GAMEGEDDON

Review: SOPA

Posted on January 21, 2012 by Wolfy

Developer: Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX)
Publisher: United States Congress
Release: 2012
Platform: The Internet
Genre: Anti-Piracy Legislation
Classification: CTC

Review: Wolfy

Okay here it is the bill in it’s entirety and original language for everyone to draw their own conclusions from…

112th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 3261

To promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the theft of U.S. property, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

October 26, 2011

Mr. Smith of Texas (for himself and Mr. Conyers, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Berman, Mr. Griffin of Arkansas, Mr. Gallegly, Mr. Deutch, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Ross of Florida, Mrs. Blackburn, Mrs. Bono Mack, Mr. Terry, and Mr. Schiff) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the theft of U.S. property, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. Short title; table of contents.

(a) Short title.—This Act may be cited as the “Stop Online Piracy Act”.

(b) Table of contents.—The table of contents of this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Savings and severability clauses.

TITLE I—COMBATING ONLINE PIRACY

Sec. 101. Definitions.
Sec. 102. Action by Attorney General to protect U.S. customers and prevent U.S. support of foreign infringing sites.
Sec. 103. Market-based system to protect U.S. customers and prevent U.S. funding of sites dedicated to theft of U.S. property.
Sec. 104. Immunity for taking voluntary action against sites dedicated to theft of U.S. property.
Sec. 105. Immunity for taking voluntary action against sites that endanger public health.
Sec. 106. Guidelines and study.
Sec. 107. Denying U.S. capital to notorious foreign infringers.

TITLE II—ADDITIONAL ENHANCEMENTS TO COMBAT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY THEFT

Sec. 201. Streaming of copyrighted works in violation of criminal law.
Sec. 202. Trafficking in inherently dangerous goods or services.
Sec. 203. Protecting U.S. businesses from foreign and economic espionage.
Sec. 204. Amendments to sentencing guidelines.
Sec. 205. Defending intellectual property rights abroad.

SEC. 2. Savings and severability clauses.

(a) Savings clauses.—

(1) FIRST AMENDMENT.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to impose a prior restraint on free speech or the press protected under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

(2) TITLE 17 LIABILITY.—Nothing in title I shall be construed to enlarge or diminish liability, including vicarious or contributory liability, for any cause of action available under title 17, United States Code, including any limitations on liability under such title.

(b) Severability.—If any provision of this Act, or the application of the provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the other provisions or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

TITLE I—Combating Online Piracy

SEC. 101. Definitions.

In this title:

(1) DOMAIN NAME.—The term “domain name” has the meaning given that term in section 45 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. 1127) and includes any subdomain designation using such domain name as part of an electronic address on the Internet to identify a unique online location.

(2) DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM SERVER.—The term “domain name system server” means a server or other mechanism used to provide the Internet protocol address associated with a domain name.

(3) DOMESTIC DOMAIN NAME.—The term “domestic domain name” means a domain name that is registered or assigned by a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority, that is located within a judicial district of the United States.

(4) DOMESTIC INTERNET PROTOCOL ADDRESS.—The term “domestic Internet Protocol address” means an Internet Protocol address for which the corresponding Internet Protocol allocation entity is located within a judicial district of the United States.

(5) DOMESTIC INTERNET SITE.—The term “domestic Internet site” means an Internet site for which the corresponding domain name or, if there is no domain name, the corresponding Internet Protocol address, is a domestic domain name or domestic Internet Protocol address.

(6) FOREIGN DOMAIN NAME.—The term “foreign domain name” means a domain name that is not a domestic domain name.

(7) FOREIGN INTERNET PROTOCOL ADDRESS.—The term “foreign Internet Protocol address” means an Internet Protocol address that is not a domestic Internet protocol address.

(8) FOREIGN INTERNET SITE.—The term “foreign Internet site” means an Internet site that is not a domestic Internet site.

(9) INCLUDING.—The term “including” means including, but not limited to.

(10) INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR.—The term “Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator” means the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator appointed under section 301 of the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008 (15 U.S.C. 8111).

(11) INTERNET.—The term “Internet” has the meaning given that term in section 5362(5) of title 31, United States Code.

(12) INTERNET ADVERTISING SERVICE.—The term “Internet advertising service” means a service that for compensation sells, purchases, brokers, serves, inserts, verifies, clears, or otherwise facilitates the placement of an advertisement, including a paid or sponsored search result, link, or placement, that is rendered in viewable form for any period of time on an Internet site.

(13) INTERNET PROTOCOL.—The term “Internet Protocol” means a protocol used for communicating data across a packet-switched internetwork using the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol, and includes any predecessor or successor protocol to such protocol.

(14) INTERNET PROTOCOL ADDRESS.—The term “Internet Protocol address” means a numerical label that is assigned to each device that participates in a computer network that uses the Internet Protocol for communication.

(15) INTERNET PROTOCOL ALLOCATION ENTITY.—The term “Internet Protocol allocation entity” means, with respect to a particular Internet Protocol address, the entity, local internet registry, or regional internet registry to which the smallest applicable block of Internet Protocol addresses containing that address is allocated or assigned by a local internet registry, regional internet registry, or other Internet Protocol address allocation authority, according to the applicable publicly available database of allocations and assignments, if any.

(16) INTERNET SEARCH ENGINE.—The term “Internet search engine” means a service made available via the Internet that searches, crawls, categorizes, or indexes information or Web sites available elsewhere on the Internet and on the basis of a user query or selection that consists of terms, concepts, categories, questions, or other data returns to the user a means, such as a hyperlinked list of Uniform Resource Locators, of locating, viewing, or downloading such information or data available on the Internet relating to such query or selection.

(17) INTERNET SITE.—The term “Internet site” means the collection of digital assets, including links, indexes, or pointers to digital assets, accessible through the Internet that are addressed relative to a common domain name or, if there is no domain name, a common Internet Protocol address.

(18) LANHAM ACT.—The term “Lanham Act” means the Act entitled “An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trademarks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes”, approved July 5, 1946 (commonly referred to as the “Trademark Act of 1946” or the “Lanham Act”).

(19) NONAUTHORITATIVE DOMAIN NAME SERVER.—The term “nonauthoritative domain name server” means a server that does not contain complete copies of domains but uses a cache file that is comprised of previous domain name server lookups, for which the server has received an authoritative response in the past.

(20) OWNER; OPERATOR.—The terms “owner” or “operator”, when used in connection with an Internet site, includes, respectively, any owner of a majority interest in, or any person with authority to operate, such Internet site.

(21) PAYMENT NETWORK PROVIDER.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The term “payment network provider” means an entity that directly or indirectly provides the proprietary services, infrastructure, and software to effect or facilitate a debit, credit, or other payment transaction.

(B) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—For purposes of this paragraph, a depository institution (as such term is defined under section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act) or credit union that initiates a payment transaction shall not be construed to be a payment network provider based solely on the offering or provision of such service.

(22) SERVICE PROVIDER.—The term “service provider” means a service provider as defined in section 512(k)(1) of title 17, United States Code, that operates a nonauthoritative domain name system server.

(23) U.S.-DIRECTED SITE.—The term “U.S.-directed site” means an Internet site or portion thereof that is used to conduct business directed to residents of the United States, or that otherwise demonstrates the existence of minimum contacts sufficient for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the owner or operator of the Internet site consistent with the Constitution of the United States, based on relevant evidence that may include whether—

(A) the Internet site is used to provide goods or services to users located in the United States;

(B) there is evidence that the Internet site or portion thereof is intended to offer or provide—

(i) such goods and services,

(ii) access to such goods and services, or

(iii) delivery of such goods and services,

to users located in the United States;

(C) the Internet site or portion thereof does not contain reasonable measures to prevent such goods and services from being obtained in or delivered to the United States; and

(D) any prices for goods and services are indicated or billed in the currency of the United States.

(24) UNITED STATES.—The term “United States” includes any commonwealth, possession, or territory of the United States.

SEC. 102. Action by Attorney General to protect U.S. customers and prevent U.S. support of foreign infringing sites.

(a) Definition.—For purposes of this section, a foreign Internet site or portion thereof is a “foreign infringing site” if—

(1) the Internet site or portion thereof is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users in the United States;

(2) the owner or operator of such Internet site is committing or facilitating the commission of criminal violations punishable under section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of title 18, United States Code; and

(3) the Internet site would, by reason of acts described in paragraph (1), be subject to seizure in the United States in an action brought by the Attorney General if such site were a domestic Internet site.

(b) Action by the Attorney General.—

(1) IN PERSONAM.—The Attorney General may commence an in personam action against—

(A) a registrant of a domain name used by a foreign infringing site; or

(B) an owner or operator of a foreign infringing site.

(2) IN REM.—If through due diligence the Attorney General is unable to find a person described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1), or no such person found has an address within a judicial district of the United States, the Attorney General may commence an in rem action against a foreign infringing site or the foreign domain name used by such site.

(3) NOTICE.—Upon commencing an action under this subsection, the Attorney General shall send a notice of the alleged violation and intent to proceed under this section—

(A) to the registrant of the domain name of the Internet site—

(i) at the postal and electronic mail addresses appearing in the applicable publicly accessible database of registrations, if any, and to the extent such addresses are reasonably available; and

(ii) via the postal and electronic mail addresses of the registrar, registry, or other domain name registration authority that registered or assigned the domain name of the Internet site, to the extent such addresses are reasonably available; or

(B) to the owner or operator of the Internet site—

(i) at the primary postal and electronic mail addresses for such owner or operator that is provided on the Internet site, if any, and to the extent such addresses are reasonably available; or

(ii) if there is no domain name of the Internet site, via the postal and electronic mail addresses of the Internet Protocol allocation entity appearing in the applicable publicly accessible database of allocations and assignments, if any, and to the extent such addresses are reasonably available; or

(C) in any other such form as the court may provide, including as may be required by rule 4(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

(4) SERVICE OF PROCESS.—For purposes of this section, the actions described in this subsection shall constitute service of process.

(5) RELIEF.—On application of the Attorney General following the commencement of an action under this section, the court may issue a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or an injunction, in accordance with rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, against a registrant of a domain name used by the foreign infringing site or an owner or operator of the foreign infringing site or, in an action brought in rem under paragraph (2), against the foreign infringing site or a portion of such site, or the domain name used by such site, to cease and desist from undertaking any further activity as a foreign infringing site.

(1) SERVICE.—A process server on behalf of the Attorney General, with prior approval of the court, may serve a copy of a court order issued pursuant to this section on similarly situated entities within each class described in paragraph (2). Proof of service shall be filed with the court.

(2) REASONABLE MEASURES.—After being served with a copy of an order pursuant to this subsection, the following shall apply:

(A) SERVICE PROVIDERS.—

(i) IN GENERAL.—A service provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) that is subject to the order, including measures designed to prevent the domain name of the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) from resolving to that domain name’s Internet Protocol address. Such actions shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order.

(ii) LIMITATIONS.—A service provider shall not be required—

(I) other than as directed under this subparagraph, to modify its network, software, systems, or facilities;

(II) to take any measures with respect to domain name resolutions not performed by its own domain name server; or

(III) to continue to prevent access to a domain name to which access has been effectively disabled by other means.

(iii) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subparagraph shall affect the limitation on the liability of a service provider under section 512 of title 17, United States Code.

(iv) TEXT OF NOTICE.—The Attorney General shall prescribe the text of any notice displayed to users or customers of a service provider taking actions pursuant to this subparagraph. Such text shall state that an action is being taken pursuant to a court order obtained by the Attorney General.

(B) INTERNET SEARCH ENGINES.—A provider of an Internet search engine shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order, designed to prevent the foreign infringing site that is subject to the order, or a portion of such site specified in the order, from being served as a direct hypertext link.

(i) PREVENTING AFFILIATION.—A payment network provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order, designed to prevent, prohibit, or suspend its service from completing payment transactions involving customers located within the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and the payment account—

(I) which is used by the foreign infringing site, or portion thereof, that is subject to the order; and

(II) through which the payment network provider would complete such payment transactions.

(ii) NO DUTY TO MONITOR.—A payment network provider shall be considered to be in compliance with clause (i) if it takes action described in that clause with respect to accounts it has as of the date on which a copy of the order is served, or as of the date on which the order is amended under subsection (e).

