Accident at Sun and Fun?
Ditch
said he witnessed a mid-air on short final. Anyone have the scoop on this?
-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
American*
Steve Waltner
<gove...@aol.compost> wrote:
> I got word today from a friend of mine who was flying a B-25 into SnF today.
> He
> said he witnessed a mid-air on short final. Anyone have the scoop on this?
There was a post earlier today with a link:
mike regish
Stephen was hurt but will be OK.
Here is a link to the local paper
http://www.lakelandledger.com
--
mike regish
1953 TriPacer
N3428A
mike regish
One Killed in Two-Plane Collision
Saturday, April 6, 2002
By WILL VASH
The Ledger
LAKELAND -- One pilot died and another was in fair condition after their
planes collided Friday afternoon over a runway at Lakeland Linder
Regional Airport.
The Piper PA-16 Clipper and an RV-6A, a "home-built" plane, collided at
3:05 p.m. over Runway 27-Right as dozens of other aircraft circled the
airport to land for the annual Sun 'n Fun Fly-In, which is set to begin
Sunday, authorities said.
The pilot of the RV-6A was taken to Lakeland Regional Medical Center,
where he died Friday night, officials confirmed. His name and hometown
were not released.
Federal Aviation Administration computer records listed the owner of the
Piper as Stephan Pierce of Graham, Texas. Lakeland Regional was treating
a patient named Stephan Pierce, and he was listed in fair condition
Friday night.
Lakeland Linder's runways were closed for about 20 minutes as emergency
crews reached the men and pulled them from the wreckage.
Some witnesses said it appeared the two planes were 40 feet to 50 feet
above the ground when they collided. Other witnesses said they thought
the planes were higher off the ground.
That is one of the aspects of the crash being investigated by the
National Transportation Safety Board, which had an investigator at the
airport Friday. The investigator declined to release any information.
John Burton, Sun 'n Fun president, said initial reports from the NTSB
appear to indicate both planes were trying to land when they collided.
The planes "experienced a midair collision while landing on Runway
27-R," Burton said.
Hundreds of people were at the airport when the planes crashed.
Janet Reguin saw two planes intertwined and hurtling to the ground when
she looked up from her lunch at Tony's Airside Restaurant in the
airport's main terminal.
"They came down upside down," said Reguin, who recently moved to
Lakeland from Virginia. "It was like someone took the wind and swirled
them around and they fell. It happened so fast."
Another witness said the planes appeared to be landing side by side when
they collided.
Pilot Jim DeFrancesco of Baltimore said he wasn't sure whether the
aircraft were trying to land in formation or the pilots simply failed to
see each other.
The man who died Friday night was piloting an RV-6A, a home-built plane
manufactured by Van's Aircraft in Oregon. The two-seat plane can carry
1,600 pounds, including pilot and a passenger, and can reach a speed of
198 mph to 210 mph, depending on the engine type, according to
information on the company's Web site.
Burton said the airport was particularly busy with incoming aircraft
Friday because poor weather conditions in the past few days had
convinced many to delay their arrivals. The Fly-In and convention of the
Experimental Aircraft Association begins Sunday, but many pilots and
spectators arrive early.
"Any time an accident occurs, we are very concerned because safety is
our first and foremost concern," Burton said. "We all understand the
risks involved, just like walking down the street, but we do our best to
reduce them."
About two hours after the first crash, another pilot escaped injury when
his experimental plane landed with a collapsed nose wheel, officials
said.
Will Vash can be reached at will...@theledger.com or 863-802-7550.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OTHER DEATHS
These people have been killed since 1986 in crashes related to the Sun
'n Fun Fly-In:
Russell Legare of Stuart, April 10, 2001, plane ran off end of runway.
Ira Donald Farrington of Paducah, Ky., April 13, 2000, gyrocopter
crashed.
Larry Collins of Dayton, Ohio, April 21, 1998, experimental plane
crashed.
Ivor Lee II of Sharon, Pa., April 8, 1997, experimental plane crashed
nose-first in Winter Haven.
Charlie Hillard, April 16, 1996, former British fighter flipped on
landing.
David Liebergott of Fairfax, Va., April 12, 1996, Piper Comanche
crashed.
Samuel Chayt of Sykesville, Md., April 12, 1996, Piper Comanche crashed.
Clarence H. Ward Jr. of Laurel, Md., April 12, 1996, Piper Comanche
crashed.
David Francis of Kings-ton, Ontario, April 15, 1994, ultralight crashed
into field.
Joseph Joiner of Holly-wood, Florida, March 19, 1986, experimental
aircraft crashed after takeoff.
Bonnie Mainville of Lakewood, Colo., March 19, 1986, experimental
aircraft crashed after takeoff.
