One can copyright a photograph. So, if you take a pic of building, you own the copyright to the pic - not of the objects you copyrighted. The law provides for photographs to be taken of buildings.
If you copy a building's design, and build an identical building, you have probably violated the copyright of the owner.
It might be possible to trademark the building's image as a logo of the entity. For example, if your engineering firm works out of a unique modern pyramid, they can take a drawing of thay pyramid and make it a logo (trademark) of their business.
To be a bona fide trademark the level of threshold is low and so if the trademark has been used in commerce, it is usually afford protection under the appliciable laws.
When a court determines what is/isn't a violation of trademark then the criteria they look at is this:
1) Was this trademark used in commerce previously? 2) How, what, when, and where was it used in commerce? 3) Is the infringing trademark in the same industry as the original? 5) Does the new trademark cause confusion in the marketplace? 6) Is the infringing trademark having a negative effect (damages) on the original owner?
There is no telling how a case would be ruled... ya never know what the back stories are.
However, I would have to say that they cannot get him for violating trademark or copyright on the building.
IANAL - but I am taking a copyright law course at my university for my major - recording industry! http://mtsu.edu/~record/ It is an interesting time to be studying the recording industry; that is for sure!
How about elaborating instead of making single line statements with no point?
I may not agree with what you have to say, but I would like to hear it nonetheless. I don't mind that you are anonymous however please at least tell me why you think what you do. What is your logic? What is your rationale? I am interested. Please share!
I have been talking with many military officers as well as political scientists, diplomats, US special forces members, and even foreign delegates to the UN - generally people much more intelligent, educated, and aware of the situation than myself. I have been able to piece something together which is just a theory, but a plausible one.
Consider this possibility:
-N. Korea has a crude fuel embargo.
-Saddam had a nuclear weapon but no fuel (uranium).
-Saddam and N Korea barter to exchange crude oil for refined uranium.
-N Korea attempts to manufacture its nuclear material for the trade of crude oil (remember the N Korean nuclear reactor issue?)
-Saddam has sworn to push Israel into the ocean
-The US is not sure if N Korea has actually manufactured the uranium
-The US is also not sure that if the uranium has indded been manufactured, if it has made its way to Saddam (our intelligence in Iraq was very poor).
-Israel has nuclear weapons
-Israel vows to venomously attack the Arab world should Israel be attacked from the east
-The US knows there is a good possibility and even a decent probability that Saddam has a nuclear weapon and fuel thus giving him a complete working bomb
-The US also knows that it is unlikely that Saddam will attempt to attack America nor would he likely succeed if he tried
-The US comes to conclusion that he would more than likely use that bomb to attack Israel
-The US knows that if Saddam detonates a nuke anywhere near Israel that Israel will not hesitate to turn the entire middle east into a lake of glass for the next 10,000 years thus killing many many many innocent people.
-Short of an invasion and the overthrowing of Iraq, the US knows there is no way to get the weapon out of the hands of Saddam because 1) his army is too powerful, 2)the US does not have enough ground based intelligence in Iraq to attempt to recover this weapon and 3) Diplomacy and negotiations are futile with Saddam.
Also keep in mind that Saddam was the master of hiding stuff in the desert. Iraq is the size of California. If he had a nuclear weapon, it could be buried in the desert for hundreds of years before it is found, assuming it ever is. The other more scary possibility is that they went across the border or they were sold prior to the invasion.
Based on this plausible theory I could certainly understand why the invasion of Iraq took place. I am not saying that beyond a reasonable doubt that the above is the only explanation, however it is a possibility.
If oil is what we were after, we could've eaisly occupy Quwait and call it a "protective occupation".
I do not agree with a progressive international policy and being a libertarian I take a more isolationist approach to US policy however given the post-9/11 hysteria and the set of international conditions that existed at that time, and if the above possibility is even remotely accurate, then I think any reasonable president (Dem or Rep) would've done the same thing.
