Am I reading this right?

[SUBMAN1]

This is getting way way way too excessive! Wow! I wonder if we put a democrat in the White house if they would do the same thing??? This kind of stuff is what makes me swing the other direction.

Gonzales proposes new crime: 'Attempted' copyright infringement

Posted by Declan McCullagh (http://www.subsim.com/8300-10784_3-7.html?authorId=111&tag=author)
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is pressing the U.S. Congress to enact a sweeping intellectual-property bill that would increase criminal penalties for copyright infringement, including "attempts" to commit piracy.


Read on here:

http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9719339-7.html

-S

[bigboywooly]

I guess he has had one of his mods stolen :roll:

:rotfl:

[waste gate]

I suspect it is an attempt to ward off 'Communist' China.

[CCIP]

I suspect it is an attempt to ward off 'Communist' China.

Um, how so? I don't believe the US constitution or law applies that side of the Pacific.

No sir. That's a threat to you, the American.

[Platapus]

I would not be concered with the wording of "attempted piracy". It is a legal consideration trying to plug up a loophole where proving actual infringement on the copyright's owner drags down and complicates a case.

Just copying someone's work in itself is not infringement. An additional action must be taken that actually (under the judicial rules) infringes on a right. So, while it may seem silly, finding a basement filled with thousands of copies of a piece of software is not infringement until the government proves the intent to distribute it. It is a legal technicality but one that can complicate a case. What this law would address is that if you have 1000 copies of a piece of software that you burned, it can be presumed that you had the intent to infringe.

What I would be more concerend about is the justification of increased wiretapping of American citizens who the government may think may be attempting to infringe on a copyright. I guess if they can't get past FISA they can always claim that you may be "attempting" to infringe on a copyright as justification for wiretapping.

You have to hand it to slicky Alberto, he just won't give up.

However the good news is that instead of concentrating on boring terrorists, the clearly overfunded and underworked DHS will be focusing their efforts on catching that international threat to humanity -- the 15 year old girl ripping CDs for her friends.

I am glad we have our priorities straight. While copyright infringement is a serious concern, and should be investigated, I don't think DHS and the government really need to wiretap citizens.

[Iceman]

However the good news is that instead of concentrating on boring terrorists, the clearly overfunded and underworded DHS will be focusing their efforts on catching that international threat to humanity -- the 15 year old girl ripping CDs for her friends.

I am glad we have our priorities straight. While copyright infringement is a serious concern, and should be investigated, I don't think DHS and the government really need to wiretap citizens.

Strain at the knat and swallow the camel ...again.

[waste gate]

I suspect it is an attempt to ward off 'Communist' China.

Um, how so? I don't believe the US constitution or law applies that side of the Pacific.

No sir. That's a threat to you, the American.

I don't usually get into debates with moderators because of the conflict of interest the moderators display when doing so. As moderator you have a powers which the regular member doesn't have.

That being said;

If another nation (or individual) steals or attempts to steal IP the power of the US legal system can be brought to bear to prosecute those involved.

No more undermining the hard work of film makers, software designers, drug makers, or anyone else who would steal from the rightful owners.

[CCIP]

Emm, I'm still not quite sure what you mean. China, as a nation, is not known (openly and in a way that can be proved) stealing American copyrighted products. Those stolen are by individuals or companies within the countries, and as long as they're under the protection of respective Chinese copyright laws, nothing will happen.

Plus, read the text - it's not just infringement, it's attempted infringement. I believe that is quite dangerous since it does have wide-reaching implications.

Otherwise I consider the 'protection of artists' excuse to be, excuse me, tripe. I've grown up in the family of a professional musician, he's not been protected by anything. The ones protected are large entertainment corporations.

I HIGHLY suggest to anyone interested in these issues to read some work by Stanfield law professor Lawrence Lessig (especially 'Free Culture...'). He's a staunch believer in capitalism and the free market (on which point I disagree with him), but he's America's sharpest critic of copyright policy, pointing out the massive hypocricies and un-democratic tendencies hidden in the system (which I strongly agree with). Go on, find it.



And I've no special powers. I haven't even been actively moderating for a while :p

[waste gate]

Plus, read the text - it's not just infringement, it's attempted infringement. I believe that is quite dangerous since it does have wide-reaching implications.


By that logic attempted robbery should not be a crime?

BTW attempted infringement is no more than attempted robbery of IP.

[fatty]

What the heck is "attempted" copyright infringement? Is that like if you try to photocopy some chapters from a book but run out of toner? Intending to record a concert but forgetting your tapes in your car?

Seriously. What is it?

[waste gate]

I seem to remeber all kinds of screaming about a software company taking modifications for SH3 from members of this board.

Now that was OK?

[robbo180265]

What the heck is "attempted" copyright infringement? Is that like if you try to photocopy some chapters from a book but run out of toner? Intending to record a concert but forgetting your tapes in your car?

Seriously. What is it?

It's when someone else with more power than you, decides that you're a criminal.;)

[waste gate]

More power to X-1 sell the software. The people on subsim don't really care.
It was made through someone else's hard work and intillectual knowledge but thats OK.

[Platapus]

What the heck is "attempted" copyright infringement? Is that like if you try to photocopy some chapters from a book but run out of toner? Intending to record a concert but forgetting your tapes in your car?

Seriously. What is it?

