The character *is* part of the copyrighted work, so anything you can do with that character (which hasn't itself been copyrighted and given some later-expiring protection) is fair game.
So you could create your own "Mickey Mouse" comics/cartoons/etc. so long as such creations were not dependent on other, still existing copyrights. (In other words, you could create your own wholly-original Mickey Mouse cartoon, but it couldn't be based on, say, Fantasia... it couldn't also contain Minnie Mouse, etc.)
The issues are a little muddier to me when it comes to using a character.
Not really. This becomes the textbook definition of "a derivative work". If they want to make a derivative work of a public domain story (which includes the characters within that story) then they should be free to do so.
This is why the Disney thing becomes key, because any new work featuring Mickey Mouse is -- technically -- a derivative work of Steamboat Willlie, whether that work is created by Disney Corporation or (at some future point, after Steamboat Willie falls into the public domain) some new animation house.
They can't. For lots of legacy/legal reasons those organizations outright *own* those/8s, as opposed to just having been "assigned" or "allocated" to them.
There's nothing *illegal* about a solenoid fired weapon. It just requires a particular set of licensing which (I doubt) the college drone operator did.
The regulation is clear on this point (so I'm told, anyway, I haven't read it myself), because the *device* at that point has nothing mechanically preventing multiple bullets from firing per "manual action" (the button push in this case), it becomes a NFA weapon.
Essentially, you've got a "manual" operation, a "trigger" operation, and a firing of a round. In a conventional firearm use the manual operation and the trigger operation are the same. Mechanically at that point (in the normal firearm), the firearm prevents multiple rounds from being fired per manual action (by requiring a trigger release, and re-pulling it).
When you're using a solenoid for the trigger-pull, you lose the "connection" between the manual operation and the firing of rounds that is necessary to remain NFA-compliant.
The gun is legal but his use of the solenoid to depress the trigger may not have been. It may have transformed the "legal handgun" to simply being one component of an NFA automatic-weapon.
Solenoid driven trigger pulls (such as used here) do, in fact, require an NFA tax stamp as an automatic weapon. It's a regulation designed around the scenario you describe (push button once, solenoid opens and closes repeatedly).
Almost certainly, that's what the Feds are investigating now, determining the exact details on how the gun was fired (that it did in fact use a solenoid-trigger-pull, etc.).
In other words, it may not be an FAA violation, but it's almost certainly a (probably-accidental) ATF violation.
Article 12, section 4 of the ICCPR (a treaty ratified by and binding on the US) provides that “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.”
It's a common topic in other forums. There's some very edge cases where it's permissible (dual-citizen, intoxication if you can believe that) but otherwise, your passport entitles you to entry.
Your *stuff* on the other hand is a whole different thing (importing of goods, etc., etc.), but you, yourself, have a near-absolute right to entry.
Really? I haven't had any problems with it. I mean I did when it was like "month 1" of the service going live, but it settled down fairly nicely over time.
If you get rid of the mobile requirement, http://mega.co.nz/ might be the solution for you.
Specifically designed by Kim Dotcom's folks so that they CANNOT access your data (so they don't tell if you've got financial paperwork or pirated movies). Has a method for sync'ing a local unencrypted filesystem into their cloud architecture.
Slashdot Mirror
The character *is* part of the copyrighted work, so anything you can do with that character (which hasn't itself been copyrighted and given some later-expiring protection) is fair game.
So you could create your own "Mickey Mouse" comics/cartoons/etc. so long as such creations were not dependent on other, still existing copyrights. (In other words, you could create your own wholly-original Mickey Mouse cartoon, but it couldn't be based on, say, Fantasia... it couldn't also contain Minnie Mouse, etc.)
Not really. This becomes the textbook definition of "a derivative work". If they want to make a derivative work of a public domain story (which includes the characters within that story) then they should be free to do so.
This is why the Disney thing becomes key, because any new work featuring Mickey Mouse is -- technically -- a derivative work of Steamboat Willlie, whether that work is created by Disney Corporation or (at some future point, after Steamboat Willie falls into the public domain) some new animation house.