Personally I will be voting for the Libertarian canididate Badnarik - http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/ 20/1423219&tid=11&tid=219
I didn't touch the tile itself but the landing gear. I knew about the oil possibility and wouldn't want to run the risk of messing anything up.
What absolutely amazed me was that each and every single tile had a serial number on it with its history stored in a computer somewhere. That's a huge undertaking!
What they didn't report is that those panels were designed to pop out. They are like punch-out panels and they worked exactly as planned!
When a hurricane comes there is a serious drop in pressure... well with a building that large (one of the most volumous buildings in the world) this creates a serious pressure differential and if parts of the building do not give, or of there is not some sort of equalization, then the whole thing would explode from the pressure.
So they built a few thousand of these punch panels designed to pop out during a hurricane in order to save the building. I dont know why that wasn't in the article. These panels are on the north and south faces of the building and can be viewed here:
http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/LARGE/GPN-2000-00 08 53.jpg (the brownish panels in the center section)
and here: http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/MEDIUM/GPN-2 000-000 614.jpg
Also if you don't think the building is all that large, look at the second photograph and notice the water tower;-)
I grew up in Orlando and knew many many people that were engineer types; I feel very fortunate. When I was in the Boy Scouts (yes I am an Eagle), I actually got a tour of the SSPF, the VAB, the SPF, and LP Complex 39-A. On this tour I learned about these panels.
This wasn't the normal tour though. One of our Scoutmasters was in charge of designing the lav and the escape hatch for the SS and had basically unlimited access. We essentially got the VIP/Congressional tour. I actually got to touch, (and yes I mean physically touch), Columbia as I walked underneath it and around it. I was 5 ft from the SRBs, I got to stand on the launch pad, on the crawler, 5 ft from the Michealangelo module for the SS, and underneath one of their 205k ton cranes.
That tour was something I will never forget for the rest of my life.
Actually my dad worked as a baggage handler for Delta air lines for over 28 years (he retired Nov 2001) and got benefits out the butt (insurance, healthcare, unlimited flights, investment options, stock options, retirement) not to mention a $50k a year salary (for unskilled manual labor!).
The full-time turn-over rate is really low at Delta actually. Unfortunalty Delta is not hiring many more full time ground crew types anymore.
I mentioned my education so that people would know I am not discussing something in which I have no clue what I am talking about (as a lot of Slashdotters tend to do).
I don't have a chip on my shoulder I was simply making a point. My concentration is tech, not biz.
My point was that the labels don't own any rights to the songs themselves, only the sound recordings. All of the rights to the songs are held by the pub co's.
About the instant copyright, it is protected as soon as it is put into a transferrable medium however proving who wrote it down first can be a challange. That's why work should always be registered with the US Copyright office ASAP. If an issue ever came up in court, having it registerd by the USCO gives it a large amount of legitimacy. And you are right that the sealed postmark thing doesn't hold water.
One of the thing a songwriter does when they get a song written is to get it picked up by a pub and then the pub will register it. This is of course all relative to the contracts and such. The only involvement between the labels and the pubs are that the pubs pay for mechanical royalties to the pubs via the Harry Fox Agency.
Which studio did you work at? I am interested in knowing. I am a live engineer check out my site here: http://www.UltraSonicDesigns.com ~Matt
Never heard that statement before.... And I don't need a degree to get a job in it. I started work in the live audio field when I was 12. I've been doing it professionally since the age of 17.
Actually I want to be a pilot but almost all commercial airlines use a 4 year degree as a qualifier before they even look at your resume.
Since they don't care what your degree is in I decided to get a degree in something I know a lot about and enjoy; That's my rationale.
About the instant copyright, it is protected as soon as it is put into a transferrable medium however proving who wrote it down first can be a challange. That's why work should always be registered with the US Copyright office ASAP. If an issue ever came up in court, having it registerd by the USCO gives it a large amount of legitimacy.
The recording companies and the publishing companies are almost ALWAYS two seperate entities.
The right to sell sheet music of a particular song is held by the publisher, NOT THE RECORD LABEL! The record label has to pay the publisher in order to record the song (this is called a mechanical royalty).