Copying something is not copyright infringment. Publishing or distributing it IS copyright infringment. So to prove copyright infringment there must be unauthorized copying and the act of distributing. The new law addressing "attempted infringment" is intended to cover evidence of intent to distribute.

Does that clear it up a little?

[CCIP]

More power to X-1 sell the software. The people on subsim don't really care.
It was made through someone else's hard work and intillectual knowledge but thats OK.

Except you're forgetting that the law has not been on the side of the modders. Nor would this be. In fact it's more likely that a more severe copyright law would go after the modders rather than support them, as much of what they do could, in fact, be construed as hacking, distribution of licensed content (as technically all game data is owned by the game company) and thus violation of copyright.

[kiwi_2005]

So if someone brought vista made an image then ripped out all the bloatware put it back together so its a 646mb file and installed vista without the bloatware hence making vista run like its on steriods would this be a copyright issue? Even though they brought Vista, but ripped it.:hmm:

[waste gate]

More power to X-1 sell the software. The people on subsim don't really care.
It was made through someone else's hard work and intillectual knowledge but thats OK.

Except you're forgetting that the law has not been on the side of the modders. Nor would this be. In fact it's more likely that a more severe copyright law would go after the modders rather than support them, as much of what they do could, in fact, be construed as hacking, distribution of licensed content (as technically all game data is owned by the game company) and thus violation of copyright.

Except you are forgetting that the core program hasn't been used for the modifications and in fact many of the mods have been used by UBI to make SH4 better.

[CCIP]

That's a somewhat naive viewpoint; the only mods that don't use Ubisoft's original content are usually graphics mods and other minor detail. Any gameplay mod, which are by the way in the majority for both SHIII and IV, involve modification of and redistribution of Ubi's data.
And if we want to really dig deep, Ubi did not ask permission to use some of my work for SHIV (which I don't mind, but that's a fact).

That said, I totally don't mind. And I totally agree that modders, as 'grey' as their area may be are beneficial to both the community and to Ubisoft.

But you need to be careful what you define as copyright. I again refer you to Professor Lessig. He does an excellent job of showing how the definition of intellectual property in the current law is flawed, and what's worse, fatally flawed in a way that kills creativity and may one day give us a permission-based culture where things like modding are simply impossible.
You can even read his book for free online: http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/

[ASWnut101]

So if someone brought vista made an image then ripped out all the bloatware put it back together so its a 646mb file and installed vista without the bloatware hence making vista run like its on steriods would this be a copyright issue? Even though they brought Vista, but ripped it.:hmm:

Only if they distributed it.

[waste gate]

That's a somewhat naive viewpoint; the only mods that don't use Ubisoft's original content are usually graphics mods and other minor detail. Any gameplay mod, which are by the way in the majority for both SHIII and IV, involve modification of and redistribution of Ubi's data.
And if we want to really dig deep, Ubi did not ask permission to use some of my work for SHIV (which I don't mind, but that's a fact).

That said, I totally don't mind. And I totally agree that modders, as 'grey' as their area may be are beneficial to both the community and to Ubisoft.

But you need to be careful what you define as copyright. I again refer you to Professor Lessig. He does an excellent job of showing how the definition of intellectual property in the current law is flawed, and what's worse, fatally flawed in a way that kills creativity and may one day give us a permission-based culture where things like modding are simply impossible.
You can even read his book for free online: http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/

My question is; why aren't you upset that UBI is using your work for their profit?
Don't you think that your work is worth compensation? Especially as someone else is gaining profit from your work?

Do I need to go back into the archeives and see what you said about X-1?

[CCIP]

Well, to me if I don't lose anything then I am fine. Any work I contributed towards SHIII/IV, to me, is not really worth any money and I can't realistically see myself asking for any for it. I'd rather the community benefit from it than cause headaches for Ubi and make them cease publishing simulations altogether. And I definitely don't see my rights to some ridiculously stupid profit as being more important than having a healthy community and a subsim to play.

I don't do programming for a living, I do other things. If I did everything for a living, my participation in the community would be a gloomy and boring affair. As far as X-1, I've always been a relative moderate on the issue, though I took particular pleasure in helping embarass them. They may have made money, but you're showing a perfect example of how a moral victory over them has been won. For all else - I'm sure their wrongdoing will one day come back to them with interest. You could say I believe in karma.

[waste gate]

Well, to me if I don't lose anything then I am fine. Any work I contributed towards SHIII/IV, to me, is not really worth any money and I can't realistically see myself asking for any for it. I'd rather the community benefit from it than cause headaches for Ubi and make them cease publishing simulations altogether. And I definitely don't see my rights to some ridiculously stupid profit as being more important than having a healthy community and a subsim to play.

I don't do programming for a living, I do other things. If I did everything for a living, my participation in the community would be a gloomy and boring affair. As far as X-1, I've always been a relative moderate on the issue, though I took particular pleasure in helping embarass them. They may have made money, but you're showing a perfect example of how a moral victory over them has been won. For all else - I'm sure their wrongdoing will one day come back to them with interest. You could say I believe in karma.

I understand that you do things for the community CCIP, but that isn't the point. The point is that if others are making a profit from your work you should make a profit, however small, also. That is also the point of all IP laws.

[jumpy]

The way things seem to be going, before too much longer the world we live in will be a very dull shade of grey, with no initiative or invention, ideas or anything 'new' and every time you pass wind you'll have to swipe your cash card/personal tracker for the benefit of some biotechnology company who've licensed farts. [/doomsayer]
:rotfl: