> But Disney will say that since the astronaut is (more than
> likely will be) American, and so will the rocket and lander,
> that US style copyright law does apply.
Disney can say whatever it likes. Doesn't make it true. The fact that a person is an American citizen doesn't mean U.S. law follows them around the universe wherever they go. A U.S. citizen can go to Amsterdam and legally smoke pot even though it's illegal to do so in the U.S. Likewise, a U.S. citizen could go to Mars and copy, play, and sell (if there was anyone else to sell to) the entire Disney DVD library and no law would be violated.
Despite the recent delusions of grandeur by a few Justice Department officials, U.S. law only applies in the U.S. It doesn't even apply 20 feet over the border in Canada. Why the hell would it apply on Mars?
To claim otherwise would essentially be claiming that the U.S. Congress has the legal authority to bind the entire universe with its laws, and that's laughable on its face.
> If the first person to walk on Mars
> decides to launch into "A Whole New World",
> the rights will need to have been cleared
> with Disney first.
I don't see why. Neither the United States nor any other country have jurisdiction on Mars. Their laws don't apply on Mars. There is *no* copyright law on Mars. Any person who happens to be there is free to do anything they like with any song they like.
> Going after each customer in breach of
> contract is far more difficult than shutting
> down the parties that supply the tools that
> make it all too simple for their customers to
> breach.
Ah, so you apparently believe making things easy for big companies at the expense of citizens' property rights is the proper purpose of the criminal justice system.
I'll admit from the start that I don't know much about patents. I usually skip all the patent stories on this site because the technicalities of it all make my head hurt and I lose interest.
But here I have to ask about this bit:
> Factors that suggest a bad faith patent assertion
> include not identifying the patent(s)-at-issue,
> and exactly how the recipient's behavior violates
> the patent
How the hell can someone sue, claiming a violation of their patent without even identifying the patent at issue? Or how the defendant is violating it?
How would such a suit even work? Does the plaintiff go into court and just say, "Defendant is violation a patent I own. Not gonna say how, or even which one. Just trust me, I own it, and they're violating it."
While I don't know much about patents, I do know basic civil procedure, and that seems ripe for a summary judgement ruling in favor of the defense.
Congress and the FAA could solve this problem quickly and easily. Just mandate a 1000-foot minimum altitude over private property, for all types of aircraft, regardless of whether it's urban or rural.
That preserves both the property owner's privacy and trespass rights, while still allowing for legitimate commercial aviation activities.
> Clearly, at some height the air is part of
> the sky commons that belongs to everyone,
> as a famous 1946 US Supreme Court decision
> laid down
Yes, most states have set minimum altitude limits for aircraft, which allow for normal aviation, but also protect the rights of private property owners.
Basically, anything below the statutory altitude becomes a trespass. It's why paparazzi and news helicopters in Los Angeles have to stay way up there when covering everything from celebrity weddings to Lindsay Lohan's latest trek to the courthouse. They can zoom in with their cameras all they like, but the aircraft has to remain above 3000 feet (if I recall the number correctly).
I can't imagine that the State of Washington doesn't have some similar law, which would clearly make this drone flyer a trespasser. Even if they don't, the homeowner is certainly free to knock the thing out of the air with a baseball bat...
> I caught this girl [with a loogie] as she was
> coming up the steps and caught her in the face.
> I have to support the school administrators and
> the school district because this [water balloon fight]
> amounts to an assault.
It's ironic that what you did to the girl was actually more of a criminal assault than a couple of kids engaging in horselplay with water balloons. And yet you only got suspended for it. These kids now have criminal arrest records.
> But if you're asking why the DMCA was enacted
> to begin with,
No, I'm asking *you* why *you* believe a phone service provider should have a legal cause of action against me merely for making full use of my own property.
If doing so violates my contract with them, then they have remedies under contract law. They don't need the DMCA. Why does there need to be this additional draconian statute with criminal penalties out there that really does nothing but prevent people from doing legal things with their own property. The underlying actions are legal but this idiotic law makes the mere act of exercising one's rights a crime.
> Under this proposal, copyright holders would
> no longer have that same legally enforceable
> claim against people that circumvent access
> controls yet do not engage in copyright
> infringement
Why should they have such a claim in the first place, especially when giving them that claim takes away my ability to use my own property the way I want to?
Re:
> Hehe. Copyright on Mars - what a mess.
Not really. It's actually fairly mess-free, considering there is no copyright law (or any other law, for that matter) on Mars.
Re: Re:
> But Disney will say that since the astronaut is (more than
> likely will be) American, and so will the rocket and lander,
> that US style copyright law does apply.
Disney can say whatever it likes. Doesn't make it true. The fact that a person is an American citizen doesn't mean U.S. law follows them around the universe wherever they go. A U.S. citizen can go to Amsterdam and legally smoke pot even though it's illegal to do so in the U.S. Likewise, a U.S. citizen could go to Mars and copy, play, and sell (if there was anyone else to sell to) the entire Disney DVD library and no law would be violated.
Despite the recent delusions of grandeur by a few Justice Department officials, U.S. law only applies in the U.S. It doesn't even apply 20 feet over the border in Canada. Why the hell would it apply on Mars?
To claim otherwise would essentially be claiming that the U.S. Congress has the legal authority to bind the entire universe with its laws, and that's laughable on its face.