In order to perform a song live the venue (or promoter) must have authorization from a performing rights orginization (SESAC, BMI, or ASCAP). This is usally a blanket license. The record label has NOTHING to do with this!
Also anything that is copyrightable (such as a song or work of art) is copyrighted the instant it is put onto a transferrable medium. It doesn't have to be registered with the US Copyright Office for it to be copyrighted. Registering it with the USCO does help incase there is ever a dispute they can say "it was registered on this date such and such etc"
My degree is in the recording industry. I know what I am talking about: http://www.MTSU.edu/~record/
I am an audio engineer for an artist called "Double M". He has been around since the very early 90's obviously prior to Eminem. Double M was in a group out of Orlando called Triple Deep. He was slated to be in '98 Degrees' and was managed by the same people who did Backstreet Boys and NSYNC; (Phurst Degree Artist Agency)
His real name is Mark Matsuzek (hence Double M). He was born in Czechoslovakia during Communism and escaped to the US when he was 8. As he was about to become a national act he became a Christian and quit the secular side of the industry.
Now he has "The Double M Project" and fuses Eminem type raps in front of NSYNC type pop! Its a very interesting combination and a thrill to mix live.
http://doublemproject.com/
Also check out his studio: http://gotmusicproductions.com/
He is exceptionally talented and does music for the Orlando Magic. If you want some MP3s feel free to send me a mail SonicSpike@cfl.(noscam).rr.com and I will give you MP3s of his music.
That compulsory license fee is regarding lyrics/notation (copywrighted by the publisher), not the actualy sound recording itself (copyrighted by the record label).
Yes, anyone can record a song as long as they pay the standard $.08 fee per copy to the publisher. This is called a mechanical royalty.
We are talking about the lyrics/notation, not the actual recording of the lyrics/notation.
HOWEVER, to use the lyrics/notation in a broadcast type of setting or to sync it up to film/video requires negtioation as the standard rate does NOT apply in that case.
I know what I am talking about, my degree is in the recording industry: http://www.MTSU.edu/~record/
Actually you are confusing a written song (handled by the publisher) and a recorded song (handled by the record label).
I am sad to say that it has become apparent now that the majority of people here on/. and of course in the rest of the US have a minimal understanding of the recording industry.
The writer of a song and the person that performs a song are not always the same person. Even if they are, the ownership to the rights of the song and the ownership to the rights of the recording are seperate.
Anyone can record a song that has been published simply by paying a mechanical royalty (usually $.08 per sold copy). However use of a recording itself must be cleared by the record label (or the copyright holder of the recording) AND the publisher.
Mechanical royalties (recordings) are paid through the Harry Fox Agency to the publishers. Other performance royalties are paid through one of the 3 performing rights orgs: ASCAP SESAC BMI
The thing to always keep in mind is that the lyrics/notation to a song are NOT the same item as a recording of those lyrics. Both are paid for seperately. If the recording artist and songwriter are the same person, then they "double dip" so to speak.
My degree is in the recording industry, I know what I'm talking about: http://www.MTSU.edu/~record/
My friend is a film production guy and he was flying back from Bulgaria with his digital clapboard. The thing they slap down in front of the camera each take to sync. Anyway, the young guys at security were confused by this slate and were gathering around to examine it. Then my buddy reached over to turn it on and the red lights began to countdown numerically(like a bomb in some Hwd movie). The security guys jumped and grabbed their machine guns and started screaming at him. He froze and soon a supervisor came over to set things straight. He said he nearly pissed himsef.
Exactly. The Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act of 1974 actually prevents an auto mfg from stipulating which aftermarket parts must be used.
For example... if you purchase a car from GM and they say "you must use Quaker State oil or else it will void your warranty" that would be in violation of the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act of 1974.
Now if they could prove that the vehicle would not function properly without the use of Quaker State oil, then they are legally allowed to stipulate the type of oil (or whatever aftermarket product you are discussing). But again they must be able to prove that by not using this specific aftermarket product the vehicle would cease to properly function.
