From http://www.jsonline.com/bym/news/dec05/375571.asp
================================================== ============
Bill in Congress takes aim at 'hull splashing' in boat industry
By RICK BARRETT
Posted: Dec. 5, 2005
It's called "hull splashing" when a boat builder makes an unauthorized copy
of a hull design and calls it his own.

With a little luck, Wisconsin marine manufacturers say, proposed changes to
a federal law would end the practice that's bothered them for decades.

Senate Bill 1785 is meant to strengthen the Vessel Hull Design Protection
Act passed by Congress seven years ago but lacking in some important areas,
according to the National Marine Manufacturers Association, a Chicago-based
trade group.

The legislation is co-sponsored by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.). Under it, hull
splashers could no longer copy a design, make a couple of cosmetic changes
and call the design their original work.

"It's surprisingly easy" to copy a finished boat hull, she said. Copiers
use the completed hull to create a mold and special tooling. The mold is
then used to produce multiple hulls of the same design.



Companies such as Genmar Holdings Inc., which makes Carver yachts in
Pulaski, have been dogged by hull splashing, said Irwin Jacobs, company
chairman.

Genmar is one of the world's largest builders of recreational boats. Every
year, the company fires off "cease and desist" letters to manufacturers that
are copying its hull designs.

"They generally pull back and stop, once they know we are aware of it,"
Jacobs said. "But we have also taken some people to the mat over this,"
including suing them for copyright infringement.

The federal law protecting hull designs isn't strong enough and is
cumbersome for manufacturers to use, said David Marlow, a director of
product integrity with Brunswick Corp., a Lake Forest, Ill., conglomerate
that makes Sea Ray, Boston Whaler, Crestliner and other popular boat brands.

"It's hard to say how many of our hull designs have been splashed in the
past," Marlow said. "But we have seen examples of it, and I suspect it's a
fairly widespread practice" that chases the top-selling designs.

Brunswick, which also owns outboard engine maker Mercury Marine Inc., of
Fond du Lac, spent about $25 million in research and development of boating
products in 2004.

==============================

*JimH* wrote:
From http://www.jsonline.com/bym/news/dec05/375571.asp
================================================== ============
Bill in Congress takes aim at 'hull splashing' in boat industry
By RICK BARRETT
Posted: Dec. 5, 2005
It's called "hull splashing" when a boat builder makes an unauthorized copy
of a hull design and calls it his own.

With a little luck, Wisconsin marine manufacturers say, proposed changes to
a federal law would end the practice that's bothered them for decades.

Senate Bill 1785 is meant to strengthen the Vessel Hull Design Protection
Act passed by Congress seven years ago but lacking in some important areas,
according to the National Marine Manufacturers Association, a Chicago-based
trade group.

The legislation is co-sponsored by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.). Under it, hull
splashers could no longer copy a design, make a couple of cosmetic changes
and call the design their original work.

"It's surprisingly easy" to copy a finished boat hull, she said. Copiers
use the completed hull to create a mold and special tooling. The mold is
then used to produce multiple hulls of the same design.



Companies such as Genmar Holdings Inc., which makes Carver yachts in
Pulaski, have been dogged by hull splashing, said Irwin Jacobs, company
chairman.

Genmar is one of the world's largest builders of recreational boats. Every
year, the company fires off "cease and desist" letters to manufacturers that
are copying its hull designs.

"They generally pull back and stop, once they know we are aware of it,"
Jacobs said. "But we have also taken some people to the mat over this,"
including suing them for copyright infringement.

The federal law protecting hull designs isn't strong enough and is
cumbersome for manufacturers to use, said David Marlow, a director of
product integrity with Brunswick Corp., a Lake Forest, Ill., conglomerate
that makes Sea Ray, Boston Whaler, Crestliner and other popular boat brands.

"It's hard to say how many of our hull designs have been splashed in the
past," Marlow said. "But we have seen examples of it, and I suspect it's a
fairly widespread practice" that chases the top-selling designs.