(untitled comment)
> If the first person to walk on Mars
> decides to launch into "A Whole New World",
> the rights will need to have been cleared
> with Disney first.
I don't see why. Neither the United States nor any other country have jurisdiction on Mars. Their laws don't apply on Mars. There is *no* copyright law on Mars. Any person who happens to be there is free to do anything they like with any song they like.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> Going after each customer in breach of
> contract is far more difficult than shutting
> down the parties that supply the tools that
> make it all too simple for their customers to
> breach.
Ah, so you apparently believe making things easy for big companies at the expense of citizens' property rights is the proper purpose of the criminal justice system.
Gotcha.
Huh?
I'll admit from the start that I don't know much about patents. I usually skip all the patent stories on this site because the technicalities of it all make my head hurt and I lose interest.
But here I have to ask about this bit:
> Factors that suggest a bad faith patent assertion
> include not identifying the patent(s)-at-issue,
> and exactly how the recipient's behavior violates
> the patent
How the hell can someone sue, claiming a violation of their patent without even identifying the patent at issue? Or how the defendant is violating it?
How would such a suit even work? Does the plaintiff go into court and just say, "Defendant is violation a patent I own. Not gonna say how, or even which one. Just trust me, I own it, and they're violating it."
While I don't know much about patents, I do know basic civil procedure, and that seems ripe for a summary judgement ruling in favor of the defense.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Drones
Congress and the FAA could solve this problem quickly and easily. Just mandate a 1000-foot minimum altitude over private property, for all types of aircraft, regardless of whether it's urban or rural.
That preserves both the property owner's privacy and trespass rights, while still allowing for legitimate commercial aviation activities.
Re: Re: The story that just keeps on giving
> They have one judge who is trying to bully
> from the bench and make an example, by being
> investigator, judge, and jury all in one.
And yet nothing Wright cited here is false.
Prenda did file an 11th-hour appeal with the wrong court.
They did create the crisis for which they're now seeking relief.
The judge was perfectly correct to deny their motion and sanction them for non-compliance.
Drones
> Clearly, at some height the air is part of
> the sky commons that belongs to everyone,
> as a famous 1946 US Supreme Court decision
> laid down
Yes, most states have set minimum altitude limits for aircraft, which allow for normal aviation, but also protect the rights of private property owners.
Basically, anything below the statutory altitude becomes a trespass. It's why paparazzi and news helicopters in Los Angeles have to stay way up there when covering everything from celebrity weddings to Lindsay Lohan's latest trek to the courthouse. They can zoom in with their cameras all they like, but the aircraft has to remain above 3000 feet (if I recall the number correctly).
I can't imagine that the State of Washington doesn't have some similar law, which would clearly make this drone flyer a trespasser. Even if they don't, the homeowner is certainly free to knock the thing out of the air with a baseball bat...
Re:
> I don't think anyone commenting has actually
> been hit with a water balloon.
I have. Many times. It's fun.
> Hint: they hurt. A LOT.
Man up, Sally.
Re: "no crime too small" IS A CRIME.
> So don't throw water ballons --- at somone
> NOT agreeing to the "fun" -- unless you want
> a CRIMINAL record.
My god, you're an utter twat.
Re:
> I caught this girl [with a loogie] as she was
> coming up the steps and caught her in the face.
> I have to support the school administrators and
> the school district because this [water balloon fight]
> amounts to an assault.
It's ironic that what you did to the girl was actually more of a criminal assault than a couple of kids engaging in horselplay with water balloons. And yet you only got suspended for it. These kids now have criminal arrest records.
Re:
> I don't know why you used scare quotes around
> "disorderly conduct". That's what it was.
Weird. I've never been able to find the section of the law that requires every citizen to be orderly at all times.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Recording
> It would be a bit late to refuse to participate
> in the interview if at the end of the interview
> they took your recording device as "evidence"
Then use a recorder that streams to the cloud.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> But if you're asking why the DMCA was enacted
> to begin with,
No, I'm asking *you* why *you* believe a phone service provider should have a legal cause of action against me merely for making full use of my own property.
If doing so violates my contract with them, then they have remedies under contract law. They don't need the DMCA. Why does there need to be this additional draconian statute with criminal penalties out there that really does nothing but prevent people from doing legal things with their own property. The underlying actions are legal but this idiotic law makes the mere act of exercising one's rights a crime.
Egad
> (disclaimer: I hate chocolate)
Communist!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> Under this proposal, copyright holders would
> no longer have that same legally enforceable
> claim against people that circumvent access
> controls yet do not engage in copyright
> infringement
Why should they have such a claim in the first place, especially when giving them that claim takes away my ability to use my own property the way I want to?
Re:
> Hey, it's NYC. What ISN'T illegal? Why anyone
> would want to live in that hellhole is beyond me.
Amen, brother.
Every time I have to go there, I can't wait to leave. The idea of actually having to live there makes me shudder.
Re:
> 1) run by an Objectivist who
What does that have to do with anything? Now a person's philosophical viewpoint determines whether his business model is valid or not?
Re:
> laws for or against house/room rental have been
> around for ages. If you want to rent you property
> you must check the local laws
Yes, heaven forfend a person should do anything with their own property without having to ask some government bureacrat for permission first.
Land of the free indeed...
Re: Re: Recording
> They would just take your recording device
> from you as "evidence"
Then decline to participate in the interview.