(D) INTERNET ADVERTISING SERVICES.—

(i) REQUIRED ACTIONS.—An Internet advertising service that contracts to provide advertising to or for the foreign infringing site, or portion thereof, that is subject to the order, or that knowingly serves advertising to or for such site or such portion thereof, shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order, designed to—

(I) prevent its service from providing advertisements to or relating to the foreign infringing site that is subject to the order or a portion of such site specified in the order;

(II) cease making available advertisements for the foreign infringing site or such portion thereof, or paid or sponsored search results, links, or other placements that provide access to such foreign infringing site or such portion thereof; and

(III) cease providing or receiving any compensation for advertising or related services to, from, or in connection with such foreign infringing site or such portion thereof.

(ii) NO DUTY TO MONITOR.—An internet advertising service shall be considered to be in compliance with clause (i) if it takes action described in that clause with respect to accounts it has as of the date on which a copy of the order is served, or as of the date on which the order is amended under subsection (e).

(3) COMMUNICATION WITH USERS.—Except as provided under paragraph (2)(A)(iv), an entity taking an action described in this subsection shall determine the means to communicate such action to the entity’s users or customers.

(4) ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—To ensure compliance with orders issued pursuant to this section, the Attorney General may bring an action for injunctive relief—

(i) against any entity served under paragraph (1) that knowingly and willfully fails to comply with the requirements of this subsection to compel such entity to comply with such requirements; or

(ii) against any entity that knowingly and willfully provides or offers to provide a product or service designed or marketed for the circumvention or bypassing of measures described in paragraph (2) and taken in response to a court order issued pursuant to this subsection, to enjoin such entity from interfering with the order by continuing to provide or offer to provide such product or service.

(B) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—The authority granted the Attorney General under subparagraph (A)(i) shall be the sole legal remedy to enforce the obligations under this section of any entity described in paragraph (2).

(C) DEFENSE.—A defendant in an action under subparagraph (A)(i) may establish an affirmative defense by showing that the defendant does not have the technical means to comply with this subsection without incurring an unreasonable economic burden, or that the order is not authorized by this subsection. Such showing shall not be presumed to be a complete defense but shall serve as a defense only for those measures for which a technical limitation on compliance is demonstrated or for such portions of the order as are demonstrated to be unauthorized by this subsection.

(D) DEFINITION.—For purposes of this paragraph, a product or service designed or marketed for the circumvention or bypassing of measures described in paragraph (2) and taken in response to a court order issued pursuant to this subsection includes a product or service that is designed or marketed to enable a domain name described in such an order—

(i) to resolve to that domain name’s Internet protocol address notwithstanding the measures taken by a service provider under paragraph (2) to prevent such resolution; or

(ii) to resolve to a different domain name or Internet Protocol address that the provider of the product or service knows, reasonably should know, or reasonably believes is used by an Internet site offering substantially similar infringing activities as those with which the infringing foreign site, or portion thereof, subject to a court order under this section was associated.

(5) IMMUNITY.—

(A) IMMUNITY FROM SUIT.—Other than in an action pursuant to paragraph (4), no cause of action shall lie in any Federal or State court or administrative agency against any entity served with a copy of a court order issued under this subsection, or against any director, officer, employee, or agent thereof, for any act reasonably designed to comply with this subsection or reasonably arising from such order.

(B) IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY.—Other than in an action pursuant to paragraph (4)—

(i) any entity served with a copy of an order under this subsection, and any director, officer, employee, or agent thereof, shall not be liable for any act reasonably designed to comply with this subsection or reasonably arising from such order; and

(ii) any—

(I) actions taken by customers of such entity to circumvent any restriction on access to the foreign infringing site, or portion thereof, that is subject to such order, that is instituted pursuant to this subsection, or

(II) act, failure, or inability to restrict access to a foreign infringing site, or portion thereof, that is subject to such order, in spite of good faith efforts to comply with such order by such entity,

shall not be used by any person in any claim or cause of action against such entity.

(d) Modification or vacation of orders.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—At any time after the issuance of an order under subsection (b), a motion to modify, suspend, or vacate the order may be filed by—

(A) any person, or owner or operator of property, that is subject to the order;

(B) any registrant of the domain name, or the owner or operator, of the Internet site that is subject to the order;

(C) any domain name registrar, registry, or other domain name registration authority that has registered or assigned the domain name of the Internet site that is subject to the order; or

(D) any entity that has been served with a copy of an order pursuant to subsection (c) that requires such entity to take action prescribed in that subsection.

(2) RELIEF.—Relief under this subsection shall be proper if the court finds that—

(A) the foreign Internet site subject to the order is no longer, or never was, a foreign infringing site; or

(B) the interests of justice otherwise require that the order be modified, suspended, or vacated.

(3) CONSIDERATION.—In making a relief determination under paragraph (2), a court may consider whether the domain name of the foreign Internet site has expired or has been re-registered by an entity other than the entity that is subject to the order with respect to which the motion under paragraph (1) is brought.

(4) INTERVENTION.—An entity required to take action pursuant to subsection (c) if an order issues under subsection (b) may intervene at any time in any action commenced under subsection (b) that may result in such order, or in any action to modify, suspend, or vacate such order under this subsection.

(e) Amended orders.—The Attorney General, if alleging that a foreign Internet site previously adjudicated in an action under this section to be a foreign infringing site is accessible or has been reconstituted at a different domain name or Internet Protocol address, may petition the court to amend the order issued under this section accordingly.

(f) Law enforcement coordination.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall inform the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator and the heads of appropriate law enforcement agencies of all court orders issued under subsection (b), and all amended orders issued under subsection (e), regarding foreign infringing sites.

(2) ALTERATIONS.—The Attorney General shall, and the defendant may, inform the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator of the modification, suspension, expiration, or vacation of a court order issued under subsection (b) or an amended order issued under subsection (e).

SEC. 103. Market-based system to protect U.S. customers and prevent U.S. funding of sites dedicated to theft of U.S. property.

(a) Definitions.—In this section:

(1) DEDICATED TO THEFT OF U.S. PROPERTY.—An “Internet site is dedicated to theft of U.S. property” if—

(A) it is an Internet site, or a portion thereof, that is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users within the United States; and

(B) either—

(i) the U.S.-directed site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates—

(I) a violation of section 501 of title 17, United States Code;

(II) a violation of section 1201 of title 17, United States Code; or

(III) the sale, distribution, or promotion of goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Lanham Act or section 2320 of title 18, United States Code; or

(ii) the operator of the U.S.-directed site—

(I) is taking, or has taken, deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of the use of the U.S.-directed site to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code; or

(II) operates the U.S.-directed site with the object of promoting, or has promoted, its use to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement.

(2) QUALIFYING PLAINTIFF.—The term “qualifying plaintiff” means, with respect to a particular Internet site or portion thereof, a holder of an intellectual property right harmed by the activities described in paragraph (1) occurring on that Internet site or portion thereof.

(b) Denying U.S. financial support of sites dedicated to theft of U.S. property.—

(1) PAYMENT NETWORK PROVIDERS.—Except in the case of an effective counter notification pursuant to paragraph (5), a payment network provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after delivery of a notification under paragraph (4), that are designed to prevent, prohibit, or suspend its service from completing payment transactions involving customers located within the United States and the Internet site, or portion thereof, that is specified in the notification under paragraph (4).

(2) INTERNET ADVERTISING SERVICES.—Except in the case of an effective counter notification pursuant to paragraph (5), an Internet advertising service that contracts with the operator of an Internet site, or portion thereof, that is specified in a notification delivered under paragraph (4), to provide advertising to or for such site or portion thereof, or that knowingly serves advertising to or for such site or portion thereof, shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after delivery the notification under paragraph (4), that are designed to—

(A) prevent its service from providing advertisements to or relating to the Internet site, or portion thereof, that is specified in the notification;

(B) cease making available advertisements for such Internet site, or portion thereof, that is specified in the notification, or paid or sponsored search results, links, or other placements that provide access to such Internet site, or portion thereof, that is specified in the notification; and

(C) cease providing or receiving any compensation for advertising or related services to, from, or in connection with such Internet site, or portion thereof, that is specified in the notification.

(3) DESIGNATED AGENT.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Each payment network provider and each Internet advertising service shall designate an agent to receive notifications described in paragraph (4), by making available through its service, including on its Web site in a location accessible to the public, and by providing to the Copyright Office, substantially the following:

(i) The name, address, phone number, and electronic mail address of the agent.

(ii) Other contact information that the Register of Copyrights considers appropriate.

(B) DIRECTORY OF AGENTS.—The Register of Copyrights shall maintain and make available to the public for inspection, including through the Internet, in electronic format, a current directory of agents designated under subparagraph (A).

(4) NOTIFICATION REGARDING INTERNET SITES DEDICATED TO THEFT OF U.S. PROPERTY.—

(A) REQUIREMENTS.—Subject to subparagraph (B), a notification under this paragraph is effective only if it is a written communication that is provided to the designated agent of a payment network provider or an Internet advertising service and includes substantially the following:

(i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the holder of an intellectual property right harmed by the activities described in subsection (a)(1).

(ii) Identification of the Internet site, or portion thereof, dedicated to theft of U.S. property, including either the domain name or Internet Protocol address of such site, or both.

(iii) Identification of the specific facts to support the claim that the Internet site, or portion thereof, is dedicated to theft of U.S. property and to clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the holder of the intellectual property right harmed by the activities described in subsection (a)(1) in the absence of timely action by the payment network provider or Internet advertising service.

(iv) Information reasonably sufficient to establish that the payment network provider or Internet advertising service is providing payment processing or Internet advertising services for such site.

(v) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the payment network provider or Internet advertising service to contact the holder of the intellectual property right harmed by the activities described in subsection (a)(1).

(vi) A statement that the holder of the intellectual property right has a good faith belief that the use of the owner’s works or goods in which the right exists, in the manner described in the notification, is not authorized by the holder, its agent, or law.

(vii) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and, under penalty of perjury, that the signatory is authorized to act on behalf of the holder of the intellectual property right harmed by the activities described in subsection (a)(1).

(viii) Identification of the evidence indicating that the site (or portion thereof) is a U.S.-directed site.

(B) SERVICE IF NO AGENT DESIGNATED.—If a payment network provider or Internet advertising service has not designated an agent under paragraph (3), the notification under subparagraph (A) may be provided to any officer or legal representative of such provider or service.

(C) NOTICE TO INTERNET SITE IDENTIFIED IN NOTIFICATION.—Upon receipt of an effective notification under this paragraph, a payment network provider or Internet advertising service shall take appropriate steps to ensure timely delivery of the notification to the Internet site identified in the notification.

(5) COUNTER NOTIFICATION.—

(A) REQUIREMENTS.—Subject to subparagraph (B), a counter notification is effective under this paragraph only if it is a written communication that is provided to the designated agent of a payment network provider or an Internet advertising service and includes substantially the following:

(i) A physical or electronic signature of the owner or operator of the Internet site, or portion thereof, specified in a notification under paragraph (4) subject to which action is to be taken by the payment network provider or Internet advertising service under paragraph (1) or (2), or of the registrant of the domain name used by such site or portion thereof.

(ii) In the case of an Internet site specified in the notification under paragraph (4) that is a foreign Internet site, a statement that the owner or operator, or registrant, consents to the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States, and will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under paragraph (4), or an agent of such person, for purposes of adjudicating whether the site is an Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property under this section.

(iii) A statement under penalty of perjury that the owner or operator, or registrant, has a good faith belief that it does not meet the criteria of an Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property as set forth under this section.

(iv) The name, address, email address, and telephone number of the owner, operator, or registrant.

(B) SERVICE IF NO AGENT DESIGNATED.—If a payment network provider or Internet advertising service has not designated an agent under paragraph (3), the counter notification under subparagraph (A) may be provided to any officer or legal representative of such provider or service.

(6) MISREPRESENTATIONS.—Any provider of a notification or counter notification who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section—

(A) that a site is an Internet site dedicated to the theft of U.S. property, or

(B) that such site does not meet the criteria of an Internet site dedicated to the theft of U.S. property,

shall be liable for damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the person injured by such misrepresentation as a result of the misrepresentation.