In my opinion, the same exact logic should apply to this situation. After all it would be nice to have some consistancy in the laws around here!
Vote libertarian (www.lp.org) and buy Amsoil (www.MTOil.com);-)
Maybe you don't understand... the UN has pretty much zero jurisdiction anywhere. The only jurisdiction it does happen to have is submitted to it from its member-states. For example, UN inspectors can only enter into Iraq if Saddam happens to ALLOW or AGREE, or SUBMIT to the inspections. States can only have regulations/laws imposed on them that they agree upon.
One of the very few exceptions is in war-crimes cases in which the member-states vote to intervene into another state's affairs (Kosovo) or to clean up a war-torn state or group of states.
(Disclaimer: the word "state" refers to any particular soverign nation, not like Alabama or Calif or Florida... they are provinces of the United States which is considered a single "state" itself within the international context)
I think this might actually be illegal in most states to have a viewable display unit within the driver's field of vision... Not sure if it is indeed law or not... anyone have any more info on this?
Ok.... so what if the search engines are located out of the country? Or what if they are in another country that does not have any sort of treaty with the US?
Yes... unfortunately most people do not have the ability or the gear to setup the world clocks, and sync the digital data stream. I think that most non-audiophiles (I happen to be an audio engineer and am very anal-retentive about my sound) will not notice a difference in the A/D conversion.
What'll probably happen is that someone with this equipment will make a digital copy, and then upload it for the rest of the world via the file sharing networks. There are obvious problems in the A/D/A conversion, but nothing that cannot be solved with the right gear, and the correct knowledge.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah... a quick lesson in "intellectual property"
One can copyright a photograph. So, if you take a pic of building, you own the copyright to the pic - not of the objects you copyrighted. The law provides for photographs to be taken of buildings.
If you copy a building's design, and build an identical building, you have probably violated the copyright of the owner.
It might be possible to trademark the building's image as a logo of the entity. For example, if your engineering firm works out of a unique modern pyramid, they can take a drawing of thay pyramid and make it a logo (trademark) of their business.
To be a bona fide trademark the level of threshold is low and so if the trademark has been used in commerce, it is usually afford protection under the appliciable laws.
When a court determines what is/isn't a violation of trademark then the criteria they look at is this:
1) Was this trademark used in commerce previously?
2) How, what, when, and where was it used in commerce?
3) Is the infringing trademark in the same industry as the original?
5) Does the new trademark cause confusion in the marketplace?
6) Is the infringing trademark having a negative effect (damages) on the original owner?
There is no telling how a case would be ruled... ya never know what the back stories are.
However, I would have to say that they cannot get him for violating trademark or copyright on the building.
IANAL - but I am taking a copyright law course at my university for my major - recording industry!
http://mtsu.edu/~record/
It is an interesting time to be studying the recording industry; that is for sure!
How about elaborating instead of making single line statements with no point?
I may not agree with what you have to say, but I would like to hear it nonetheless. I don't mind that you are anonymous however please at least tell me why you think what you do. What is your logic? What is your rationale? I am interested. Please share!
I have been talking with many military officers as well as political scientists, diplomats, US special forces members, and even foreign delegates to the UN - generally people much more intelligent, educated, and aware of the situation than myself. I have been able to piece something together which is just a theory, but a plausible one.
/ 20/1423219&tid=11&tid=219
Consider this possibility:
-N. Korea has a crude fuel embargo.
-Saddam had a nuclear weapon but no fuel (uranium).
-Saddam and N Korea barter to exchange crude oil for refined uranium.
-N Korea attempts to manufacture its nuclear material for the trade of crude oil (remember the N Korean nuclear reactor issue?)
-Saddam has sworn to push Israel into the ocean
-The US is not sure if N Korea has actually manufactured the uranium
-The US is also not sure that if the uranium has indded been manufactured, if it has made its way to Saddam (our intelligence in Iraq was very poor).
