The FCC should make a point of getting out of the way of that stuff and not treating every part of the country like it is a major city with locally congested airwaves.

Given that 90% of the US population lives in or close to metro and dense urban areas - for all intents and purposes every part of the country *is* essentially a major city with locally congested airwaves.

You assume that those procedures are always going to work after....... a fire! Its not inconceivable that a fire on an airliner could damage vital components possibly related to the environmental, radio and even control systems. Don't get me wrong its an unlikely situation where the radio AND avionics/air handling/navigation systems and their backups (if any) are effected simultaneously but when you have 36.5 million commercial air flights per year its bound to happen eventually.

To put this in terms of a car analogy - you're saying "it's extremely unlikely that a car would have all four tires go flat, the steering wheel come off in the drivers hand, the accelerator and brake pedals fail, the brakes fail, and the gear shift broke off, and yet despite this happening on the outskirts of New York, it still made it to San Francisco without repairs or refueling and on schedule - but with [handwaving] million cars on the road it was bound to happen eventually". The problem isn't that the event is extremely unlikely - it's that the level of fire damage required to produce the event will render the aircraft unflyable. Yet it flew, and continued to do so under apparent control for hours... without executing any emergency procedures.

Learned to really concentrate while serving on a submarine in the USN - to the "music" of fans and humming power supplies... so, for heavy brainwork at the computer all I need is the noise of the computer. Music just pulls me out of what I'm doing.

Oddly enough, the opposite is true when I'm working out in my woodshop, there I like to have music.

I've been clicking around to find a sample, and, maybe it's just me, but I didn't find any.

It's just you, and whoever modded you up - the second link in TFA takes your right to a sample.

(Don't bother though, it's lame.)

Are you talking about France? Or Russia? Or where then?

You sure as heck aren't talking about the US. The military (read Naval) reactor program parted ways with the civilian world decades ago - they're simply too dissimilar. Nor can civilian reactors effectively make plutonium, nor were they needed to. And the for companies involved in military reactors, government contracting is only one small corner of their business. Etc... etc...

That argument only makes sense if you've downed a fifth of Jack and snorted a couple of grams a coke - or if you're completely and totally ignorant of the law.

And yet it made sense to me, and I'm sober as a judge for some reason.

Then you fall into the second category. Or you're just ignorant.
 

Well, works can also enter the public domain through other mechanisms, such as most famously having the copyright term expire.

Since we're talking about works that haven't been around long enough to have their copyrights expire, that's totally irrelevant.
 

But the earlier poster didn't say that they might become generic, he said that they might be generic. This would be the scenes a faire doctrine.

Um, no. That would not be the scenes a faire doctrine. Try searching for the terms on Google.
 

I haven't watched the show

Yet, you blither on anyways.

Bennett Haselton doesn't seem to know how Fair Use works, and is dangerously and irresponsibly mischaracterizing it as something he himself can assess and negate/affirm. The non-commercial and transformative aspects of the Power Rangers video in question might in fact hold up in court; he doesn't know otherwise, and to insist that he does is legally misguided.

All that means is Bennett Haselton is a typical Slashdot poster.

The poster has no clue about how fair use works.

Honestly? Neither do you.
 

So it scores highly on all four criteria. This is absolutely fair use.

*Sigh*. Fair use is a set of legal guidelines - not a checklist or a scoresheet. You can "score highly" (whatever that means) on all four (the actual four), and still be found to be infringing. Fair Use is decided on a case-by-case basis using these guidelines and the principles behind them.
 

2. Is it transformative? That is, does it use the original work as raw material to create something new, rather than just copying it for the sake of copying it? Yes it is.

And this is a prime example of what you have no clue about - the question isn't "is it transformative?", it's "is it derivative or transformative?". As it re-uses character names, history, and distinctive costumes - a very strong arguement can be made that it is in fact derivative.

But in actuality, fair use of copyrighted material isn't even the issue here - it's the use of trademarked material. (The names, color schemes, costume designs, etc...) Granted, it's unfair to the public that companies can use trademarks to make an end run around copyright, but there is no fair use for trademarks.

You clearly have no idea how these things work - you don't even know enough to be dangerous, you're a toddler repeating words you don't understand.

As a derivative work, Saban doesn't own squat, and ownership, if there is any, probably belongs to Toei Company.

That depends entirely on the licensing agreement between Saban and Toei, no "probably" about it - that's how the law works.
 

However, as the same characters have appeared in many works *as different characters*, the argument might also be made that they are generic.

That argument only makes sense if you've downed a fifth of Jack and snorted a couple of grams a coke - or if you're completely and totally ignorant of the law. The established principle (with regards to trademarks) is that they become generic only if the owner of the mark fails to defend it against unlicensed and infringing usages. As the Saban's version of the Power Rangers is a licensed work, that principle cannot possibly apply here. There is no mechanism I am aware of for a copyrighted work to become generic. It can be formally released into the public domain, but that's another issue and is not applicable here as no such formal release has been made.
 

So this is basically yet another example of someone claiming ownership of something they never owned, which is precisely why copyright is such a farce in general.

No, this is another case of a Slashdot poster, ignorant of the law, creating assumptions out of thin air and then using convoluted sophomoric logic to reach a predetermined conclusion.

I note you don't debate the facts - you just throw mud to try any deny their existence. The only "point" you've proven is how far you're willing to go to deny the facts.

Nonsense. Everywhere but Gmail* that Google has tried to take on Yahoo - they've gotten their hands burned. Google does exceedingly well at buying startups and entering businesses where there's little to no competition... But (outside of search where they really did have a clear new idea), their record of taking on entrenched competition is mixed at best.

* Which was aimed as much at Microsoft as Yahoo!, and took a long time and (essentially) forcing Android users to have a Google account to best either one of them.

Thanks for saving me the trouble of rolling out my canned reply on the topic. That question gets asked and answered every time the topic of Yahoo! comes up...

The thing too is that I already had a login that worked with gmail, voice, youtube, chat and the play store. All of a sudden I need to register for a G+ profile to be able to leave comments on Youtube and Google Play because.....

You tell me.

Because... one of the keys ways for Google to compete with Facebook in the only arena that matters (the bottom line) was to compete for advertising dollars. G+ was a shortcut to more easily tracking Google users across multiple services and increasing the value (to Google) of their massive database of user information.

Again with the complete failure to grasp reality. Facts aren't perjoratives or talking points. They're facts.