(1) IN PERSONAM.—If an effective counter notification is made under subsection (b)(5), or if a payment network provider fails to comply with subsection (b)(1), or an Internet advertising service fails to comply with subsection (b)(2), pursuant to a notification under subsection (b)(4) in the absence of such a counter notification, a qualifying plaintiff may commence an in personam action against—

(A) a registrant of a domain name used by the Internet site, or portion thereof, that is subject to the notification under subsection (b)(4); or

(B) an owner or operator of the Internet site or portion thereof.

(2) IN REM.—If through due diligence a qualifying plaintiff who is authorized to bring an in personam action under paragraph (1) with respect to an Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property is unable to find a person described in subparagraphs (A) or (B) of paragraph (1), or no such person found has an address within a judicial district of the United States, the qualifying plaintiff may commence an in rem action against that Internet site or the domain name used by such site.

(3) NOTICE.—Upon commencing an action under this subsection, the qualifying plaintiff shall send a notice of the alleged activity described in subsection (a)(1) and intent to proceed under this subsection—

(A) to the registrant of the domain name of the Internet site, or portion thereof, that is the subject to the notification under subsection (b)(4)—

(i) at the postal and electronic mail addresses appearing in the applicable publicly accessible database of registrations, if any, and to the extent such addresses are reasonably available; and

(ii) via the postal and electronic mail addresses of the registrar, registry, or other domain name registration authority that registered or assigned the domain name of the Internet site, or portion thereof, to the extent such addresses are reasonably available;

(B) to the owner or operator of the Internet site, or portion thereof—

(i) at the primary postal and electronic mail addresses for such owner or operator that are provided on the Internet site, or portion thereof, if any, and to the extent such addresses are reasonably available; or

(ii) if there is no domain name of the Internet site or portion thereof, via the postal and electronic mail addresses of the Internet Protocol allocation entity appearing in the applicable publicly accessible database of allocations and assignments, if any, and to the extent such addresses are reasonably available; or

(C) in any other such form as the court may prescribe, including as may be required by rule 4(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

(4) SERVICE OF PROCESS.—For purposes of this section, the actions described in this subsection shall constitute service of process.

(5) RELIEF.—On application of a qualifying plaintiff following the commencement of an action under this section with respect to an Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property, the court may issue a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or an injunction, in accordance with rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, against a registrant of a domain name used by the Internet site, or against an owner or operator of the Internet site, or, in an action brought in rem under paragraph (2), against the Internet site, or against the domain name used by the Internet site, to cease and desist from undertaking any further activity as an Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property.

(d) Actions based on court orders.—

(1) SERVICE AND RESPONSE.—

(A) SERVICE BY QUALIFYING PLAINTIFF.—A qualifying plaintiff, with the prior approval of the court, may serve a copy of a court order issued under subsection (c) on similarly situated entities described in paragraph (2). Proof of service shall be filed with the court.

(B) RESPONSE.—An entity served under subparagraph (A) shall, not later than 7 days after the date of such service, file with the court a certification acknowledging receipt of a copy of the order and stating that such entity has complied or will comply with the obligations imposed under paragraph (2), or explaining why the entity will not so comply.

(C) VENUE FOR SERVICE.—A copy of the court order may be served in any judicial district where an entity resides or may be found.

(2) REASONABLE MEASURES.—After being served with a copy of an order pursuant to this subsection, the following shall apply:

(A) PAYMENT NETWORK PROVIDERS.—

(i) PREVENTING AFFILIATION.—A payment network provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the court order, or within such time as the court may order, that are designed to prevent, prohibit, or suspend its service from completing payment transactions involving customers located within the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and any account—

(I) which is used by the Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property that is subject to the order; and

(II) through which the payment network provider would complete such payment transactions.

(ii) NO DUTY TO MONITOR.—A payment network provider is in compliance with clause (i) if it takes action described in that clause with respect to accounts it has as of the date of service of the order, or as of the date of any subsequent notice that its service is being used to complete payment transactions described in clause (i).

(B) INTERNET ADVERTISING SERVICES.—

(i) REQUIRED ACTIONS.—An Internet advertising service that contracts with the Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property that is subject to the order to provide advertising to or for such Internet site, or that knowingly serves advertising to or for such internet site, shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order, that are designed to—

(I) prevent its service from providing advertisements to or relating to the Internet site;

(II) cease making available advertisements for the Internet site, or paid or sponsored search results, links, or other placements that provide access to the Internet site; and

(III) cease providing or receiving any compensation for advertising or related services to, from, or in connection with the Internet site.

(ii) NO DUTY TO MONITOR.—An internet advertising service is in compliance with clause (i) if it takes action described in that clause with respect to accounts it has as of the date on which a copy of the order is served, or as of the date of any subsequent notice that its service is being used for activities described in clause (i).

(3) COMMUNICATION WITH USERS.—An entity taking an action described in this subsection shall determine the means to communicate such action to the entity’s users or customers.

(4) ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS.—

(A) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—The authority under this subsection shall be the sole legal remedy to enforce the obligations of any entity under this subsection.

(B) PROCEDURES AND RELIEF.—

(i) SHOW CAUSE ORDER.—On a showing by the qualifying plaintiff of probable cause to believe that an entity served with a copy of a court order issued under subsection (c) has not complied with its obligations under this subsection by reason of such court order, the court shall require the entity to show cause why an order should not issue—

(I) to require compliance with the obligations of this subsection; and

(II) to impose an appropriate monetary sanction, consistent with the court’s exercise of its equitable authority, to enforce compliance with its lawful orders, if the entity—

(aa) has knowingly and willfully failed to file a certification required by paragraph (1)(B);

(bb) has filed such a certification agreeing to comply but has knowingly and willfully failed to do so; or

(cc) has knowingly and willfully certified falsely that compliance with the requirements of paragraph (2) is not required by law.

(ii) SERVICE OF PROCESS.—The order to show cause, and any other process, may be served in any judicial district where the entity resides or may be found.

(C) DEFENSE.—An entity against whom relief is sought under subparagraph (B) may establish an affirmative defense by showing that the entity does not have the technical means to comply with this subsection without incurring an unreasonable economic burden, or that the order is not authorized by this subsection. Such showing shall not be presumed to be a complete defense but shall serve as a defense only for those measures for which a technical limitation on compliance is demonstrated or for such portions of the order as are demonstrated to be unauthorized by this subsection.

(5) IMMUNITY.—

(A) IMMUNITY FROM SUIT.—Other than in an action pursuant to paragraph (4), no cause of action shall lie in any Federal or State court or administrative agency against any entity served with a copy of a court order issued under subsection (c), or against any director, officer, employee, or agent thereof, for any act reasonably designed to comply with this subsection or reasonably arising from such order.

(B) IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY.—Other than in an action pursuant to paragraph (4)—

(i) any entity served with a copy of an order under this subsection, and any director, officer, employee, or agent thereof, shall not be liable for any acts reasonably designed to comply with this subsection or reasonably arising from such order; and

(ii) any—

(I) actions taken by customers of such entity to circumvent any restriction on access to the Internet site, or portion thereof that is subject to such order, that is instituted pursuant to this subsection, or

(II) act, failure, or inability to restrict access to an Internet site or portion thereof that is subject to such order, despite good faith efforts to comply with such order by such entity,

shall not be used by any person in any claim or cause of action against such entity.

(e) Modification or vacation of orders.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—At any time after the issuance of an order under subsection (c), or an amended order issued under subsection (f), with respect to an Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property, a motion to modify, suspend, or vacate the order may be filed by—

(A) any person, or owner or operator of property, that is subject to the order;

(B) any registrant of the domain name, or the owner or operator, of such Internet site;

(C) any domain name registrar, registry, or other domain name registration authority that has registered or assigned the domain name of such Internet site; or

(D) any entity that has been served with a copy of an order under subsection (d), or an amended order under subsection (f), that requires such entity to take action prescribed in that subsection.

(2) RELIEF.—Relief under this subsection shall be proper if the court finds that—

(A) the Internet site subject to the order is no longer, or never was, an Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property; or

(B) the interests of justice otherwise require that the order be modified, suspended, or vacated.

(3) CONSIDERATION.—In making a relief determination under paragraph (2), a court may consider whether the domain name of the Internet site has expired or has been re-registered by an entity other than the entity that is subject to the order with respect to which the motion under paragraph (1) is brought.

(4) INTERVENTION.—An entity required to take action pursuant to subsection (d) if an order issues under subsection (c) may intervene at any time in any action commenced under subsection (c) that may result in such order, or in any action to modify, suspend, or vacate such order under this subsection.

(f) Amended orders.—The qualifying plaintiff, if alleging that an Internet site previously adjudicated in an action under this section to be an Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property is accessible or has been reconstituted at a different domain name or Internet Protocol address, may petition the court to amend the order issued under this section accordingly.

(g) Reporting of orders.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The qualifying plaintiff shall inform the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator of any court order issued under subsection (c) or amended order issued under subsection (f).

(2) ALTERATIONS.—Upon the modification, suspension, expiration, or vacation of a court order issued under subsection (c) or an amended order issued under subsection (f), the qualifying plaintiff shall, and the defendant may, so inform the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator.

SEC. 104. Immunity for taking voluntary action against sites dedicated to theft of U.S. property.

No cause of action shall lie in any Federal or State court or administrative agency against, no person may rely in any claim or cause of action against, and no liability for damages to any person shall be granted against, a service provider, payment network provider, Internet advertising service, advertiser, Internet search engine, domain name registry, or domain name registrar for taking any action described in section 102(c)(2), section 103(d)(2), or section 103(b) with respect to an Internet site, or otherwise voluntarily blocking access to or ending financial affiliation with an Internet site, in the reasonable belief that—

(1) the Internet site is a foreign infringing site or is an Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property; and

(2) the action is consistent with the entity’s terms of service or other contractual rights.

SEC. 105. Immunity for taking voluntary action against sites that endanger public health.

(a) Refusal of service.—A service provider, payment network provider, Internet advertising service, advertiser, Internet search engine, domain name registry, or domain name registrar, acting in good faith and based on credible evidence, may stop providing or refuse to provide services to an Internet site that endangers the public health.

(b) Immunity from liability.—An entity described in subsection (a), including its directors, officers, employees, or agents, that ceases or refuses to provide services under subsection (a) shall not be liable to any person under any Federal or State law for such action.

(1) ADULTERATED.—The term “adulterated” has the meaning given that term in section 501 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 351).

(2) INTERNET SITE THAT ENDANGERS THE PUBLIC HEALTH.—The term “Internet site that endangers the public health” means an Internet site that is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in—

(A) offering, selling, dispensing, or distributing any prescription medication, and does so regularly without a valid prescription; or

(B) offering, selling, dispensing, or distributing any prescription medication that is adulterated or misbranded.

(3) MISBRANDED.—the term “misbranded” has the meaning given that term in section 502 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 352).

(4) PRESCRIPTION MEDICATION.—

(A) PRESCRIPTION MEDICATION.—The term “prescription medication” means a drug that is subject to section 503(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 353(b)).

(B) DRUG.—The term “drug” has the meaning given that term in section 201(g)(1) of the Federal Food Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1)).

(5) VALID PRESCRIPTION.—The term “valid prescription” has the meaning given that term in section 309(e)(2)(A) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 829(e)(2)(A)).

SEC. 106. Guidelines and study.

(a) Guidelines.—The Attorney General shall—

(1) provide appropriate resources and procedures for case management and development to effect timely disposition of actions brought under this title;

(2) develop a deconfliction process in consultation with appropriate law enforcement agencies, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to coordinate enforcement activities under this title;

(3) publish procedures developed in consultation with appropriate law enforcement agencies, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to receive information from the public relevant to the enforcement of this title; and

(4) provide guidance to intellectual property rights holders about what information such rights holders should provide to assist in initiating an investigation or to supplement an ongoing investigation pursuant to this title.

(b) Study.—

(1) NATURE OF STUDY.—The Register of Copyrights, in consultation with appropriate departments and agencies of the United States and other stakeholders, shall conduct a study on the enforcement and effectiveness of this title and on any need to amend the provisions of this title to adapt to emerging technologies.