--
mike regish
Fox News showed an aerial shot of the Clipper atop the RV-6 at
Lakeland. They said both pilots injured but it is my understanding that
the RV-6 pilot did not survive his injuries. A sad thing.
I've had two close shaves and know of another when multiple approaches
are being made at Oshkosh and Sun 'n Fun. One long and one short, etc. A
dangerous thing in my view. I'll not participate in them again. Pilots
are tired and some very excited to be arriving at big show result of
which can be catastrophic. A shame.
--
mike regish
planes collided Friday afternoon over a runway at Lakeland Linder
Regional Airport.
The Piper PA-16 Clipper and an RV-6A, a "home-built" plane, collided at
3:05 p.m. over Runway 27-Right as dozens of other aircraft circled the
airport to land for the annual Sun 'n Fun Fly-In, which is set to begin
Sunday, authorities said.
The pilot of the RV-6A was taken to Lakeland Regional Medical Center,
where he died Friday night, officials confirmed. His name and hometown
were not released.
--
mike regish
There was a midair at Lakeland today between a Clipper registered to
Gilbert Pierce's son and another small replica-type aircraft. Larry
just
called me, the report is two people were hurt. He said the Clipper was
on
top of the other plane, both badly damaged. He will call soon as he
knows
anything more. Please join us in prayer for the Gilbert family.
--
Stephen
>I got word today from a friend of mine who was flying a B-25 into SnF today. He
>said he witnessed a mid-air on short final. Anyone have the scoop on this?
>
>
Two aircraft collided over Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport sometime
after 1500 local time on Friday. Both aircraft were reported to have
been in Lakeland for this week's Fly-in and two persons were
transported to Lakeland Regional Hospital... one in critical
condition. Both aircraft were reported to be carrying only a single
pilot and no passengers.
Late Friday night, the pilot of the RV-6A reported to be in critical
condition died due to the injuries suffered in the crash.
Quick inspection of limited imagery available to ANN shows two
aircraft in close proximity to each other, impacted close to a runway
at the airport. One was a Van's Aircraft RV-6A (name of pilot/owner
not yet released). The other was a 1949 Piper PA-16 Clipper, currently
registered to Stephen Pierce of Graham, TX.
This accident was actually the second of the day. It occurred just a
few hours after a previous accident in which an experimental aircraft
reportedly suffered a "hard landing." Local media is claiming that Sun
'n Fun has now been involved (directly or indirectly) in nearly thirty
accidents, with a total of 15 fatalities since 1975. A quick look at
our records indicate that this estimate (at least the total number)
may actually be understated.
Some footage of the accident site shows what appears to be a
significant amount of smoke obscuring parts of the sky and local
reports note that a "burn" was conducted in a nearby field and may
have decreased local visibility. A televised eyewitness report
(allegedly from a pilot) also indicates that the accident occurred as
both aircraft were approaching to land on LAL's Rwy 27R.
Sun 'n Fun starts Sunday and arrivals, though not currently as heavy
as seen in previous years (according to an airport staffer), pick up
significantly in the days immediately preceding the event. Last year,
the Fly-In had a number of accidents, including one in which a pilot
was killed and his passenger injured as they were directed to take-off
from a limited, soft-field, runway environment by Sun 'n Fun staffers,
with a reported 11 knot downwind component.
The Fly-In has been under fire, from a number of sources (including
ANN) for a number of questionable safety practices (including well
documented cases of SnF management's unwillingness to address illegal
or unsafe practices on the Fly-In site) for well over a decade. [ANN
thanks the Lakeland Ledger and WFLA for their assistance with this
story].
FMI: http://www.lakelandairport.com
Text and photos at the following link;
-------------------------
One Killed in Two-Plane Collision
Saturday, April 6, 2002
By WILL VASH
The Ledger
LAKELAND -- One pilot died and another was in fair condition after
their planes collided Friday afternoon over a runway at Lakeland
Linder Regional Airport.
The Piper PA-16 Clipper and an RV-6A, a "home-built" plane, collided
at 3:05 p.m. over Runway 27-Right as dozens of other aircraft circled
the airport to land for the annual Sun 'n Fun Fly-In, which is set to
begin Sunday, authorities said.
The pilot of the RV-6A was taken to Lakeland Regional Medical Center,
where he died Friday night, officials confirmed. His name and hometown
were not released.
Federal Aviation Administration computer records listed the owner of
Dave
"Ditch" <gove...@aol.compost> wrote in message
news:20020406195112...@mb-cv.aol.com...
Wee Moose
>aircraft in close proximity to each other, impacted close to a runway
>at the airport.
Ahh, so ANN wasn't there, they are just commenting on the pictures released.