-Israel has nuclear weapons
-Israel vows to venomously attack the Arab world should Israel be attacked from the east
-The US knows there is a good possibility and even a decent probability that Saddam has a nuclear weapon and fuel thus giving him a complete working bomb
-The US also knows that it is unlikely that Saddam will attempt to attack America nor would he likely succeed if he tried
-The US comes to conclusion that he would more than likely use that bomb to attack Israel
-The US knows that if Saddam detonates a nuke anywhere near Israel that Israel will not hesitate to turn the entire middle east into a lake of glass for the next 10,000 years thus killing many many many innocent people.
-Short of an invasion and the overthrowing of Iraq, the US knows there is no way to get the weapon out of the hands of Saddam because 1) his army is too powerful, 2)the US does not have enough ground based intelligence in Iraq to attempt to recover this weapon and 3) Diplomacy and negotiations are futile with Saddam.
Also keep in mind that Saddam was the master of hiding stuff in the desert. Iraq is the size of California. If he had a nuclear weapon, it could be buried in the desert for hundreds of years before it is found, assuming it ever is. The other more scary possibility is that they went across the border or they were sold prior to the invasion.
Based on this plausible theory I could certainly understand why the invasion of Iraq took place. I am not saying that beyond a reasonable doubt that the above is the only explanation, however it is a possibility.
If oil is what we were after, we could've eaisly occupy Quwait and call it a "protective occupation".
I do not agree with a progressive international policy and being a libertarian I take a more isolationist approach to US policy however given the post-9/11 hysteria and the set of international conditions that existed at that time, and if the above possibility is even remotely accurate, then I think any reasonable president (Dem or Rep) would've done the same thing.
Personally I will be voting for the Libertarian canididate Badnarik - http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09
I didn't touch the tile itself but the landing gear. I knew about the oil possibility and wouldn't want to run the risk of messing anything up.
What absolutely amazed me was that each and every single tile had a serial number on it with its history stored in a computer somewhere. That's a huge undertaking!
Actually they are all rectangular... see my post lower down on the page:d =120804 &cid=10174720
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?si
What they didn't report is that those panels were designed to pop out. They are like punch-out panels and they worked exactly as planned!
0 08 53.jpg
2 000-000 614.jpg
;-)
When a hurricane comes there is a serious drop in pressure... well with a building that large (one of the most volumous buildings in the world) this creates a serious pressure differential and if parts of the building do not give, or of there is not some sort of equalization, then the whole thing would explode from the pressure.
So they built a few thousand of these punch panels designed to pop out during a hurricane in order to save the building. I dont know why that wasn't in the article. These panels are on the north and south faces of the building and can be viewed here:
http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/LARGE/GPN-2000-0
(the brownish panels in the center section)
and here:
http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/MEDIUM/GPN-
Also if you don't think the building is all that large, look at the second photograph and notice the water tower
I grew up in Orlando and knew many many people that were engineer types; I feel very fortunate.
When I was in the Boy Scouts (yes I am an Eagle), I actually got a tour of the SSPF, the VAB, the SPF, and LP Complex 39-A. On this tour I learned about these panels.
This wasn't the normal tour though. One of our Scoutmasters was in charge of designing the lav and the escape hatch for the SS and had basically unlimited access. We essentially got the VIP/Congressional tour. I actually got to touch, (and yes I mean physically touch), Columbia as I walked underneath it and around it. I was 5 ft from the SRBs, I got to stand on the launch pad, on the crawler, 5 ft from the Michealangelo module for the SS, and underneath one of their 205k ton cranes.
That tour was something I will never forget for the rest of my life.
Actually my dad worked as a baggage handler for Delta air lines for over 28 years (he retired Nov 2001) and got benefits out the butt (insurance, healthcare, unlimited flights, investment options, stock options, retirement) not to mention a $50k a year salary (for unskilled manual labor!).
The full-time turn-over rate is really low at Delta actually. Unfortunalty Delta is not hiring many more full time ground crew types anymore.
The world has changed.