(2) REPORTS TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Register of Copyrights shall submit to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate a report containing the results of the study conducted under this subsection and any recommendations that the Register may have as a result of the study.

SEC. 107. Denying U.S. capital to notorious foreign infringers.

(a) Identification and recommendations regarding notorious foreign infringers.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Using existing resources, the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, in consultation with the Secretaries of Treasury and Commerce, the United States Trade Representative, the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the heads of other departments and appropriate agencies, shall identify and conduct an analysis of notorious foreign infringers whose activities cause significant harm to holders of intellectual property rights in the United States.

(2) PUBLIC INPUT.—In carrying out paragraph (1), the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator shall solicit and give consideration to the views and recommendations of members of the public, including holders of intellectual property rights in the United States.

(b) Report to congress.—The Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator shall, not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, submit to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate a report that includes the following:

(1) An analysis of notorious foreign infringers and a discussion of how these infringers violate industry norms regarding the protection of intellectual property.

(2) An analysis of the significant harm inflicted by notorious foreign infringers on consumers, businesses, and intellectual property industries in the United States and abroad.

(3) An examination of whether notorious foreign infringers have attempted to or succeeded in accessing capital markets in the United States for funding or public offerings.

(4) An analysis of the adequacy of relying upon foreign governments to pursue legal action against notorious foreign infringers.

(5) A discussion of specific policy recommendations to deter the activities of notorious foreign infringers and encourage foreign businesses to adopt industry norms that promote the protection of intellectual property globally, including addressing—

(A) whether notorious foreign infringers that engage in significant infringing activity should be prohibited by the laws of the United States from seeking to raise capital in the United States, including offering stock for sale to the public; and

(B) whether the United States Government should initiate a process to identify and designate foreign entities from a list of notorious foreign infringers that would be prohibited from raising capital in the United States.

TITLE II—Additional Enhancements to Combat Intellectual Property Theft

SEC. 201. Streaming of copyrighted works in violation of criminal law.

(a) Title 17 amendments.—Section 506(a) of title 17, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

“(a) Criminal infringement.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed—

“(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

“(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, or by the public performance by means of digital transmission, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works, when the total retail value of the copies or phonorecords, or of the public performances, is more than $1,000; or

“(C) by the distribution or public performance of a work being prepared for commercial dissemination, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial dissemination.

“(2) EVIDENCE.—For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction, distribution, or public performance of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement of a copyright.

“(3) DEFINITION.—In this subsection, the term ‘work being prepared for commercial dissemination’ means—

“(A) a computer program, a musical work, a motion picture or other audiovisual work, or a sound recording, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution or public performance—

“(i)(I) the copyright owner has a reasonable expectation of commercial distribution; and

“(II) the copies or phonorecords of the work have not been commercially distributed in the United States by or with the authorization of the copyright owner; or

“(ii)(I) the copyright owner does not intend to offer copies of the work for commercial distribution but has a reasonable expectation of other forms of commercial dissemination of the work; and

“(II) the work has not been commercially disseminated to the public in the United States by or with the authorization of the copyright owner;

“(B) a motion picture, if, at the time of unauthorized distribution or public performance, the motion picture—

“(i)(I) has been made available for viewing in a motion picture exhibition facility; and

“(II) has not been made available in copies for sale to the general public in the United States by or with the authorization of the copyright owner in a format intended to permit viewing outside a motion picture exhibition facility; or

“(ii) had not been commercially disseminated to the public in the United States by or with the authorization of the copyright owner more than 24 hours before the unauthorized distribution or public performance.”.

(b) Title 18 amendments.—Section 2319 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—

(1) in subsection (b)(1), by striking “during any 180-day period” and all that follows and insert “of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, or of at least 10 public performances by means of digital transmission, of 1 or more copyrighted works, during any 180-day period, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500;”;

(2) in subsection (c)—

(A) in paragraph (1), by striking “of 10 or more copies or phonorecords” and all that follows and inserting “including by electronic means, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, or of at least 10 public performances by means of digital transmission, of 1 or more copyrighted works, during any 180-day period, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500;”; and

(B) in paragraph (3), by striking “if the offense” and all that follows and inserting “in any other case;”;

(3) in subsection (d)(4), by striking “under paragraph (2)” and inserting “committed for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain under subsection (a)”;

(4) in subsection (f)—

(A) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:

“(2) the terms ‘reproduction’, ‘distribution’, and ‘public performance’ refer to the exclusive rights of a copyright owner under paragraphs (1), (3), (4), and (6), respectively, of section 106 (relating to exclusive rights in copyrighted works), as limited by sections 107 through 122, of title 17; and”;

(B) in paragraph (3), by striking “; and” and inserting a period; and

(5) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

“(g) Evidence of total retail value.—For purposes of this section and section 506(a) of title 17, total retail value may be shown by evidence of—

“(1) the total retail price that persons receiving the reproductions, distributions, or public performances constituting the offense would have paid to receive such reproductions, distributions, or public performances lawfully;

“(2) the total economic value of the reproductions, distributions, or public performances to the infringer or to the copyright owner, as shown by evidence of fee, advertising, or other revenue that was received by the person who commits the offense, or that the copyright owner would have been entitled to receive had such reproductions, distributions, or public performances been offered lawfully; or

“(3) the total fair market value of licenses to offer the type of reproductions, distributions, or public performances constituting the offense.”.

(c) Rule of construction.—Any person acting with a good faith reasonable basis in law to believe that the person’s conduct is lawful shall not be considered to have acted willfully for purposes of the amendments made by this section. Such person includes, but is not limited to, a person engaged in conduct forming the basis of a bona fide commercial dispute over the scope of existence of a contract or license governing such conduct where such person has a reasonable basis in law to believe that such conduct is noninfringing. Nothing in this subsection shall affect the application or interpretation of the willfulness requirement in any other provision of civil or criminal law.

SEC. 202. Trafficking in inherently dangerous goods or services.

Section 2320 of title 18, United States Code, is amended as follows:

(1) Subsection (a) is amended to read as follows:

“(1) IN GENERAL.—

“(A) OFFENSES.—Whoever—

“(i) intentionally traffics or attempts to traffic in goods or services and knowingly uses a counterfeit mark on or in connection with such goods or services,

“(ii) intentionally traffics or attempts to traffic in labels, patches, stickers, wrappers, badges, emblems, medallions, charms, boxes, containers, cans, cases, hangtags, documentation, or packaging of any type or nature, knowing that a counterfeit mark has been applied thereto, the use of which is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive, or

“(iii) intentionally imports, exports, or traffics in counterfeit drugs or intentionally participates in or knowingly aids drug counterfeiting,

shall, if an individual, be fined not more than $2,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both, and, if a person other than an individual, be fined not more than $5,000,000.

“(B) SUBSEQUENT OFFENSES.—In the case of an offense by a person under this paragraph that occurs after that person is convicted of another offense under this paragraph, the person convicted, if an individual, shall be fined not more than $5,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if other than an individual, shall be fined not more than $15,000,000.

“(2) SERIOUS BODILY HARM OR DEATH.—

“(A) SERIOUS BODILY HARM.—If the offender knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause serious bodily injury from conduct in violation of paragraph (1), the penalty shall be, for an individual, a fine of not more than $5,000,000 or imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or both, and for other than an individual, a fine of not more than $15,000,000.

“(B) DEATH.—If the offender knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause death from conduct in violation of paragraph (1), the penalty shall be, for an individual, a fine of not more than $5,000,000 or imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or both, and for other than an individual, a fine of not more than $15,000,000.

“(3) MILITARY GOODS OR SERVICES.—

“(A) IN GENERAL.—A person who commits an offense under paragraph (1) shall be punished in accordance with subparagraph (B) if—

“(i) the offense involved a good or service described in paragraph (1) that if it malfunctioned, failed, or was compromised, could reasonably be foreseen to cause—

“(I) serious bodily injury or death;

“(II) disclosure of classified information;

“(III) impairment of combat operations; or

“(IV) other significant harm—

“(aa) to a member—

“(AA) of the Armed Forces; or

“(BB) of a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency; or

“(bb) to national security or critical infrastructure; and

“(ii) the person had knowledge that the good or service is falsely identified as meeting military standards or is intended for use in a military or national security application, or a law enforcement or critical infrastructure application.

“(B) PENALTIES.—

“(i) INDIVIDUAL.—An individual who commits an offense described in subparagraph (A) shall be fined not more than $5,000,000, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.

“(ii) PERSON OTHER THAN AN INDIVIDUAL.—A person other than an individual that commits an offense described in subparagraph (A) shall be fined not more than $15,000,000.

“(C) SUBSEQUENT OFFENSES.—

“(i) INDIVIDUAL.—An individual who commits an offense described in subparagraph (A) after the individual is convicted of an offense under subparagraph (A) shall be fined not more than $15,000,000, imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

“(ii) PERSON OTHER THAN AN INDIVIDUAL.—A person other than an individual that commits an offense described in subparagraph (A) after the person is convicted of an offense under subparagraph (A) shall be fined not more than $30,000,000.”.

(2) Subsection (e) is amended—

(A) in paragraph (1), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon;

(B) in paragraph (3), by striking “and” at the end;

(D) by adding at the end the following:

“(5) the term ‘counterfeit drug’ has the meaning given that term in section 201(g)(2) of the Federal Food Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(g)(2));

“(6) the term ‘critical infrastructure’ has the meaning given that term in section 2339D(c);

“(7) the term ‘drug counterfeiting’ means any act prohibited by section 301(i) of the Federal Food Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 331(i));

“(8) the term ‘final dosage form’ has the meaning given that term in section 735(4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 379g(4));

“(9) the term ‘falsely identified as meeting military standards’ relating to a good or service means there is a material misrepresentation that the good or service meets a standard, requirement, or specification issued by the Department of Defense, an Armed Force, or a reserve component;

“(10) the term ‘use in a military or national security application’ means the use of a good or service, independently, in conjunction with, or as a component of another good or service—

“(A) during the performance of the official duties of the Armed Forces of the United States or the reserve components of the Armed Forces; or

“(B) by the United States to perform or directly support—

“(i) combat operations; or

“(ii) critical national defense or national security functions; and

“(11) the term ‘use in a law enforcement or critical infrastructure application’ means the use of a good or service, independently, in conjunction with, or as a component of, another good or service by a person who is directly engaged in—

“(A) Federal, State, or local law enforcement; or

“(B) an official function pertaining to critical infrastructure.”.

SEC. 203. Protecting U.S. businesses from foreign and economic espionage.

(a) For offenses committed by individuals.—Section 1831(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended, in the matter after paragraph (5)—

(1) by striking “15 years” and inserting “20 years”; and

(2) by striking “not more than $500,000” and inserting “not less than $1,000,000 and not more than $5,000,000”.

(b) For offenses committed by organizations.—Section 1831(b) of such title is amended by striking “$10,000,000” and inserting “not more than the greater of $10,000,000 or 3 times the value of the stolen trade secret to the organization (including expenses for research and design or other costs of reproducing the trade secret that the organization has thereby avoided)”.

SEC. 204. Amendments to sentencing guidelines.

Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, pursuant to its authority under section 994(p) of title 28, United States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission shall—

(1) review, and if appropriate, amend Federal Sentencing Guidelines and policy statements applicable to persons convicted of—

(A) intellectual property offenses;

(B) an offense under section 2320(a) of title 18, United States Code; or

(2) in carrying out such review, consider amending such Guidelines and policy statements to—

(A) apply an appropriate offense level enhancement for intellectual property offenses committed in connection with an organized criminal enterprise;

(B) apply an appropriate offense level enhancement to the simple misappropriation of a trade secret;

(C) apply an additional appropriate offense level enhancement if the defendant transmits or attempts to transmit the stolen trade secret outside of the United States and an additional appropriate enhancement if the defendant instead commits economic espionage;

(D) provide that when a defendant transmits trade secrets outside of the United States or commits economic espionage, that the defendant should face a minimum offense level;

(E) provide for an offense level enhancement for Guidelines relating to the theft of trade secrets and economic espionage, including trade secrets transferred or attempted to be transferred outside of the United States;

(F) apply an appropriate offense level enhancement and minimum offense level for offenses under section 2320(a) of title 18, United States Code, that involve a product intended for use in a military or national security application, or a law enforcement or critical infrastructure application;

(G) ensure that the Guidelines and policy statements (including section 2B5.3 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines (and any successor thereto)) reflect—

(i) the serious nature of the offenses described in section 2320(a) of title 18, United States Code;

(ii) the need for an effective deterrent and appropriate punishment to prevent offenses under section 2320(a) of title 18, United States Code; and

(iii) the effectiveness of incarceration in furthering the objectives described in clauses (i) and (ii); and

(H) ensure reasonable consistency with other relevant directives and Guidelines and Federal statutes;

(3) submit to Congress a report detailing the Commission’s actions with respect to each potential amendment described in paragraph (2);

(4) make such conforming amendments to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines as the Commission determines necessary to achieve consistency with other Guideline provisions and applicable law; and

(5) promulgate the Guidelines, policy statements, or amendments provided for in this section as soon as practicable in accordance with the procedure set forth in section 21(a) of the Sentencing Act of 1987 (28 U.S.C. 994 note), as though the authority under that Act had not expired.

