To resolve this matter amicably, we must demand that you remove the infringing material 'from the website immediately. Additionally, we must also demand that you provide compensation to Ms. McPherson in the amount of $1,250.00 per infringing photograph, plus $2,500.00 as the statutory minimum for the removal of Ms. McPherson's copyright notice.
If they regard issuing demands for $4k plus other actions as amicable, I'd hate to see it if they were really pissed!
I don't want to picture myself rising for the morning coffee, heading for the door on my way to work, only to whip out my smart phone and check where the IEDs and snipers might be on my way to the bus.
I already always check my smartphone whenever I leave a location for mobile speed cameras/RBTs. I avoid the cameras as it's too easy to creep a few km/h above the speed limit and get done. And RBTs are such a huge waste of time, sometimes costing me 10 minutes sitting in the queue to get RBT and sent on my way, turning a 10 minute dash into a 20 minute annoyance.
I agree, I had the same thought myself when i was reading this.
it is in fact TRUE that "In open hearings this year, we spoke to Congress.. ". Yes, they did speak to congress, and in that speech they did make the claim. However this quote does not make reference to or statement of support or truth on "54 different terrorist plots".
Therefore calling the quoted statement a lie cannot be supported.
If they had of said something more like "NSA/CSS actions contributed to keeping the Nation and its allies safe from 54 different terrorist plots as was reported to Congress..." then maybe it could be called a lie.
Spying on foreigners is not a legal problem, it's a political problem.
I think it's both.
Firstly it's a legal issue if in Egypt it is illegal to tap telephones. Then the Egyptian version of the DoJ would be within their rights, nay, it would be their duty, to issue arrest warrants against the people tapping those phones.
It becomes a political issue when the Egyptian DoJ seeks extradition of those who have warrants out for them if they are not on Egyptian soil. It becomes a matter of political will ( or won't ) for them to see through the extradition.
pretty much every nation on earth has laws protecting intellectual property
Just because something is the law doesn't make it good or right.
Just because something is against the law doesn't make it bad or wrong.
I break the law all the time. I foccasionally speed. Sometimes (say, on a deserted country highway) I change lanes without indicating. If it's say 3am in the morning and i get a red light in a deserted industrial estate, i'll stop and if no traffic will go through the red light.
OMG all illgal, I am a horrible, bad person for breaking the law!
The law needs to be tempered with common sense. If its not hurting anyone else to 'break' the law, then whats wrong with it? Copyright infringement (not piracy, I don't cruise the high seas performing armed, forceful boardings of vessels and kidnap, murder, rob passengers) hurts no-one.
It seems to me law enforcement and government have twisted the meaning of 'no expectation to privacy' into, 'expect your privacy to be deliberately and continually broken'.
To me, no expectation of privacy means, if i'm walking down the street I might be inadvertantly caught by a tourist taking a photo/home video. Or if I'm having a conversation passersby may overhear. Or I'm having sex in the back seat of the car a passerby (or if I'm unlucky a cop, or even worset a family member) might catch me and take appropriate action. And so on.
Whereas the government (and often the courts!) seem to think it means expect to be followed, evasedropped on and all actions that you do or things that you say be collected, stored, correlated and data-mined.
Well, to me that is the opposite of privacy, not the lack of or 'no expectation' thereof.
Most organisations submitting patents also don't do patent searches before submitting a patent.
Because of a little thing called "Willful infringement'.
That is, if you are sued for breaching a patent, and that breach is found 'willful', it could treble damages.
One of the tests for willfullness is if someone had knowledge of previous patents. And one aspect of this is if you've seached the patent database. If they DID do patent searches, then they HAVE to have found (so the argument goes), known about, a previous patent. Therefore they have willfully breached a patent.
Therefore if you never do patent searches before embarking on new research or submitting your own patent, it's harder to prove willfullness.
And, as can be seen from the patent numbers, there are MILLIONS of patents. Which means you have to construct keyword searches. What if you got the wrong keywords? Or if your keywords returned 20,000 patents? Do you read every single one of those 20,000 matches to see if they cover what you are trying to patent? I doubt it.
Patent examiners have the same problem. With millions of patents, it's quite possible to return too many matches to practically go through them all. So you try to refine your terms a bit, but hey, the refined terms could actually exclude a previously matching patent that is relevant.