Brunswick, which also owns outboard engine maker Mercury Marine Inc., of
Fond du Lac, spent about $25 million in research and development of boating
products in 2004.

==============================

Did you ask for permission from the author to post this? According to
one of your circle jerk buddies, Smithers, you must obtain direct
permission from the author. Or is that just another of the examples of
you and your circle jerk club don't have to, but the ones you don't
agree with must?? Pretty childish, wouldn't you say?

Kevin,
It is not position that you need to obtain permission to republish
copyrighted material, it is the law.


wrote in message
ups.com...

*JimH* wrote:
From http://www.jsonline.com/bym/news/dec05/375571.asp
================================================== ============
Bill in Congress takes aim at 'hull splashing' in boat industry
By RICK BARRETT
Posted: Dec. 5, 2005
It's called "hull splashing" when a boat builder makes an unauthorized
copy
of a hull design and calls it his own.

With a little luck, Wisconsin marine manufacturers say, proposed changes
to
a federal law would end the practice that's bothered them for decades.

Senate Bill 1785 is meant to strengthen the Vessel Hull Design Protection
Act passed by Congress seven years ago but lacking in some important
areas,
according to the National Marine Manufacturers Association, a
Chicago-based
trade group.

The legislation is co-sponsored by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.). Under it,
hull
splashers could no longer copy a design, make a couple of cosmetic
changes
and call the design their original work.

"It's surprisingly easy" to copy a finished boat hull, she said. Copiers
use the completed hull to create a mold and special tooling. The mold is
then used to produce multiple hulls of the same design.



Companies such as Genmar Holdings Inc., which makes Carver yachts in
Pulaski, have been dogged by hull splashing, said Irwin Jacobs, company
chairman.

Genmar is one of the world's largest builders of recreational boats.
Every
year, the company fires off "cease and desist" letters to manufacturers
that
are copying its hull designs.

"They generally pull back and stop, once they know we are aware of it,"
Jacobs said. "But we have also taken some people to the mat over this,"
including suing them for copyright infringement.

The federal law protecting hull designs isn't strong enough and is
cumbersome for manufacturers to use, said David Marlow, a director of
product integrity with Brunswick Corp., a Lake Forest, Ill., conglomerate
that makes Sea Ray, Boston Whaler, Crestliner and other popular boat
brands.

"It's hard to say how many of our hull designs have been splashed in the
past," Marlow said. "But we have seen examples of it, and I suspect it's
a
fairly widespread practice" that chases the top-selling designs.

Brunswick, which also owns outboard engine maker Mercury Marine Inc., of
Fond du Lac, spent about $25 million in research and development of
boating
products in 2004.

==============================

Did you ask for permission from the author to post this? According to
one of your circle jerk buddies, Smithers, you must obtain direct
permission from the author. Or is that just another of the examples of
you and your circle jerk club don't have to, but the ones you don't
agree with must?? Pretty childish, wouldn't you say?

"Lord Reginald Smithers" Ask me about my driveway leading up to my manor.
wrote in message ...
Kevin,
It is not "MY" position that you need to obtain permission to republish
copyrighted material, it is the law.


wrote in message
ups.com...

*JimH* wrote:
From http://www.jsonline.com/bym/news/dec05/375571.asp
================================================== ============
Bill in Congress takes aim at 'hull splashing' in boat industry
By RICK BARRETT
Posted: Dec. 5, 2005
It's called "hull splashing" when a boat builder makes an unauthorized
copy
of a hull design and calls it his own.

With a little luck, Wisconsin marine manufacturers say, proposed changes
to
a federal law would end the practice that's bothered them for decades.

Senate Bill 1785 is meant to strengthen the Vessel Hull Design
Protection
Act passed by Congress seven years ago but lacking in some important
areas,
according to the National Marine Manufacturers Association, a
Chicago-based
trade group.