SEC. 205. Defending intellectual property rights abroad.

(a) Resources To protect intellectual property rights.—

(1) POLICY.—The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Register of Copyrights, shall ensure that the protection in foreign countries of the intellectual property rights of United States persons is a significant component of United States foreign and commercial policy in general, and in relations with individual countries in particular.

(2) DEDICATION OF RESOURCES.—The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Register of Copyrights, and the heads of other appropriate departments and agencies, shall ensure that adequate resources are available at the United States embassy or diplomatic mission (as the case may be) in any country that is identified under section 182(a)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2242(a)(1)) to ensure—

(A) aggressive support for enforcement action against violations of the intellectual property rights of United States persons in such country;

(B) cooperation with and support for the host government’s efforts to conform its applicable laws, regulations, practices, and processes to enable the host government to honor its international and bilateral obligations with respect to the protection of intellectual property rights;

(C) consistency with the policy and country-specific priorities set forth in the most recent report of USTR under such section 182(a)(1); and

(D) support for holders of United States intellectual property rights and industries whose access to foreign markets is improperly restricted by intellectual property related issues.

(b) New Appointments.—

(1) APPOINTMENTS AND ADMINISTRATION.—The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Register of Copyrights, shall appoint at least one intellectual property attaché to be assigned to the United States embassy or diplomatic mission (as the case may be) in a country in each geographic region covered by a regional bureau of the Department of State. The Director of the Patent and Trademark Office shall maintain authority over hiring, personnel ratings, and objectives for the attachés, in consultation with the Secretary of State. Depending on experience and expertise, intellectual property attachés shall be designated as the diplomatic rank in-mission of First Secretary or Counselor.

(2) REGIONS DEFINED.—The geographic regions referred to in paragraph (1) are the following:

(A) Africa.

(B) Europe and Eurasia.

(D) The Near East.

(E) South and Central Asia and the Pacific.

(F) The Western Hemisphere.

(3) DUTIES.—The intellectual property attachés appointed under this subsection shall focus primarily on intellectual property matters, including the development, protection, and enforcement of applicable law. Each intellectual property attaché shall work, in accordance with guidance from the Director, and in coordination with appropriate staff at the Departments of Commerce and State and the Copyright Office, to advance the policy goals and priorities of the United States Government. Those policy goals and priorities shall be consistent with USTR’s reports under section 182(a)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974. The intellectual property attachés shall work with United States holders of intellectual property rights and industry to address intellectual property rights violations in the countries where the attachés are assigned.

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), in designating the United States embassies or diplomatic missions where attachés will be assigned under subsection (b), the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Commerce shall give priority to countries where the activities of an attaché are likely to achieve the greatest potential benefit in reducing intellectual property infringement in the United States market, to advance the intellectual property rights of United States persons and their licensees, and to advance the interests of United States persons who may otherwise be harmed by violations of intellectual property rights in those countries.

(2) ASSIGNMENTS TO PRIORITY COUNTRIES.—In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Commerce shall consider assigning intellectual property attachés—

(A) to the countries that have been identified under section 182(a)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2242(a)(1)); and

(B) to countries of critical economic importance to the advancement of United States intellectual property rights and interests.

(d) Training.—The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Commerce shall ensure that each intellectual property attaché appointed under subsection (b) is fully trained for the responsibilities of the position before assuming duties at the United States embassy or diplomatic mission to which the attaché is assigned.

(e) Coordination.—The activities of intellectual property attachés under this section shall be determined in consultation with the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator. The Director shall assist in coordinating the policy priorities and activities of the intellectual property attachés and oversee administrative and personnel matters.

(f) Training and technical assistance.—

(1) CONSISTENCY.—Using existing resources, all training and technical assistance provided by intellectual property attachés appointed under subsection (b), or under other authority, relating to intellectual property enforcement and protection abroad shall be designed to be consistent with the policy and country-specific priorities set forth in the most recent report of USTR under section 182(a) of the Trade Act of 1974.

(2) ROLE OF IPEC.—Such training and technical assistance programs shall be carried out in consultation with the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator. The Director shall assist in coordinating the training and technical assistance programs conducted by intellectual property attachés.

(g) Activities in other countries.—In the case of countries that are not identified under section 182(a)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974, the activities of Federal departments and agencies with respect to intellectual property rights in those countries, intellectual property programs and outreach of the United States Government in those countries, and training and technical assistance programs of the United States Government relating to intellectual property in those countries may be conducted to the extent they are consistent with compelling commercial or foreign policy interests of the United States.

(h) Reports to Congress.—The Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator shall include in the annual report submitted under section 314 of the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008 (15 U.S.C. 8114) on the activities of the advisory committee established under section 301 of that Act (15 U.S.C. 8111) information on the appointment, designation for assignment, and activities of all intellectual property attachés of any Federal department or agency who are serving abroad.

(i) Definitions.—In this section:

(1) DIRECTOR.—The terms “Director of the Patent and Trademark Office” and “Director” mean the Under Secretary for Intellectual Property and Director of the Untied States Patent and Trademark Office.

(2) INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENFORCEMENT.—The term “intellectual property enforcement” has the meaning given that term in section 302 of the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008 (15 U.S.C. 8112).

(3) INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR.—The term “Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator” means the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator appointed under section 301 of the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008 (15 U.S.C. 8111).

(4) INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS.—The term “intellectual property rights” means the rights of holders of copyrights, patents, trademarks, other forms of intellectual property, and trade secrets.

(5) USTR.—The term “USTR” means the United States Trade Representative.

(6) UNITED STATES PERSON.—The term “United States person” means—

(A) any United States resident or national;

(B) any corporation, partnership, other business entity, or other organization, that is organized under the laws of the United States; and

(C) any foreign subsidiary or affiliate (including any permanent foreign establishment) of any corporation, partnership, business entity, or organization described in subparagraph (B), that is controlled in fact by such corporation, partnership, business entity, or organization.

(j) Authorization of appropriations.—The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Commerce shall provide for the training and support of the intellectual property attachés appointed under subsection (b) using existing resources.

Anyway that’s SOPA as it is written.

Grade: F (0/100)

Marks

Audio: 0
Visual: 0
Gameplay: 0
Content: 0
Skill: 0
Technical: 0
Audience: Nobody (0 Marks)

Posted in Chatter | Leave a comment

Review: Rage (PlayStation 3)

Posted on December 24, 2011 by Wolfy

Developer: id Software
Publisher: Bethesda Softworks
Release: 2011
Platform: Windows / STEAM / PlayStation 3 / XBOX 360 / IOS
Genre: Science Fiction / Action Thriller / Adventure / Driving
Classification: MA

