Just off the top of my head, having built and flown a lot of RC craft in the past, a 54" plane could have a flight time of an hour at 80mph, so he could easily reach his 27 mile radio range and back, with time to maneuver in between.
That's the question... Does developing and selling an XBox game *legally* require a license? That is, if you bypassed Microsoft's technological license-required controls, would you be violating a law? Put another way, is there any legal power behind Microsoft's XBox development licensing scheme? Before the DMCA the answer was obviously pro-consumer. Today it would be a hard case.
I think you are suffering from a sampling bias. "from what I've seen, and from what my friends have seen"... How many of those friends go to an ivy league school? You, being from an ivy league school, are more likely to encounter, at every step of the process, people and organizations who prefer ivy league students. If there are recruiters out there who prefer state school students (and there are, I assure you), their candidates would have the exact opposite impression of yours.
Consider an HIT that is worth one cent every ten seconds. To an American, $3.60/hr sounds appalling. To someone in a third world country where $3.60 will buy a week's worth of food and $20 is rent for a month, that's a hell of a good job.
Right, what you've described are the common dictionary definitions. Those are the definitions a misbehaving juror might find, that would probably cause them to incorrectly answer a question such as the following in some circumstances:
"Did the defendant possess a copy of any work for which they were not the author?"
Because potential offenses (such as "possessing a ____ copy") are based on the same definitions as the rest of the statute, it is the job of the lawyers and judge to make sure that the jurors know, in attempting to answer that question, that according to US copyright law...
“Copies” are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term “copies” includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed.
which means that the original and any duplicates are all "copies", and laws [in this section] that refer or apply to a "copy" apply to the original as well. and
In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title
which means that laws [in this section] that refer or apply to the "author" of a work apply to the employer, not the employee.
So what is your proposal? Should the law contain made up words (that is, should the legal "copy" be a "foozle")? Should the definitions be included inline like my example above? Something else?
No? If you couldn't make a chapter-specific definition of "copy" ("a physical object containing a fixed representation of a work") then easy-to-read sentences like this:
All copies must be made based on an authorized copy.
Would turn into something like this:
All physical objects containing a fixed representation of a work must be made based on an authorized physical object containing a fixed representation of that work.
(All of the above is hypothetical or paraphrased, that's not the exact definition of "copy" from the copyright code and that sentence doesn't appear in the code)
Would it help if you had access to a copy of the law where all of the re-defined terms were hyperlinked to the definitions section?
Bringing a dictionary into a jury would be a horrible crime. The dictionary definition and the legal definition of, for example, "fair use" have nothing to do with each other. Ditto "copy" and "author". If the key point of the case is "Did the author make the copy, or did someone else exercise fair use in making it", the definition of all three of those terms will change the answer in a vast majority of cases.
Before the trial, during juror selection, she could be asked "Have you read the wikipedia article on rape trauma?", or, more generally and realistically, "Have you read any popular or social media coverage of rape or rape trauma [recently]?". That's the difference.
Sadly, no, it means one person got it to work, possibly out of the box, and listed it as Platinum. There is no oversight of quality level ratings on appdb:(
More leak sites is a good thing for everyone who isn't evil or profiting from evil. Eventually I see a web of them, getting information from each other, sharing with governments and journalists and the public by some criteria that change as demand changes.
The analogy also failed miserably in that shooting random people in the middle of the street doesn't really provide much benefit to anyone, while what Wikileaks is doing is aimed to improve our society.
I think that in most jurisdictions in the USA, if you told a cop you were going to break the law, particularly of the bodily injury sort, and they did nothing to stop you, they would themselves also be breaking the law. By analogy, whoever wrote THAT law thinks cops have a duty to try to stop you, given a chance, and that person's counterpart in the original scenario (whoever wrote the rules by which the state department operates and under which they chose not to "help" Assange censor the documents) should have made similar rules.
Assange is, to a degree, an investigative journalist. We had a lot of those in the 60s-80s, but the breed has almost completely died out. When was the last time you saw a mainstream news outlet *break the news* on corruption in the government or a public official? It doesn't count if they wait for someone else to announce it and then just report on it. SOMEONE has to take that first step. Assange is taking a very extreme first step, but only because no one else dares take one at all.
Apple allows apps that violate their published guidelines, and deny apps that do not, on a regular basis. They often deny apps they have previously allowed, and allow apps they have previously denied, with no change to the offending features. If that doesn't perfectly describe the inaccuracy of the published criteria, I don't know what would.
Then it's unpaid time off. I think providing a limited/scheduled amount of sick leave, when being sick isn't something you can limit or schedule, is silly.
To fix your analogy... He didn't ask for the Police's help. He offered to give them the gun and instead just throw rocks at people instead. It doesn't make you any less of a bad person for shooting the people, but it makes the person who didn't take your gun a bad person TOO.
The difference is monopoly. If I buy my car from Dealer A, and replacement parts from Dealer B, all is well. If Dealer A sells me a car that stops running when I put in parts from another dealer, then they are being illegally (in some jurisdictions) anticompetitive. Dealer A is building a market in which they have a monopoly (see: Microsoft / Windows), then leveraging that monopoly to make more money than they could in a free market.
Your definition of the word "The" seems to be faulty.
[An example of likely] App Store approval guidelines have been on Apple's developer website for a while now[, but are not guaranteed to be, or even often, accurate]. FTFY
Slashdot Mirror
Just off the top of my head, having built and flown a lot of RC craft in the past, a 54" plane could have a flight time of an hour at 80mph, so he could easily reach his 27 mile radio range and back, with time to maneuver in between.
