Well, and some deceases which a common to STD's you actually can get without having sex at all and without having an affair, but ofcourse people will think you got it from having an affair..
And not all affairs are as easily quantified as being the fault of the one who has the affair, a lot of times it's also about the partner who was stubborn and not listening.. For instance if the partner is refusing sex for a very long time (due to intimacy problems) and you and your partner have talked about it over and over, than it's quite possible to have an affair even though 'you' love your partner.. So if you really say the one who had the affair is always the POS, you are one ignorant moron.. YES a lot of times that one IS the POS, but don't think it's very uncommon that a problem in the relationship is the base for having an affair even though they talked about the problem with their partner before the affair..
Having an affair doesn't mean you don't love your partner, a human is in general not even a monogamize creature, it's society that set's monogamy as the default....
How would regioncoding benefit the user, it's not like the toner defines what language can be printed...
IMHO regionalcoding should be banned and should be forbidden..
uhh, Public domain certainly doesn't mean you're the owner... It means you can use it, that's something completely different than being 'the owner'..
And I have no problem with them blocking you of making money on youtube for republishing a video that you ripped from another site.. I still think it's lame, if you actually had the movie on celluloid and did scan and remaster it and then publish it to youtube, it would be another matter...
But you sir are NOT! the owner of the material. Also, let's not forget, the movie itself may be in public domain, but it doesn't mean a reproduction of the movie is freely available to do with as you please.. Just like with a classical music piece, the piece may be in public domain, but if an orchestra is playing it, that specific perfomance isn't..
I don't have any problems with that if you actually invest money in it to reproduce it (like DVD's or get a celluloid film version and remaster it to bluray/dvd), but not they way he's doing, ripping it from another site and upload it to youtube..
Not really, as they took the stories (changed them a little bit) and made a new animated movie.. Unlike what this guy tries to do, rip the video from https://archive.org/details/su... then uploaded it to google and expects money from it, without doing anything himself.. He's just lame....
So you're asking us how to prove it's public domain so you can make money with it?
That ofcourse is ridiculous.. If it's public domain, you shouldn't be able to make money off it by republishing it on youtube you lame bastard...
Yes, the video might have run for 22 seconds, but that doesn't mean the drone wasn't already over the backyard, and 22 seconds is kinda long.
To me the owner of the drone should just cut his losses and leave it at that, as IMHO he shouldn't have flown/hoovered over someoneelses property.. Lesson learned the hard way.. Because you own a drone doesn't mean you can do whatever you want whereever you want.. To me the property owner was full in his rights to down the drone (shooting it with a shotgun might not have been the safest way for surrounding people)..
ofcourse the DMCA of everything with the word pixels in them is beyond normal and all video's should be restored as soon as possible as the DMCA has no viable claim..
But the quote "First Patrick Jean gets to watch them violate his work and now they're claiming that his work violates theirs." is BS ofcourse as Columbia/Happy madisson bought the rights to the property and therefore they can do whatever they want with it (IMHO it's not really possible to do a full feature on the premise of the short anyway, so no wonder it turned out like this, and let's not forget who bought the rights, Sandler, so you knew in advance what kind of humor the movie would entail)..
Sure, accidentally, but a drone hovering over my property (and not in transit) is not accidentally, the drone owner had no business flying it over my property in the first place..
Drone owners shouldn't think they can fly the bugger anywhere they want without permission.. and especially with these drones having camera's on board, yeah, nice you want to have a hobby, but go fly over your own property, if you fly over mine, I'm gonna do whatever I please with it, which means bringing it down and keeping it for the electronic parts.. these days you'll need even a sign on the top of your house..
And as far as I know, you aren't even allowed to fly a drone over someone elses property without permission just like you are not allowed to use an RC plane/helicopter anywhere you want (and that's what a drone is, nothing more than a RC toy)..
"My sense of purpose is gone! I have no idea who I AM!" "Oh, my God... You've.. You've turned him into a DEMOCRAT!" -- Doonesbury