The legislation is co-sponsored by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.). Under it,
hull
splashers could no longer copy a design, make a couple of cosmetic
changes
and call the design their original work.

"It's surprisingly easy" to copy a finished boat hull, she said.
Copiers
use the completed hull to create a mold and special tooling. The mold is
then used to produce multiple hulls of the same design.



Companies such as Genmar Holdings Inc., which makes Carver yachts in
Pulaski, have been dogged by hull splashing, said Irwin Jacobs, company
chairman.

Genmar is one of the world's largest builders of recreational boats.
Every
year, the company fires off "cease and desist" letters to manufacturers
that
are copying its hull designs.

"They generally pull back and stop, once they know we are aware of it,"
Jacobs said. "But we have also taken some people to the mat over this,"
including suing them for copyright infringement.

The federal law protecting hull designs isn't strong enough and is
cumbersome for manufacturers to use, said David Marlow, a director of
product integrity with Brunswick Corp., a Lake Forest, Ill.,
conglomerate
that makes Sea Ray, Boston Whaler, Crestliner and other popular boat
brands.

"It's hard to say how many of our hull designs have been splashed in the
past," Marlow said. "But we have seen examples of it, and I suspect it's
a
fairly widespread practice" that chases the top-selling designs.

Brunswick, which also owns outboard engine maker Mercury Marine Inc., of
Fond du Lac, spent about $25 million in research and development of
boating
products in 2004.

==============================

Did you ask for permission from the author to post this? According to
one of your circle jerk buddies, Smithers, you must obtain direct
permission from the author. Or is that just another of the examples of
you and your circle jerk club don't have to, but the ones you don't
agree with must?? Pretty childish, wouldn't you say?

Lord Reginald Smithers wrote:
Kevin,
It is not position that you need to obtain permission to republish
copyrighted material, it is the law.


1) There would be some doubt that putting an item on rec.boats
constitutes "publishing" anymore so than clipping an item from the
newspaper and posting it on the bulletin board in the company lunchroom
or handing out copies at a yacht club meeting. It's a lot like driving
71mph in a 70 mph zone. You might be in technical violation of the law,
but you aren't breaking the spirit of the law or violating the intent
of the law (to control the speed of traffic).

2) If the article is not altered but posted in it's entirety and if the
author is acknowledged, there has been no particular damage.

3) Copyright cases are often settled based with a fine based upon the
amount of money the "infringer" received by infringing the copyright.
Makes sense, of course, because if there was a set fine of say $100,000
people would routinely violate copyrights where they could make
considerably more than the amount of the fine by doing so and they
would simply consider the fine one of the "costs" of doing business.
Also makes sense because in cases like this, where the dubious
"violation" of a copyright produces absolutely *zero* economic benefit,
is restricted to a very small group, and was not intended for
commerical purposes there won't be a cottage industry consisting of a
bunch of hungry attorney's haunting newsgroups to find people to sue.


To be absolutely within the law, the proper approach would be to
provide a link to the article, and it is perfectly acceptable to lead
with some personal commentary or summarization.

Example:

In an article at the following site, a renown aeronautical engineer has
published a study of
airborne mammals. www.whenpigsfly.com

-or-


Check out www.whenpigsfly.com

I think the author is full of crap, and here's why............


-or-


In an article at www.whenpigsfly.com the author theorizes that pigs
once had wings, but that millenia of domestication have caused the
appendages to devolve.

*JimH* wrote:
From http://www.jsonline.com/bym/news/dec05/375571.asp
================================================== ============
Bill in Congress takes aim at 'hull splashing' in boat industry
By RICK BARRETT
Posted: Dec. 5, 2005
It's called "hull splashing" when a boat builder makes an unauthorized copy
of a hull design and calls it his own.

With a little luck, Wisconsin marine manufacturers say, proposed changes to
a federal law would end the practice that's bothered them for decades.

