Since you didn't address the law I posted, nor the initial Virginia location, I went back to Virginia. Unless told to stop, one hasn't committed trespass, even when knowingly going on to someone else's land.
I know there are places (especially the UK, as you noted in one of your cites) with much stricter trespass laws. But most of the US has very lenient trespass laws.
At this point, I think you've got to agree with me that the drone can absolutely be ruled a trespass to land if it is low enough to violate the property owners airspace. What exactly that height is, is up in the air, but court precedent including one to the supremes give us property rights to at least 80'
Not in VA. In VA, this doesn't appear to violate the law at all. If you disagree with the law, then the resolution is to change the law in VA. If you disagree with me, feel free to post *relevant* case law (i.e. from VA, not UK or a jurisdiction-less law school generalization).
It really is. Read the law. Anytime someone causes a person or object to enter onto the property of another its trespass.
Where I went to law school, it isn't. Have you read the law?
http://www.statutes.legis.stat...
TX Penal Code Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another,
Note, it's not a "trespass" under Texas law to cause something else to enter or remain on or in the property of another. Objects can't "trespass". Only people can.
There. I've quoted my law. Care to quote the law you've based your opinion on?
The point I made elsewhere is that language is imprecise. "Copyright" is the catch all for "intellectual property" because Intellectual property is long and less recognized, and the abbreviation of IP is ambiguous. So "Copyright" is used by many for all IP issues, and, as we have a descriptive, not proscriptive language, not incorrectly.
In this context, I think "Accounting" means "fraudulent accounting" as in I promise to pay you 10% of my gross (or $10 per unit), so I lie about my gross, and pay you 10% of what I claim to be gross, but isn't. I cook the books to make it look legit, but "cook the books" isn't a legal charge, so they call it something else.
So you are asserting that the photographs of the Grumpy Cat in question are not under copyright? That doesn't seem to be an argument based in fact.
Also, "copyright" is the current generic term for "Intellectual Property" because "intellectual property" takes too long to say/type, and "IP" is ambiguous, at least in many contexts.
If you are going all proscriptive on language, there are more important targets than "copyright".
summary judgment that you win, because it is the only conclusion possible under the agreed upon facts.
It's quite rare, but I've seen people lose a movement for summary judgement where the defendant didn't reply. The judge stipulated to all the facts as presented by the one side, then ruled they were not sufficient to "win" even if 100% true, so the opposition needn't even show up to win. It's rare, but it's a legal option, and done more than you imply.
It's both. The term "Grumpy Cat" is a trademark. The picture of the cat is under copyright. Correcting someone incorrectly needs a meme more than we need a grumpy cat, or meme thereof.
b) Its not a need for 'revenge' it is a need to stop the violation. I am NOT actually in favor of shooting them down; but I don't really see a better option out there. If you can capture the drone without shooting it great. If you can accost the operators fantastic. But if you can't... ??
c) These people drove out to Robert Duvalls house in the country set up a card table on a turnaround... to fly a drone, because what? They really wanted to play with their toy, and they couldn't find a public space? And it never occurred to them to just ask the owner of a farm if they could fly around? Give me a break. They were being offensive in their behavior; and were showing total lack of regard for others. They were not innocent victims.
Sounds like it was a revenge shooting. Revenge on someone willing to "spy" on Robert's house.
Stopping the violation in progress.
What violation? No really. I've seen it called "trespass" but it isn't, by any law. If two kids playing throw a ball over a fence, the owner of the house can't shoot the ball, or the kids if they try to get it. But OMFG, a drone! Shoot it down!!! Legally, it's essentially a ball, thrown over a fence, that's bouncing across your yard. You have to shoot it quick, because it might stop violating you!
Nope. No logical argument in there. Legally, it's a temporary "violation" at worst. And a permenant solution to a temporary problem is generally not allowed.
I feel like the Oklahoma judge. I'm not saying rape is right. I'm saying that the law, as written, makes rape legal.
I'm not saying nobody should ever stop any "violation" in progress. I'm saying that the law, as written, makes her actions more clearly illegal than theirs. Though, since the law "shouldn't" be that way, it'll likely end up where both parties aren't prosecuted.
Note, if what the drown fliers did was illegal, why are there no legal actions against them? The only legal action is against the shooter.
The law makes her actions illegal, and not theirs.
