Here's a couple of other bits of information on this story. - The police raided his home, and seized computer equipment, but apparently did not arrest him at that time. - He was told to 'voluntarily' show up at the police station or else the police would very publicly humiliate him by arresting him in the middle of his exams. - When he did show up at the police station, his lawyer was not permitted to see his client for six hours.
Thi s case has enough irregularities that I would not trust anything the police say unless there is some supporting evidence. It sure looks to me like the authorities are getting desperate to convict a 'dangerous hacker' to distract attention from the fact that there was a major security flaw in the government's computer systems.
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.