Senate Bill 1785 is meant to strengthen the Vessel Hull Design Protection
Act passed by Congress seven years ago but lacking in some important areas,
according to the National Marine Manufacturers Association, a Chicago-based
trade group.

The legislation is co-sponsored by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.). Under it, hull
splashers could no longer copy a design, make a couple of cosmetic changes
and call the design their original work.

"It's surprisingly easy" to copy a finished boat hull, she said. Copiers
use the completed hull to create a mold and special tooling. The mold is
then used to produce multiple hulls of the same design.



Companies such as Genmar Holdings Inc., which makes Carver yachts in
Pulaski, have been dogged by hull splashing, said Irwin Jacobs, company
chairman.

Genmar is one of the world's largest builders of recreational boats. Every
year, the company fires off "cease and desist" letters to manufacturers that
are copying its hull designs.

"They generally pull back and stop, once they know we are aware of it,"
Jacobs said. "But we have also taken some people to the mat over this,"
including suing them for copyright infringement.

The federal law protecting hull designs isn't strong enough and is
cumbersome for manufacturers to use, said David Marlow, a director of
product integrity with Brunswick Corp., a Lake Forest, Ill., conglomerate
that makes Sea Ray, Boston Whaler, Crestliner and other popular boat brands.

"It's hard to say how many of our hull designs have been splashed in the
past," Marlow said. "But we have seen examples of it, and I suspect it's a
fairly widespread practice" that chases the top-selling designs.

Brunswick, which also owns outboard engine maker Mercury Marine Inc., of
Fond du Lac, spent about $25 million in research and development of boating
products in 2004.

==============================


The laws concerning hull design copyright are probably weak for a good
reason.

Can you imagine somebody claiming, "My competitor built a boat that was
pointy in the bow and blunt at the stern! Obviously that's a direct
copy of my design, which is also also
pointy on one end and blunt on the other."

I wouldn't defend hull splashing, put there are probably hundreds of
cases where one boat manufacturer develops a design that is "inspired"
by, (rather than physically molded from), a competitor's boat, and
moving too agressively into that arena begins to tread in the "pointy
on one end, blunt on the other" copyright claims.

Chuck,

Cut and pasting an article in a NG is considered "publishing".

The truth is most news agencies would not prosecute the case because it is
not worth their effort and they are concerned about bad press if they did.

Your suggestions as to effectively get around this technicalities is the way
the publisher wants you to handle it.

I just think it is funny that Harry who likes to talk about the need to
honor intellectual property, is one of the biggest violators of stealing
intellectual property. The news agency paid the author money to write the
article because they want you and I to visit their site and click on a ad.
When the article is cut and pasted, they lose the potential to get paid for
their ad click. The news agency is hurt when an article is cut and pasted
instead of a providing a link. This is not the same as going 71 in a 70 mph
zone.

If I downloaded pirated music instead of buying the music and paying the
musician and distributor for his music, I stand a very slim chance of
getting caught. It does not make it legal, just because I think I will not
get caught.

Copyright cases are often settled based upon the profit made by the
"infringer" or the damages to the owner of copyrighted material. When the
RIAA sued people using P2P network, the infringer was not profiting in any
manner, but the RIAA sued for $100,000's of dollars and settled out of court
for $1000's of dollars.

Do I think my post will make a difference, probably not. I just think it is
funny that a "professional writer" would find it easier to "cut and paste"
an article, than to provide a link.



wrote in message
oups.com...

Lord Reginald Smithers wrote:
Kevin,
It is not position that you need to obtain permission to republish
copyrighted material, it is the law.


1) There would be some doubt that putting an item on rec.boats
constitutes "publishing" anymore so than clipping an item from the
newspaper and posting it on the bulletin board in the company lunchroom
or handing out copies at a yacht club meeting. It's a lot like driving
71mph in a 70 mph zone. You might be in technical violation of the law,
but you aren't breaking the spirit of the law or violating the intent
of the law (to control the speed of traffic).