Yes, I know, many people here don't like that. But not liking something doesn't mean it's wrong. I don't write the laws, so I'm the wrong person to argue with that reality isn't what it should be. I'm just pointing out reality.
You can take its license plate down, record its VIN, take a few pics, etc.
The shooter claimed to see the owners of the drone show up, park, and launch it, and you are telling me it's 100% impossible for her to find the license plate of the car she saw? Walk up to it while it was there and write down the license plate?
How does that work? It moves faster than you, and isn't limited to passable terrain, fences, creeks, rivers, buildings...
Why does your need for revenge trump the rights of everyone else?
What then is the appropriate care to bring down an unmanned unattended object hovering over your property out of arms reach?
There is none. The proper legal remedy is to follow it "home" and sue the owner. You have no right to damage someone else's property, just because you feel like it, even if it's on your property. This is solidified in the case law around owned objects left on your property, such as someone illegally parking on your lawn. You aren't allowed to slash all 4 tires to ensure it's immobile until you can call a tow truck to haul it away.
Perhaps throwing small rocks at the drone, or turning a hose on it would be appropriate. Something to indicate it's unwanted, but causes little to no direct damage (though may cause a crash, which would cause more damage). Similar to a boot on a car, which causes no direct damage, but could damage the car if it's driven off, and could cause minor unintended damage, such as scratches on the wheels.
Enable HA failed.Update object 44 failed, stale object state.
A drone can't trespass. A person can, a device can't. If you come home and find someone else parked their car in your yard, you can't yell "trespass" and shoot it. A drone would be treated like an unattended vehicle. You must use appropriate care, or you are liable.
Drone haters pre-date drones. "drone" isn't even a very good word for it. RC airplanes have been around for many years. I remember waking up to them on weekend mornings, flying from the school near me (two soccer fields in an "L" shape, space for maneuvers, but in the middle of a residential area.
Today, many smaller drones are insect-quiet battery powered units, but "in the day" all the "drones" were fuel powered. and noisy. I can't say gasoline, or IC, because there were gasoline jet drones, and ones that ran on non-gasoline fuels.
The drone operators deserved the hate they attracted. Then the next generation suffered from it. But it wasn't unearned.
I was gifted a cheap quadcopter for christmas. It was so quiet that I could sneak it up on people and land it on their head. The air movement gave it away before the sound did. The $1500 monsters are louder, but not so loud that they'd disturb someone inside a house if someone outside was playing with one.
"those things" aren't loud. "that thing" may have been. A battery-powered quadcopter shouldn't be any louder than a large insect.
The loud ones are fuel-powered, and they are not designed for stealth. When he's peeking in the window, it's not to see stuff, but to show off his new toy. Had he wanted to spy on you, he'd have gotten one of the quiet ones.
So when carrying a revolver, would you keep the current chamber empty? Or the next one that comes on an errant trigger pull? That leaves 2/5-2/6 of the capacity unused. Nobody ever did it that way. Why would you assume differently with a more modern, "safer" firearm?
If you can't tell whether you have a virus without an AV, then you are dumber than you look. I've cleaned many friend and family computer where they got a virus without an AV, then asked for help. Turns out it's quite easy to get a virus without an AV, and from my experience, not to hard to get one with.
Ah, so you were deliberately picking a "bad" example. And when that's pointed out, you get all aggressive. In a free market, one could choose whether they want to import Canadian, UK, or Somalian drugs. A "free market" doesn't mean you can only buy the cheapest supplier, but that you have choice.
Learn what "choice" means, then try again. Or is that the real reason the conservatives hate a free market? "Choice" is a bad word, so any "choice" must be ended at all costs.
Not in English Common Law (as exercised in the US, and most of the former British colonies). Theft requires intent to deprive the owner of something permanently.
Like most FTFY, your "fix" is less correct than the original.
Slashdot Mirror
Citation needed. I thought cops saved nobody, and only citizens with guns saved people.
It's so hard to keep track of the constantly changing stances of the pro-gun lobby.
Since you didn't address the law I posted, nor the initial Virginia location, I went back to Virginia. Unless told to stop, one hasn't committed trespass, even when knowingly going on to someone else's land.
I know there are places (especially the UK, as you noted in one of your cites) with much stricter trespass laws. But most of the US has very lenient trespass laws.
