The solution is simple. The registrar asks under what license is it posting the material in question. They then check that permission. It is not that hard.
and Florida’s anti-money laundering statutes, which prohibit the trade or business in currency of more than $10,000.
This is factually incorrect, The satute does not prohibit the transaction, it just requires reporting. This makes me believe that the dealer was charged under 869.102 which mentions "trade or business". Had it been 869.101 them the source of the money would have come into relevance. The money laundering statute, Title XLVI Chapter 869 section 102, is about reporting.
All persons engaged in a trade or business, except for those financial institutions that report to the Office of Financial Regulation pursuant to s. 655.50, who receive more than $10,000 in currency, including foreign currency, in one transaction, or who receive this amount through two or more related transactions, must complete and file with the Department of Revenue the information required pursuant to 26 U.S.C. s. 6050I., concerning returns relating to currency received in trade or business.
If the bitcoin seller did not collect enough information to fill out the form and report the transaction so he was arrested. The law does not care if the money came from legal or illegal sources. If you don't report the transaction you have broken the law.
First I will admit I used a term incorrectly I should have said "conventional capacity" and not "base load".
And you are a noob, not a newbie, because: YOU DON'T LISTEN, or you don't understand.
Why should I listen to a nameless faceless poster on Slashdot. You have not linked any documents to support your claims. Why should I believe anything you say? You say you are an expert but you could be lying. Would you believe me if the tables were turned?
IIUC, the DMCA only applies to the person filing the takedown request. Not to someone who directed him to do it.
One of the precept of purger is known or should have know. A lawyer must check the facts of a document before sending it out or he is not fulfilling his duties.
I've also heard of companies stating in court that yes,...
I have also heard that the earth was flat. Without references that statement is just rumour.
So just by looking at a site, you can tell if it is hosting infringing copies or not?
You click on the link give, click on the download link on the site, download the file, look at the file. At that point it is obvious if the file is copyrighted.
Investigating in this case would mean hitting a web site with a url that was probably given in the complaint. If a registrars can't fulfil their legal duties at current prices maybe they should raise prices and/or get the laws changed.
The same way, if C rents a place and tell the landlord he's gonna run a brothel, the responsibility of running the brothel is on C, not on the landlord.
I do not agree with that opinion. I think that a court would find that the landlord knowingly renting the place for illegal activity would fall under conspiracy or aiding and abetting.
Imagine you're selling someone fertilizer. Now if that person is using that fertilizer to build a bomb, you should of course not be responsible. Also it's unreasonable that you should have to check what they do with this fertilizer. But if you check, find out they build bombs with it, and continue to sell them the fertilizer knowing that they use it for building bombs you are of course also responsible for the deaths those bombs cause.
That is close to the scenario but misses one major point. The registrar did not check on their own initiative but as a response to a report by the copyright holder. A more accurate scenario is as follows;
Imagine you're selling someone fertilizer. Now if that person is using that fertilizer to build a bomb, you should of course not be responsible. Also it's unreasonable that you should have to check what they do with this fertilizer. If someone reports that they are building bombs and it is obvious that they are building bombs, and you continue to sell them the fertilizer knowing that they use it for building bombs you are of course also responsible for the deaths those bombs cause.
the court ruled that the registrar had a duty to investigate after notification of infringing activity and had to take corrective action in case of obvious violations,
The registrar did not investigate at all. What you are talking about is a knee jerk reaction. What the court is talking about is reasonable action. Combining the court scenario with your scenario would come out as follows; - Some troublemaker files a false complaint to my registrar. The registrar investigates and finds the complaint to be false and ignores it. The troublemaker goes to court, loses and has to pay the legal fees of the registrar.
If Key-Systems ignores this ruling it faces a maximum fine of €250,000 (US$339,000).
The registrar is not being fined if they follow the ruling. Their only cost would be the legal fees. If the troublemaker's claim was obviously bogus the court could award costs to the plantif so the registrar would be out nothing.
Incorrect. The FAA considers RC aircraft as aircraft and therefore has complete jurisdiction. They created a policy for hobby use of rc aircraft, AC 91-57, but there is not a specific one for commercial RC aircraft.
Drone/UAS means there's nobody controlling it. That's not the case here.
