Once you renounce citizenship, I don't think the united states will let you back in, I'm not entirely sure but I believe that is the case.
You can still get a passport from your new home country you are a citizen of and get into the US to visit. Probably need to apply for a Visa if you want to stay more than X days, and need additional paperwork if you ever want to work there or reside for a longer period.
We need regulation....
Insurers aren't mandated to comply — though most do.
They should be required to pass their audit or pass an audit by a 3rd party auditor who is approved by the OIG.
Failure to comply should result in fines and bar them from writing or acquiring any more insurance policies, until they do.
Also, in the event of a breach at this juncture, there should be a financial penalty for their negligence.
Well... a software license is a type of contract. There's a principle in contract law; that if there are multiple ways which a condition can be interpreted, then it will be interpreted for purposes at time of adjuication in the manner that most favors the parties who did not produce the contract term / present the offer.
The same contract or license text can be interpreted in different ways for different cases.
You are mistaken in thinking they use the Linux kernel in ESXi. There is no Linux kernel anywhere in ESXi.
They have written their own operating system from scratch, and they did a complete rewrite of the kernel in the update from ESXi 3.5 to 4.0.
What they have done is copied a subset the interface API from the Linux kernel. Much how like the Wine Project has copied API details from Win32 without permission from Microsoft.
This allows existing driver source code that already works in Linux to be compiled using the VMware driver development kit into a binary that can be loaded as a driver in ESXi.
This means that hardware vendors can write the driver once, and then it could be built for either Linux or ESXi, so that seems beneficial for Linux users to have more drivers still being written for Linux.
This is considered a legacy framework, and VMware is already phasing this out... see details on the new native driver framework
This will be sad, as the native driver framework is proprietary, and it will likely no longer be possible to write your own drivers for ESXi, once vmklinux is gone, without purchasing the driver development tools at high $$$.
Also, major enterprises are running ESXi on much of their hardware, so the incentive may go away for many manufacturers to release information or develop Linux drivers; they can just produce their binary ESXi drivers and be done with it.
Well, having used VMware Workstation 8 and 9, I can was able to download and modify the Linux drivers provided by VMware, necessary to fix some kernel related bugs
I don't think the lawsuit is over vmware tools. VMware provides source code to most of the VMware tools components; often they are installed by building the source code.
The VMware hypervisor includes a special management Virtual Machine run by the vmkernel which uses Busybox.
They do not include the source code for Busybox. However, there is a written offer for customers to request source code on CD for the product you purchased, valid for 3 years after you purchased the software product from VMware, by sending a request to an address given of VMware General Counsel, Attn: Open Source Files Request.
Versions of ESXi prior to 5.5 supported an architecture for drivers called vmklinux; essentially, the VMware kernel supported a framework compatible with Linux drivers ---- you could compile Linux drivers from source code and load them into the vmklinux system. ESXi5.5 introduced a new thing called Native Drivers, but they still support the Linux kernel driver SDK. There is no Linux kernel code, other than drivers themselves, however, they have only copied the Kernel driver API interfaces.
Then you fall into the second category. Or you're just ignorant.
Well, I'm a copyright lawyer, so I doubt I'm "completely and totally ignorant of the law." Have you considered the possibility that your analysis is wrong?
Since we're talking about works that haven't been around long enough to have their copyrights expire, that's totally irrelevant.
Just thought I'd mention it, since you did make a rather broad statement suggesting that works cannot enter the public domain unless deliberately placed there by the copyright holder. While copyright holders can put works into the public domain, it's not true that that is the only way for works to enter the public domain.
"Um, no. That would not be the scenes a faire doctrine."
The scenes a faire doctrine, which I don't have to google for, thanks, permits people to copy without fear of infringement, stock elements from works, which are typical, if not indispensible, for works that have a particular setting, genre, theme, etc.
In this case, where you have a show about teenagers fighting monsters with martial arts and giant robots, it would not infringe if you had a five person team, each member of which had personalities as described above, and where the members of the team were color-coded. It's simply expected of the genre, and therefore fair game, even if you copied it from another copyrighted work.
Now if the specific thing you copied was a very detailed example, and you kept all the details, you might then have a problem. So it depends on how much Power Rangers embellished on this standard device, if they did, and if so, how much of that embellishment, if any, was used in this case.
If you disagree as to my explanation, please feel free to actually say what you think the scenes a faire doctrine is.
