Bill @72
What's a Benefit Thief? Well, I suppose an example would be the nice middle-aged chap who was an occasional handyman for an elderly female relative of mine. He was very helpful and always did a good job, so I once offered to help pay for a bit of work he was doing for EFR. When I started writing a cheque out for EFR to give to him, she explained that no, he always got paid cash-in-hand. Because (and EFR turned out to be quite aware of this) as far as HM Govt were concerned, he was unemployed and too disabled to work and so large payments into his bank account might make things "awkward" for him.
I agreed that they probably would. I also noted, as tactfully as I could, that it was this sort of thing that made it "awkward" for my then-wife to get disability benefit at all, even though she actually was disabled.
As someone who also strongly believes in social benefits, I have big issues with welfare cheats - they're not stealing from 'the system', they're taking money from their fellow citizens.
If anyone takes a camera off you and deletes pictures from it, then it may well be that they're committing an offence under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 - specifically, unauthorised modification under Section 3. I'll have to look and see if there's any case law on this but my understanding is that a digital camera would fall within this legislation.
This came up in another forum, so I put together a little Q&A on some of the issues the media seemed to be getting particularly confused over:
What are they aiming at? The satellite in question is USA 193, a satellite launched a few months ago as a covert project of the National Reconnaissance Office - in other words, a spy satellite. It apparently failed soon after launch, stranding it in a low orbit which atmospheric drag is now pulling lower and lower, to the point that left to itself it will re-enter in about a month's time.
Is the satellite a ten-ton monster? The figure of 'ten tons' seems to be being bandied around rather a lot. This is probably because the phrase 'spy satellite' tends to be associated with the NRO's line of massive high-resolution optical reconnaissance satellites descended from the KH9 'Big Bird' of the early 1970s. These are allegedly around about the size of Hubble, and have been launched by heavyweight boosters such as Titan III and IV, which have the capability to put 12 to 20 tons into orbit.
USA 193, by contrast, was launched by a Delta II, specifically the 7920 variant, a standard medium-weight launcher that can put little more than 3 tons into a polar orbit. Whilst hardly small, USA-193 is a medium-weight satellite no larger than many other science or Earth-resources satellites.
Does it pose a hazard to the ground? To begin with, the likelihood of debris from an uncontrolled re-entry falling in a populated area is low. Something like three-quarters of the area under this satellites orbital path is water, and much of the rest is thinly inhabited. However, equally it encompasses the vast bulk of the Earth's populated land area, so the chances of it landing near a populated region can't be disregarded. But then again, the space shuttle Columbia broke up during re-entry over a densely-populated swathe of Texas, but caused only limited damage and no injury to anyone on the ground.
If it does come down near a built-up area, what is likely to survive? Two sorts of material tend to reach the ground from uncontrolled re-entry: dense, heavy items and, perversely, very light ones. The former reach the ground because they are dense enough to punch through the atmosphere and solid enough to resist melting, whilst the latter have little enough kinetic energy in comparison with their surface area that they are slowed down without overheating and fall relatively slowly to ground. As it happens, empty fuel tanks are such an item, and quite a few have survived satellite re-entry in the past.
So, is this the satellite's fuel tank a hazard? The justification for the proposed shootdown is indeed that USA 193 has a fuel tank on board; the concern is not so much that the tank itself might reach the ground intact, but that it might spill its load of hydrazine fuel when doing so. Now, I've known people in the space business who've worked with hydrazine, and they will tell you that it is indeed a spectacularly nasty substance: toxic, inflammable, carcinogenic and smelly to boot. I was sceptical at first that there was any chance of the tank reaching the ground with any hydrazine aboard, as it would certainly rupture during re-entry. However, the suggestion from the US is that the hydrazine has frozen, in which case I can see that it might not all leak from even if the tank loses containment. That it would freeze is quite possible if USA 193 has indeed been out of control for several months. Satellite thermal control is a difficult problem and without careful measures such as carefully maintaining the angle at which the it faces the Sun and using active heating or cooling systems, satellites usually overheat or get far too cold.
But does this justify a shootdown? Frankly, I'm sceptical. Plenty of other satellites have failed in low orbit with a full fuel load and have burned up without too much of a problem. My suspicion, like that of many others, is that this is a convenient excuse for the US Dept of Defense to demonstrate, following the Chinese anti-satellite test last year, that it too is capable of intercepting space vehicles. The other suggestion, that the plan is to deny the prospect of sensitive components from reaching the ground intact, is possible but I suspect less likely.
