"The major thing about Perceptional Properties, such as copyright, is that if it didn't exist, there would be no physical harm that could be proven. With Perceptional Property laws, there is provable harm"
What physical harm did you have in mind?
Please provide some examples/citations of "provable" "physical" harm.
The paper by Clement et. al. comes under some good criticism by David Post at The Volokh Conspiracy.
As Post says: "As a historical matter, I think they’re dead wrong."..."I also think they’re wrong, on the merits"
Post also observes that this paper appears to be a response to the recent Derek Khanna policy brief published and then withdrawn by the Republican Study Committee. The implication is that Clement is trying to influence originalist members of the GOP into thinking the founders believed in some natural right to intellectual property.
It is therefore well to consider that Thomas Jefferson directly addressed the question of natural rights with respect to what we now call 'intellectual property'.
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it."
You are addressing the question of sensitive equipment used to determine the aircraft's location relative to the ground and it makes sense that these systems would only be on during takeoffs and landings.
I addressing another of the AC's arguments however. He was contending that there is a self-destruct device on-board airliners which he hypothesized could be triggered by interference from consumer electronics.
A) I don't believe such devices exist.
B) If they did exist, and interference triggering was possible, then electronic devices would never be allowed at any time during flight.
The insidious part of this is that once service providers begin selling their customers' data to the government, it becomes a regular budgeted income stream for them. The providers become accustomed to having this income stream, and are thereafter driven by typical profit incentive to promote even greater data sales volume.
Couldn't you bother to fact check even a little bit, before chiming in with the posters who were low on facts and high on FUD?
FACT: Analogue circuits are more vulnerable to RFI than their digital counterparts.
FACT: When comparing cell phones, the older AMPS phones had the greatest susceptibility to RFI, followed by D-AMPS phones. Fully digital phones are less susceptible.
OK... so commercial aircraft have self destruct devices now?
It is quite implausible that anyone charged in protecting public safety would want a device with explosive potential on-board commercial aircraft, as it would increase the risk of further damage or loss of life in the event of a crash. Why would authorities want to take the risk that a lessor problem such as a landing gear malfunction turns into a major tragedy? Even if this device did exist, the potential to remotely trigger it raises the possibility not only that a terrorist might somehow become aware of this secret device and search for ways to trigger it, (How secret could if be if it truly exists, and yet we are talking about it here on Techdirt) but also there would always be the small possibility that someone with inside knowledge of the device could become psychiatrically deranged with murderous intent and decide to bring a plane down. After all, such an action would be much safer for the psychiatric patient than going into a theater with a loaded assault weapon.
In short, I call BS.
Now what about your ideas that a consumer electronic device could malfunction and begin emitting radio waves that would trigger such a self destruct mechanism, and further that this is a reason why electronic devices can't be allowed during take-off and landing? If this were true, electronic devices would not be any safer in mid-flight than during landing. Wouldn't a plane falling from 36,000 feet when this 'self-destruct' mechanism inadvertently triggered be more terrifying and horrific than a much briefer fall from 300 feet?
Have you ever had someone say that they tried unsuccessfully to call you when you know you had your phone while in flight, or has it just never happened, so you assume that it can't happen?
Also, did you consider the possibility that the cell carriers may be using tower multilateration, GPS, and/or speed calculations to identify the fact that your cell phone is on a commercial flight, and thereby actively block in-coming calls?
You refer to the idea that the existence of too many potential cell tower connections would be a problem. Hypothetically your cell phone on-board a plane could be switching to a new stronger signal every few seconds.
Even if this did cause problems for the service providers, perhaps from a billing/minutes accounting standpoint, I don't think the actual phone user would have a problem.
It should be observed however, that if the service providers WANTED to make this possible, it would be easy to control frequent tower switching with programming in the phone which would limit the frequency of switches when multiple connections are present. Think of the way your thermostat prevents frequent on-off cycling by being programmed not to immediately switch on the furnace just because the temperature has dropped one degree below target.
**Bonus Patent Idea**
It would even be possible for software to go beyond time delay limitations and address the issue in a more sophisticated way by using the phone's position and speed to calculate the flight vector and predict the best tower to switch to next in a way that would reduce the number of necessary switching events while maintaining optimal signal.
You are *completely* wrong!!!