Wooo Hoo... now we get to see 14 hours of MXC on Spike TV - April Fool's Day!
MXC is awesome. I wonder how many Japs actually know we are making fun of them! ha ha ha ha
Talk about "burning your money"!
I mentioned my education so that people would know I am not discussing something in which I have no clue what I am talking about (as a lot of Slashdotters tend to do).
I don't have a chip on my shoulder I was simply making a point. My concentration is tech, not biz.
My point was that the labels don't own any rights to the songs themselves, only the sound recordings. All of the rights to the songs are held by the pub co's.
About the instant copyright, it is protected as soon as it is put into a transferrable medium however proving who wrote it down first can be a challange. That's why work should always be registered with the US Copyright office ASAP. If an issue ever came up in court, having it registerd by the USCO gives it a large amount of legitimacy. And you are right that the sealed postmark thing doesn't hold water.
One of the thing a songwriter does when they get a song written is to get it picked up by a pub and then the pub will register it. This is of course all relative to the contracts and such. The only involvement between the labels and the pubs are that the pubs pay for mechanical royalties to the pubs via the Harry Fox Agency.
Which studio did you work at? I am interested in knowing. I am a live engineer check out my site here:
http://www.UltraSonicDesigns.com
~Matt
Never heard that statement before.... And I don't need a degree to get a job in it. I started work in the live audio field when I was 12. I've been doing it professionally since the age of 17.
Actually I want to be a pilot but almost all commercial airlines use a 4 year degree as a qualifier before they even look at your resume.
Since they don't care what your degree is in I decided to get a degree in something I know a lot about and enjoy; That's my rationale.
About the instant copyright, it is protected as soon as it is put into a transferrable medium however proving who wrote it down first can be a challange. That's why work should always be registered with the US Copyright office ASAP. If an issue ever came up in court, having it registerd by the USCO gives it a large amount of legitimacy.
The recording companies and the publishing companies are almost ALWAYS two seperate entities.
The right to sell sheet music of a particular song is held by the publisher, NOT THE RECORD LABEL! The record label has to pay the publisher in order to record the song (this is called a mechanical royalty).
In order to perform a song live the venue (or promoter) must have authorization from a performing rights orginization (SESAC, BMI, or ASCAP). This is usally a blanket license. The record label has NOTHING to do with this!
Also anything that is copyrightable (such as a song or work of art) is copyrighted the instant it is put onto a transferrable medium. It doesn't have to be registered with the US Copyright Office for it to be copyrighted. Registering it with the USCO does help incase there is ever a dispute they can say "it was registered on this date such and such etc"
My degree is in the recording industry. I know what I am talking about:
http://www.MTSU.edu/~record/
I am an audio engineer for an artist called "Double M". He has been around since the very early 90's obviously prior to Eminem. Double M was in a group out of Orlando called Triple Deep. He was slated to be in '98 Degrees' and was managed by the same people who did Backstreet Boys and NSYNC; (Phurst Degree Artist Agency)
His real name is Mark Matsuzek (hence Double M). He was born in Czechoslovakia during Communism and escaped to the US when he was 8. As he was about to become a national act he became a Christian and quit the secular side of the industry.
Now he has "The Double M Project" and fuses Eminem type raps in front of NSYNC type pop! Its a very interesting combination and a thrill to mix live.
http://doublemproject.com/
Also check out his studio: http://gotmusicproductions.com/
He is exceptionally talented and does music for the Orlando Magic. If you want some MP3s feel free to send me a mail SonicSpike@cfl.(noscam).rr.com and I will give you MP3s of his music.
That compulsory license fee is regarding lyrics/notation (copywrighted by the publisher), not the actualy sound recording itself (copyrighted by the record label).
Yes, anyone can record a song as long as they pay the standard $.08 fee per copy to the publisher. This is called a mechanical royalty.
We are talking about the lyrics/notation, not the actual recording of the lyrics/notation.
HOWEVER, to use the lyrics/notation in a broadcast type of setting or to sync it up to film/video requires negtioation as the standard rate does NOT apply in that case.
