The FAA could also go with control based on aircraft take off weight. Aircraft large enough to do serious harm when they hit the ground would be under their control. Set the weight limit well below the weight of a person, and you've got all manned aircraft covered automatically. Then all you need to add are restrictions around airports, and maximum altitude limits for uncontrolled aircraft that are below the existing minimum altitude limits for controlled aircraft.
Step 1: Add DRM to coffeemaker Step 2: License DRM to major coffee suppliers Step 3: Change license terms to ban production of V1.0 K-Cups Step 4: Gain monopoly position in K-Cup market Step 5: Watch consumers abandon K-Cups for cheaper systems Step 6: Sue customers for failing to pay monopoly prices Step 7: ??? Step 8: Profit?
The mugshot would have been created by government officials ( police officers) in the performance of their regular duties. There is no copyright on such works in the United States. I can see many reasons for Wikipedia not wanting to include mugshots in someone's bio, but copyright is not one of those reasons.
I would think that that would be pretty obvious. In order for copyright to exist, the work must be fixed in a tangible medium. Unless there is a written agreement to the contrary, that copyright is held by the person doing the fixing. Thus, the photographer owns the copyright to the photograph, not the subject in the photograph. The same principle applies to film. The person operating the camera owns the copyright, not the the actor in front of the camera.
If third parties are going to be responsible for protecting copyright, they need some way to determine what is and is not protected under copyright. So, here`s a solution. Create a publicly accessible central database of works protected by copyright. All copyright holders must register their works in this database as a condition of getting third party protection. If a work is not registered, no third party has a responsibility for protecting it. The next problem is knowing if a work is duly licensed for distribution. In order to solve this, the database must also contain the full text of all copyright transfers and licenses so that any third party can make a determination over whether any given distribution is permitted or not.
Somehow, I`d expect Hollywood to scream very loudly at even the suggestion that they might have to reveal how badly they are screwing artists.
"...more analysis will show that Internet providers sent out more first and second notices and fewer fifth and sixth notices, which would demonstrate that users stopped sharing infringing content."
Of course that's going to happen. After the ISPs see that the first four notices change nothing, they will decide that the whole thing is a waste of money, and they, won't bother to send the last couple of notices.
Being cheap and cutting corners increases profit, and thus shareholder value. Since company management is legally obligated to act in a manner most benificial to shareholders, you could probably make a case that the company is required to cut whatever corners it can as long as no laws are broken in the process.
Google would presumably take other content down as well if ordered to by a court.
There's a big part of the problem. Google not only does not take content down, it can't take content down. The best it can do is remove the content from the search listings. As long as people keep talking as if delisting is the same as removal, politicians will assume that to be true, and insist that Google is capable of actually removing content instead of merely sweeping it under the rug.
15% of the time the software will incorrectly identify a terrorist as an innocent person. From a security standpoint, that's not a problem, the next camera will catch them. The problem is that 20% of the time the system will flag an innocent person as a terrorist. That's a massive problem, and here's why. Boston's Logan airport handles about 2.5 million passengers every month. 20% of that is about 500,000 false alarms every month, or one false alarm about every five seconds 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Just how long do you think the security people will put up with that before they start treating every alarm as a false alarm, and ignoring it totally? This facial recognition system needs an error rate of more like 0.00002% before it's going to be much use for anything.
That's the nature of the law (and the fact that non-US persons aren't actually under the jurisdiction of the US Constitution in the first place)
Perhaps this is an interpretation of the Constitution that needs to change. If you read through the US Constitution, it could be argued that most US Citizens don't fall under the jurisdiction of the Constitution either. The U.S. Constitution, as written, applies to the government of the United States, not the citizens. The fourth amendment to the US Constitution starts out `The Right of the people`, so unless you are going to define non-US citizens as somehow not people, that clause pretty much has to apply to everyone. In the 1700`s when that constitution was written, that interpretation made sense, since if your papers were within the reach of US law enforcement, you were probably a US citizen living in the United States. In a world of global electronic communications, that assumption is no longer true.