> Local media is claiming that Sun
>'n Fun has now been involved (directly or indirectly) in nearly thirty
>accidents, with a total of 15 fatalities since 1975. A quick look at
>our records indicate that this estimate (at least the total number)
>may actually be understated.
>Some footage of the accident site shows what appears to be a
>significant amount of smoke obscuring parts of the sky and local
>reports note that a "burn" was conducted in a nearby field and may
>have decreased local visibility. A televised eyewitness report
>(allegedly from a pilot) also indicates that the accident occurred as
>both aircraft were approaching to land on LAL's Rwy 27R.
>Sun 'n Fun starts Sunday and arrivals, though not currently as heavy
>as seen in previous years (according to an airport staffer), pick up
>significantly in the days immediately preceding the event. Last year,
>the Fly-In had a number of accidents, including one in which a pilot
>was killed and his passenger injured as they were directed to take-off
>from a limited, soft-field, runway environment by Sun 'n Fun staffers,
>with a reported 11 knot downwind component.
>The Fly-In has been under fire, from a number of sources (including
>ANN) for a number of questionable safety practices (including well
>documented cases of SnF management's unwillingness to address illegal
>or unsafe practices on the Fly-In site) for well over a decade.
Remote documentation of visibility from news photos? hmm
I thought FAA was running traffic control at SNF, so it wouldn't have been SNF
officials that directed anyone to takeoff.
Why does this report sound suspicious?
Carl
Roger Halstead
magazine from which you reprinted complete stories, or major parts there of.
We all like to read them, but it makes me nervous to see complete newspaper
articles reprinted on here. Giving credit to the author and newspaper is not
enough to get past copyright issues. It takes permission which I'm assuming
was obtained.
--
Roger (K8RI EN73)
WWW.RogerHalstead.com
N833R, World's Oldest Debonair? S#CD-2
Roger Halstead
Ohhhh...Here we go again....
Posting a story from ANN on here is like throwing gas on a camp fire.
Bryan
Roger,
I'll bet those same people have torn the tags off
of their mattress too.
Roger Halstead
"Bryan" <bry...@mpinet.net> wrote in message
news:3CAFF202...@mpinet.net...
OMYGOD! They are "THOSE" kind of people. <gasp>The subhumans who probably
let their cats and dogs run loose outside, yet let them sleep in the same
house as people! Those kind? It's just almost too much to contemplate.
they probably mispell, transpose lettres...forget to use capitols, and even
the wrong words....to convey meaning...ah...ahhh...ah...Reporters! We are
talking about reporters and in an aviation forum too.
I gotta go take a couple of vallium and chase 'em down bith a couple shots
of good burbon...I'll put an umbrella on the glass so my wife thinks I still
have some class.
--
Roger (K8RI EN73) (got an automatic as people been calling me shiftless for
years)Halstead
Eric Rood
: > > magazine from which you reprinted complete stories, or major parts there
: of.
If they didn't allow you to reprint it, they wouldn't put a link at the
bottom of the page that says "Email to a friend"
--
ER
RobertR237
weem...@aol.comjunkbloc (Wee Moose) writes:
>
>Remote documentation of visibility from news photos? hmm
>
>I thought FAA was running traffic control at SNF, so it wouldn't have been
>SNF
>officials that directed anyone to takeoff.
>
>Why does this report sound suspicious?
>
>Carl
>
>
Campbell's first rule of reporting:
If the facts don't agree with the conclusions, ignore the facts.
Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....
"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)
RobertR237
<rdha...@tm.net> writes:
Look up the copyright laws and in particular look at the Fair Use rules. You
will find that reprinting of a copyrighted article is fair use when done for
the purpose of commenting on content.
Roger Halstead
"Eric Rood" <eric...@gcfn.org> wrote in message
news:a8pq1e$n2j$1...@acme.gcfn.org...
The newspaper didn't have a link.
Roger
>
>
> --
> ER
Roger Halstead
news:20020407122223...@mb-mr.aol.com...
> In article <7DQr8.281$rD4.2...@monger.newsread.com>, "Roger Halstead"
> <rdha...@tm.net> writes:
>
> >
> >Ahhhh...Guys, I'm assuming you had permission from any newspaper, or
> >magazine from which you reprinted complete stories, or major parts there
of.
> >
> >We all like to read them, but it makes me nervous to see complete
newspaper
> >articles reprinted on here. Giving credit to the author and newspaper is
not
> >enough to get past copyright issues. It takes permission which I'm
assuming
> >was obtained.
> >
> >--
> >Roger (K8RI EN73)
> >WWW.RogerHalstead.com
> >N833R, World's Oldest Debonair? S#CD-2
> >
> >
>
> Look up the copyright laws and in particular look at the Fair Use rules.
