Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Case Backwards (Score 1) 605


Since you didn't address the law I posted, nor the initial Virginia location, I went back to Virginia. Unless told to stop, one hasn't committed trespass, even when knowingly going on to someone else's land.

I know there are places (especially the UK, as you noted in one of your cites) with much stricter trespass laws. But most of the US has very lenient trespass laws.

At this point, I think you've got to agree with me that the drone can absolutely be ruled a trespass to land if it is low enough to violate the property owners airspace. What exactly that height is, is up in the air, but court precedent including one to the supremes give us property rights to at least 80'

Not in VA. In VA, this doesn't appear to violate the law at all. If you disagree with the law, then the resolution is to change the law in VA. If you disagree with me, feel free to post *relevant* case law (i.e. from VA, not UK or a jurisdiction-less law school generalization).

Comment Re:Case Backwards (Score 1) 605

It really is. Read the law. Anytime someone causes a person or object to enter onto the property of another its trespass.

Where I went to law school, it isn't. Have you read the law?

TX Penal Code Sec. 30.05. CRIMINAL TRESPASS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person enters or remains on or in property of another,

Note, it's not a "trespass" under Texas law to cause something else to enter or remain on or in the property of another. Objects can't "trespass". Only people can.

There. I've quoted my law. Care to quote the law you've based your opinion on?

Comment Re:Seems about right (Score 1) 169

The point I made elsewhere is that language is imprecise. "Copyright" is the catch all for "intellectual property" because Intellectual property is long and less recognized, and the abbreviation of IP is ambiguous. So "Copyright" is used by many for all IP issues, and, as we have a descriptive, not proscriptive language, not incorrectly.

In this context, I think "Accounting" means "fraudulent accounting" as in I promise to pay you 10% of my gross (or $10 per unit), so I lie about my gross, and pay you 10% of what I claim to be gross, but isn't. I cook the books to make it look legit, but "cook the books" isn't a legal charge, so they call it something else.

Comment Re:Seems about right (Score 1) 169

So you are asserting that the photographs of the Grumpy Cat in question are not under copyright? That doesn't seem to be an argument based in fact.

Also, "copyright" is the current generic term for "Intellectual Property" because "intellectual property" takes too long to say/type, and "IP" is ambiguous, at least in many contexts.

If you are going all proscriptive on language, there are more important targets than "copyright".

Comment Re:Seems about right (Score 1) 169

summary judgment that you win, because it is the only conclusion possible under the agreed upon facts.

It's quite rare, but I've seen people lose a movement for summary judgement where the defendant didn't reply. The judge stipulated to all the facts as presented by the one side, then ruled they were not sufficient to "win" even if 100% true, so the opposition needn't even show up to win. It's rare, but it's a legal option, and done more than you imply.

Comment Re:Case Backwards (Score 1) 605

b) Its not a need for 'revenge' it is a need to stop the violation. I am NOT actually in favor of shooting them down; but I don't really see a better option out there. If you can capture the drone without shooting it great. If you can accost the operators fantastic. But if you can't... ??

c) These people drove out to Robert Duvalls house in the country set up a card table on a turnaround... to fly a drone, because what? They really wanted to play with their toy, and they couldn't find a public space? And it never occurred to them to just ask the owner of a farm if they could fly around? Give me a break. They were being offensive in their behavior; and were showing total lack of regard for others. They were not innocent victims.

Sounds like it was a revenge shooting. Revenge on someone willing to "spy" on Robert's house.

Stopping the violation in progress.

What violation? No really. I've seen it called "trespass" but it isn't, by any law. If two kids playing throw a ball over a fence, the owner of the house can't shoot the ball, or the kids if they try to get it. But OMFG, a drone! Shoot it down!!! Legally, it's essentially a ball, thrown over a fence, that's bouncing across your yard. You have to shoot it quick, because it might stop violating you!

Nope. No logical argument in there. Legally, it's a temporary "violation" at worst. And a permenant solution to a temporary problem is generally not allowed.

I feel like the Oklahoma judge. I'm not saying rape is right. I'm saying that the law, as written, makes rape legal.

I'm not saying nobody should ever stop any "violation" in progress. I'm saying that the law, as written, makes her actions more clearly illegal than theirs. Though, since the law "shouldn't" be that way, it'll likely end up where both parties aren't prosecuted.

Note, if what the drown fliers did was illegal, why are there no legal actions against them? The only legal action is against the shooter.

The law makes her actions illegal, and not theirs.

Yes, I know, many people here don't like that. But not liking something doesn't mean it's wrong. I don't write the laws, so I'm the wrong person to argue with that reality isn't what it should be. I'm just pointing out reality.

Slashdot Top Deals

Statistics are no substitute for judgement. -- Henry Clay