue title is still clear enough in the idiom it references, or should I try and figure out a new one?

The title's fine.

Sweet.

[Australian rePublic]

If the title's fine, why did you change it?

I think Baggie means the new title, given that I asked about it when I put it up - I didn't want to confuse the idiom by changing the animal.

Do you think the new issue title is still clear enough in the idiom it references, or should I try and figure out a new one?

The title's fine.

Sweet.

I thought he was refering to the original title. It won't work with any other animal