We're sorry Mrs. Buttle, We were looking for an Archibald Tuttle--but, you know--mistakes happens.
What worries me is after pulling the car over an eyeball verification and manually rerunning of the plate number would have told them that this was not the car or plate they were looking for. They just blindly accepted that the ALPR was correct in reading the plate. And you can't tell me they couldn't see the license plate for a manual verification after the car in question pulled over and stopped.
To truly see how ridiculous this is replace the word "phone" with "house" and see how it looks.
Rather, the primary function of a warrant requirement would be to preclude officers from searching a house when they have reason to believe that it contains evidence of crime, but cannot establish the higher standard of probable cause—or cannot obtain a warrant before a house becomes inaccessible.
Becomes rather chilling, doesn't it?
Of course, I always thought that the Fourth Amendment was created specifically to make the police's job harder.
But you know, they have my sympathy. It must be really hard to get a police state started up with all those pesky rules in the way.
Yes, because cell phone manufacturers and service providers are able to take the basic Android ROM and make as many changes to it as they see fit. The OEM version of Windows that Dell gets from Microsoft is identical to the one that HP gets and the only thing they can change is adding the pre-installed software (the Windows OS comes pre-compiled, the Android ROM is source code). If the PC OEMs could lock you from uninstalling that crap they would.
At some point they will stop wasting money bundling such crap with the hardware.
Not likely, If it's like all the bloatware that comes pre-installed on OEM PCs--The software-makers are the ones paying the manufacturers to bundle that crap with the hardware. I seriously doubt the hardware manufacturers would be willing to turn down free money. Plus, it reduces the cost of the manufacturing the hardware--meaning more profit with little extra work involved.
All I'm trying to get at, and I'm not saying it's outcome determinative or necessarily bad, I'm just saying your legal opinion is based solely on circumventing current legal precedent that you don't want to comply with, which is fine. I mean, that's -- you know, judges do that.
As Lee notes, as easy as it is to ascribe comic-book levels of ill-intent here, that's unlikely. McCoy and others genuinely believe what they're doing is the right thing.
Nope. I used to give them the benefit of doubt, but I don't buy that anymore. These people have spent their entire careers rationalizing that what's enriches them and furthers advancement for them and their cronies must be what's good for the country. They have ignored dissenting opinions for far too long (I don't believe for a second that they haven't received information from anyone other than the industry they are regulating) that it can only be a deliberate attempt to subvert the regulatory processes for their own personal gain.
Plus all the other sources of EM radiation we come into contact with in our day to day lives--like everything that uses or transmits electricity and the radio waves from aircraft, air traffic control stations, weather stations, TV and radio stations, and satellites. Also, that giant ball of fusing hydrogen that our planet orbits around has been found to emit EM radiation like all the freaking time.
Um...No. Microsoft has added quite a few under the hood security enhancements since XP. Examples: Address Space Layout Randomization--Prior to Vista, many (all?) of Window's processes ran in the same memory space on every computer, that makes it very easy for a malicious program to hook into Window's core functions. Improved Data Execution Prevention, especially in 64bit versions--prevents buffer overflow errors from executing code. Application isolation--A low level app (non administrator) cannot hook into a higher level app or function or make any changes to the system or other apps (yes those annoying UAC prompts are there for a reason).
Not just from the copyright holders, since they claim they received less than 150k from the tariffs which is what should have been payed to the rights holders, but have 850k in debts which they accrued for doing absolutely nothing.
While Brack won't say who sent the cease and desist, there's a pretty short list of whom it might be.
Even shorter, since the article states that he reversed his three copies of the book--and not the movie--I would hazard to guess that it was the publisher or the author. I'm leaning towards the author.
This is actually a case where profits are being made from the use of the beastie boys content.
You mean just like when the Beastie Boys made profits from using the content of others.
I am normally completely against most copyright laws but when someone is benefiting financially from someone eases work i just dont see how it can be declared fair use.
You mean like the Beastie Boys benefiting financially from someone else's work. I'm guessing the part of copyright you're aganst is fair use?
That goes totally against the principles of copyright law as I want it to be...
How your wants are relevant to this, or to what copyright law actually is?
...where those benefiting financially from using someones content should be paying the original creator.
I guess in your world the Beastie Boys should be paying some original creators some money.
And should be forced to pay a licence for using it if they want to sell them a licence.
Umm...last I checked, fair use doesn't require any payments or licenses (wouldn't be fair use if it did).
I am now wondering if this case was not started just for the attention the case and therefore the advert would receive, It has received a lot of from the articles that have been written about it.
Probably not. If any legal advice was sought on the song being used, most lawyers would probably say it's fair use parody. Using the possibility of getting your ass sued off in exchange for free publicity is not a very good marketing strategy.