|
RodShaft posted:Cedar Rapids, Iowa I guess the real question is, who was driving the car? I also wonder if there is a preemption of state traffic laws issue, since the law as it is written basically is acknowledging that they may have no way of proving who was actually driving the car. Sometimes you can beat these kinds of tickets through a foundational challenge. In California, the signing officer is required to show up in court and testify. The technician from the private company that runs the lab that prepared the video is also required to show up and testify. Also, if you've got 20 minutes to kill, go out near the same time when the ticket was issued and time the yellow light interval. Usually the state department of transportation will have a retired/"heavily suggested" time interval on a yellow light at an intersection for a given posted speed limit. Sometimes there are even traffic engineer reports for the particular intersection in question. Pull the reports, and if the yellow light interval over several changes (maybe like 15-20) is inconsistent or off from the time limit suggested by the DoT or the traffic engineer's report, then you've got more of a basis for challenging the ticket. Sorry this is stream of consciousness, and it bears saying that IANAL, but you probably wouldn't lose anything by challenging this.
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 06:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:30 |
|
|
Lord Gaga posted:Short version of my question: Lord Gaga posted:On 10/21 I was pulled over for having a modified muffler by a city police officer just outside of the city limits. He claimed I had modified my muffler on the ticket wrote None/Improper Muffler, Muffler Removed" Lord Gaga posted:I also have a factory catalytic converter and both oxygen sensors and a capability to datalog and show that my emissions equipment is functional. "316.272 Exhaust systems, prevention of noise. posted:(1) Every motor vehicle shall at all times be equipped with an exhaust system in good working order and in constant operation, including muffler, manifold pipe, and tailpiping to prevent excessive or unusual noise. In no event shall an exhaust system allow noise at a level which exceeds a maximum decibel level to be established by regulation of the Department of Environmental Protection as provided in s. 403.061(11) in cooperation with the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. No person shall use a muffler cutout, bypass or similar device upon a vehicle on a highway. "316.293 Motor vehicle noise. posted:... Yes, it would have been better if the cop put the specific staute on the ticket. No, that won't get the ticket tossed out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 14:33
|
|
|
I have a question I'm asking on behalf of my girlfriend regarding the Bank of America class action lawsuit regarding overdrafts. A little back story: I had been hit by their re-ordering scheme pretty heavily in 2009, but in mid 2010, they reversed all the charges already. Still, I received a notification about the class action in my mail saying I was entered in. All is well and good. Now to the problem: She didn't get one. She had the issue far, far worse than I did, with a slew of inexpensive purchases that hammered her account which she ultimately closed in 2008. She called the automated line on the postcard, and on the website, and requested her information twice to not effect. She's since changed her address and phone number, and she had a hard time even getting BoA to acknowledge her old account's existence, despite it existing during the settlement period. The automated sites like to tell you to "do nothing" except, frankly, I'm pretty much 100% convinced they tried to bury the defunct account (despite having a new one joint with me opened earlier in 2011). It seems they do not even make the connection in their system that her new account, and old account, are the same person despite sharing the same information. The problem, however, is no matter who we've called I cannot locate a single non-automated line to verify the account was entered or any details at all. She should be in line, literally, for hundreds of dollars after that fiasco and it's infuriating. Even the law firms that are actually engaging in the suit against Bank of America do not provide a phone number and I've still not heard back after writing their automated web forum; their phone number listed is the same one that has failed to send anything for over a month. Does anyone have any ideas what we can do?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 21:38
|
|
|
Blazing Ownager posted:I have a question I'm asking on behalf of my girlfriend regarding the Bank of America class action lawsuit regarding overdrafts. A little back story: I had been hit by their re-ordering scheme pretty heavily in 2009, but in mid 2010, they reversed all the charges already. Still, I received a notification about the class action in my mail saying I was entered in. All is well and good. Did you try contacting the attorney representing the class?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2011 23:08
|
|
|
I got a tricky one. Last year in Philadelphia, PA I won a court case against a tenant, between the time that he left without paying rent and the court case, he moved back to his parents house in Ohio. He came for the court case and lost. I waited the 30 days and he didn't pay. I then transferred the judgment to the county he was living in with his parents. He didn't have a job so no wage garnishment, trying to find a bank account with actual money to pull out of was difficult as well. I now see on Facebook that he is attending Arizona State University as a student and is working at a hotel there. I do not know if he is living on campus or off campus but I imagine his permanent residence is still at his parents house in Ohio. Would I need to again transfer the judgment from Ohio to Arizona? This would be difficult as I don't know the Arizona address (tried looking him up in the ASU directory where he says he goes, no luck). Or what I'm hoping is that I can give the courts of Ohio the address of his employment in Arizona and they can garnish his wages. I'm sure not all employers have their HQ in the same state their employees work in, so I'm hoping this is possible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 04:40