From the FAA website;
What is an unmanned aircraft system (UAS)? A UAS is the unmanned aircraft (UA) and all of the associated support equipment, control station, data links, telemetry, communications and navigation equipment, etc., necessary to operate the unmanned aircraft. The UA is the flying portion of the system, flown by a pilot via a ground control system, or autonomously through use of an on-board computer, communication links and any additional equipment that is necessary for the UA to operate safely. The FAA issues an experimental airworthiness certificate for the entire system, not just the flying portion of the system.
What you are describing is a autonomous aircraft which is a sub type of unmanned aircraft.
3. A six pack of beer is a great thing, but it's too heavy for even a hexacopter.
Here is an exerpt from one of the links in the search you posted;
Conclusion: Maximum practical payload seem to be about 5kg, total weight of 7kg.
5kg is about 11 pounds or about 2 six packs. Notice he is talking about payload capacity.
Here is the relevant section from the 2007 Notice:
The current FAA policy for UAS operations is that no person may operate a UAS in the National Airspace System without specific authority. For UAS operating as public aircraft the authority is the COA, for UAS operating as civil aircraft the authority is special airworthiness certificates, and for model aircraft the authority is AC 91-57. The FAA recognizes that people and companies other than modelers might be flying UAS with the mistaken understanding that they are legally operating under the authority of 6 AC 91-57. AC 91-57 only applies to modelers, and thus specifically excludes its use by persons or companies for business purposes.
The policy statement makes no new rules, and therefore needs no review process, but points out that the commercial operation of UAS's in US airspace has no authorization while private use does (CA 01-57). The point is that for a civil aircraft to operate in the US it requires a special airworthiness certificates. No UAS has one of these certificates therefore no UAS is allowed to fly commercially in the US.
I found the document that you quoted. I consider what you did as selective quoting in taking one sattement out of context. Here is the next sentence which you didn't quote:
However, insofar as those policies reflect regulatory requirements, those requirements are manadatory.
This is referring to the regulatoryrequirements governing civil aircraft ie certification.
The Raphael Pirker is not a test case as to whether or not commercial UAS's are allowed because he was not charged with that. He was charged with 14C.F.R.91.13(a)states that"[n]o person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
The Games are a private event in a foreign country that attracts enough American citizens and have a high enough security risk to justify the US Government to implement security contingencies. If the US did not take these steps and something bad happened the US government would be pilloried for not planning properly. The IOC did not ask for those two ships but the US did it anyway to cover their ass.
And the costs for those ships would be $0 if they were not tasked to that mission? They will be doing the same things that usually do in the Mediterranean excep[t now on the Black Sea.
What about stationary targets like port, army installations, communication facilities, CIC centers, supply depots, etc? Missiles are not always targeted at moving objects.
A hyper sonic cruise missile coming directly or almost direct at you would be presenting mainly leading edges and therefore shielded areas. Shielding could also be added to other critical areas to stop burn through. Right now it is dead weigh but in when lasers come into use that extra shielding will be useful. Also ballistic hyper velocity missiles do not have the fuel tank you refer to.
It is absolutely trivial to track anything moving that fast. It lights up like a flare on infrared.
Quite true but to track something accurately enough to target specific vulnerable spots is a very different story.
Along those same line, defense systems have effective engagement ranges. Incoming missiles can be shot down within that range which means that one laser could down multiple missiles. If more missiles enter the engagement range that can be shot down before they hit the system is considered saturated. The faster the missile goes the less time it spends in the engagement range the fewer missiles can be shit down the easier, and less expensive, it is to saturate the defenses.
You don't have to kink much for a small object to dodge another small object or spread laser energy so it will not burn through. A couple of degrees back and forth in a random pattern would be enough.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me get this straight. You believe it is morally wrong to take down a site the hosts items that infringe on copyright.
The solution is simple. The registrar asks under what license is it posting the material in question. They then check that permission. It is not that hard.
So you don't care what the actual; law is before you decide that it is evil. You funny.
From the article;
and Florida’s anti-money laundering statutes, which prohibit the trade or business in currency of more than $10,000.
This is factually incorrect, The satute does not prohibit the transaction, it just requires reporting. This makes me believe that the dealer was charged under 869.102 which mentions "trade or business". Had it been 869.101 them the source of the money would have come into relevance.
The money laundering statute, Title XLVI Chapter 869 section 102, is about reporting.