Reviewer: Wolfy

What is Rage?
Unless you’re looking for the actual definition of the word, it is id Software’s latest original creation and debutante to use their latest technology, the idTech 5 engine or (simply) ID5. Now before I continue here many people have approached this game with all the wrong expectations and left disappointed. I have often stated in reviews of certain games that the right approach makes all the difference when looking to get the most out of a game. If you’re looking for a post-apocalyptic open world action roleplaying game from Rage you’ve made your first mistake by taking that approach. However if you come expecting an old-school fast paced action game that will keep you on your toes, then you will be better able to appreciate Rage for what it is.
As I said this game is “Old-School” and unlike what Duke Nukem Forever was and failed miserably. Rage delivers that fast paced action that “Shooter” fans back in the day (1990s to be precise) know and love. Id Software is hugely known for defining this experience if not introducing it. Technology aside Doom, Quake and Rage perform in a strikingly similar way (if not the same) where you are constantly reacting to action that is constantly unfolding – Whether it’s the shotgun wielding zombie popping out for around the corner from Doom: Knee Deep In The Deep, the shambler busting out the door ready to obliterate you from Quake or the tank commander who storms out the elevator from Quake II. As predictable as the action became, it always had a habit of staying fresh as you have learned to be ready for anything. For all gripes over lack of autosave checkpoints it just goes to show how lazy and complacent players have become over the years. Rage like it’s idTech predecessors saving your games strategically was something gamers of old did religiously (pardon the pun), because the only autosaves that do occur (like Quake 2) are between loading screens. Back in the days of Doom and Quake, saving was somewhat of a skill rather than a convenience, at the end of the day only idiots rely on the autosave.
As I said Rage is the type of game (like it’s predecessors) that will keep you on your toes where you are having to be ready for whatever or whoever jumps out at you and offers action that (almost) requires you to be constantly on your toes, whenever you engage your adversaries (AI enemy NPCs and Multiplayer competition alike). In the story campaign Rage offers four skill settings that effect how you take damage rather than the size of your opposition. Easy is for beginners and casual gamers alike. Normal is for the regulars (The “Weekend Warrior” class gamer), more or less those familiar with action games. Hard is probably what I’d term as a skill setting for both veterans and enthusiasts of the category. Nightmare is as in any of Id’s shooters, the elitist skill setting as two hits will bring you to death’s door, if not incapacitate or kill you. As with all skill settings there really isn’t much difference as to how the AI will engage you – So the higher the setting, the more reflex and manoeuvres you will need to stay alive.
I think by now with emphasis on how tough this game is that sharp reflexes and quick thinking are the key to staying on top of the action.
Now we’ve looked at what Rage has taken from previous Id titles and the question that presents itself is. How does Rage build upon this?
The environment in which you play is the first thing you are going to notice as it is still confined yet offers that vast sense of openness with impressively crafted outdoor landscapes, overall presenting stunning detail that really shows of the visual power of the ID5 engine. The next thing is the way Rage offers a richer emphasis on storytelling with some nicely scripted moments and a cast of the lively characters ever to see (sure to give LA Noire a run for it’s money). When I say lively I’m referring to how ID5 allows for some relatively lifelike character animations, particularly with attention to detail rendering facial expressions and gestures giving those you interact with (an almost) realistic sense of personality. Along with using detail animations for storytelling this is seen in combat with regard to how enemies react to hits – For example a pistol round to the knee will often cause an enemy to limp after getting back up as they continue to give chase.
The last thing you’re going to notice is the gameplay. For starters, in addition to the first person gunplay action and character interaction, now you have a third person driving component that offers some high octane vehicular firefights. However I have noticed when you are using ATVs there is an element of sadistic hilarity that Flatout fans would take notice of as your character can be flung (screaming) from the ATV upon crashing into something, this is expanded on as you can do this purposely to fly through field goals (presumably) scattered throughout the world. Rest assured no saving is required as you are respawned (in perfect condition) back on foot next your ATV.
Aside from the ATV tomfoolery and open road combat (part of getting place to place) you have circuit races, rallies and time trials using the other vehicles (Buggies, Cuprinos and Monarchs). One thing I have noticed about the vehicle combat sequences (competition or travels) is that you have a soundtrack piece that has cheesy retro 16-Bit feel to it that you would expect to find in the Road Rash games adding what I thought to be a nice old-school touch.
One of the other things you will notice is that you have regenerative health that you would find from Call of Duty’s more recent titles. But one of the really noticeable additions is that of a nice selection of detailed mini-games each serving their own purpose. One of these is the “Defibrillator” feature that makes you harder to kill and adds a nasty self-defence mechanism (any idiot close enough is in for one rude shock – pun intended) when performed successfully, however this is one example of how both PC and console versions differ from each other as this is played out differently. In the PC version you more or less have to press your action key at right moment as you wait for two diamonds to line up with symmetrically placed vertical line markers. The console (360/PS3) expands on this as you power up using two cursors (controlled by your analog sticks) to tag designated points until charged, then press both trigger/shoulder buttons (depending on which layout you’re currently using) when both diamonds fly into line with their vertical markers. The other mini-games offer a lighthearted diversion and a means to make a little cash on the side. These include Tombstones (a Dungeons & Dragons-esque Rage themed dice rolling game), Five Finger Fillet (remember that hand and knife game from Aliens – DON’T EVEN think about doing that for real unless you by some chance know exactly what you’re doing!), Strum (a Guitar Hero-esque game) and Rage Frenzy (a trading card duelling game that would explain why you’re picking up collector cards scattered throughout the world).
The big addition is the range of ammunition types for various firearms that are available (as opposed to throwing in more guns than you have number keys to bind them all), along with the use of “Off-Hand” weapons and other “Quickuse” items. In total there are eight weapons and ten if you have the “Anarchy Edition” of the game. These are the “Fists of Rage” (Anarchy Ed.), the Settler’s Pistol, the Double-Barrel Shotgun (Anarchy Ed.), the Combat Shotgun, the Settler’s Rifle, the Sniper Rifle, the Striker Crossbow, the Authority Machine Gun (AMG), the Rocket Launcher, the Authority Pulse Cannon (APC). Main weapons aside there are twenty different ammunition types with some packing a better punch or those that have unique qualities to them offering you different ways to retool your firearms for a range of purposes. In further detail the munitions are (for the Pistol) Pistol Rounds, Fatboys (a “Magnum” slug), Killbursts (a single shot rapid fire burst) and Fat Mommas (a “Super-Magnum” slug). For the Shotguns you have Buckshots, Pulse Shots (EMP Buckshot) and Pop Rockets (a high explosive slug – great for blowing idiots to Kingdom Come). For the Rifle you have Steel-Tipped Rounds and Feltrite Rounds (harder hitting rounds crafted from the alien ore left over from the impact). The Sniper Rifle only has one munition type. Then with the AMG you have Authority MG Rounds and the harder hitting Authority AV2x Rounds. The Crossbow (being the one of the more interesting weapons) has Steel-Tipped Bolts, Electro Bolts (great fun for electrocuting a group idiots splashing around in puddles), Mind Control Bolts (turns victims into suicide bombers that can move a short range at a very slow rate) and Dynamite Bolts (The kind of crossbow version of high explosives Rambo used from a longbow). For the Rocket Launcher you have HE Rockets (regular rockets) and Viper Rockets (Anti-Vehicle rockets). And finally the APC offers Authority Pulse Rounds and BFG (Big F’ing Gun – in case you haven’t figured that out by now – a shot that can clear a room) both of which resemble equivalents to Doom’s Plasma Rifle and BFG 9000.
Along with these you have what Rage calls “Quickuse” items which include weapons and assisting items. These are the Wingstick (a three-point boomerang-like throwing star), HE (High Explosive) Grenades, EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) Grenades, RC Bomb Cars, Sentry Turrets, Sentry Bots (vicious Robo-Spiders armed with a machinegun), Lock Grinders (for grinding bolted door locks) and various health/damage boosts along with improved versions of the Wingsticks and Sentries.
This is probably the most noticeable difference between PC and console versions with regard to how you play. PC you have the all main weapons bound to the number row keys, the Quickuse and Ammunition is selected using respected cycling (Previous / Next) keys. With the console versions you hold the Weapon select button (being right trigger or shoulder again depending on your layout) and move respected analog sticks (right stick for weapons and left for ammunition of the weapon highlighted) in one of four directions then release once you have the desired combination, whereas Quickuse can be called up using one of the fire D-Pad buttons. Personally I believe the console versions to have the better setups (unless the PC version has XBOX Controller support) as it steers you toward specialisation which can of course be tailored to individual play styles – Thus my next point. The great thing about Rage is that you can apply almost any playing style as the game gives you a nice degree of freedom with the weapons and items at your disposal. From what I have noticed there are three core playing playing styles that can be applied to the game and for each one I will suggest some ideal potential loadouts. Firstly you have the typical “Charge In All Guns Blazing” player – For that I would be inclined to recommend using the Rifle, Shotguns, AMG, APC with the full range of munition types along with grenades, a sentry bot and some wingsticks on hand. For the “Campers” (those who are clever and cheeky enough to pull it off) the Sniper Rifle, a Pistol (make sure you have the monocular) using the hard hitting slugs with sentry turrets on side and some grenades. As for the Stealthy (Stealth in Rage entails catching enemies off guard and unaware rather than sneaking through without being noticed) the Striker Crossbow with the full ammunition range, Fists of Rage, wingsticks, RC bomb cars and grenades will work wonders. As the gamepad scheme of selection uses three sets of four interchangeable slots, it is surprisingly good as it offers a fast “On-The-Fly” means for getting the right tools for right job (when you need them). Although with fast cycling and main weapon selection via the number row, the keyboard / mouse setup can offer a more precise and direct scheme of control. But that’s how business can be done “On Foot”.
Driving however offers quite a surprisingly simple layout with hardly any difference between PC and console versions. You have steering, camera controls, main weapon toggle select, target select, accelerator, brake/reverse, handbrake, boost, four-way Quickuse select buttons with respected weapon and Quickuse triggers. The handling of the vehicles is relatively similar to the Burnout games offering an arcade feel to the game giving Rage a nice retrospective touch. The Quickuse items you can use whilst driving include shield and armour replacements along with a selection of support weapons that can be equipped in the garage before setting out.
With the story-driven campaign you interact with characters in “Hub” areas who in turn give you missions much like you would expect when playing a Roleplaying game, the missions (from an RPG standpoint) play out like a set of “Dungeon Crawls” as you play through linear levels – But that’s as far as the Roleplaying comparisons go.
Rage’s story follows a post-apocalyptic future that is result of an asteroid hitting Earth (specifically the actual asteroid from 2004, Apophis 99942 which is due to pass Earth on April 13 2029 – That’s a chilling thought given there’s a slim chance of it hitting on the same day in 2036!) rather than the all too common “Nuclear Winter” / “Scorched Earth” scenario as (recently) told by the Fallout games. The game begins with a pre-rendered cutscene showing Apophis making it’s way to Earth from deep space during which you also see Ark volunteers prepare. The final clip shows the asteroid skimming across the surface of the moon before hitting Earth like a nuclear missile from Hell. Throughout the entire cut scene is a brilliant piece of music that starts off with the piano gently playing and coming in with a string assortment ending with a strong symphonic collaboration between the two while capturing the sense of hope through a time of impending doom. Personally I believe that particular overture to be one of the best pieces from Rage’s soundtrack. Now the story in a nutshell (without giving too much away) is a little vague, but very well done none the less.
Apophis is on a crash course with Earth. A global initiative using (deep) underground stasis chambers to preserve humanity are built. The volunteers who enter stasis are injected with “Nanotrites” (computer/robotic organisms in the bloodstream designed augment body), these you learn more about as you progress through the campaign. You emerge from your Ark roughly a century from the time of impact – Rage is set sometime in the twenty second century.
You start the campaign finding your self in the company of one of the settlement leaders who comes to your aid at the start (for reasons I will let you find out for yourselves). Rage’s tutorial spands the entire prologue as you carry out jobs for the two settlements in the area. The story takes off once you reach the town of Wellspring and conclude your business with the settlement leader (whom meet in the very beginner) Dan Hagar who is (masterfully) voiced by John Goodman. Throughout the story you will often hear mention and (eventually) encounter “The Authority” which is the global totalitarian dictatorship regime which has established itself presumably shortly after the cataclysm. The campaign will have you doing battles with bandit tribes, slaughtering mutant hordes, partaking in local motorsport events and ultimately waging war with The Authority.
The campaign alone is sure to offer plenty of heart pounding action to keep you occupied for about twenty hours or more, should you be inclined to check out all side missions and activities available. However the multiplayer action I believe to be equally satisfying. In multiplayer you have two modes to choose from, the competitive vehicle-only Road Rage and the cooperative Wasteland Legends.
Road Rage is the four player competitive side of Rage which is quite a surprise, as it only offers vehicle events that include various rallies and “Carnage” being the deathmatch mode. Similar to multiplayer feature in most triple-A action titles you have a rank system where you gain experience to progress through levels and are rewarded with unlockable items – In this case vehicles and weapons.
Wasteland Legends on the other hand, plays out using first person on-foot as you complete story-based scenarios that give backstories into the major characters in the world of Rage. You can play two player online and splitscreen as you fight through a “Survival Course” style scenario racking a score with every kill.
For those who are used to multiplayer action that is commonly seen in games like Borderlands, Call of Duty, Battlefield, etc. Rage can take a bit of getting used to as it can offer different and refreshing changes to those who are open to it.
Overall Rage is an awesome package waiting to offer an experience that I believe can be summed up as a High Octane, Heart-Pounding Action Science Fiction Thrillride!

Is Rage worth the purchase?

If “Post-Apocalyse” is your thing… Definitely!
If you’re looking for fast paced retrospective action game… Hell yeah!
If you are fan of id Software’s original works… What the hell are you waiting for?!?!? (go for Anarchy Edition)

Seriously Rage is one such title I would quote as being “Promising”!

Grade: A (80/100)

Marks

Audio: 10
Visual: 10
Gameplay: 10
Content: 10
Skill: 10
Technical: 10
Audience: Adult (20 Marks)

Posted in PlayStation 3, STEAM, Windows, XBOX 360 | Tagged rage | Leave a comment

Review: Battlefield 3 (PlayStation 3)

Posted on November 22, 2011 by Wolfy

Developer: DICE
Publisher: Electronic Arts
Release: 2011
Platform: Windows / STEAM / PlayStation 3 / XBOX 360
Genre: Action
Classification: MA

Reviewer: Wolfy

Ah yes, one of the very franchises that put competitive team-based action multiplayer on the map, the Battlefield series. The franchise began with Battlefield 1942 in 2002. In 2004 after expansions came Battlefield: Vietnam. However both the BF194X and BFV games as their titles, set a historical theme that focuses on the conflicts their names refer to, 1942/43 covering World War II and Vietnam the war with the same name that occurred during the 1960s. 2005 saw the release of Battlefield 2 which unlike it’s predecessors followed a theme suggesting near future as it was a “Present Day” one featuring conflict involving USA, China and the (fictitious) Middle Eastern Coalition (MEC). The following year saw Battlefield 2142 which was the year suggests this is of course a science-fiction conflict with a real-world spin put on it.
What all these games had in common was the that all them presented a multiplayer-focused game where players fought for control points across the battlefield hence the name. This particular game mode was the game’s signature feature known as “Conquest”, however you had other more traditional competitive such as deathmatches. One thing that made the series stand out from it’s competition was that it featured a range of vehicles available on the field, even marine vessels. The other was the use of selectable classes that offered unique playing styles and strategic position on the team, much like you would find in team sports like football and basketball etc.
Normally at this point I like to open with the featured single player mode of a game, but in the case of Battlefield 3 there’s not much to tell with regard to the story as it’s both unoriginal and uses woeful storytelling techniques as far as action games go. But for those willing to risk their sanity (by suffering unnecessary frustration) the campaign story combines plots and similar settings to what you would expect to find in Call of Duty’s Modern Warfare Trilogy and Black Ops, which for those of you who couldn’t be buggered trundling through four games to get the same type of story that BF3 offers in one – Being the games only advantage over it’s rival’s single player storytelling. As for the rest of it Battlefield 3 despite having some solid on-foot combat action, the occasional quick time events that pop up when being jumped by clever hostile individuals and unforgivingly difficult objectives that do nothing but frustrate you. Although in all fairness with regard to the harder objectives, I can understand the emphasis on the high stakes. Traditionally the mainstream Battlefield games featured a single player campaign that offered you a means to practice for the multiplayer experience against the AI. With exception to the story-driven spin-off series Bad Company, Battlefield has always focused toward offering a highly competitive strategy-intense team oriented multiplayer experience.
You’re probably wondering what I meant by that last statement…
Well, when you have a multiplayer game that pits two teams against each other with large environments and vehicles ready for use, this game is significantly different to it’s competition Call of Duty in that regard alone. Upon closer inspection it’s like it’s predecessors BF3 offers some reasonably accurate physics, particularly those effecting projectiles versus moving targets. However Battlefield’s team oriented nature shows with the class selection. In Battlefield 3 there are four positions players can choose from when doing their part for the team – Assault, Engineer, Support and Recon.
The Assault class is a forward fighting position specialising in firefights while having the ability to administer medical attention to wounded comrades. The Engineer class is a defensive support position that is centred around vehicles, as you can use a repair tool along with having anti-vehicle weapons and explosives at your disposal. The Support class is as the name suggests an assistive position specialising in fire support and having the ability to resupply comrades in the field. The Recon class is somewhat of a tactical position that specialises in range combat and possesses the passive ability to reveal any hostile targets in view on the team radar. Each of these positions can use similar weapons if not the same, but differ in bringing their own disciplines to the (proverbial) table.
Along with the traditional Conquest, Battlefield 3′s game modes centre around deathmatch and objective-based scenario types.
As you would expect in Conquest, the game centres around capturing and holding strategic points throughout the battlefield, where the environments are often large areas and offer a selection of vehicles scattered throughout. Whereas deathmatches take place in smaller environments where players are restricted to fighting on-foot.
Overall Battlefield 3 is an impressive package and a worthy successor to it’s mainstream predecessors despite it’s shortcomings.