I know what I am talking about, my degree is in the recording industry:
http://www.MTSU.edu/~record/
Actually you are confusing a written song (handled by the publisher) and a recorded song (handled by the record label).
/. and of course in the rest of the US have a minimal understanding of the recording industry.
I am sad to say that it has become apparent now that the majority of people here on
The writer of a song and the person that performs a song are not always the same person. Even if they are, the ownership to the rights of the song and the ownership to the rights of the recording are seperate.
Anyone can record a song that has been published simply by paying a mechanical royalty (usually $.08 per sold copy). However use of a recording itself must be cleared by the record label (or the copyright holder of the recording) AND the publisher.
Mechanical royalties (recordings) are paid through the Harry Fox Agency to the publishers. Other performance royalties are paid through one of the 3 performing rights orgs:
ASCAP
SESAC
BMI
The thing to always keep in mind is that the lyrics/notation to a song are NOT the same item as a recording of those lyrics. Both are paid for seperately. If the recording artist and songwriter are the same person, then they "double dip" so to speak.
My degree is in the recording industry, I know what I'm talking about: http://www.MTSU.edu/~record/
My friend is a film production guy and he was flying back from Bulgaria with his digital clapboard. The thing they slap down in front of the camera each take to sync. Anyway, the young guys at security were confused by this slate and were gathering around to examine it. Then my buddy reached over to turn it on and the red lights began to countdown numerically(like a bomb in some Hwd movie). The security guys jumped and grabbed their machine guns and started screaming at him. He froze and soon a supervisor came over to set things straight. He said he nearly pissed himsef.
Exactly. The Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act of 1974 actually prevents an auto mfg from stipulating which aftermarket parts must be used.
;-)
For example... if you purchase a car from GM and they say "you must use Quaker State oil or else it will void your warranty" that would be in violation of the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act of 1974.
Now if they could prove that the vehicle would not function properly without the use of Quaker State oil, then they are legally allowed to stipulate the type of oil (or whatever aftermarket product you are discussing). But again they must be able to prove that by not using this specific aftermarket product the vehicle would cease to properly function.
In my opinion, the same exact logic should apply to this situation. After all it would be nice to have some consistancy in the laws around here!
Vote libertarian (www.lp.org) and buy Amsoil (www.MTOil.com)
Yes... I have a good friend like that... he's looking for a job too!
http://www.paulfranz.com/
Maybe you don't understand... the UN has pretty much zero jurisdiction anywhere. The only jurisdiction it does happen to have is submitted to it from its member-states. For example, UN inspectors can only enter into Iraq if Saddam happens to ALLOW or AGREE, or SUBMIT to the inspections. States can only have regulations/laws imposed on them that they agree upon.
One of the very few exceptions is in war-crimes cases in which the member-states vote to intervene into another state's affairs (Kosovo) or to clean up a war-torn state or group of states.
(Disclaimer: the word "state" refers to any particular soverign nation, not like Alabama or Calif or Florida... they are provinces of the United States which is considered a single "state" itself within the international context)
I think this might actually be illegal in most states to have a viewable display unit within the driver's field of vision... Not sure if it is indeed law or not... anyone have any more info on this?
Ok.... so what if the search engines are located out of the country? Or what if they are in another country that does not have any sort of treaty with the US?
Join the Libertarian Party!!
http://www.lp.org/issues/
They want to keep capatalism, but revamp the current IP system.
I'm sick of this. Where do I point my gun at to get my God-given rights?
Try these guys:
Libertarian Party
Yes... unfortunately most people do not have the ability or the gear to setup the world clocks, and sync the digital data stream. I think that most non-audiophiles (I happen to be an audio engineer and am very anal-retentive about my sound) will not notice a difference in the A/D conversion.
What'll probably happen is that someone with this equipment will make a digital copy, and then upload it for the rest of the world via the file sharing networks. There are obvious problems in the A/D/A conversion, but nothing that cannot be solved with the right gear, and the correct knowledge.