The framing of the picture would be chosen by the person setting up the camera. The focus might also be set by that same person, but more likely it's automatic.
Every other creative input to the picture would essentially be 'chosen' by the animal triggering the camera.
Framing alone might be enough to get a copyright on the photo, but I doubt it.
The FAA isn't concerned about finding data proving something is dangerous. They need to find data proving it is safe. The lack of proof does not mean lack of danger.
On the other hand, I can see why the FAA might be reluctant to accept any data from the FCC, given that organizations recent history of ignoring obvious fraud or basing decisions on bogus data
To put that into perspective, 2.2 million incorrect claims in six months amounts to over twelve thousand incorrect copyright claims each and every day. Of course the copyright maximalists can't figure out why the rest of us consider copyright to be seriously broken.
I wonder how many politicians would vote for a law like that if it contained a provision that there must be a one year trial period where the new law is in effect only the politicians. The law would not apply to the rest of the population until after that trial period.
Oh, and just to make the example clear, create an archive site where copies of all the encrypted messages are required to be made publicly available.
I wonder how fast the content industry would change their position if ISPs were to interpret "notice and stay down" as including all copies of the content, including legitimate copies from the content provider's website.
Section 230 is the only surviving part of the Communications Decency Act of 1995. Didn't the Supreme Court already decide section 230 was constitutional when they struck down the rest of the act, but specifically left this one part alone.
One possible solution would be to make qualified immunity a defence rather than an automatic win. In order to invoke qualified immunity the defence would have to show a previous precedent rather than forcing the plaintiff to prove the precedence to avoid dismissal.
Adding the little button on the back might add five whole cents to the retail price of the device. In the consumer market, that could well be the kiss of death for the product.
This is typical of the 'collect it all' mentality of the Intelligence community. Why bother trying to figure out who to spy on, when it's easier to simply collect everything in one massive haystack, and sort through the haystack at leisure.
It's not like making the haystack as large as possible is going to make finding that needle any harder.
One radical idea would be to break up the telecom companies. Instead of breaking them up by area, break them up by function. The telecom companies would keep their existing customer sales, service, and support functions. The other part would be a regulated non-profit 'Last Mile' company mandated to provide high speed data services to every residence and building. The last mile company would connect all these locations to central hubs, and then sell access to the hub to the telecom companies. The last mile company would be required to sell access to any ISP (or phone company) that can get a fibre link in to the hub, and residents can switch ISPs with no more difficulty than signing a contract with the new ISP.
Of course, while we're at it, we might as well wish for unicorns and pixie dust. It's about as likely.
The problem with requiring someone to enter commands at the final computer is that it also requires someone to be present at that final computer. The whole reason for networking the computers is so that the control of a distributed system can be centralised under the control of a handful of operators. The only reason it's a problem is because the site operators chose the cheaper option of networking via commercial internet instead of the more secure, but far more expensive option of networking via a private, dedicated network.
So if anyone remains 500 years from now to examine Amerikan history, how will they view this particular time period?
I'm of the opinion that Robert Heinlein got it right in his future history books where he described this time period as 'The Crazy Years' Let's just hope that he was wrong in the theocracy that followed that time.
Re: Trail Cameras
The framing of the picture would be chosen by the person setting up the camera. The focus might also be set by that same person, but more likely it's automatic.
Every other creative input to the picture would essentially be 'chosen' by the animal triggering the camera. Framing alone might be enough to get a copyright on the photo, but I doubt it.
Re:
I wonder how long it will be before Southwest starts complaining about Kiwi's "Brutal response" to the court judgement.
The FAA isn't concerned about finding data proving something is dangerous. They need to find data proving it is safe. The lack of proof does not mean lack of danger.
On the other hand, I can see why the FAA might be reluctant to accept any data from the FCC, given that organizations recent history of ignoring obvious fraud or basing decisions on bogus data
To put that into perspective, 2.2 million incorrect claims in six months amounts to over twelve thousand incorrect copyright claims each and every day. Of course the copyright maximalists can't figure out why the rest of us consider copyright to be seriously broken.
Re: Re: Re:
I wonder how many politicians would vote for a law like that if it contained a provision that there must be a one year trial period where the new law is in effect only the politicians. The law would not apply to the rest of the population until after that trial period.
Oh, and just to make the example clear, create an archive site where copies of all the encrypted messages are required to be made publicly available.
Re:
I wonder how fast the content industry would change their position if ISPs were to interpret "notice and stay down" as including all copies of the content, including legitimate copies from the content provider's website.
Didn't the supreme court already rule on section 230?
Section 230 is the only surviving part of the Communications Decency Act of 1995. Didn't the Supreme Court already decide section 230 was constitutional when they struck down the rest of the act, but specifically left this one part alone.
One possible solution would be to make qualified immunity a defence rather than an automatic win. In order to invoke qualified immunity the defence would have to show a previous precedent rather than forcing the plaintiff to prove the precedence to avoid dismissal.
Re:
Adding the little button on the back might add five whole cents to the retail price of the device. In the consumer market, that could well be the kiss of death for the product.
In other news...
After many reports of bank robber robbing banks, bank robber promises not to rob any more banks.
It sounds to me like they were the victim of fraud. The fraud being perpetrated by the company executives.
This is typical of the 'collect it all' mentality of the Intelligence community. Why bother trying to figure out who to spy on, when it's easier to simply collect everything in one massive haystack, and sort through the haystack at leisure.
It's not like making the haystack as large as possible is going to make finding that needle any harder.
They're not entirely lying. Broadband prices have been steadily dropping for years...
...for the telecom companies.
I'm sure the ever increasing profit margins of the telecom companies will be a great consolation to the customers stuck paying the bill.
One radical idea would be to break up the telecom companies. Instead of breaking them up by area, break them up by function. The telecom companies would keep their existing customer sales, service, and support functions. The other part would be a regulated non-profit 'Last Mile' company mandated to provide high speed data services to every residence and building. The last mile company would connect all these locations to central hubs, and then sell access to the hub to the telecom companies. The last mile company would be required to sell access to any ISP (or phone company) that can get a fibre link in to the hub, and residents can switch ISPs with no more difficulty than signing a contract with the new ISP.
Of course, while we're at it, we might as well wish for unicorns and pixie dust. It's about as likely.
Re: all this
The problem with requiring someone to enter commands at the final computer is that it also requires someone to be present at that final computer. The whole reason for networking the computers is so that the control of a distributed system can be centralised under the control of a handful of operators. The only reason it's a problem is because the site operators chose the cheaper option of networking via commercial internet instead of the more secure, but far more expensive option of networking via a private, dedicated network.
Re:
Re: Internet required
Does Q Link Wireless consider the real scandal to be the fact that they're not being paid for all the leaked private information?