Say I use one of these drones to film myself on a daily jog in the park. Maybe I share the video with my friends, maybe I just keep it on my PC to review my performance. This is arguably legal under FAA rules. Some time later, I sell the video to a stock footage company. Pray tell how that makes my previously legal act suddenly illegal? How is the operation of the drone any different if I get paid after the fact of filming?
If you do that, then groups like the RIAA/MPAA will happily provide "educational" materials about BitTorrent, and patent troll^H^H^H^H^H innovators like Intellectual Ventures will happily explain to judges how their "on the Internet" patent is legally novel and perfectly valid.
Interesting. Many years ago, I remember being taught that in statistics, "average" is a generic term that can refer to the mean, the median, or the mode. Depending on what you're analyzing, any of the three could be the "average" representation of your data. In common parlance, "average" almost always means the mean, though.
I have to wonder ... how would this have worked with companies that have multiple domain names? E.g., example.com, example.org, example.net, exxample.com, exampel.net, etc. With dozens of possible misspellings, and $1850 per domain ... that could have been brutal.
In the article about the declassified FISA briefs and orders from a couple of days ago, it was mentioned that there were 23 authorized people. Today Sen. Fennstein mentioned 22 people. In the interim, there was one notable person with access to the data who left the NSA. I wonder if that means anything, or if it's all coincidence? :)In the article about the declassified FISA briefs and orders from a couple of days ago, it was mentioned that there were 23 authorized people. Today Sen. Fennstein mentioned 22 people. In the interim, there was one notable person with access to the data who left the NSA. I wonder if that means anything, or if it's all coincidence? :)
A reasonable argument could be made that every time the appropriate .js files were accessed or downloaded, there was a separate case of infringement - roughly the same logic that the music industry used when prosecuting distributors. Given how frequently the site has been accessed in the last week or two (I forget when it launched), that would add up to a healthy chunk of change.
I'm not saying they should sue, mind you -- just that it's not a trivial case with a maximum payout of $750. As has been frequently said, in a lawsuit, the only winners would be the lawyers.
OK, this really gets my goat. President Obama just urged Congress to IGNORE their constituents and vote in favor of war. Think about that for a second. How can we trust an administration that explicitly tells another branch of government to ignore the American public?
So when will we see all the senior staff at the NSA on trial for "aiding the enemy" or "treason"? Isn't this essentially the exact same accusation being made against Bradley Manning, that he shared classified data with non-Americans?
The theory was that after years of oppressive rule by the minority Sunni population, an inclusive government would result in functioning democracy, with all the benefits that go along with it.
This theory could only be postulated by someone who has absolutely no experience with the modern Middle East (as in the last half-century or so). It's pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking that has no basis or grounding whatsoever in the reality on the ground. Understand this: the majority of the citizens of the countries in the MidEast DO NOT WANT democracy. They just want to pretend they have it so they can seize power and use "democracy" as a club to beat down their political, religious, or personal opponents. It will require multiple generations before this mindset passes.
The closest thing I can think of is that Steele's lawyer wanted to present something like 45 minutes of legal arguments, but the judge shut her down pretty quickly, saying he's not interested in that. Maybe that's what Steele meant?
Normally I agree with Mike, but I think he missed the point a bit with this article. Miranda itself isn't a right; there's no such thing as "the right to be read your rights." Instead, Miranda just means that if you're not read your rights, anything you say can't be used against you in court. The police can still investigate you and act on the info you give them. You can still be prosecuted on evidence the police get independently of your statements or confession. My guess is in this case, the police already had enough to convict the guy several times over, so by skipping Miranda, they basically allow themselves more leeway to question the guy about acts they don't yet know about.
Would it be valid to amend the DMCA to say, "It is legal to circumvent DRM in cases for which the intended use of the content would be legal if it were not protected by DRM. Tools which enable such circumvention are also legal." (with appropriate legalese, of course)