That's the question... Does developing and selling an XBox game *legally* require a license? That is, if you bypassed Microsoft's technological license-required controls, would you be violating a law? Put another way, is there any legal power behind Microsoft's XBox development licensing scheme? Before the DMCA the answer was obviously pro-consumer. Today it would be a hard case.
I think you are suffering from a sampling bias. "from what I've seen, and from what my friends have seen"... How many of those friends go to an ivy league school? You, being from an ivy league school, are more likely to encounter, at every step of the process, people and organizations who prefer ivy league students. If there are recruiters out there who prefer state school students (and there are, I assure you), their candidates would have the exact opposite impression of yours.
Consider an HIT that is worth one cent every ten seconds. To an American, $3.60/hr sounds appalling. To someone in a third world country where $3.60 will buy a week's worth of food and $20 is rent for a month, that's a hell of a good job.
Right, what you've described are the common dictionary definitions. Those are the definitions a misbehaving juror might find, that would probably cause them to incorrectly answer a question such as the following in some circumstances:
"Did the defendant possess a copy of any work for which they were not the author?"
Because potential offenses (such as "possessing a ____ copy") are based on the same definitions as the rest of the statute, it is the job of the lawyers and judge to make sure that the jurors know, in attempting to answer that question, that according to US copyright law...
which means that the original and any duplicates are all "copies", and laws [in this section] that refer or apply to a "copy" apply to the original as well.
and
which means that laws [in this section] that refer or apply to the "author" of a work apply to the employer, not the employee.
When you create a work for hire, the person who paid you is the Author.
When you create a painting, or take a photo, or record yourself playing an original musical composition, that's a Copy.
Do those examples help illustrate the problem?
So what is your proposal? Should the law contain made up words (that is, should the legal "copy" be a "foozle")? Should the definitions be included inline like my example above? Something else?
Why do you think they failed? It seems quite likely that one or both sides would have covered rape trauma in depth during the trial.
No? If you couldn't make a chapter-specific definition of "copy" ("a physical object containing a fixed representation of a work") then easy-to-read sentences like this:
All copies must be made based on an authorized copy.
Would turn into something like this:
All physical objects containing a fixed representation of a work must be made based on an authorized physical object containing a fixed representation of that work.
(All of the above is hypothetical or paraphrased, that's not the exact definition of "copy" from the copyright code and that sentence doesn't appear in the code)
Would it help if you had access to a copy of the law where all of the re-defined terms were hyperlinked to the definitions section?
"Fair Use" "Author" "Copy" -- three terms that a simple dictionary will define absolutely incorrectly and ruin a jury trial on copyright issues.
Bringing a dictionary into a jury would be a horrible crime. The dictionary definition and the legal definition of, for example, "fair use" have nothing to do with each other. Ditto "copy" and "author". If the key point of the case is "Did the author make the copy, or did someone else exercise fair use in making it", the definition of all three of those terms will change the answer in a vast majority of cases.
Before the trial, during juror selection, she could be asked "Have you read the wikipedia article on rape trauma?", or, more generally and realistically, "Have you read any popular or social media coverage of rape or rape trauma [recently]?". That's the difference.
Because the ratings aren't votes. The highest one is what shows up on the app search and indexes.
Sadly, no, it means one person got it to work, possibly out of the box, and listed it as Platinum. There is no oversight of quality level ratings on appdb :(
I don't think "he said" she was lying. That's an important point.
More leak sites is a good thing for everyone who isn't evil or profiting from evil. Eventually I see a web of them, getting information from each other, sharing with governments and journalists and the public by some criteria that change as demand changes.
I didn't say that the half with problems was you...
The analogy also failed miserably in that shooting random people in the middle of the street doesn't really provide much benefit to anyone, while what Wikileaks is doing is aimed to improve our society.
http://sowhyiswikileaksagoodthingagain.com/
I think that in most jurisdictions in the USA, if you told a cop you were going to break the law, particularly of the bodily injury sort, and they did nothing to stop you, they would themselves also be breaking the law. By analogy, whoever wrote THAT law thinks cops have a duty to try to stop you, given a chance, and that person's counterpart in the original scenario (whoever wrote the rules by which the state department operates and under which they chose not to "help" Assange censor the documents) should have made similar rules.
Assange is, to a degree, an investigative journalist. We had a lot of those in the 60s-80s, but the breed has almost completely died out. When was the last time you saw a mainstream news outlet *break the news* on corruption in the government or a public official? It doesn't count if they wait for someone else to announce it and then just report on it. SOMEONE has to take that first step. Assange is taking a very extreme first step, but only because no one else dares take one at all.
Apple allows apps that violate their published guidelines, and deny apps that do not, on a regular basis. They often deny apps they have previously allowed, and allow apps they have previously denied, with no change to the offending features. If that doesn't perfectly describe the inaccuracy of the published criteria, I don't know what would.
Then it's unpaid time off. I think providing a limited/scheduled amount of sick leave, when being sick isn't something you can limit or schedule, is silly.
To fix your analogy... He didn't ask for the Police's help. He offered to give them the gun and instead just throw rocks at people instead. It doesn't make you any less of a bad person for shooting the people, but it makes the person who didn't take your gun a bad person TOO.
The difference is monopoly. If I buy my car from Dealer A, and replacement parts from Dealer B, all is well. If Dealer A sells me a car that stops running when I put in parts from another dealer, then they are being illegally (in some jurisdictions) anticompetitive. Dealer A is building a market in which they have a monopoly (see: Microsoft / Windows), then leveraging that monopoly to make more money than they could in a free market.
Your definition of the word "The" seems to be faulty.
[An example of likely] App Store approval guidelines have been on Apple's developer website for a while now[, but are not guaranteed to be, or even often, accurate].
FTFY
I missed the article where anyone reported that she ever said "Yes" again after saying "No". [[citation needed]]