|
|
|
Can I use pictures of 100+ year old paintings on a cd/vinyl cover? I was eyeballing a Gustav Dore painting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 05:22
|
|
|
Bondage posted:Can I use pictures of 100+ year old paintings on a cd/vinyl cover? I was eyeballing a Gustav Dore painting. Yes, anything from 1923 or earlier is public domain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 15:01
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:Yes, anything from 1923 or earlier is public domain. IANAL. True for the artwork. But if Bondage is using someone else's photograph of the artwork, that may be covered by a separate (and more current) copyright. If the photograph is nothing but a replication of the artwork with no originality than it might not be covered by copyright (was brought to trial in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) with that outcome), but you may have to defend yourself against a copyright claim for the photograph anyways. Also this assumes US law, since Bondage didn't say where this was.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2011 16:49
|
|
|
fordan posted:IANAL. Bridgeman is a limited precedent case, and arguably only applies to 2D representations of an originally 3D work. I had a case where it was a picture of a bas-relief where the exact positioning of the camera drastically affected the shading of the photo (I forget, there may have been some post processing involved but the majority of the work came from the camera positioning) and while we settled, it was very likely that it would have been held that there was copyright in the photo. It is an unsettled point of law in the US. The general trend that most copyright experts tend to follow is that if the underlying work is PD, then there is no new copyright in the 2D replica. You would be best off to simply take your own photograph of the artwork, and then use that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 14:03
|
|
|
Also, lawgoons I hope this comes to the thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3444610
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 14:03
|
|
|
The state of NC thinks I had a lapse in car insurance and wanted to revoke my license. The insurance on my car changed because I paid it off, but I have insurance. Now I have to wait to get a summons for when I have to go to court. Do I need a lawyer? My husband was the one that called them and was dealing with this so I need to get more info from him (he's the one in charge of the car insurance) so I have to get more info about it later. I'm just really pissed. I don't want to have to go to court. I don't understand why its *my* license and not his too. If something did get hosed up and I'm found guilty, whats the worst that will happen? I know I have insurance because I just had to do my plate registration and it was on the card that came with my tags and Geico has been taking our money. Edit: apparently the hearing is over the phone? Alterian fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Oct 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 19:10
|
|
|
Ok, this question is different from most of the cop questions in here and more of a copyright thing. I have made a small handful of "8-bit NES style" covers of pop music and uploaded them to a youtube channel. They are entirely original content in the sense that they are all "from scratch", often sharing only the basic melody and chord structure (in some cases) as the originals. These tracks are slowly becoming popular and all of a sudden I have a bunch of subscribers. I've had many ask for downloads and other similar requests so my questions are pretty simple, even though I think I may already know the answers: 1) Am I opening myself up to potentially be sued by the original artist of these songs? Can I accept donations in exchange for requests? 2) If I am ok in this regard, what (if anything) do I have to do in order to be able to distribute these tracks (maybe through itunes or something similar) for a profit? How many millions of dollars might I be held liable for? It seems like there are probably easy answers to these questions but in my head it is all gray! Thanks in advance Ralphis fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Oct 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2011 19:41
|
|
|
I'm in Melbourne, Australia. Can a shop legally search my bags as I try to leave? If I refuse, what can they do about it? This a "debating with my friend" question rather than a "been caught stealing" question, by the way - he thinks they can physically detain you / have you charged with something if you refuse to be searched, and I disagree. I know the law won't be the same as it is in the USA, but I can't find any local resources.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 03:39
|
|
|
Ralphis posted:...covers of pop music...entirely original content... Explain how this makes sense. They're covers, and you can't sell them without crediting the original artist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 03:43
|
|
|
Ralphis posted:1) Am I opening myself up to potentially be sued by the original artist of these songs? Can I accept donations in exchange for requests? 1) Don't accept donations. That will get you in trouble. 2) If you want to release them for download then you have to pay royalties for them. Use this: http://www.songclearance.com/clearance
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 03:46
|
|
|
Wait, I'm confused, why does copyright apply to covers or adaptations? I know it does, but for some reason that's striking me as an unreasonable policy at the moment. What's the usual justification?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 04:37
|
|
|
.
