3 ms·

The only time to directly threaten legal action is when you don't think legal action will achieve your goal, and you've got nothing else. Otherwise, there is no

by op00to 2y ago

The only time to directly threaten legal action is when you don't think legal action will achieve your goal, and you've got nothing else. Otherwise, there is no benefit to threatening legal action. Sure, you can imply it, but you gain nothing by showing those cards.

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
But the goals that these people pursue are difficult to understand or anticipate. You assume that because these people are employed by some business entity that their goals are "make more money" and such. That's rarely the case, even if we allow for the unenlightened version of "make more money". Instead, assume that many, possibly even most, are more interested in being punitive out of some warped sense of justice. Though it might cost them a million in legal fees to discourage efforts to fix their DRM which in turn might only preserve a few tens of thousands in sales or other earning potential, they still doggedly chase these "goals". Sometimes, I think, the lawyers even point this out, only to be overruled by top management. This means that legal action can almost always achieve the goal, being that the goal is nothing more than to make their targets miserable.
- thisisabore 2y ago
  That's a pretty impressive way to imagine people's motivations. The likelihood of a non-profit outfit building open source software being driven by a warped sense of justice and the goal of making people miserable rather than, say, trying to make sure they can continue their stated mission and ensure publishers keep agreeing to digital book lending is pretty bold. But sure, why not.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
    >The likelihood of a non-profit outfit building open source software being driven by a warped sense of justice Because those people are, after all, inhuman robots with no connection to humanity? In fact, I'd say that with any group of humans, each additional human makes this more likely, simply because this sort of attitude easily overrides the less-aggressive attitudes of those who don't agree with it. You seem to disagree because it would be uncomfortable if I were correct, and you'd much rather it be true that I'm wrong. >trying to make sure they can continue their stated mission What person over the age of about 5 thinks that because an organization starts with a particular mission that, even a few years in, still strongly pursue it?
Mindwipe 2y ago
This isn't true at all. Legal action costs lots of money, no matter who you are, and it's slow. Threatening legal action is usually the most successful mechanism to make things happen, even if you have a one hundred percent chance of winning your case.
lxgr 2y ago
If this were true, i.e. in an ideal legal system, frivolous lawsuits wouldn't be a problem at all. In many actual US jurisdictions (and presumably beyond), it's such a pervasive problem that there are now explicit "anti-SLAPP" laws on the book against just that.

by op00to 2y ago

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago

But the goals that these people pursue are difficult to understand or anticipate. You assume that because these people are employed by some business entity that their goals are "make more money" and such. That's rarely the case, even if we allow for the unenlightened version of "make more money". Instead, assume that many, possibly even most, are more interested in being punitive out of some warped sense of justice. Though it might cost them a million in legal fees to discourage efforts to fix their DRM which in turn might only preserve a few tens of thousands in sales or other earning potential, they still doggedly chase these "goals". Sometimes, I think, the lawyers even point this out, only to be overruled by top management. This means that legal action can almost always achieve the goal, being that the goal is nothing more than to make their targets miserable.

thisisabore 2y ago
That's a pretty impressive way to imagine people's motivations. The likelihood of a non-profit outfit building open source software being driven by a warped sense of justice and the goal of making people miserable rather than, say, trying to make sure they can continue their stated mission and ensure publishers keep agreeing to digital book lending is pretty bold. But sure, why not.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
  >The likelihood of a non-profit outfit building open source software being driven by a warped sense of justice Because those people are, after all, inhuman robots with no connection to humanity? In fact, I'd say that with any group of humans, each additional human makes this more likely, simply because this sort of attitude easily overrides the less-aggressive attitudes of those who don't agree with it. You seem to disagree because it would be uncomfortable if I were correct, and you'd much rather it be true that I'm wrong. >trying to make sure they can continue their stated mission What person over the age of about 5 thinks that because an organization starts with a particular mission that, even a few years in, still strongly pursue it?

Mindwipe 2y ago

This isn't true at all. Legal action costs lots of money, no matter who you are, and it's slow. Threatening legal action is usually the most successful mechanism to make things happen, even if you have a one hundred percent chance of winning your case.

lxgr 2y ago

If this were true, i.e. in an ideal legal system, frivolous lawsuits wouldn't be a problem at all. In many actual US jurisdictions (and presumably beyond), it's such a pervasive problem that there are now explicit "anti-SLAPP" laws on the book against just that.