Can you actually shoot a satellite down? Not as such. At present, USA 193 is in a very low (and getting lower through atmospheric drag) circular orbit. The weapon that would be used to attack it - an updated version of the US Navy's long-serving Standard surface-to-air missile - does not have a warhead as such, but rather has a guided final stage that flies into the target at a closing speed of around 10 km/s. At that speed, the kinetic energy of the collision is equivalent to the interceptor's own weight in explosive, so the interceptor and much of the satellite would be vaporised in a powerful explosion. The surviving fragments of the satellite would end up in new orbits all of which passed through the point of interception but which were perturbed to some extent from the original circular orbit. Now, given how close the original orbit is to the atmosphere, it's easy to see that any significant deviation from it is likely to be an orbit that dips into the atmosphere at some point. In other words, most of the debris is likely to end up in orbits that will hit the atmosphere within a single pass around the Earth, although a fraction of the remains - those parts that were flung directly forward from the impact - will end up in elliptical orbits with a low point at the original orbit height but a new, higher apogee (high point). Even so, these will burn up within a few months at most as their perigee (low point) will be low enough for atmospheric drag to pose a significant effect.
Is there a risk to other satellites? A small one. As noted above, some debris is likely to be flung into short-lived orbits above the original one, and there is a chance that these might cross the paths of operational satellites. However, the risk is small; bear in mind that the single biggest target in low orbit is the Space Station, and the DoD and NASA will have had to assess the risk to it as minimal to be proceeding with this plan. The Chinese test, which was carried out against a satellite in much higher orbit, probably produced much more in the way of potentially hazardous space debris than this shootdown would.
Will it work? The US anti-missile system has had a very chequered record in tests, but to be fair shooting at a minibus-sized satellite in a known orbit is likely to be much easier than aiming at an oil-drum-sized warhead launched only a few minutes previously. If the Americans are planning this as a bit of sabre-rattling, then I'd assume that they are fairly confident that it's going to work.
green_knight @ 804
To be brutally frank, I don't think a court would accept Google as a full and adequate search. By Lanaia's own admission, she had warning some two years ago that the person ghost-writing her book had a serious reputation for dishonesty, which should have put her on notice that she should ensure that the work he was writing was not itself dishonestly produced.
I agree, doing this would not be easy; about the best way I could think of would be approaching a credible sf/fantasy reviewer and asking in confidence for a quick read of some sample material. That would at least have shown some level of due diligence, even if it hadn't picked up the plagiarism.
This probably sounds very harsh. But the law does take a harsh view of this sort of thing, because if it doesn't it is so easy for the dishonest to plead ignorance as an excuse. If you know you've got a bent ghostwriter, you shouldn't be surprised if people are sceptical when you claim that you didn't know he was committing plagiarism.
It looks as if the paraphrased substitute has gone too; maybe somebody read my comment @692 after all. (More likely, a lawyer explained the issue in person, with dire warnings of the consequences.)
Well, the sorry story continues. I'm not addressing this to Lanaia, because it's become painfully clear that she either doesn't want to listen to advice, or is too arrogant or stupid to follow it. (Threatening to sue people who have pointed out that you have committed a legal wrong is rarely a good sign, for starters.) So this is in the context of discussing copyright in general.
At this point I should note that my general legal training is in English law and my intellectual property knowledge mainly relates to English, UK and European jurisdictions. But many of the principles of US copyright law are the same (particularly since the USA joined the Berne Convention in 1989) and what I'm about to discuss applies fairly universally. For that matter, the English courts would probably agree to hear a suit in this matter, as Gemmell was an English author and his copyright is in part held by an English publisher. That the infringement took place in the USA is significant but not a barrier to pursuing a case.
By hosting a copy of David Gemmell's work on her website, Lanaia is infringing the copyright held by his estate and his publishers. Having been given notice of this infringement, she has continued to display it; this will not indicate goodwill in the eyes of the Court.
Had she genuinely had no idea that it was a pirated work, and taken it down immediately, she would probably have had a defence against a claim of infringement. (It's rather like the inadvertent trespasser who immediately leaves your land when asked). But she has admitted - and indeed has posted this admission on her page, as well as here - that she had notice of her ghost-writer's dishonesty, as well as ample opportunity to find out if the work he was producing was pirated. (She didn't think to look? Sorry, welcome to the legal concept of 'constructive notice' - you could easily have found out, so the court assumes you did and takes it from there.)
