Comments on: Every one a little lawyer.

Every one a little lawyer.

kipmanley — Sun, 15 May 2011 21:43:49 -0800

"Watching the video I thought that it was wise of Major League Baseball to combine this sort of sentimental moment with mass speculative litigation. It kept brand values strong. I felt strangely grateful that I could have a moment to remember that afternoon. Surprised by the evidence of both copyright violation and father-daughter affection." —Paul Ford, "Nanolaw with Daughter"

The subtitle will break your heart.

By: mathowie

mathowie — Sun, 15 May 2011 21:58:35 -0800

Holy shit. That's the best (terrifying) fiction I've read on a blog ever.

By: spacewrench

spacewrench — Sun, 15 May 2011 22:07:05 -0800

IANYL, but as a lawyer working on the current rash of movie-downloading copyright suits, I have to say, this is not terribly pie-in-the-sky speculation.

By: unliteral

unliteral — Sun, 15 May 2011 22:10:39 -0800

Horrifyingly good read, thanks.

By: gen

gen — Sun, 15 May 2011 23:33:36 -0800

I'm pretty sure Paul Ford is a member here...

By: empath

empath — Sun, 15 May 2011 23:57:25 -0800

The problem with this scenario is that it's so goddamned inefficient. No system like that is going to last. The RIAA even stopped suing people years ago.

By: PareidoliaticBoy

PareidoliaticBoy — Sun, 15 May 2011 23:57:54 -0800

That was fabulous. Thanks.

By: verb

verb — Mon, 16 May 2011 00:13:35 -0800

The problem with this scenario is that it's so goddamned inefficient. No system like that is going to last. The RIAA even stopped suing people years ago. Well, that's the problem with spam, too: why would anyone ever take the time to hand-type a million emails about viagra, one by one, and send them to random people?

By: empath

empath — Mon, 16 May 2011 00:34:59 -0800

That's a technical issue, not a legal one. You aren't going to be allowed to spam the courts.

By: ennui.bz

ennui.bz — Mon, 16 May 2011 03:19:20 -0800

That's a technical issue, not a legal one. You aren't going to be allowed to spam the courts. But it seems like these aren't going to court but are being resolved by some automated arbitration system... when his daughter accepted her baseball game license/ticket there was probably fine print requiring her to accept said arbitration.

By: arcticseal

arcticseal — Mon, 16 May 2011 03:38:19 -0800

That was worryingly realistic. Well written, thanks for sharing kipmanley.

By: ftrain

ftrain — Mon, 16 May 2011 03:46:24 -0800

See also the recent mass lawsuit against 23,000 Bittorrent users. I imagine this is what the author was thinking of when he wrote this piece. Filing fees remain a barrier to efficient suits, I guess, but there are definitely people working out ways to sue lots and lots of people at once.

By: Terminal Verbosity

Terminal Verbosity — Mon, 16 May 2011 03:56:04 -0800

I don't care how much it costs me, I'm not giving up my Belgian beers.

By: Fizz

Fizz — Mon, 16 May 2011 04:45:52 -0800

This is absolutely hilarious, thanks for posting.

By: COD

COD — Mon, 16 May 2011 05:38:31 -0800

It's cute when it's just a piece of fiction on the internet. Someday in the future when this is considered prescient it won't be so cute.

By: Grimp0teuthis

Grimp0teuthis — Mon, 16 May 2011 06:34:47 -0800

GRIFFINSUIT LAWFLOW v.5.8 User 0981273, YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at courthouse 2390483209 on 19th May, 2037. ALTERNATELY, you may pay the listed damages, below. CLAIM SUMMARY: copyright infringement; while reading "Nanolaw with Daughter", user made a copy of the story in his brain without authorization DAMAGES: USD 0.10 [Pay now with Paypal] *********** This is a great story that, scarily, hits quite close to home. Thanks!

By: maryr

maryr — Mon, 16 May 2011 07:37:04 -0800

That's a technical issue, not a legal one. You aren't going to be allowed to spam the courts. Why not? What if the technology of the courts catches up?

By: wenestvedt

wenestvedt — Mon, 16 May 2011 08:05:20 -0800

Now that is a dystopia. Great story, though Iain M. Banks would have done it as a throw-away line.

By: ftrain

ftrain — Mon, 16 May 2011 08:19:36 -0800

The OLD Iain M. Banks maybe. Not the one who wrote Surface Detail.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Mon, 16 May 2011 09:41:05 -0800

Egads. That was great and funny, but also just disturbing enough that I kind of wish I hadn't read it over coffee on Monday morning.

By: eyeballkid

eyeballkid — Mon, 16 May 2011 10:36:53 -0800

That was fantastic ftrain, but now I've, again, become completely preoccupied with how I'm going to deal with my son's eventual introduction to the internet.

By: straight

straight — Mon, 16 May 2011 11:00:29 -0800

and the video was irrevocably destroyed so that it could never again be shared. That's the only part of the story I found completely unbelievable.

By: Eideteker

Eideteker — Mon, 16 May 2011 12:03:43 -0800

Reminds me of the algorithmic lawsuits/shell companies from Accelerando.

By: LobsterMitten

LobsterMitten — Mon, 16 May 2011 15:26:33 -0800

Wow.

By: LobsterMitten

LobsterMitten — Mon, 16 May 2011 15:30:01 -0800

I imagine this is what the author was thinking of when he wrote this piece. -ftrain Not to be dense but isn't that you?

By: ftrain

ftrain — Mon, 16 May 2011 16:23:13 -0800

LobsterMitten, yes. I'm having fun.

By: LobsterMitten

LobsterMitten — Mon, 16 May 2011 19:16:44 -0800

Heh. Well, I like your story.