ShutteredIn fucked around with this message at 19:59 on May 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 05:35
|
|
|
zachol posted:Wait, I'm confused, why does copyright apply to covers or adaptations? Because a song isn't just performed, it's also written. And performance rights and publishing rights are two separate things. There's A LOT more to it than that, obviously, but that's the basic point. You couldn't sell a book on tape of you reading American Psycho and claim you didn't owe Bret Easton Ellis anything because it was "your performance." Same basic idea why you can't perform Debaser and tell the Pixies to screw off if you want to make money off of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 05:35
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I'm in Melbourne, Australia. Can a shop legally search my bags as I try to leave? If I refuse, what can they do about it? This a "debating with my friend" question rather than a "been caught stealing" question, by the way - he thinks they can physically detain you / have you charged with something if you refuse to be searched, and I disagree. I know the law won't be the same as it is in the USA, but I can't find any local resources. http://www.lawhandbook.org.au/handbook/ch03s02s02.php If they have evidence that you have that you have stolen something you can be physically detained. However, they can face heavy penalties for making a false arrest. If they are just trying to enforce conditions of entry they are on much shakier ground. They can certainly revoke your right to remain in the store and to enter again in the future.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 06:48
|
|
|
hyperbowl posted:Here's a start: Yeah, that's what I thought, thanks mate. The wording of the citizen's arrest part is what I was looking for, and it's about what I remembered "The arrestor must not only suspect a person of committing an offence but must find the person committing the offence, unless the arrestor is <<told to by a cop or assisting a cop>>" Which, I guess, means that "looking shifty" or "refusing a search" aren't grounds for arrest but "observed stealing" or "caught on CCTV" would be OK. Is that the correct way to read it? Edit: Found a HTML version of the crimes act through that site, that should be enough for him. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 07:14 on Oct 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 07:10
|
|
|
Loopyface posted:Explain how this makes sense. They're covers, and you can't sell them without crediting the original artist. I meant as far as production of the tracks (obviously). I guess this leads me to another related question though: Are sites like OCRemix technically breaking copyrights with practically every post? Are these different than radio music because they are not registered through ASCAP or BMI? Thanks for the input! Ralphis fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Oct 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 18:49
|
|
|
Ralphis posted:I meant as far as production of the tracks (obviously). I guess this leads me to another related question though: Yes, they are (probably) violating (songwriting/publishing) copyrights with basically every post. No, they are not different than radio music; ASCAP/BMI do a lot more than just the radio (though the radio is historically the majority of their business model, they've done a lot - a lot of it bad - the last few years in other arenas.) A song (technically, a composition) that's registered with ASCAP/BMI is usually easier to clear, since you can just get an ASCAP/BMI/(SESAC) license and be covered for any of their works, while unregistered works must be cleared with their composers. Music copyright is complex. Every recording of a song not only has the usual rights protected (distribution, public performance, replication, etc.), but there are also two protected elements - first, the music composition is protected, and second, the sound recording. Conceptually, this makes a lot of sense - just because Beethoven died hundreds of years ago and his compositions are out of copyright, that doesn't mean that the incentive story of copyright shouldn't allow for reward for the performers who translate that written work into sound (there's a similar concept for the recorded performance of literary works - even though the underlying work might be out of copyright, the implementation is protected if fixed). Similarly, if we only protected the sound recording, there's no reason to do the hard work of composition - you'd be better off only making covers and reaping the benefits of others' work (this is part of the economic theory of copyright, which has lots of problems, but which tends to be the academic theory most used in defending copyright). So we recognize both elements. The separation of the two elements is also a historical matter. Composition copyright was protected before there were effective technologies for recording and reproducing performances. Since copyright is statutory, the statute protected the composition but didn't incorporate any protection for the sound recording. Piracy of sound recordings ensued basically as soon as it was technically possible to do so, and courts threw up their hands and said "well, look, there's no right in the statute". So Congress created one. But historically they're recognized as different rights; this makes even more sense if you realize that for most of history, and even now in many genres, composers and performers are entirely different entities with significantly different interests. Music is also more complex because the two elements don't have the same protections. The major difference is that sound recordings don't receive analog public performance protection, though they do receive a digital public performance right - i.e., streaming. There are historical reasons for this, but they basically amount to "the radio industry in the 50s and 60s had a ton of money and successfully lobbied Congress to keep their exemption from public performance royalties for terrestrial broadcast". It's also given rise to the practice (widespread in country music in particular) of popular performers demanding to be registered as one of the composers when they record/perform a song by an unknown songwriter - that way they get paid for radio play, and because the popular performer can get their song played, songwriters typically acquiesce. But that's a total aside. (And entirely aside from all that, even if copyright only covered sound recordings, the derivative works right would probably be extended to cover covers.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2011 21:36