Is Battlefield 3 worth getting?

If it’s a story-driven modern military action shooter you’re looking for. I would be more inclined suggesting you check out Call of Duty as it does a better job at storytelling.
However if it’s the fiercely competitive multiplayer you know and love from the Battlefield franchise, then that is all the motive you need to run out make the purchase as it is well worth it for that reason alone!

Grade: B (71/100)

Mark

Audio: 10
Visual: 10
Gameplay: 8
Content: 7
Skill: 7
Technical: 9
Audience: Adult (20 Marks)

Posted in PlayStation 3, STEAM, Windows, XBOX 360 | Leave a comment

2011: Action Packed Final Quarter

Posted on November 16, 2011 by Wolfy

The Final Quarter has come and (almost) gone through which we have had the pleasure of being treated to a wave of blockbuster game releases. These include Gears of War 3, Rage, Forza Motorsport 4, Uncharted 3, Battlefield 3, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, The Elder Scrolls (Chapter) V: Skyrim and Saints Row: The Third along with an assortment of other highly anticipated titles.
Out of these I looked forward to the most were Rage, Forza 4, Saints 3 and of course Rage. However I was rather disgusted with Modern Warfare 3 Hardened Edition as found that the codes in which to redeem the exclusive content had expired (according to the fine print) on the Australian release date, to pay $160AU and waste between $50 to $60 – NO BLOODY WAY!
As any honest consumer who just got ripped would I returned the game (which I pre-ordered and paid off in full) and asked for a refund, and with those returned funds I “Pre-Purchased” both Skyrim and Saints 3 from which I have no regrets.
Skyrim is (in my opinion) arguably the best The Elder Scrolls series has to offer and one of the most immersive games to date, if not all time.
Saints Row: The Third takes an interesting change in direction as I have so far found it to add more realistic feel to it (as opposed to it’s predecessor’s zany action) as the gunplay feels a lot like something out of Call of Duty Modern Warfare whilst acing Duke Nukem Forever (which failed miserably in comparison) at playing the “Badboy” image and still be able to look good. What Volition have done to the latest Saints Row is similar to what Bethesda has done for Skyrim in playing a balancing act by streamlining existing features as wells as adding new intuitive ones.
I would have to say 2011 as a gaming year has concluded on a high note and look forward to 2012 and beyond.

Posted in Chatter | Leave a comment

Literary Distraction: Recommended Reading

Posted on September 11, 2011 by Wolfy

You Probably wonder what I’ve been up since my last article…

Aside from scoring the legendary Grand Theft Auto III Trilogy MAC versions on a single $50 iTunes card from the App Store and playing those amongst other things, few days ago I have just got stuck into something other than a game.
Yes. A book. In fact this is complete series of The Circle by Ted Dekker compiled of the four volumes, which each would normal be about $20AUD. The Circle 4-In-1 Book to be precise which I purchased from a Christian bookstore for about $25AUD.
So what is The Circle?
For those unfamiliar with the series (from what I have read so far and of the synopses on Wikipedia), it is a science fiction action thriller with a similar mythos that you would from C.S. Lewis’ The Chronicles of Narnia and Wayne Thomas Batson’s The Door Within Trilogy along. Like Narnia you have the dual settings of reality and an alternate reality (so to speak), like Door Within this is set within present day (21st Century) times (whereas Narnia set in what was present day WWII and Post-WWII times as it was written and published between 1950 – ’56). The Circle however takes this concept of two realities (Earth we know and “Other” Earth) which seem to be past and future as the series and it’s bridging spinoff The Lost Books instalment Chosen implies that this alternate reality is 41st Century. The Circle’s prologue plays out like a scene from a Tom Clancy novel featuring a conversation between the principal antagonist and his right-hand over a diabolical scheme to bring the world to it’s knees. The main story begins setting the mood quite nicely and wastes little time in thrusting you into the action which plays like an intense action scene from the movie Hard Target and then giving you a glimpse into the alternate reality looking like something out of Clive Barker’s horror novels. Of the five chapters I have read of Black (the first instalment of the series featured in this “Compendium” edition), whoever described this book as an “Adrenaline-laced volume” on the blurb wasn’t kidding!
So along with all my gaming sessions, reviewing and so forth I will be reading The Circle in it’s entirety and look forward to presenting a review of sorts here on Gamegeddon.
But in the mean time, for those of you who are readers… Check out The Circle by Ted Dekker (Black, Red, White, Green or the 4-in-1 Edition) if you haven’t already!

Posted in Chatter | Tagged black, green, red, ted dekker, the circle, white | Leave a comment

Where’s The Trust???

Posted on August 31, 2011 by Wolfy

Digital Rights Management. Yes DRM that fowl word we law-abiding gamers loath and despise developers for even contemplating the use of. What is it?
In theory it’s supposed to be the answer to piracy on all fronts (software and all forms of digital media) when in reality it does nothing if at all to stop pirates, but rather infuriates the honest customers by making them feel like the criminals. Although the mass majority of DRM schemes available hold this infamous reputation for doing nothing but antagonise the user, there some out there that are in fact “Consumer Friendly” one of which is Steam. Probably a personal favourite given I am a fan of Half-Life and (especially) the Counter-Strike franchise, however Steam comes across more a like digitised game console rather than what it is. In a sense this a platform of its own though (technically) a “Sub-Platform” as it operates in the confines of an existing operating system being Windows and MAC OS as they are officially supported – Essentially Steam combines the services of a game store / delivery system, secure game servers for multiplayer, remote library (should you loose your games or install on a fresh / addition systems) and community features on top of providing developers with a reasonably secure DRM scheme. As a DRM scheme I find this reasonably fair as Steam will allow you to run your games offline by way of the “Offline Mode”, unfortunately it can get a little tricky to do if don’t clear it properly before go offline. Steam as a package is win for both the consumer and the developer, BUT there are some publishers who do not seem to be content with the security provided thusly bringing be me to the point of this topic.

What I cannot stand is developers who insist on using third-party DRM when you have Steam which is DRM… WHAT THE HELL!!!

Personally that is overkill on the publisher’s part and in Valve’s shoes I would personally consider that an act of total distrust and an insult by implying that Steam’s security as a DRM is inferior.
The use of DRM on top of Steam that impose activation limits and/or require a permanent connection to the internet is absolute rubbish and a surefire way to antagonise consumers. There are publishers out there that have dropped DRM from their games after having faced consumer backlash, some of which fail to learn from this as they at later stage reinstate DRM to their products only to go through the same ordeal all over again. If insanity is defined as trying the same method while expecting achieve different outcome, then it’s publishers that go through the motions of reinstating DRM and backing down from angry consumers time and time after again thinking that consumers will appreciate hostile DRM schemes.

As a consumer I rarely purchase PC (Windows, MAC OS, etc.) games over the counter as most are “Protected” by DRM of some description and quite frankly I will deduct Technical marks (accordingly) based on how antagonising I find the DRM used should I review one of these games.
Here at Gamegeddon with exception to software delivery services (e.g. Steam) I do not support the use of DRM. As an Aussie and law-abiding consumer, along with all like-minded gamers “Fair Go” is all we ask.

Posted in Chatter | Tagged DRM | Leave a comment

Sid Meier’s Civilization: The Comparison

Posted on August 17, 2011 by Wolfy

Now this is a franchise I have heard about on and off since the 1990′s. About a few weeks ago I got curious enough to give Sid Meier’s Civilization a craic, so I purchased Civilization V Digital Deluxe on sale from Steam at 29.99USD. I have to admit it was very easy to get into and I found out for myself just how addictive this game really is! About a week into playing Civ5 I getting ready to review the game and I was curious enough to purchase Civilization IV Complete Edition on Steam (initially) for comparative research purposes, but since playing I haven’t played Civ5 since!
So this has lead to this very comparison I will now present to you based on my experiences thus far.
I will start by that the latest instalment offers superior graphics, the use of actual languages for each of the featured civilisations in this game. Aside from the obvious Civilization V changes the layout from the traditional (square) grid to a hex grid along with eliminating stacks with the exception to Military and Civilian units occupying the same tile. These particular changes establish what I feel to be a much stronger emphasis on both strategy and tactics shifting the nature of the game from Turn Based Stackfest back to Turn Based Strategy (which is what TBS stands for). Beyond that there are small changes add conveniences to the game but aside from those it really does not change the fact that latest instalment is somewhat of a “Dumbed Down” version when compared to Civilization IV.
Whilst Civilization V appeals to the casual uninitiated audience, Civilization IV may not have the strategically rich combat it’s sequel has but rather offering a richer experience in the way you run your empire. In both games you built improvements on the tiles within your borders and within each of your cities. Civ5 removes settlements (which start as cottages that eventually grow into towns) from the improvements you can place on tiles which gave you more control as to how you built up your territories. Improvements that were built within your cities appeared visually in the city (in both games) – The difference in the way the city improvement structures appeared comes down to the presentation between the two games. Civ5′s presentation came across for me as being quite glitchy especially when coliseums and castles appeared with a wall running right through the middle of them or seeing a stadium pitch under water because it was place on the cost or a river/lake bank tile. Civ4 however is quite intelligent looking in the way it handles the cities’ visual presentation. As the city expand the walls will wrap around the edges, giving a much cleaner rendered look.
One of the other features I found to be a nice touch was the occasional pop quizzes that appear explaining random situation offering any a single response to multiple ones, each of these (when moused over) have consequences that effect your empires efficiency both positively and/or negatively. The main advantages that makes Civ4 in my opinion richer than Civ5 are the diplomatic options available to you when interacting with others, balanced AI that actually will do business with you rather than opt for conquest over diplomacy when it decides it’s had enough of you along with having religions that serve active purposes in the game.
You would expect Civilization V to be a tougher challenge than it’s immediate predecessor… That is not the case here as Civilization IV is more complexed that it’s sequel and AI is tougher despite not being aggressive.
Overall I personally believe Civilization IV is by far the more satisfying game of the two and (on Steam) at 29.99 USD (Complete Edition) as opposed to Civilization V at the regular retail of 79.99 (Digital Deluxe), it is a better deal as well!