2) If the article is not altered but posted in it's entirety and if the
author is acknowledged, there has been no particular damage.

3) Copyright cases are often settled based with a fine based upon the
amount of money the "infringer" received by infringing the copyright.
Makes sense, of course, because if there was a set fine of say $100,000
people would routinely violate copyrights where they could make
considerably more than the amount of the fine by doing so and they
would simply consider the fine one of the "costs" of doing business.
Also makes sense because in cases like this, where the dubious
"violation" of a copyright produces absolutely *zero* economic benefit,
is restricted to a very small group, and was not intended for
commerical purposes there won't be a cottage industry consisting of a
bunch of hungry attorney's haunting newsgroups to find people to sue.


To be absolutely within the law, the proper approach would be to
provide a link to the article, and it is perfectly acceptable to lead
with some personal commentary or summarization.

Example:

In an article at the following site, a renown aeronautical engineer has
published a study of
airborne mammals. www.whenpigsfly.com

-or-


Check out www.whenpigsfly.com

I think the author is full of crap, and here's why............


-or-


In an article at www.whenpigsfly.com the author theorizes that pigs
once had wings, but that millenia of domestication have caused the
appendages to devolve.

*Jim* wrote:
From http://www.jsonline.com/bym/news/dec05/375571.asp
================================================== ============
Bill in Congress takes aim at 'hull splashing' in boat industry
By RICK BARRETT
Posted: Dec. 5, 2005
It's called "hull splashing" when a boat builder makes an unauthorized copy
of a hull design and calls it his own.

With a little luck, Wisconsin marine manufacturers say, proposed changes to
a federal law would end the practice that's bothered them for decades.

Senate Bill 1785 is meant to strengthen the Vessel Hull Design Protection
Act passed by Congress seven years ago but lacking in some important areas,
according to the National Marine Manufacturers Association, a Chicago-based
trade group.

The legislation is co-sponsored by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.). Under it, hull
splashers could no longer copy a design, make a couple of cosmetic changes
and call the design their original work.

"It's surprisingly easy" to copy a finished boat hull, she said. Copiers
use the completed hull to create a mold and special tooling. The mold is
then used to produce multiple hulls of the same design.



Companies such as Genmar Holdings Inc., which makes Carver yachts in
Pulaski, have been dogged by hull splashing, said Irwin Jacobs, company
chairman.

Genmar is one of the world's largest builders of recreational boats. Every
year, the company fires off "cease and desist" letters to manufacturers that
are copying its hull designs.

"They generally pull back and stop, once they know we are aware of it,"
Jacobs said. "But we have also taken some people to the mat over this,"
including suing them for copyright infringement.

The federal law protecting hull designs isn't strong enough and is
cumbersome for manufacturers to use, said David Marlow, a director of
product integrity with Brunswick Corp., a Lake Forest, Ill., conglomerate
that makes Sea Ray, Boston Whaler, Crestliner and other popular boat brands.

"It's hard to say how many of our hull designs have been splashed in the
past," Marlow said. "But we have seen examples of it, and I suspect it's a
fairly widespread practice" that chases the top-selling designs.

Brunswick, which also owns outboard engine maker Mercury Marine Inc., of
Fond du Lac, spent about $25 million in research and development of boating
products in 2004.

==============================



Jim,

Don't you have design registration there??? Most places including the US
have design registration. You can register "your" design of most
anything & if someone produces another even if not exactly identical
then the design holder can take action not unlike the way a patent
holder might. It's definitely not a patent & not as strong as a patent
but most Cos register their own designs & that's usually enough to stop
the floppers.

Of course if a boat hull is already a knockoff:-) then they would be
wasting their time registering because prior art is a perfect defense to
any infringement action.

This sounds like the complainers don't have a unique new design at all
but just object to competitors cherry picking the commercially
successful shapes, but hey that's how it works. If they have a special
design they can now & as far as I'm aware always have been able to
"protect" it with a design registration from the USPTO.


K