I didn't say Disney's Peter Pan. I was talking about JM Barrie's Peter Pan, which Disney's Peter Pan is based on.
A new version of Peter Pan, based on Barrie's, could still tarnish the character well enough (if done right, and if widely published) so as to harm Disney's Peter Pan merely by association. But it would be lawful to do this. Disney's copyright on their version of Peter Pan does not extend to stopping other people from making their own derivatives of Barrie's work, even if they're very unwholesome derivatives.
Spock in Amok Time is good Spock, just rageful and murderous. Evil Spock (with a goatee -- that's how you can tell he's evil) was from episode 33, "Mirror, Mirror."
And time shifting doesn't use just one. Time shifting monetized (when done by a company) is almost always not fair use. Tivo is the only one that survived legal challenges.
Time shifting is typically something that the end-user does. Tivo, like Sony before it (The original time shifting lawsuit was against Sony for their Betamax), merely makes the machine. So long as there is at least a potential lawful use for the recording function of the machine, they can go on making them. The Supreme Court found that at least some time shifting would be fair, and that was enough.
Space shifting is another example, the original case was against Diamond for their Rio MP3 players, but Apple's iPod relied on it, as did basically everyone else.
But it meets more than just one criteria. It's non-commercial.
No, the purpose of the use for time shifting, while not precisely commercial, is to simply use the work in the way that an ordinary user, who did not time shift, would use it. It's not strongly against fair use, but it certainly doesn't weigh for it in the way that an educational or transformative use would. At best it is a wash.
I don't think the parody exemption for copyrighed works applies to things protected by trademark, which I wouldn't be surprised if the Power Rangers are.
It does.
(Though the question of parodying a mark directly is different from parodying a work which happens to contain a mark. Parodying Star Wars, which includes X-Wings, and the Millennium Falcon, and Lightsabers, and so on is different from parodying the Star Wars logo all by itself)
Also, remember that trademarks are inferior to, and cannot be used as a substitute for, copyrights. And that trademarks themselves are subject to various limitations to allow for certain types of unauthorized use.
Peter Pan is in the public domain in the US. You can absolutely have Peter Pan promoting drug use ('fairy dust' can be the street name; a side effect might be paranoid hallucinations of ticking crocodiles, etc.), and publish it widely enough to detract from Disney's ability to keep Peter Pan a wholesome character that they can make tons of money off.
Go nuts.
But because people can ignore that -- In fact, I'm confident that there are bad porn versions of Peter Pan floating around -- it doesn't really detract from the original, or from the Disney movies, unless you allow it to. It's up to you, the audience member.
a parody is allowed to use however much of the original work it wants to.
That's not quite right.
There's no special status for works which are parodies. Some parodies can be fair uses, but not all parodies are. And not all fair uses are parodies, though some fair uses are.
In any case, one factor in determining whether a use is fair or not is how much, and of that how substantial a part, of the original work is used. It's possible to have a fair use that uses all of a work, but also possible to have a use which uses very little of a work, but which is not fair.
While it all depends on the circumstances at hand, a good rule of thumb is to take only so much as you need. If you wanted to make a parody of Star Wars about how Luke waving the lightsaber around in Obi-Wan's house is dangerous, because Luke is a klutz, you could probably use some footage of that scene from the movie. You would have a harder time justifying using the entire movie, but only changing that one scene for the purposes of parody.
You're allowed to use copyrighted material to parody that specific material, but not to parody something else.
This is the oft-cited parody/satire dichotomy.
No seriously, some people really get into this stuff.
Anyway, it's not a bright line rule or anything, though some people like to pretend that it is. Satire is just as able to be a fair use as a parody can be, and a loss on the third fair use factor does not by itself prevent a use from being a fair use. There are no bright lines in fair use; it's all case-by-case analyses, utterly dependent on the specific facts at issue.
Parody is protected; satire is not.
That's not really true. There is no hard and fast rule to this effect. Certainly fair use allows for both some parodies (but not all parodies) and some satires (but not all satires).
Courts generally are more likely to find fair use where the use was limited to what was needed, and generally find that satires don't need to use particular works so much as parodies do (because a parody is aimed at the work itself, whereas satires merely employ a work to aim at a different target altogether). But there's nothing in the law that prevents a satire from being a fair use depending on the overall circumstances. It's just a little harder to show.
I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"