You
> will find that reprinting of a copyrighted article is fair use when done
for
> the purpose of commenting on content.
I read it as you can only quote the specific parts being commented on.
But, these things get debated for weeks.
Actually, any more even these posts are copyright by default since they
changed the law, but I doubt few in here would care if some one copied their
post. They are after all archived..and "I think" that even those that have
"Archive = No" at the top still get archived. At least they were for a
while.
For myself, I really don't care if someone posts an article. I'd just hate
to see some one get in trouble for it, although I haven't heard of any cases
involving newsgroups.
>
Roger
Dave
You HAVE read the tag, havent you?
Dave Barnhart
wrote:
>Ahhhh...Guys, I'm assuming you had permission from any newspaper, or
>magazine from which you reprinted complete stories, or major parts there of.
Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use
of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for
purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching
(including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or
research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether
the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the
factors to be considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use
is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of
fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above
factors
Stephen
wrote:
>Ahhhh...Guys, I'm assuming you had permission from any newspaper, or
>magazine from which you reprinted complete stories, or major parts there of.
>
>We all like to read them, but it makes me nervous to see complete newspaper
>articles reprinted on here. Giving credit to the author and newspaper is not
>enough to get past copyright issues. It takes permission which I'm assuming
>was obtained.
I posted it the response. Those that object, please feel free to look
the other way, or immediately delete it from your newreader if you
feel you are in any danger.
Jeesssh!
Steve
Eric Rood
: > bottom of the page that says "Email to a friend"
: The newspaper didn't have a link.
The website does!
--
ER
RobertR237
<da...@davebarnhart.com> writes:
>
>
>Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
>
>Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use
>of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
>phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for
>purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching
>(including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or
>research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether
>the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the
>factors to be considered shall include -
>
>(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use
>is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
>
This alone would cover much of what would be published in RAH since it is a
totally nonprofit medium and there is no way anyone could claim otherwise.
>(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
>
Any work place on the internet to begin with and copied with source credit on
the internet should be well covered.
>(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
>the copyrighted work as a whole; and
>
Would depend on how much of the article is commented on and how much is
required to not cause the copied section to be taken out of context.
>(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
>the copyrighted work.
>
This is the one area where most might have some argument but in the case of
ANN, little published there is anything more than copied from other sources
anyway. Anything else has very little market value to begin with. (Opinion)
>The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of
>fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above
>factors
>
Jason T
On Sun, 07 Apr 2002 17:58:17 GMT, "Roger Halstead" <rdha...@tm.net>
wrote:
>I read it as you can only quote the specific parts being commented on.
>But, these things get debated for weeks.
No, nothing to debate. Your concerns are unwarranted.
Jason T
wrote:
>Ahhhh...Guys, I'm assuming you had permission from any newspaper, or
>magazine from which you reprinted complete stories, or major parts there of.
>
>We all like to read them, but it makes me nervous to see complete newspaper
>articles reprinted on here. Giving credit to the author and newspaper is not
>enough to get past copyright issues. It takes permission which I'm assuming
>was obtained.
Silly.
daev
daev
"Stephen" <now...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:81j1bu8h14gajmt88...@4ax.com...
Jbeck
detract from the current tragedy):
> David Liebergott of Fairfax, Va., April 12, 1996, Piper Comanche
> crashed.
>
> Samuel Chayt of Sykesville, Md., April 12, 1996, Piper Comanche crashed.
>
> Clarence H. Ward Jr. of Laurel, Md., April 12, 1996, Piper Comanche
> crashed.
>
Of all the accidents at Sun 'n Fun listed, I find these three interesting.
Does anybody know the background to this accident? All of the listed people
in the same aircraft? Or was it a formation flight? Thank you.
John Q. Citizen
rob...@bonomi.invalid
RobertR237 <rober...@aol.compost> wrote:
>In article <7DQr8.281$rD4.2...@monger.newsread.com>, "Roger Halstead"
><rdha...@tm.net> writes:
>
>>
>>Ahhhh...Guys, I'm assuming you had permission from any newspaper, or
>>magazine from which you reprinted complete stories, or major parts there of.
>>
>>We all like to read them, but it makes me nervous to see complete newspaper
>>articles reprinted on here. Giving credit to the author and newspaper is not
>>enough to get past copyright issues. It takes permission which I'm assuming
>>was obtained.
>>
>>--
>>Roger (K8RI EN73)
>>WWW.RogerHalstead.com
>>N833R, World's Oldest Debonair? S#CD-2
>>
>>
>
>Look up the copyright laws and in particular look at the Fair Use rules. You
>will find that reprinting of a copyrighted article is fair use when done for
>the purpose of commenting on content.