|
|
|
ShutteredIn posted:My ISP sent me a letter saying known copyright troll John Steele is requesting info on me based on my IP address for downloading a porn movie I know I didn't download. My wifi was open for a while so I suppose a neighbor or something could have downloaded. IANAL but a court won't allow you to anonymously file a motion to quash so you'd have to file it under your real name. Once you file the motion, they GET your name which is what they want anyway. Read up on this blog, it has most of the information you'll need/want: http://torrentlawyer.wordpress.com/
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 00:59
|
|
|
EvilJay posted:IANAL but a court won't allow you to anonymously file a motion to quash so you'd have to file it under your real name. Once you file the motion, they GET your name which is what they want anyway. Varies by jurisdiction whether they'll allow you to anonymously file your motion to quash. Movement recently has been generally away from allowing it, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 07:20
|
|
|
Ralphis posted:Ok, this question is different from most of the cop questions in here and more of a copyright thing. 1) Yes. No. 2. You're not. You need a license. Potentially millions if you infringe enough tracks - you could potentially be liable for tens of thousands of dollars per each infringement <edit: corrected, don't know how the hell I posted that wrong>. Leif. fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Nov 3, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 10:43
|
|
|
Diplomaticus posted:1) Yes. No. Specifically, you can go through the § 115 compulsory license process (don't do this, HFA is much easier and charges the statutory rate anyway), or you can negotiate a license with the original composer (except odds are you can't if you're asking these questions), or you can get a mechanical license - typically via the Harry Fox Agency (do this - they're actually workable for small artists). Diplomaticus isn't quite right here, though: the current interpretation in most circuits (at least 1/2/9/11) is that the award is between 200 and 150,000 per work infringed, depending on a few factors, no matter how many times it's been infringed (the RIAA screwed this up in the Limewire suit). That said, you'd still be looking at up to 150k in damages per song you distribute, plus the potential of attorney's fees. (I don't know if it's settled what happens when you infringe on one original work in multiple different infringing works - i.e. you cover Paparazzi as both chiptune and salsa track without obtaining permission). tldr: License yourself properly. In this particular case, it should be fairly easy to do, not incredibly expensive (9c per song under 5 minutes, slightly more if it goes over the 5 minute mark, and yes that's a solid chunk of what you'd get from iTunes for selling the track but then again, you didn't write the song).
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 11:12
|
|
|
I have noticed that a lot of people, when posting a picture of a car on the internet, black out the number plate (or license plate if you're american, you know, that thing, with the registration number on it). Is there any requirement to do so when posting a pic of someone else's car? Does it make a difference if you took the photo in a public place? What if you say "ha ha ha this is a lovely car" or "look at this douchenozzle's parking"? For example, if I were to start a website where people submit photos of lovely parking, or make fun of dumb sitckers or paintjobs, would I need to black the number plates out? If so, why? (I'm not planning on starting such a site, just idly wondering if there would be legal trouble if I did).
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 11:16
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I have noticed that a lot of people, when posting a picture of a car on the internet, black out the number plate (or license plate if you're american, you know, that thing, with the registration number on it). Blacking out the plate is not required.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 13:09
|
|
|
UK here. I just moved out of my student house after my landlord found a new tenant for it. He found someone initially and said I would have to pay £150 to cover the lower rent she wanted to pay. I said I'd think about it and then ultimately told him no. Nothing was in writing but my housemates both heard. He rang me a week later saying he'd found someone else and if I was still wanting to move we could sort it that week so I agreed. It now turns out it is the same girl as before and he's withholding my deposit to cover the lower rent he promised her, saying I agreed to it. I'm fairly loving sure this is dodgy but wanted confirmation before I go in and gently caress him. He was adamant over the phone to both myself, my former housemates and the university that it was a completely different tenant to the one he offered lower rent and I only agreed to the move as long as I wouldn't have to cover her loving lower rent. Additionally he's been aggressive to me on the phone, let himself into our private rooms without notice to show the house and the house itself is full of damp which has given me a chest infection and ended with my housemate's clothes and shoes covered with mould. Do we have a case? I'm assuming we do...