Lanaia has now posted an amended prologue that appears to be a close paraphrase of Gemmell's work instead of a simple copy with the names (mostly) changed. She evidently believes that this is not an infringement. Sorry, it is. There is ample case law on both sides of the Atlantic that a summary or paraphrase infringes copyright in the original, particularly if it is presented as being an original work in its own right. It also infringes on Gemmell's moral rights in his work - it is a mutilation of his creation and thus counts as 'derogatory treatment'. The US traditionally paid rather less attention to moral rights than English or (especially) European jurisdictions, but following accession to the Berne convention they now have more impact.
In short, Lanaia is just going to have to take down and throw away anything copied from or based on Gemmell's works, and start over with something original. I concede that this is probably a very scary concept for her, but there you go.
Lanaia @ 521
I can scarcely believe my eyes.
If I was your lawyer, I would be pleading with you to STOP POSTING ABOUT THIS. Everything you are saying is making it worse for you.
You admit that you had heard about Hill's reputation, but you carried on dealing with him. Do you have any idea how damaging this admission is to you if you get sued? You have admitted in a public forum that you had notice of his dishonesty, and that you had details of the text being produced. Your claim that you were a completely innocent dupe of Hill's is going to get very difficult to support in court.
How can I make this clear? You are heading into the kind of legal trouble that DESTROYS PEOPLE'S LIVES. And everything you are saying here is making it worse for you.
For your own sake, stop posting about this and let your lawyers deal with it.
Ian,
The thing is, Lainaia has really not helped herself - and her 'agent' has made things much worse for her by some of the very arrogant and silly things she has said.
When someone starts out by lying, then admits they were lying but still does not fix the problem (as of now, 10.30 pm Sunday, Lanaia has still not taken down the ripped-off story from her web page), are you surprised that people give her a hard time?
As for the whole spelling and punctuation issue, for one reason or another this is an area that a lot of people on this board are very hot on. In fact, I think it's fair to say that many people here will take poor spelling and/or punctuation as someone actively disrespecting them - it's like saying "I don't care enough about you to make what I'm saying clear or easy to read, so screw you." You might think this is strange or rude, but that is really how many people feel. In fact, they probably think that you are the one who is being rude.
What I'd like to ask before discussing this further is:
Do you have a problem with typing that makes it difficult or awkward to spell or punctuate?
Or do you feel that spelling and punctuation are not that important?
If the first, then it is unreasonable for people to get upset about it. If though the second is true, then at the very least a lot of people here are going to disagree with you, some very forcefully.
Yours,
Simon Bradshaw, Edinburgh
Ian,
I'm also British, and for many years I had a wheelchair-bound wife. I too get very cross with prejudice against the disabled, or even the thoughtlessness with which they're often treated. (For one thing, just because someone is in a wheelchair, it does not mean that they are numb from the chest down. Sometimes, quite the opposite.)
But - and this is a big but - it also really upsets me when people try to use disability as an excuse for laziness or dishonesty, because this is what often encourages the sort of attitudes you complain about. The problem that a lot of people around here have with Lanaia is that she seems to be saying "I'm disabled, so I shouldn't be held to normal standards of behavior." That's not just rubbish, it's extremely insulting to disabled people everywhere.
This is, if Gemmell fans will excuse the pun, fast becoming the stuff of legend. It calls for a short, snappy name for when we regale youngsters with tales of it in the years to come.
I propose "GemmellGate".
Cheryl @292:
I may be a little slow on the uptake here, but could you remind me again exactly how "...dear Jane will have nightmares in 10 fold. Yes, I'm Wicca." might not be construed as a threat?
If I knew who Mr. Gemmell was
I think it best to explain this in short, simple words. David Gemmell was a very famous and successful fantasy and historical author. His books were, and still are, published by Transworld and Del Ray, both part of Random House, an extremely big publisher. Big publishers often get very upset when other people copy and reproduce books that they have paid for the right to publish.
If I could apologize to them directly I would
Well, Random House's address is on its website. However, its lawyers may well be contacting you anyway to discuss an apology, although they might expect you to go a little further than just saying that you are sorry.
If you are not seeking advice from a lawyer who specialises in intellectual property law, it would be a very, very good idea for you to do so right now.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2008 | 4 |
| 2007 | 8 |
Total: 12 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Simon Bradshaw:
Show all comments by Simon Bradshaw.