All persons engaged in a trade or business, except for those financial institutions that report to the Office of Financial Regulation pursuant to s. 655.50, who receive more than $10,000 in currency, including foreign currency, in one transaction, or who receive this amount through two or more related transactions, must complete and file with the Department of Revenue the information required pursuant to 26 U.S.C. s. 6050I., concerning returns relating to currency received in trade or business.
If the bitcoin seller did not collect enough information to fill out the form and report the transaction so he was arrested. The law does not care if the money came from legal or illegal sources. If you don't report the transaction you have broken the law.
First I will admit I used a term incorrectly I should have said "conventional capacity" and not "base load".
And you are a noob, not a newbie, because: YOU DON'T LISTEN, or you don't understand.
Why should I listen to a nameless faceless poster on Slashdot. You have not linked any documents to support your claims. Why should I believe anything you say? You say you are an expert but you could be lying. Would you believe me if the tables were turned?
IIUC, the DMCA only applies to the person filing the takedown request. Not to someone who directed him to do it.
One of the precept of purger is known or should have know. A lawyer must check the facts of a document before sending it out or he is not fulfilling his duties.
I've also heard of companies stating in court that yes,...
I have also heard that the earth was flat. Without references that statement is just rumour.
In the obvious cases, yes.
And this is what the court ruled to be an obvious case.
1) Figuring out who, or what 'Robin Thicke' is.
Google?
2) Matching the music on the site, if there is any, with whatever this person/band produces and see if its the same stuff.
Google?
I personally would not know how to even manage step 3
Considering that the request states "I am the rights holder and they don't have rights to distribute", step 3 is trivial.
Most of the information you see difficult to obtain is probably in the request and easily verifiable through Google.
So just by looking at a site, you can tell if it is hosting infringing copies or not?
You click on the link give, click on the download link on the site, download the file, look at the file. At that point it is obvious if the file is copyrighted.
You need to know what the law is before you can tell if the law is wrong.
And a lawyer is entitled to believe his client, however dishonest.
Because the lawyer is merely acting as an agent for the dishonest client the client is guilty of perjury and not the lawyer.
I don't think I've ever heard of anyone being prosecuted under that section of the DMCA.
How about this.
Investigating in this case would mean hitting a web site with a url that was probably given in the complaint. If a registrars can't fulfil their legal duties at current prices maybe they should raise prices and/or get the laws changed.
The same way, if C rents a place and tell the landlord he's gonna run a brothel, the responsibility of running the brothel is on C, not on the landlord.
I do not agree with that opinion. I think that a court would find that the landlord knowingly renting the place for illegal activity would fall under conspiracy or aiding and abetting.
Imagine you're selling someone fertilizer. Now if that person is using that fertilizer to build a bomb, you should of course not be responsible. Also it's unreasonable that you should have to check what they do with this fertilizer. But if you check, find out they build bombs with it, and continue to sell them the fertilizer knowing that they use it for building bombs you are of course also responsible for the deaths those bombs cause.
That is close to the scenario but misses one major point. The registrar did not check on their own initiative but as a response to a report by the copyright holder. A more accurate scenario is as follows;
Imagine you're selling someone fertilizer. Now if that person is using that fertilizer to build a bomb, you should of course not be responsible. Also it's unreasonable that you should have to check what they do with this fertilizer. If someone reports that they are building bombs and it is obvious that they are building bombs, and you continue to sell them the fertilizer knowing that they use it for building bombs you are of course also responsible for the deaths those bombs cause.
I guess you didn't RTFA.
the court ruled that the registrar had a duty to investigate after notification of infringing activity and had to take corrective action in case of obvious violations,
The registrar did not investigate at all. What you are talking about is a knee jerk reaction. What the court is talking about is reasonable action.
Combining the court scenario with your scenario would come out as follows;
- Some troublemaker files a false complaint to my registrar. The registrar investigates and finds the complaint to be false and ignores it. The troublemaker goes to court, loses and has to pay the legal fees of the registrar.
If Key-Systems ignores this ruling it faces a maximum fine of €250,000 (US$339,000).
The registrar is not being fined if they follow the ruling. Their only cost would be the legal fees. If the troublemaker's claim was obviously bogus the court could award costs to the plantif so the registrar would be out nothing.
The IOC didn't ask for the deployment therefore has no legal requirement to pay for it.
