The only problem I have with that is that it would put politicians in charge of running the pipes. For an example of why that's not a good thing, just take a look at the condition of those highways that the politicians are already in chsrge of.
"Content Protection" is like handing someone a locked box, with the key taped to the bottom of the box, and expecting they will only be able to open the box at a certain location and a certain time of day.
If the FAA wants to regulate drones, it should be on the basis of safety only. Drones large enough to be a hazard to aircraft should be licensed with a mandated requirement for built-in restrictions for flights near an airport. Drones small enough to not be a hazard would be license free. Drones that might be a hazard if they crash should be licensed somewhere in between those extremes. Drones that could be a hazard to aircraft should be permitted near the airport only with written permission from the airport operator. Such permission to include acceptable flight locations, date, and times that the permssion is granted.
It's not the FAA's authority to judge based on why the drone flight is desired, only that it be a safe flight.
if I go into a major retailer and buy a USB to serial cable, how am I to peek inside the molded plastic and identify the fake chips before I buy the cable? I have no way to identify fake chips inside equipment. The retailer has no way of identifying fake chips inside equipment. The manufacturer *may* know that there are fake chips in the equipment, or they may have been duped by a supplier. The supplier probably knows that the chips are fakes.
So I'm expected to dig three levels deep into the supply chain just so I don't have to worry about some software update bricking my $20 cable?
One possible solution is to require that records of any and all donations to the police be posted where the public has free access to them. This would include money donations, as well as equipment and services donated.
That would have to be at least state level laws, possibly forced, or backed by federal laws, so I'm not gonna hold my breath until it happens.
Unless the NFL has something in writing saying they got the copyright on the game, then they don't have it. The TV cameraman might have a claim on it. The TV network probably would have a stronger claim as a work for hire, especially if there were multiple cameras used. If the network broadcast the game live, and didn't make a recording, then the person who made the fixed recording would also have a claim for the copyright. It would be an interesting question to run through the courts. Anyone willing to make a few million dollars available to pay the lawyers?
There really is a simple solution to get to the bottom of this. Too bad the politicians aren't brave enough to use it.
1) Send a list of questions to the head of a government department, along with a date, time, and location where the head is to present the answers. Order the head of the department to bring his second in command along for the presentation. 2) If the head of the department fails to show up, or fails to answer the questions, fire the head of the department, and revoke any and all security clearances. Promote the second in command to head of the department. Give the new head of the department the same list, a new date and time, and orders to return with a new second in command of the department. 3) Repeat until either the answers are forthcoming, or the department runs out of personnel.
Copyright law still applies. Back when the statue was commisioned, the city had the option of adding a clause to the contract that would turn the copyright over to the city. The city chose not to do this, so the artist keeps the copyright.
Probably because it's not a criminal offence for a government official to knowingly violate the constitution. at worst, the punishment is a slap on the wrist followed by a fine that the taxpayers have to pay.