I can give you an example of a call that is very memorable to me. About 3 weeks before the ban I was flying from San Francisco to Seattle. The flight happened to pass over my hometown in Oregon. I was able to look out the right side window and identify my parents' property. I called my mother on the cell phone and told her to go outside and look for a plane in the sky to the west. She was able to see the plane I was flying on. That call was made at cruising altitude, and as I said above, there was no problem whatsoever with the call. The only point I can award you is that yes, the call was only 2-3 minutes long. I didn't have a 30 minute conversation, but kept it short was because I didn't want to annoy the person sitting next to me. I certainly didn't hang up because the call dropped.
Don't think that you can use theory to debunk actual experience.
Whenever this topic comes up there's always someone who tries to tell us that you can't connect to cell towers from planes. I've even seen the claim being made by someone asserting his superior knowledge as an engineer. I can tell you it is absolute nonsense.
Yes, you can connect to cell towers without any difficulty whatsoever while in airplanes.
The rule banning cell phones in the air was put in place in 1993. Before the ban went into effect I was able to use my cell phone while on commercial aircraft. Such calls did not appear to me, or the person on the other end to be any different than any other cell phone call.
And by the way, there were no dropped calls so long as we were near any cities or major highways.
Irving Espinosa-Rodrigue should look into whether Simon Glik is available to represent him. Glik happens to be a criminal defense lawyer himself, and obviously has uniquely personal experience with this type of case.
You are conflating plagiarism with copyright infringement. They are not the same issue. Plagiarism of public domain works continues to be unacceptable, even though it is legal.
Copyright isn't primarily concerned with plagiarism. It is simply a publishing monopoly.
Plagiarism, on the other hand, is a reputation and trust issue, not a monopoly issue. The ability to get grants as a professional is very much about trust. If you have caused people to mistrust you by committing plagiarism, then those who evaluate grants will have doubt about whether they should trust you with the money they are dispensing.
Copyright isn't even the best way to protect against plagiarism. The best way to protect against plagiarism is to have easy access to the original for side by side comparison. If plagiarism is obvious, then you don't need the law to protect you as an author, the market will do it for you. If you don't think so, consider if you found two books named Treasure Island which appeared to be identical in every respect except for the name of the author, one has Robert Lewis Stevenson and the other has my name as the author. Which one would you buy to read to your 10 year old son? I am quite certain you would choose the version with the correct author attribution, even though my version would be just as entertaining to him, and it would not be illegal to for me to do this.
"Ask veterans if that was not offensive or indecent. I dare you to find one.
I think you are mistaken that veterans would consider this protester's act to be anti-veteran.
It's much more likely to be anti-war, and many veterans, including myself would recognize that.
I'm sure you realize there are more than a few veterans who oppose war.
"...government officials constantly overstepping their constitutional boundaries and stomping on the rights of the citizens
... use protocol as an excuse for limiting freedom"
I agree with your general criticism of using failure to conform to policy as a justification for ruining peoples lives. Civil liberties are very important to all of us
That said, I've been in the military and am aware of some things which most civilians are not.
Many of the constitutional rights afforded to civilians are NOT granted to military service members. For example your commanding officer can indeed restrain your free speech. If you tried to exert a constitutional right to express yourself under such conditions then your disobedience of a direct order would land you in a heap of trouble. Presumably these SEALS have been reprimanded under principles similar to this, in which they had been instructed not to speak about classified matters.
I'll not get into lengthy discussion of why the military is allowed to disregard the civil liberties of its members, but needless to say the military does need to have the power to force people to do things which other free citizens wouldn't choose to do -- such as risk their life.
For those who don't understand the military point of view, you may want to read an article about the SEALS' interaction with the media in this week's Daily Beast/Newsweek. Although it was written before the announcement of the EA video game event, it addresses these very issues.
If you value your freedom, please remember as we come up on Veterans Days that there are people serving you who are willing to give up their own freedom for a period of time in order to protect yours.
Thanks for trying to provide some perspective here. I still have to chide you about the anarchism issue however.
Yes libertarians use terms like anarcho-capitalism, but if you read you will see that almost no one is advocating actual anarchy. The number of libertarians who believe that anarchy is a practical alternative is certainly not any greater than the number of liberals who think communism is a practical alternative. In other words, in some utopian ideal world it might be possible but not in the real world.
Libertarians are not looking to abolish the government. They are looking to limit the size of government.