"It 'taint necessarily so", to use an old phrase. And I speak as one who
has -been- to court over the 'fair use' issue.
"Fair Use" is a *very* complex issue.
Reproducing a (small) part of an item -usually- can qualify under the
execmption for 'literary criticizm and comment'.
Reproducing the -entire- work virtually *NEVER* qualifies.
The way to have the best chance of being safe is to quot the absolute
*MINIMUM* necessary to illustrate the point -you- are making in *your*
commentary. In general, it is difficult to justify more than *one*
*paragraph* of quote for any particular point.
How it is copied, how -many- reproductions, *where* they are available,
_all_ play a part in determination of "fair use".
There is some non-binding court record, that indicates that quoting 15% or
more, in the general case, of the original work is 'excessive', and thus *NOT*
covered by 'fair use' exemption.
Stephen
and the spaces global.net> wrote:
>the phrase "so sue me" comes to mind.... ;)
>
>daev
>
Exactly.
I once photocopied an article in a magazine verbatim, and mailed it to
a friend of mine. I'm still sweating it, so much so, that I check who
is at the door through the peep hole everything it rings.
I still go to church, so maybe I've just been forgiven.
Steve
bci
Ron Natalie
Denny
that were originally published on his web page, and are now being
published word for word by SnF newspapers, Southern Aviation, et. al.
If true he has been plagiarized without attribution or
compensation...Interesting...
Denny
rob...@bonomi.invalid wrote in message news:<Vies8.15672$A%3.12...@ord-read.news.verio.net>...
Richard Lamb
It would depend entirely on who put the work on the net.
The newspaper, by posting to it's own web site, does not
give up ownership or rights - just because it posted to
the net.
Harry K
Aww, you forgot "govern yourself accordingly"
Harry, the lurker, K
bci
Lakeland Linder Regional Airport failed to respond to an air traffic
controller who saw they were perilously close to each other, a federal
official said today.
......
Both planes fell to the ground, Smith said at a news conference this
morning.
Smith said he hasn't determined who was at fault in the crash.
mike regish
newspaper when I'm done. Or cutting out an article and sending it to my
brother in North Carolina? In fact, I'd think those examples are more
serious since I had to pay for the paper and these articles are freely
available.
Guess I won't be answering my door , the phone or opening my mail again
anytime soon...
Roger Halstead wrote:
>
> Ahhhh...Guys, I'm assuming you had permission from any newspaper, or
> magazine from which you reprinted complete stories, or major parts there of.
>
> We all like to read them, but it makes me nervous to see complete newspaper
> articles reprinted on here. Giving credit to the author and newspaper is not
> enough to get past copyright issues. It takes permission which I'm assuming
> was obtained.
>
> --
> Roger (K8RI EN73)
> WWW.RogerHalstead.com
> N833R, World's Oldest Debonair? S#CD-2
--
mike regish
1953 TriPacer
N3428A
Veeduber
>How can it really be any different than letting somebody read my
>newspaper when I'm done.
--------------------------
Lots of ways. Giving someone a newspaper doesn't qualify as 'publication' of
the material, for one thing, whereas copying something off the internet for the
specific purpose of redistribution -- to one person or a thousand -- does.
Why don't you read Title 17 of the U.S.Code and find out for yourself? It's
your country. They're your laws (and mine). If you use the Internet you should
be aware of the provisions of the Copyright Act that apply to that usage.
Here's one for you: How can it really be any different than doing touch & go's
at a SAC base when they're not using the runway? Your taxes paid for it,
right? So what's the big deal?
Pretty silly, eh? But no sillier than most questions about copyrights.
Read it. The basic law is only a couple of pages.
-R.S.Hoover
Stephen
It against the law to eat peanuts in church in one state (Georgia,
Tennessee, maybe. dont remember which state).
When people start getting sued or arrested for quoting a website
article here in a relevant discussion, thats when people will start
taking the law serious. Otherwise, it will just be a law meant for
flagrant abuses of copyright, and not for what many might feel is
acceptable as fair use.
The internet has changed and challenged many laws. Its going to take
quite a while for everything to settle out.
Stephen
Warren & Nancy
mike regish
Veeduber wrote:
>
> Why don't you read Title 17 of the U.S.Code and find out for yourself? It's
> your country. They're your laws (and mine). If you use the Internet you should
> be aware of the provisions of the Copyright Act that apply to that usage.
Thanks, but no thanks. The FARs gave me enough of a headache. When they
write laws in a format that can be read by the common man and not
specifically so that you need at least a 4 year education in law to read
the simplest of them, maybe then I'll consider reading those that are
relevant.