Ha!
Yeah, I'd like to see an ISP try to stop routing Apple's traffic without an F-5 class Shit-Storm from their customers.
They can't. For lots of legacy/legal reasons those organizations outright *own* those /8s, as opposed to just having been "assigned" or "allocated" to them.
Not saying it's right, but if you/something is in a publicly-visible portion of your private property, you have no legal expectation of privacy there.
There's nothing *illegal* about a solenoid fired weapon. It just requires a particular set of licensing which (I doubt) the college drone operator did.
Neither the NFA or GCA has any regulations to deal with flamethrowers. "Destructive devices" must be explosive in nature, which a flamethrower is not.
True story.
A flamethrower would be outside the purview of the ATF. :-)
The regulation is clear on this point (so I'm told, anyway, I haven't read it myself), because the *device* at that point has nothing mechanically preventing multiple bullets from firing per "manual action" (the button push in this case), it becomes a NFA weapon.
Essentially, you've got a "manual" operation, a "trigger" operation, and a firing of a round. In a conventional firearm use the manual operation and the trigger operation are the same. Mechanically at that point (in the normal firearm), the firearm prevents multiple rounds from being fired per manual action (by requiring a trigger release, and re-pulling it).
When you're using a solenoid for the trigger-pull, you lose the "connection" between the manual operation and the firing of rounds that is necessary to remain NFA-compliant.
The gun is legal but his use of the solenoid to depress the trigger may not have been. It may have transformed the "legal handgun" to simply being one component of an NFA automatic-weapon.
Solenoid driven trigger pulls (such as used here) do, in fact, require an NFA tax stamp as an automatic weapon. It's a regulation designed around the scenario you describe (push button once, solenoid opens and closes repeatedly).
Almost certainly, that's what the Feds are investigating now, determining the exact details on how the gun was fired (that it did in fact use a solenoid-trigger-pull, etc.).
In other words, it may not be an FAA violation, but it's almost certainly a (probably-accidental) ATF violation.
Aha,... it's part of a UN Treaty.
Article 12, section 4 of the ICCPR (a treaty ratified by and binding on the US) provides that “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.”
It's a common topic in other forums. There's some very edge cases where it's permissible (dual-citizen, intoxication if you can believe that) but otherwise, your passport entitles you to entry.
Your *stuff* on the other hand is a whole different thing (importing of goods, etc., etc.), but you, yourself, have a near-absolute right to entry.
It's simple: She's an American citizen. Don't answer a goddamned question. They can't deny her entry into the country, since she's a US citizen.
If she's saying so much as "hello" to these chuckleheads at this point, she's an idiot.
... if you visit the first article linked in the story, while using AdBlock, you get a giant pop-up complaining about your doing so. :-)
Really? I haven't had any problems with it. I mean I did when it was like "month 1" of the service going live, but it settled down fairly nicely over time.
How the fuck is this "Offtopic"?
Screw you, whoever moderated that...
If you get rid of the mobile requirement, http://mega.co.nz/ might be the solution for you.
Specifically designed by Kim Dotcom's folks so that they CANNOT access your data (so they don't tell if you've got financial paperwork or pirated movies). Has a method for sync'ing a local unencrypted filesystem into their cloud architecture.
Why would I need anything more?
You connect to a bunch of remote systems, you browse, you read e-mail....
I hope you're still in school, so you can still have access to the 'non-commercial' internet you're so much better off with.
- Keys
- Car Key Fob
- Leather Fob engraved with Bear made for me by a developmentally-disabled friend of the family about 20 years ago
- Gerber Shard
I was replying to the guy who said it was her personal phone.
There's no version of this story where I install that app on my personal phone.
If they want to issue me a company phone to put that on, then so be it. And I'll leave that phone behind at work when I leave.
I'd hand it to my boss every day at the end of the day as I walked out the door, and pick it back up when I got in the next morning.
Which is why it keeps them disarmed. :-)