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 13:38
|
|
|
Why the hell would a landlord ask you to pay another tenant's rent? Were you breaking your lease early or something?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 14:55
|
|
|
Above Our Own posted:Why the hell would a landlord ask you to pay another tenant's rent? Were you breaking your lease early or something? He's a student- he would have been on a 9 (ish) month lease. e: on the other hand, the damp sounds bad enough to declare unilateral breach on his part and demand full return of the deposit (you'll have to go to arbitration so make sure to get evidence!)
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 15:24
|
|
|
I was breaking my lease early but only if we could find another tenant. He told me he'd found someone and that she wanted to pay less rent than I was. He asked if I'd be willing to cover the shortfall and I said no, stating that I would continue to pay rent until someone else could be found. He rang me a week later saying he'd found a different person, so I assumed they would be paying the same rent as me. Turns out he lied and it's the same girl. Will bear that in mind though, the damp is definitely loving terrible and when we've raised it with him he's basically said 'well that's how it is sorry'
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 15:32
|
|
|
happyflurple posted:I was breaking my lease early but only if we could find another tenant. He told me he'd found someone and that she wanted to pay less rent than I was. He asked if I'd be willing to cover the shortfall and I said no, stating that I would continue to pay rent until someone else could be found. He rang me a week later saying he'd found a different person, so I assumed they would be paying the same rent as me. You could probably make a reasonable claim that it was a health hazard for him not to provide you with a dehumidifier, that probably would have dealt with it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 15:36
|
|
|
Thanks, I'll mention that. It is an utter fucker but I'm mystified as he paid me back the rent I'd overpaid but kept back the deposit. Guy comes across like a dodgier version of Stan from Monkey Island so...
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 15:41
|
|
|
I'm in NJ, and I'm considering letting a friend couch surf for 3-4 months. Where would I go to find out the legal aspects of this? Specifically, at what point would the guy turn into a tenant with all the rights that that would entail? I own my house if that makes a difference. I just want to be clear about what I'm getting myself into before getting myself into it. Thanks, and if there's a better place to ask go ahead and tell me off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 15:52
|
|
|
hey santa baby posted:I'm in NJ, and I'm considering letting a friend couch surf for 3-4 months. Where would I go to find out the legal aspects of this? Specifically, at what point would the guy turn into a tenant with all the rights that that would entail? I own my house if that makes a difference. I just want to be clear about what I'm getting myself into before getting myself into it. On general terms; you can't become a tenant in the home of the owner - you always remain a lodger.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 15:56
|
|
|
happyflurple posted:Thanks, I'll mention that. It is an utter fucker but I'm mystified as he paid me back the rent I'd overpaid but kept back the deposit. Guy comes across like a dodgier version of Stan from Monkey Island so... Remember, if it ain't in writing, it ain't worth poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 18:00
|
|
|
Kalman posted:
Yeah I'm in 4th circuit. It's pretty similar here -- the statement is correct up to the (e.g.) part, which is no longer the case, as you mentioned. Though, it's worth pointing out that the courts do still get this one wrong from time to time, as there are ways to bump up the liability: Each song is a separate act of infringement, possibly infringing multiple original works. Leif. fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Oct 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 20:23
|
|
|
Diplomaticus posted:Yeah I'm in 4th circuit. I didn't think there were any circuits that actually went against the statutory text on this one, so I went and checked. In the 4th Circuit, the per work infringed rule applies (check Bouchat v. Champion Prods., or read the Arista v. Limewire opinion on damages calculation - 06-CV-5936 docket item 622 in SDNY). The 9th had a brief interval of per-infringement, but it was in a very different context and the 9th has subsequently rejected that position anyway. 2 and 9, which tend to be the most influential in the copyright context, are both pretty well settled on per work infringed now, so it's safe to assume that's your exposure. That said, it's still up to 150k per track plus attorney's fees, so, you know, not exactly a cheap award. The recent Constitutional reduction in damages trend isn't going to apply to someone selling songs, either, so you're likely to see the full hit. edit: goddamnit way to edit while I'm researching/typing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2011 23:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:30 |
|
|
Property question for Alaska. My parents the land on which they live, worth roughly $60k and completely paid for. Otherwise they very poor with little to no assets. My stepfather has had some pretty serious medical issues in the past and more than likely will have even worse ones in the future. My mother is worried about medical debt getting to the point that she loses her home. She raised the idea of selling ($1) or gifting me the land, so that it is no longer an asset in their names. I don't want to get myself or them in trouble and am planning on talking to a lawyer but I thought asking here may be a good first step. Is this legal? If it is, should I buy the land from them or is gifting it the way to go? I am also slightly worried about a $60k gift going onto my taxes, that seems like it might hurt come tax season.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2011 10:14
|
|