>
> Here's one for you: How can it really be any different than doing touch & go's
> at a SAC base when they're not using the runway? Your taxes paid for it,
> right? So what's the big deal?
How is that even remotely relevant to this situation?
>
> Pretty silly, eh? But no sillier than most questions about copyrights.
Not at all. I don't want a bunch of rookie, unknown pilots flitting
about where there are nukes. You and I paid for those too. Should we be
able to have a nuke of our own? Get real.
>
>
> -R.S.Hoover
Unknown
wrote:
Probably as relevant as Drill shavings stuck in bit.
Come to think of it, its a higher importance thread, as well as far
more interesting. I think I'll whisk on over there, and abandon this
one completely.
Steve
P.S. Opps, I should apologize first to you R.S. I quoted your
message above verbatim. Sorry for any copyright infringement that
might have caused.
rob...@bonomi.invalid
RobertR237 <rober...@aol.compost> wrote:
>In article <ab91bu4fvh6bamk0v...@4ax.com>, Dave Barnhart
><da...@davebarnhart.com> writes:
>
>>
>>
>>Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
>>
>>Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use
>>of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
>>phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for
>>purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching
>>(including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or
>>research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether
>>the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the
>>factors to be considered shall include -
>>
>>(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use
>>is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
>>
>
>This alone would cover much of what would be published in RAH since it is a
>totally nonprofit medium and there is no way anyone could claim otherwise.
FALSE TO FACT. so says established 'case law'.
This is a factor for 'consideration' *only*. It is 'less likely' to be held
to be actionaable if it is 'nonprofit EDUCATIONAL' purposes. RAH does -not-
qualify as 'educational purposes'. For purposes of 'criticizm, comment, news
reporting' -- that has a fair chance of being accepted. As *one* of the
criteris to be weighed.
*ALL* the listed facters are considered, in combination. The evaulation
of any single factor may tend to aggravate, or mitigate, the infringement.
There is *no* single 'get out of jail free' card.
The claim that 'no income' being derived is an absolute defense against
infringement is, pure and simple, *hogwash*.
>>(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
>>
>
>Any work place on the internet to begin with and copied with source credit on
>the internet should be well covered.
FALSE TO FACT.
You have, either deliberately, or through ignorance, confused the 'method' or
'means' of publication with the 'nature of the work'. The 'nature of the work'
goes more towards the amount of time/effort that went into its creation.
In addition, giving 'source credit' does *nothing* to ameloriate copyright
infringement.
>
>>(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
>>the copyrighted work as a whole; and
>>
>
>Would depend on how much of the article is commented on and how much is
>required to not cause the copied section to be taken out of context.
CORRECT.
Safest is 'use only the absolute -minimum- necessary'.
Copyiny the _entire_ work is *ALMOST*NEVER* allowable 'fair use'.
Which is what the party _did_, that started this entire discussion.
non-binding case law sets a threshold of 15% of the original work.
above which the _presumption_ *is* that it is *not* fair use. One
_can_ argue to the contrary, but it must be a -compelling- argument
to succeed. Below 15%, there is no presumption either way, a simple
'preponderance of the evidence' rule applies.
>
>>(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
>>the copyrighted work.
>>
>
>This is the one area where most might have some argument but in the case of
>ANN, little published there is anything more than copied from other sources
>anyway. Anything else has very little market value to begin with. (Opinion)
Unfortunately, the courts do *not* recognize your opinion as binding. <grin>
If, for example, the original is on a web-page that carries advertising, and
those advertisers are paying for _each_time_ the page is viewed -- then repro-
ducing that page content somewhere else *does* damage the "potential market for
or value of" the original.
Note, one does not even have to establish that this *is* the case. That one
_might_ do it, and that the 'value' of doing so has been damaged by the
other publication, is 'legally sufficient' to establish deleterious effect,
with regard to this factor.
Sumary:
possible pass on factor 1,
neutral on factor 2,
big 'if' on factor 3,
possible down-check on factor 4
In all probability, a finding of infringement will hinge on factor 3, to wit:
"how much" was copied. If it is the bare minimums necessary (and less than
15%), you're probably save. If it is the entire work, you're almost certainly
*NOT*. If it's more than 15% of the original, you have an up-hill battle, to
establish 'innocence'..
mike regish
rob...@bonomi.invalid
I don't really understand the question, as asked. So, this may be relevant,
and may not.
There _is_ a court case on record where somebody sued for copyright
infringement based on the 'copying' that occured when a program file
on disk was loaded into a computer's RAM memory for execution. It
_was_ agreeed by both parties that the copy on disk *was* a "legal copy".
At _trial_ the copying into memory *WAS* held to be copyright infringement.