At this point, I think you've got to agree with me that the drone can absolutely be ruled a trespass to land if it is low enough to violate the property owners airspace. What exactly that height is, is up in the air, but court precedent including one to the supremes give us property rights to at least 80'
Not in VA. In VA, this doesn't appear to violate the law at all. If you disagree with the law, then the resolution is to change the law in VA. If you disagree with me, feel free to post *relevant* case law (i.e. from VA, not UK or a jurisdiction-less law school generalization).
It really is. Read the law. Anytime someone causes a person or object to enter onto the property of another its trespass.
Where I went to law school, it isn't. Have you read the law?
http://www.statutes.legis.stat...
TX Penal Code Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another,
Note, it's not a "trespass" under Texas law to cause something else to enter or remain on or in the property of another. Objects can't "trespass". Only people can.
There. I've quoted my law. Care to quote the law you've based your opinion on?
You apparently don't know the definition of "strawman". I'll give you a hint, a counter-example isn't a strawman.
The point I made elsewhere is that language is imprecise. "Copyright" is the catch all for "intellectual property" because Intellectual property is long and less recognized, and the abbreviation of IP is ambiguous. So "Copyright" is used by many for all IP issues, and, as we have a descriptive, not proscriptive language, not incorrectly.
In this context, I think "Accounting" means "fraudulent accounting" as in I promise to pay you 10% of my gross (or $10 per unit), so I lie about my gross, and pay you 10% of what I claim to be gross, but isn't. I cook the books to make it look legit, but "cook the books" isn't a legal charge, so they call it something else.
Stop it. Right Meow!
hover
standing
box
So you are asserting that the photographs of the Grumpy Cat in question are not under copyright? That doesn't seem to be an argument based in fact.
Also, "copyright" is the current generic term for "Intellectual Property" because "intellectual property" takes too long to say/type, and "IP" is ambiguous, at least in many contexts.
If you are going all proscriptive on language, there are more important targets than "copyright".
summary judgment that you win, because it is the only conclusion possible under the agreed upon facts.
It's quite rare, but I've seen people lose a movement for summary judgement where the defendant didn't reply. The judge stipulated to all the facts as presented by the one side, then ruled they were not sufficient to "win" even if 100% true, so the opposition needn't even show up to win. It's rare, but it's a legal option, and done more than you imply.
It's both. The term "Grumpy Cat" is a trademark. The picture of the cat is under copyright. Correcting someone incorrectly needs a meme more than we need a grumpy cat, or meme thereof.
So when Philip Morris says cigarettes are safe, we should listen as closely as when the Surgeon General says they aren't?
No, mr anonymous idiot. The source of a message matters.
b) Its not a need for 'revenge' it is a need to stop the violation. I am NOT actually in favor of shooting them down; but I don't really see a better option out there. If you can capture the drone without shooting it great. If you can accost the operators fantastic. But if you can't... ??
c) These people drove out to Robert Duvalls house in the country set up a card table on a turnaround... to fly a drone, because what? They really wanted to play with their toy, and they couldn't find a public space? And it never occurred to them to just ask the owner of a farm if they could fly around? Give me a break. They were being offensive in their behavior; and were showing total lack of regard for others. They were not innocent victims.
Sounds like it was a revenge shooting. Revenge on someone willing to "spy" on Robert's house.
Stopping the violation in progress.
What violation? No really. I've seen it called "trespass" but it isn't, by any law. If two kids playing throw a ball over a fence, the owner of the house can't shoot the ball, or the kids if they try to get it. But OMFG, a drone! Shoot it down!!! Legally, it's essentially a ball, thrown over a fence, that's bouncing across your yard. You have to shoot it quick, because it might stop violating you!
Nope. No logical argument in there. Legally, it's a temporary "violation" at worst. And a permenant solution to a temporary problem is generally not allowed.
I feel like the Oklahoma judge. I'm not saying rape is right. I'm saying that the law, as written, makes rape legal.
I'm not saying nobody should ever stop any "violation" in progress. I'm saying that the law, as written, makes her actions more clearly illegal than theirs. Though, since the law "shouldn't" be that way, it'll likely end up where both parties aren't prosecuted.
Note, if what the drown fliers did was illegal, why are there no legal actions against them? The only legal action is against the shooter.
