Not only can robots not detect fair use, nor they cannot detect when the work is used with the permission of the copyright owner neither where the company running the robot does not own the copyright but is using it with permission nor where the work is being used with the permission of the robot's owners.
Are you saying... the jury is not "of your peers"?
In this case yes. The definition of peer (From Oxford Dictionaries Online) - "A Person of the same age, status or ability as another specified person" As those involved in this trial are legal not natural persons, the 'age' part does not apply, for the 'status' to apply the jury would have to be legal, not natural persons and as to whether individuals people can have the same abilities as a corporation
That brings up my questions: 1) Which facility are people with Klinefelter syndrome (XXY) supposed to use? 2) Which facility are people born as hermaphrodites supposed to use?
According to the new law, the one appropriate to the gender which the Doctor assigned them to when they were born and which is written on their birth certificate.
Yet if her condition means that she has more then the permitted blood alcohol then her driving license should be revoked. If (at least in the UK) if you suffer from certain medical conditions, such as epilepsy, then you are automatically disqualified from driving. While, as she did know that she had this condition, she should not be charged with drunk driving, she should be banned from driving on medical grounds.
Why do they not mandate TLS1,2 with PFS?
The law should treat hyperlinks as being equivalent to bibliographical references and citations in printed works. After all, that is all a hyperlink is. That browsers automate the retrieval and display of the referenced work, rather than having to search the stacks or ask the librarian to fetch the book/journal, should not affect the status of the hyperlink. As for banning them, I personally think that most web pages do not take enough advantage of hyperlinks within the body of the pages.
How does people accessing from outside the UK have any affect on how much the BBC is paid? They receive the same income from the TV licence payers whether or not people access iPlayer via a VPN.
Imagine a company were to set up a roadwarrior style VPN in their UK office (which for the sake of argument assume a TV licence) for their UK staff who are visiting abroad to access IPlayer from their hotels in the evening. How would the BBC be able to tell that those staff were accessing it via the VPN and not from computers directly connected to the office LAN?
Most JPEGs are created by ordinary people, with their digital cameras and phones. So will Joe Public who has taken a photo be able to define the rights on the image? Will he be able change the rights depending on where he sends or stores the image? Or will it only be the media conglomerates who are able to manage the rights to their images?
And I wish that updates to he build-in apps (not just those from Google) would be installed into the same partition as the built-in ones rather than taking up space (and why does almost every update have to be more memory hungry than the last?) in the user-installable app partition.
If the encryption uses Perfect Forward Secrecy (eg an ECDHE or DHE cipher suite) then even having the private key to the certificate will not enable anyone to discover the ephemeral session key needed to decrypt the message.
Columbia claim that the works for which they send takedown notices violate the copyright in their new movie. As the works concerned were created and put online before the movie was created, then one of two things can be true. 1) The works do not violate the claimed copyright, or 2) If copyright has been violated, then it is the Columbia movie which violates the copyrights in the earlier work(s). In either case the takedown notices are invalid and abuse of process.
How much automation and technology is there in the bathroom? It would be nice if you could set the shower temperature with the room controls. As for the toilet, for a room of the future one of the hi-tech Japanese ones would not be out of place.
However, barring geolicensing creates a new set of problems by itself. It would mean that licensing costs for movies, tv series and sports events would skyrocket as the potential target audience is multiplied, while the stations will more or less keep the same number of viewers.
Which would not apply to a subscription channel (such as Canal+ or the various Sky packages) as, irrespective of the location of the viewer, the maximum size of the target audience is known - the number who subscribe to (a package containing) that channel. For pay-per-view, the number of viewers is even more accurately known.
Now, you are getting screwed, and he's not going to stop because he has rabid lawyers on his side and if he doesn't "defend" his trademark, he's going to lose it.
But the OP says that the app had been available for 5 years before the trademark infringement claim was made. So either the OP is not infringing because of prior use or the claimant has not been "defending" his trademark.
The one day you'd sell your soul for something, souls are a glut.
