> 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.
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.
> 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.