The law makes her actions illegal, and not theirs.
Yes, I know, many people here don't like that. But not liking something doesn't mean it's wrong. I don't write the laws, so I'm the wrong person to argue with that reality isn't what it should be. I'm just pointing out reality.
You can take its license plate down, record its VIN, take a few pics, etc.
The shooter claimed to see the owners of the drone show up, park, and launch it, and you are telling me it's 100% impossible for her to find the license plate of the car she saw? Walk up to it while it was there and write down the license plate?
How does that work? It moves faster than you, and isn't limited to passable terrain, fences, creeks, rivers, buildings...
Why does your need for revenge trump the rights of everyone else?
What then is the appropriate care to bring down an unmanned unattended object hovering over your property out of arms reach?
There is none. The proper legal remedy is to follow it "home" and sue the owner. You have no right to damage someone else's property, just because you feel like it, even if it's on your property. This is solidified in the case law around owned objects left on your property, such as someone illegally parking on your lawn. You aren't allowed to slash all 4 tires to ensure it's immobile until you can call a tow truck to haul it away.
Perhaps throwing small rocks at the drone, or turning a hose on it would be appropriate. Something to indicate it's unwanted, but causes little to no direct damage (though may cause a crash, which would cause more damage). Similar to a boot on a car, which causes no direct damage, but could damage the car if it's driven off, and could cause minor unintended damage, such as scratches on the wheels.
Enable HA failed.Update object 44 failed, stale object state.
A drone can't trespass. A person can, a device can't. If you come home and find someone else parked their car in your yard, you can't yell "trespass" and shoot it. A drone would be treated like an unattended vehicle. You must use appropriate care, or you are liable.
Drone haters pre-date drones. "drone" isn't even a very good word for it. RC airplanes have been around for many years. I remember waking up to them on weekend mornings, flying from the school near me (two soccer fields in an "L" shape, space for maneuvers, but in the middle of a residential area.
Today, many smaller drones are insect-quiet battery powered units, but "in the day" all the "drones" were fuel powered. and noisy. I can't say gasoline, or IC, because there were gasoline jet drones, and ones that ran on non-gasoline fuels.
The drone operators deserved the hate they attracted. Then the next generation suffered from it. But it wasn't unearned.
So we should ban US made drugs, made to US specifications, from being re-imported, because someone could sell Somalian cocaine by labeling it Aspirin?
Never mind. What little mind you have is irrationally made up, and there exist no words that could force your tiny mind to have a thought.
I was gifted a cheap quadcopter for christmas. It was so quiet that I could sneak it up on people and land it on their head. The air movement gave it away before the sound did. The $1500 monsters are louder, but not so loud that they'd disturb someone inside a house if someone outside was playing with one.
"those things" aren't loud. "that thing" may have been. A battery-powered quadcopter shouldn't be any louder than a large insect.
The loud ones are fuel-powered, and they are not designed for stealth. When he's peeking in the window, it's not to see stuff, but to show off his new toy. Had he wanted to spy on you, he'd have gotten one of the quiet ones.
So when carrying a revolver, would you keep the current chamber empty? Or the next one that comes on an errant trigger pull? That leaves 2/5-2/6 of the capacity unused. Nobody ever did it that way. Why would you assume differently with a more modern, "safer" firearm?
If you can't tell whether you have a virus without an AV, then you are dumber than you look. I've cleaned many friend and family computer where they got a virus without an AV, then asked for help. Turns out it's quite easy to get a virus without an AV, and from my experience, not to hard to get one with.
That you don't understand the law, isn't proof that your misapplication of it is appropriate.
The only times I've ever gotten a virus were when I had AV running. Without AV, I don't run anything that's untrusted. Worked out well so far.
Ah, so you were deliberately picking a "bad" example. And when that's pointed out, you get all aggressive. In a free market, one could choose whether they want to import Canadian, UK, or Somalian drugs. A "free market" doesn't mean you can only buy the cheapest supplier, but that you have choice.
Learn what "choice" means, then try again. Or is that the real reason the conservatives hate a free market? "Choice" is a bad word, so any "choice" must be ended at all costs.
Not in English Common Law (as exercised in the US, and most of the former British colonies). Theft requires intent to deprive the owner of something permanently.
Like most FTFY, your "fix" is less correct than the original.