Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Interstate commerce anyone? (Score 1) 609

by kadehje (#26367389) Attached to: New Energy Efficiency Rules For TVs Sold In California

If the U.S. federal government already had rules in place regarding energy efficiency standards for TVs, that would be true. However, at least I don't know of any federal regulations that exist. In the absence of federal law on regulating certain products, Congress has typically let states set their own laws. Once Congress passes federal legislation, states can't pass their own laws on that subject unless given explicit permission by the relevant federal law.

If California or any other state attempted to set fuel efficiency standards for automobiles over and above CAFE's requirements, an automaker would very likely be able to get such a state law overturned by the interstate commerce clause and/or the constitutional provision for federal law's precedence over state law.

In the case of the Clean Air Act of 1970, California's pollution laws were allowed to remain in place since the state enacted them before 1970, at least to the extent that they did not contradict the Clean Air Act. However, the Clean Air Act prohibits any other state from enacting their own pollution control legislation subsequent to the act aside from allowing states to adopt California's rules in as their own law to supplement the federal requirements.

Comment: Re:And file sharers may be violating copyright law (Score 1) 339

by kadehje (#26133205) Attached to: RIAA May Be Violating a Court Order In California

The extra tiny cost is worth that warm fuzzy feeling, knowing that even if I were to *accidentally* put some unlicensed media on those disks, I don't have to worry at all about cheating those RIAA executives out of their second summer home.

Do you think that you're immune to RIAA action in the United States just because the media on which you're using for "accidental" copyright infringement was purchased in Canada? While the Canadian tax on media may provide for safe harbor in that country (I don't know that to be the case, but I'll assume it's true for the purpose of this post), saying that having a copy of Britney Spears' latest album (which you had not already purchased) fresh off BitTorrent on a CD is OK because you paid a tax on that CD in Canada is not going to get you very far in an American courtroom. From the MPAA/RIAA's perpsective, copyright infringement is copyright infringement, regardless of whether it takes place on media purchased in the U.S. or in Canada.

From a purely moral standpoint, your argument is solid. The **AAs are in fact compensated when you buy that media in Canada. However, for those Americans with any legal worries, I would suggest that you discuss the implications of putting unlicensed content onto media purchased (and on which the "pircay" tax appropriately was paid) in Canada with an American lawyer before trying to use the Canadian flag to shield your infrignement activities in the USA.

All warranty and guarantee clauses become null and void upon payment of invoice.

Working...