Bungie.net Community
This topic has moved here: Subject: Bungie and Copyright Infringement
  • Subject: Bungie and Copyright Infringement
Subject: Bungie and Copyright Infringement
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Hi, I have a few questions relating to a specific case of copyright infringement, and I would like to know where Bungie stands on it. Will a warning be issued? In the case of infringement, what is the established procedure? Who should I report it to--Archronos or one of the mods? Thank you for your help.

  • 06.04.2006 4:53 PM PDT

Official Town Drunk of Sandwichia. Nation of the Flood.
MBT - Impossible Just Happened
* How is it that "Fat Chance" and "Slim Chance" mean the same thing?
* If you choke a Smurf, what color will it turn?

XBOX User Space profile

Copyright infringement as in Someone made a movie without putting bungie in the Creds or asking bungie or what?

And I'm going with the fact that there owned by micro$oft. which pretty much answers any legal question.

[Edited on 6/4/2006]

  • 06.04.2006 4:55 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Well the Terms of Use gives me this much:

NOTICES AND PROCEDURE FOR MAKING CLAIMS OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

Pursuant to Title 17, United States Code, Section 512(c)(2), notifications of claimed copyright infringement should be sent to Service Provider's Designated Agent. ALL INQUIRIES NOT RELEVANT TO THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURE WILL RECEIVE NO RESPONSE. See Notice and Procedure for Making Claims of Copyright Infringement.

Unfortunately, it ends there and I was hoping for a bit more guidence. Hence I came here.

[Edited on 6/4/2006]

  • 06.04.2006 4:56 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Bungie has stated that they would criminally prosecute anybody who uses Bungie intellectual property without expressed written consent of Bungie and Microsoft.

  • 06.04.2006 4:59 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I mean a violation of copyright law on Bungie.net. Not the usage of Bungie content, rather the illegal usage of 3rd party content on Bungie.net.

  • 06.04.2006 5:13 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

That must be settled with the owned or the third-party content, and Achronos should also be notified. In general, acquire permission from the owner of the intellectual property before posting it here, and make sure you follow all forum and ToU rules.

  • 06.04.2006 5:23 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • still hates toast

Message one of the mods, preferably a master mod because those can permanently ban.

  • 06.04.2006 5:55 PM PDT

only because i have some experience with copyright infringment (no, i haven't broken the law in that way...yet), i don't know how you would do this and not be noticed on the website. The person who is doing this would have to be selling something that is bungie property without their permission, and there are tons, and then more tons of rules about this.

So seriously, if you know for sure that something is amiss, then let a mod know. But if you're not sure, then chances are its not. Most people don't go and copyright material like its nothing, especially when its from a big company with corperate lawyers. As in hopefully MS is backing bungie in such matters.

  • 06.04.2006 6:04 PM PDT

[MjolnirTactics][Midsphere]
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▀▄▀▄ Strategy, Competition, & Achievements for Halo & Beyond ▄▀▄▀
████▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒░░░░ Mjolnir Battle Tactics ░░░░▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓████

Copyright is the right to exclude, not to publish.
Copyright does not give its owners the right to sell or distribute, for example, libelous email messages. Also, of course, works that are obscene or invade another's rights of privacy or publicity are not publishable just because they happen to be covered by copyright.

Basic limits to copyright.
Although email messages and web pages may enjoy copyright protection, rights are subject to several fundamental limits. For example, only expression is protected, not facts or ideas. Also, later works that merely happen to be very similar (or even identical) to earlier works do not infringe if they were, in fact, independently created. Sources of general information on those topics are listed below.

Fair use.
Fair use is one of the most important, and least clear cut, limits to copyright. It permits some use of others' works even without approval. But when? Words like "fair" or "reasonable" cannot be precisely defined, but here are a few benchmarks.

Uses that advance public interests such as criticism, education or scholarship are favored -- particularly if little of another's work is copied. Uses that generate income or interfere with a copyright owner's income are not. Fairness also means crediting original artists or authors. (A teacher who copied, without credit, much of another's course materials was found to infringe.)

Commercial uses of another's work are also disfavored. For example, anyone who uses, without explicit permission, others' work to suggest that they endorse some commercial product is asking for trouble! Yet, not all commercial uses are forbidden. Most magazines and newspapers are operated for profit; that they are not automatically precluded from fair use has been made clear by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Licenses implied in fact.
Fair use allows limited uses of another's work without approval, but other uses may be approved by implication. For example, when a message is posted to a public email list, both forwarding and archiving seem to be impliedly allowed. It is reasonable to assume that such liberties are okay if not explicitly forbidden. However, when forwarding, archiving or, say, using part of a prior message to respond to an earlier message, be careful not to change the original meaning. No one impliedly authorizes another to attribute to them an embarrassing (or worse) message they did not write!

One web site confidently asserts that all list owners must approve before email can be forwarded. Yet, absent rules governing particular lists, I am aware of no legal basis for it. Why would the power of approval be implicitly given to list owners? Beyond that, few who post to public lists would object if their messages are forwarded to others apt to be interested.

In the same vein, it seems that few authors would object to having messages archived. That serves the interests of list members who may want to revisit topics addressed earlier. Indeed, most would prefer archives to seeing old topics rehashed -- why one often sees lists of frequently asked questions (FAQs), with answers.

Can people revoke implied permission once granted? Circumstances allowing that seem rare. Courts are, at best, reluctant to allow someone to impose a difficult burden on others. Email authors should be careful. Inadvertent messages could be removed from archives, but list owners -- particularly if they are not paid to maintain the list -- may have other things to do than correct members' mistakes. Worse, it may well be impossible to recall inadvertent postings after distribution.

Registration.
Although web pages and email messages are protected as soon as created, copyright registration is needed before U.S. owners can bring suit. Also, prompt registration provides remedies that make lawsuits affordable. Statutory damages of $150,000 (or more, and attorney fees) for willful infringement can be obtained if published works are registered within three months, or unpublished works are registered before they are infringed.

[Source]

  • 06.04.2006 6:56 PM PDT