Some substantial amounts of money changed hands, *and* the defendant _was_
ordered by the court to 'cease and desist' from similiar acts in the future.
mike regish
scanned and sent via e-mail or even faxed documents were not allowed as
evidence. Something about emissability. There were some pretty screwy
definitions of what constituted a real document or publication and
electronic media was not allowed. Photocopied and mailed was allowed.
Dave A
<rob...@bonomi.invalid> wrote in message
news:v5Ws8.15864$A%3.12...@ord-read.news.verio.net...
Glasair N68DJ
One airplane, the Comanche, stalled turning final. Took forever for a fire
truck to respond. Landed inverted and they burned before the fire truck
arrived. They have improved the fire truck coverage since that accident.
Don
"John Q. Citizen" <sf...@idf.sdf> wrote in message
news:3CB10A65...@idf.sdf...
Unknown
wrote:
>Where were you guys when OJ was on trial? <g>
>
Most people had a life, and were doing something more important than
watching the OJ trial.
sf
Roger Halstead
"Stephen" wrote in message
news:1ck9bugnj434qshr1...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 18:39:14 -0500, "Dave A" <dab...@execpc.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Where were you guys when OJ was on trial? <g>
> >
They put Orange Juice on trial?
--
Roger (K8RI EN73)
WWW.RogerHalstead.com
N833R, World's Oldest Debonair? S#CD-2
>
RobertR237
rob...@bonomi.invalid writes:
Yes, I agree the courts, unless they are more knowledgable than most, would not
recognize that argument. It was not intended for the courts but as stated, my
opinion.
>If, for example, the original is on a web-page that carries advertising, and
>those advertisers are paying for _each_time_ the page is viewed -- then
>repro-
>ducing that page content somewhere else *does* damage the "potential market
>for
>or value of" the original.
>
>Note, one does not even have to establish that this *is* the case. That one
>_might_ do it, and that the 'value' of doing so has been damaged by the
>other publication, is 'legally sufficient' to establish deleterious effect,
>with regard to this factor.
>
>
>
>Sumary:
> possible pass on factor 1,
> neutral on factor 2,
> big 'if' on factor 3,
> possible down-check on factor 4
>
>In all probability, a finding of infringement will hinge on factor 3, to wit:
>"how much" was copied. If it is the bare minimums necessary (and less than
>15%), you're probably save. If it is the entire work, you're almost
>certainly
>*NOT*. If it's more than 15% of the original, you have an up-hill battle, to
>establish 'innocence'..
>
Based on your own statement, the argument could also be given that the copied
piece was in fact less than 15% of the content of the source since it was only
one story out of many and was the only one being commented on. Also, your
statement that "*ALL* the listed facters are considered, in combination. The
evaulation of any single factor may tend to aggravate, or mitigate, the
infringement. There is *no* single 'get out of jail free' card." could also
work the other way. It would be a very difficult case to prove and I suspect
that the costs would far outweigh any potiential gains.
Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....
"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)
BOb U
>> >Where were you guys when OJ was on trial? <g>
>> >
>They put Orange Juice on trial?
>
>
>--
>Roger (K8RI EN73)
<Watch this, Roger>
Orange juice was only_sorta'_ on trial.
It was really....
Miss America, Anita Bryant - spokesperson for Florida OJ.
Don't you remember this national flap?
It was on the 'news' for years, starting in 1977. <g>
http://gaylife.about.com/library/weekly/aa120498.htm
Barnyard BOb - spreading the gnus
Unknown
wrote:
>work the other way. It would be a very difficult case to prove and I suspect
>that the costs would far outweigh any potiential gains.
>
And this is exactly why people aren't dragged into court for such an
offense.
Same reason why the cops aren't pulling people over giving tickets for
eating a BigMac, or sipping on a Coke while driving, or driving while
barefoot. There is a law in most states against it, yet its largely
ignored by law enforcement.
Maybe we should argue the merits for/against driving barefoot?
Probably just as useful.
I'll make sure that all posts I enter with quoted text carries a
statement to warn those who may take offense to 'look away'!
steve
Ron Natalie
Stephen wrote:
>
>... driving while
> barefoot. There is a law in most states against it, yet its largely
> ignored by law enforcement.
There, in fact, is not a law against it:
http://www.urbanlegends.com/legal/driving.barefoot/driving_barefoot.html
John Ousterhout
says...
[SNIP long discussion of Fair use]
> I suspect that the costs would far outweigh any potiential gains.
I believe that's the reason that violations of Fair Use so infrequently end up
in court.
