But surely vikings WERE pirates?
A government tech quango has handed £250,000 of taxpayers' cash to a British firm which fights to keep erotic fiction, among other things, out of the hands of copyright pirates. The Technology Strategy Board selected MUSO.com to receive a lucrative Smart Award in the hope it will use the cash to turn thieving internet …
But surely vikings WERE pirates?
Viking porn. Even their hats have the horn.
I'm sure there must also be some pirate erotica, but is there any pirate-erotica-pirate erotica?
Then we can pirate pirate-erotica-pirate erotica!
Rule 34 applies... but I'm not finding the links for you! :-)
Who actually gets off on this stuff?
The wife reads some of this stuff specifically because of how bad it is.* Especially the "Highland Romance" genre, the kind where the paper version would have a cover showing a muscle-bound and shaven-chested kilted warrior(the fact that I'm Scottish, and she's American may have something to do with it).
* She claims.
We'll never know that this crap existed.
Edit: is it just me or has the comment box font size become the same as BT's small print?
It is just you. It is the same size for me as it always has been.
What will the "authors" of these badly written books do, once they have ensured that there are no pirate copies on the internet... and yet people STILL don't buy their books?
... follow Steele and Hansmeier's example. I am sure the government will give away another £250 million to set up Prenda UK.
E L James (50 shades of Grey) would beg to differ. Her work comes from this 'fan fiction' background, and sold very nicely.
I wonder how much was spent on the quango's wages as they wrung their hands in angst?
Good thing that there aren't any more worthwhile ways we could spend that money..
... "Obscure writers pay money to stay obscure."
This drivel tends to swamp latest book releases, so I'd be glad to see it gone.
" ...fights to keep erotic fiction, among other things, out of the hands of copyright pirates."
Aha, the plot for a series of 'bodice-ripper' novels.
The first three paragraphs of the article have completely missed the point of the TSB. It's given money to MUSO in the hope that it, MUSO, will make lots of money and hence pay lots of tax back to the UK government. So long as it's within the TSB remit, *how* it makes the money is immaterial, as is who pays for its services. In fact if the majority of MUSO's customers are (gasp) not British, all the better.
I presume this misunderstanding is deliberate trolling in the style of the Daily Mail (else the author is an idiot). It's certainly brought out the DM style commenters.
I have a vague memory of hearing something about companies that make lots of money tending _not_ to pay lots of tax to the UK government.
"I have a vague memory of hearing something about companies that make lots of money tending _not_ to pay lots of tax to the UK government."
There are other taxes besides Corporation Tax, VAT for instance. If MUSO employ anyone the government will receive PAYE, NICs etc.
And therefor allow small authors more protection?
This could be the start of something big
I'd think Orlowski would be quite positive on this.
(See Hyde Park Residence Ltd vs David Yelland, et al  EWHC Patents 247, reaffirming Glyn v Weston Feature Film  1 Ch. 261 on this point.)
... it's particularly ironic to see taxpayer cash going to support someone in trying to stop piracy of porn, which by definition is grossly immoral.
porn, which by definition is grossly immoral.
I would like to see that assertion defended. It might be interesting to see the logical contortions necessary to reason that recording the act of generation (amongst other acts) is "by definition" immoral, especially grossly so.