The FAA has no authority over RC stuff.
Incorrect. The FAA considers RC aircraft as aircraft and therefore has complete jurisdiction. They created a policy for hobby use of rc aircraft, AC 91-57, but there is not a specific one for commercial RC aircraft.
Drone/UAS means there's nobody controlling it. That's not the case here.
From the FAA website;
What is an unmanned aircraft system (UAS)?
A UAS is the unmanned aircraft (UA) and all of the associated support equipment, control station, data links, telemetry, communications and navigation equipment, etc., necessary to operate the unmanned aircraft.
The UA is the flying portion of the system, flown by a pilot via a ground control system, or autonomously through use of an on-board computer, communication links and any additional equipment that is necessary for the UA to operate safely. The FAA issues an experimental airworthiness certificate for the entire system, not just the flying portion of the system.
What you are describing is a autonomous aircraft which is a sub type of unmanned aircraft.
3. A six pack of beer is a great thing, but it's too heavy for even a hexacopter.
Here is an exerpt from one of the links in the search you posted;
Conclusion:
Maximum practical payload seem to be about 5kg, total weight of 7kg.
5kg is about 11 pounds or about 2 six packs. Notice he is talking about payload capacity.
You really should not give people so much ammo to refute your claims. Here is an exerpt from one of thelinks in the search you posted;
Conclusion:
Maximum practical payload seem to be about 5kg, total weight of 7kg.
5kg is about 11 pounds or about 2 six packs. Notice he is talking about payload capacity.
Here is the relevant section from the 2007 Notice:
The current FAA policy for UAS operations is that no person may operate a UAS in the National Airspace System without specific authority. For UAS operating as public aircraft the authority is the COA, for UAS operating as civil aircraft the authority is special airworthiness certificates, and for model aircraft the authority is AC 91-57. The FAA recognizes that people and companies other than modelers might be flying UAS with the mistaken understanding that they are legally operating under the authority of 6 AC 91-57. AC 91-57 only applies to modelers, and thus specifically excludes its use by persons or companies for business purposes.
The policy statement makes no new rules, and therefore needs no review process, but points out that the commercial operation of UAS's in US airspace has no authorization while private use does (CA 01-57). The point is that for a civil aircraft to operate in the US it requires a special airworthiness certificates. No UAS has one of these certificates therefore no UAS is allowed to fly commercially in the US.
I found the document that you quoted. I consider what you did as selective quoting in taking one sattement out of context. Here is the next sentence which you didn't quote:
However, insofar as those policies reflect regulatory requirements, those requirements are manadatory.
This is referring to the regulatoryrequirements governing civil aircraft ie certification.
The Raphael Pirker is not a test case as to whether or not commercial UAS's are allowed because he was not charged with that. He was charged with 14C.F.R.91.13(a)states that"[n]o person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
The Games are a private event in a foreign country that attracts enough American citizens and have a high enough security risk to justify the US Government to implement security contingencies. If the US did not take these steps and something bad happened the US government would be pilloried for not planning properly. The IOC did not ask for those two ships but the US did it anyway to cover their ass.
And the costs for those ships would be $0 if they were not tasked to that mission? They will be doing the same things that usually do in the Mediterranean excep[t now on the Black Sea.
What about stationary targets like port, army installations, communication facilities, CIC centers, supply depots, etc? Missiles are not always targeted at moving objects.
A hyper sonic cruise missile coming directly or almost direct at you would be presenting mainly leading edges and therefore shielded areas. Shielding could also be added to other critical areas to stop burn through. Right now it is dead weigh but in when lasers come into use that extra shielding will be useful. Also ballistic hyper velocity missiles do not have the fuel tank you refer to.
It is absolutely trivial to track anything moving that fast. It lights up like a flare on infrared.
Quite true but to track something accurately enough to target specific vulnerable spots is a very different story.
Along those same line, defense systems have effective engagement ranges. Incoming missiles can be shot down within that range which means that one laser could down multiple missiles. If more missiles enter the engagement range that can be shot down before they hit the system is considered saturated. The faster the missile goes the less time it spends in the engagement range the fewer missiles can be shit down the easier, and less expensive, it is to saturate the defenses.
You don't have to kink much for a small object to dodge another small object or spread laser energy so it will not burn through. A couple of degrees back and forth in a random pattern would be enough.