501–510 of 665 posts
I also discovered that I couldn't use my Canon SLR to record more than 30 minutes of video continuously. The problem however wasn't Canon, but that I lived in a region (EU) that would have imposed a customs tariff on cameras that could do that, but by keeping it under that, the camera would be classed as a 'stills' camera and so was therefore exempt. Admittedly this is different from the case in the article - but it…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GP didn’t claim that’s not the reason. They’re making a joke that if the camera kept recording past 30min, it would overheat. It’s a joke.
It's a joke, but it's also the truth. Many cameras won't even get to 30 minutes before overheating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you bought a legit licensed product the doctrine of first sale means their patent rights are exhausted.[0] They can't come after you for patent infringement. Those licenses are for manufacturers making new licensed products, not users of licensed products they purchased. Can you show a single court case or even a press release where someone using a legit licensed product bought on the open market was sued for code…
Back in the day Kodak had to buy back all their instant cameras after losing to Polaroid. Though I'm not sure if law has changed since then (it has, but I'm not sure if in relevant ways), or just that they did that because no being able to make film made them useless and so buyback was a goodwill gesture.
Edit: Missed the last part where you said the same
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not from the UK, but wasn't there also a cake Vs biscuits thing for tax reasons?
And windows being covered with bricks for tax reasons.
[1]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/43805741-daylight-robber...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you bought a legit licensed product the doctrine of first sale means their patent rights are exhausted.[0] They can't come after you for patent infringement. Those licenses are for manufacturers making new licensed products, not users of licensed products they purchased. Can you show a single court case or even a press release where someone using a legit licensed product bought on the open market was sued for code…
The license doesn't come attached to the device itself, but you as a entity (e.g. movie studio, broadcaster, or solo professional). Transferring the device doesn't transfer the license. You license the right to use the patent pool for commercial purposes, not the device itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reminds me of when lawyers successfully argued that X-Men are not human, so that their action figures would be classified as "toys" rather than "dolls" and thus charged a lower tariff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toy_Biz%2C_Inc._v._United_Stat...
I wonder if there is any place where one can look up all these sort of creative legal-tax shenanigan stories. They are so fun and such an interesting lens to see what _is_ via this interlinked, case-specific web of events.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/43805741-daylight-robber...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Creepy. If you don’t mind me asking - eastern eu?
Yes; former communist but not former soviet union. Old habits die hard I guess.
But tons of money coming in from the EU. I can imagine a lot of public quiet, private ‘angst’ about the kind of situation you’re describing.
Wild guess - Romania? (If not Bulgaria)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn’t seem like that should be possible. He sold his identity for life? Hollywood really does ask for your soul huh. It would make sense why he’s never even jokingly gone back into that character on his new show.
It's not his identity, though. It's a character that he plays.
I also discovered that I couldn't use my Canon SLR to record more than 30 minutes of video continuously. The problem however wasn't Canon, but that I lived in a region (EU) that would have imposed a customs tariff on cameras that could do that, but by keeping it under that, the camera would be classed as a 'stills' camera and so was therefore exempt. Admittedly this is different from the case in the article - but it…
That requirement is reversed in the last five years IIRC. My Sony A7-III doesn't have that, for example. Neither modern Canons, AFAIK. The funnier thing is, you can't use the videos out of your camera for commercial purposes, because the video codecs inside your camera doesn't come with commercial licenses out of the box. So if you are going to use your camera for production which you'll earn money, you need to pay c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is akin to Fox News arguing in court that it is, in fact, entertainment and not news, despite it's name.
It's true though. All cable news is "entertainment news", not "news". Nobody should have been getting their "news" from Tucker Carlson, Don Lemon, or Rachel Maddow. IMO they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves news without putting entertainment in front.
> IMO they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves news without putting entertainment in front.
Agreed but the average person wouldn't understand that Entertainment News was different than News. The problem goes deeper. I despair.