Posted in Chatter | Leave a comment

Review: Duke Nukem Forever

Posted on June 23, 2011 by Wolfy

Developer: 3D Realms / Gearbox Software / Triptych Games / Piranha Games
Publisher: 2K Games
Release: 2011
Platform: Windows / STEAM / PlayStation 3 / XBOX 360
Genre: Action / Science Fiction
Classification: MA

Reviewer: Wolfy

For those of you who are not familiar with the Duke Nukem franchise, it all started with the original episodic shareware game that (back then) was spelt Duke Nukum until the sequel that was released two years later. The first two games featured two dimensional platforming gameplay back when the gamers we’re heavily into games of similar nature like Super Mario Bros., Sonic The Hedgehog and of course Commander Keen along with a multitude of other platform action games. The first game saw Duke Nukem take on his original adversary Dr. Proton and his robotic legion using what resembled a pulse rifle of sorts. Duke Nukem II introduced three new weapons to the mix as you foot a mysterious alien warlord who was after Duke’s brain. The third game Duke Nukem 3D of 1996 become somewhat of a quantum leap compared to it’s predecessors (however not necessarily to the it’s “newfound” genre) as the game evolved from a platformer into a fist person shooter. Like the majority of FPS games of the day it was fun to play (with or without “Cheats”) offering a high replay value. Unlike other shooters this game was the first to use the Build engine, but what really set Duke Nukem 3D apart from the others was the tongue in cheek humour and pop cultural references it used. Every time you killed an enemy Duke would spout out with a (not so original) one liner, along with confronting “Bosses” and starting levels. Duke Nukem 3D added shock humour that really stirred up controversy among women’s rights groups with the sexual humour, example being that you could pay strippers to flash. With the level of violence (despite the fact you were facing alien invaders) displaying blood and guts flying, along with the sexual humour all this brought the Duke Nukem franchise from G – PG action game into the realm of adult entertainment.
Now this latest instalment Duke Nukem Forever was initially announced shortly after the success of Duke Nukem 3D round 1997. Duke Nukem Forever’s development saw the game become the bane of vast number of jokes and ridicule as it was expected never to be released – Dubbed “Vaporware”.
Through the course of it’s development we have seen at least three different versions of the game (including this release) as the game has been redone from having to upgraded to new engine. If we had have seen the game released in 1998 it would have been using the ID2 engine used on Quake II. From the footage shown round 2001/02 you have expected to see a game with rich story and action using UE1 (Unreal and Unreal Tournament) if it had have been released then. But after prolonged development and a court battle between the creators of the franchise and publisher Take Two Interactive we finally see Duke Nukem Forever in the midyear of 2011. The question many fans would have been faced with – Has it been worth the wait?
As a fan of the original PC DOS series from 1991 I will try set aside my prejudice and answer honestly and unbiasedly as I possibly can.
The story is quite simple as it takes place twelve years after Duke Nukem 3D, however the game begins with the prologue that sees you as Duke Nukem start from the ending of the last game (D3D) giving you an indication as to the connection between this game and the prior’s stories. In the previous game you returned to Earth only to find aliens have taken over the world (whether or not these are the same foes from Duke Nukem II, that is unclear) and are (strangely enough) after the female population. Having obliterated the last invasion force from D3D, their at it again with stronger force – Only this time, it’s personal (for both Duke and them). Though Duke Nukem Forever has characters and plots that try to enrich the story, beyond that there really isn’t much to tell.
As for the overall gameplay featured in DN:F it practically uses the majority of the arsenal from the previous game (only retextured and tweeked in a number of ways) and making a few additions in that department. Unlike D3D where you have all-out “Run’N'Gun” gameplay that made it so successful, this game tries too hard to keep with the action franchises of the twenty-first century thereby spreading itself thin.
Now there are some critics who site Duke Nukem having regenerative health as a negative, however DN:F this in the for of EGO which serves as a unified health and armour. This of course can be replenished gradually when you are not under fire, but you can perform “Duke-Like” actions to speed this process up along with expanding your EGO – As an example, pumping iron. Personally I find this EGO system quite an interesting addition to the mix.
One thing about DN:F that serves well to break the ice is the ability to interact with items in the world, this I found surprisingly entertaining especially when I got Duke to pump out of tonne of softdrink cans and then drinking them all – Too bad he doesn’t know his “A-B-Cs”… Okay bad joke, moving right along.
Now in terms of the action department it is actually pretty decent, despite having being restricted to carry two weapons at any given time instead of going into battle with entire arsenal on hand – I do miss that though. But I dare say the gunplay and various “Arena” sequences (eg: Turret battles) are quite satisfying. I have heard the gripe about the game’s overall difficulty though and I would be incline to disagree with the common argument of it being “Too Hard”. If that were so the easiest setting would not let you off the first chapter without having claimed two handfuls of hair due to immense frustration on the player’s part from dying a hundred times on the same segment. No – On the easiest setting (for those who have had a hand FPS games) most will make it through a few chapters until their first death. That is too say that Duke Nukem Forever is not as unforgiving as critics (put forth this argument) are making it out to be, but the game is definitely no “Push-Over” either as it will do a reasonable job of giving you a run for your money.
In trying to keep up with action games that mix things up with puzzle sequences, this is where DN:F starts to get a little tedious for players’ liking. On puzzle will borrow and advances on one involving an RC car puzzle from the game Shadow Warrior where you had to retrieve an important piece to progressing through to the next area.
Where I find Duke Nukem Forever to really fall flat is in the humour featured in the game. Unlike the Duke Nukem 3D – DN:F’s shock humour comes across as being blatantly “Try-Hard” and doesn’t do better than getting a few half-decent chuckles out of you if not being sneered at for being “Uncool”. With exception to the multiplayer modes “Duke Match” and “Duke Of The Hill” offering gameplay demonstrating that the game has been making a serious attempt at sticking to the franchise’s roots, the “Capture The Babe” multiplayer mode (while not as offensive as the media make it to be) in another area in which DN:F falls flat as will not appear to gamers who actually HAVE standards (and believe me there are more of us then you may assume). You could be forgiven to think that the try-hard nature of DN:F’s shock humour would reduce this title down to a softcore pornographic action sci-fi game, and I doubt honest critics would blame you for it either.
Now… Has this been worth the wait?
If you are tolerant/forgiving of both the ordeal of waiting as well as the short comings in this game enough to want to pay full price to purchase this game. Then the answer is obviously going to be yes.
If you are not so forgiving not want to pay full price for this… Rent it.
If you are gamer who has the integrity in refusing to lower your standards to play this should you consider this “Smutty” (or something derogatory along these lines). Then you should not feel obligated to satisfy any remote curiosities about this game.

Just don’t expect your mother, sister, girlfriend, wife, etcetera to play this one let alone appreciate it.

Grade: C (61.5/100)

Marks

Audio: 7
Visual: 8.5
Gameplay: 7
Content: 7
Skill: 7
Technical: 5
Audience: Adult (20 Marks)

Posted in PlayStation 3, STEAM, Windows, XBOX 360 | 1 Comment

Review: L.A. Noire (PlayStation 3)

Posted on June 8, 2011 by Wolfy

Developer: Team Bondi
Publisher: Rockstar
Release: 2011
Platform: PlayStation 3 / XBOX 360
Genre: Historical Police Procedural Action Adventure
Classification: MA

Reviewer: Wolfy

LA Noire is a game that dramatically reinvents a classical genre from the eighties and nineties, the “Point & Click” Adventure or (more commonly known as) Quest Games. This game was built using the same engine used for the recent Grand Theft Auto installments and plays in a similar fashion for the most part. However expecting to jump into Noire and play a 1947 themed GTA as a cop and you will find yourself failing to appreciate the game to its fullest degree. Unlike GTA where you a free to roam an open world environment at your leisure, you will find yourself progressing from case to case in progressive linear fashion. However during cases you will practically have full access to the open world of (recreated) 1947 Los Angeles where you have the opportunity to attend dispatch callouts. That is about as far a the similarities between Noire and GTA go. For the most part of the game you will be questioning suspects and witnesses alike, along with performing your fair share of crime scene investigations. Like the Grand Theft Auto games you will be presented with a rich story and a cast of well developed characters (no to mention the actors voicing them). LA Noire puts you in the shows of the good cop Cole Phelps whom you will see ascend from the beat to major case detective, which is played out over five different departments or “Desks”. As indicated before the story is set in Post World War II Los Angeles (1947) and you will be present throughout the story with clips from Cole’s past. When you are questioning (witnesses and suspects) you can respond in one of three ways with the corresponding button press – Truth, Doubt and Lie. To explain this here’s an reference for each one. Follow (Truth) further into what the witness/suspect is saying. Confront (Lie) with the appropriate evidence if the suspect/witness is lying. Push (Doubt) suspect/witness for the truth when you know their lying and have no real evidence to prove that.
You may be wondering how is that possible (aside from listening/reading what is being said). Noire uses advanced motion capture technology that reproduces facial expressions of the actors, giving you a close to lifelike experience when interacting with others. After a few face to face conversations, you will eventually develop a knack for reading peoples faces. When someone is being honest, the will generally look you in the eyes and keep a consistent tone when speaking. On the other hand when they’re lying, people will not keep consistent eye contact. Noire’s motion capture you will see every emotion as you would in reality, especially when there is action.
Like Grand Theft Auto you have a degree of combat sequences, in Noire these commonly unfold where perpetrators are resisting arrest. Unarmed fight sequences are quite interesting and relatively fluid, given that the character uses boxing and a couple of judo techniques. However firefights are by far the most satisfying with some fairly simple aim and cover mechanics with some serious gunplay. Though these combat sequences can be shot in most cases they are surprisingly satisfying.
Driving is a lot like GTA as it used for general transportation and various pursuits. Like GTA you can in fact take other vehicles not belonging to you, but instead of stealing your character identifies himself as police and officially commandeers the vehicle, although if you’re looking to reach for a weapon from the trunk of your car sticking with Police vehicles is the best option. While driving during cases you will receive random calls from dispatch (via radio) in relation to a disturbance in which you are prompted to respond, but can easily ignore if you so choose. For those who like to get from “Point A” to “Point B” quickly as possible, there is a “Quick-Travel” option by way of pressing and holding the Interact button on the car your entering in which your partner will drive at your request, however you will not be able to respond to call-outs.
Like any roleplaying game Noire has an experience system in which accumulates with everything you do thereby progressing in level. Whilst on the subject of RPG this game has unlockable outfits which grant your character with certain buffs, for example the “Chicago Lightning” (reward for joining Rockstar Social Club) offers increased accuracy with Thomspon SMG, BAR and Shotguns.
LA Noire summed up is very much like a well presented interactive motion picture offering a rich story. This is a game definitely well worth hunting for especially if you are a connoisseur of “Quest” games and Film Noire.

Grade: A (80/100)

Marks

Audio: 10
Visual: 10
Gameplay: 10
Content: 10
Skill: 10
Technical: 10
Audience: Adult (20 Marks)

Posted in PlayStation 3, XBOX 360 | 1 Comment

Licensed Games: The Good. The Bad. The Ugly.

Posted on May 26, 2011 by Wolfy

Licensed videogame market. Now that’s something doesn’t normally enter into same sentence as A-Grade. I suppose back in the 80′s and 90′s those kind of games actually were worthwhile playing, nowadays there are few you can say that about. Licensed video games are an official representation of a licensed publication/product (eg: novel, motion picture, comic book, board game, ect.). Now to be fair the more successful games of this kind are typically board and card games, however the licensed games I refer to are those that are relating to motion pictures generally do not fair so well. One of the (arguably) all-time greatest motion picture licensed games would have to be 007: GoldenEye released on the Nintendo64. One of the worst… As the video game market has a lot of them, I can only refer to the most recent game I had a look at. Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part I, easily D-Grade at best. The movie I had the pleasure of watching (Zune Rental) in late hours of Sunday night in which I found to be quite the good thriller, because of the movie’s pace and action I could understand the additional side quests tacked on for benefit of making something half decent. Unfortunately all that made much difference as the game own storytelling was quite flawed and the basic animations I found to be uncoordinated, really the game was a boring representation of the movie. Games like that just fuel my argument in relation to developers’ incessant “need” to release a game every time a blockbuster is about to hit cinemas in order to rake in more cash. Because of this a game’s quality suffers due to being rushed out to released along side the movie. Don’t get me wrong but licensed videogames aren’t necessarily a bad thing, but saturating the market with cheap rushjobs doesn’t do any justice either.

Posted in Chatter | Leave a comment

Review: SOPA

Review: Rage (PlayStation 3)

Review: Battlefield 3 (PlayStation 3)

2011: Action Packed Final Quarter

Literary Distraction: Recommended Reading

Where’s The Trust???

Sid Meier’s Civilization: The Comparison

Review: Duke Nukem Forever

Review: L.A. Noire (PlayStation 3)

Licensed Games: The Good. The Bad. The Ugly.

CP

Archives