It's certainly the reason I didn't take Jim Campbell to court when he copied a
photo of mine from my web page and printed it in his magazine.
http://www.cyberis.net/~jouster/zoom/violation.html
- John (Pyrrhic Victory?) Ousterhout -
Roger Halstead
"BOb U" <barn...@nospin.edu> wrote in message
news:fpcabuk3hfgb91j5u...@4ax.com...
Nope, I didn't know that...It seems as if I was too busy gettin' ready to
get divorced up here in the frozen North to notice what went on in another
country. Back then anything south of the Mason Dixon Line was another
country.
Got one with a sense of humor this time.
--
Roger (K8RI EN73)
WWW.RogerHalstead.com
N833R, World's Oldest Debonair? S#CD-2
>
Roger Halstead
"Ron Natalie" <r...@sensor.com> wrote in message
news:3CB59BB8...@sensor.com...
Yah know I'm beginning to doubt the "urban legends" thing. Like the
skeptical enquirer their standards of testing are flawed.
Besides, I know Bob couldn't have done all those things.
rob...@bonomi.invalid
mike regish <mregi...@attbi.com> wrote:
>I was a union steward a while back and we were told that documents
>scanned and sent via e-mail or even faxed documents were not allowed as
>evidence. Something about emissability. There were some pretty screwy
>definitions of what constituted a real document or publication and
>electronic media was not allowed. Photocopied and mailed was allowed.
Sheesh! I betcha the word was "Admissibility". i.e. allowable to be
'admitted' into evidence in a court case.
*That* is a complex and arcane area. And it depends greatly on _precisely_
what point one is trying to establish.
There's a case on record in Texas, one party being 'flowers.com', that
revolved entirely around sending of e-mail. That electronic media was
*definitely* admissible in that case.
There are at least two court cases on record now, where 'service of notice'
of the lawsuit has been allowed to be delivered electronically.
Robert Bonomi
RobertR237 <rober...@aol.compost> wrote:
>In article <cuSs8.15860$A%3.12...@ord-read.news.verio.net>,
>rob...@bonomi.invalid writes:
[[ munch ]]
>>In all probability, a finding of infringement will hinge on factor 3, to wit:
>>"how much" was copied. If it is the bare minimums necessary (and less than
>>15%), you're probably save. If it is the entire work, you're almost
>>certainly
>>*NOT*. If it's more than 15% of the original, you have an up-hill battle, to
>>establish 'innocence'..
>
>Based on your own statement, the argument could also be given that the copied
>piece was in fact less than 15% of the content of the source since it was only
>one story out of many and was the only one being commented on.
"Sorry, Charlie!" applies. Each story is a _separate_ work of authorship,
with it's OWN copyright. *IN*ADDITION*, there is a 'compilation copyright'
on the entire thing. That fact is *well*established* in copyright case law.
> Also, your
>statement that "*ALL* the listed facters are considered, in combination. The
>evaulation of any single factor may tend to aggravate, or mitigate, the
>infringement. There is *no* single 'get out of jail free' card." could also
>work the other way. It would be a very difficult case to prove and I suspect
>that the costs would far outweigh any potiential gains.
Case is *NOT*AT*ALL*DIFFICULT* to prove. A case -- with the facts as in this
instance -- _almost_invariably_ "settles" within days after the actual suit
is filed. Again, almost invariably with the plaintiff getting virtually
*everything* they requested in the suit.
Copyright law is 'funny' stuff. It is *NOT* 'innocent till proven guilty'.
As soon as plaintiff establishes that plaintiff holds a valid copyright on
the work (trivial to do), and that defendant _did_ copy it (nearly as trivial),
then it is, in fact, 'guilty until proven innocent'. 'Burden of proof' rests
with the _defendant_, who must *prove* that what they did _does_ fall into one
of the specific limited exemptions listed in the statute.
In fact, in the instance at hand, the potential defendant has made it even
-easier- for plaintiff. He admits to the copying, and identifies where he
got the material from. This establishes that it _was_ 'fixed in a tangible
medium of expression' _before_ he copied it. Thus it *is* protected by
copyright. And by giving "source credit" he admits a) that it *is* copied,
and not his own work, and b) where he copied it from. He stands 'convicted'
by his own words, -unless- he proves one of the exemptions applies. The only
thing plaintiff has to do is just sit back and 'shoot holes' in the defense
presentation.
"Shooting holes", in the case of a -complete- copying, is relatively trivial.
Example: assuming the defense is 'commentary and analysis', one goes through
the original line-by-line, "did you coment on this line of text?"
for each line that was *not* commented on, "is this line necessary
to establish cotext for something you did comment on? Which part?
Third pass, "you claim that this line was necessary to establish
context for your comments on _that_ line/paragraph. Why is it
needed? What context does it set? {etc}?" With the first 'no'
answer, or 'no answer', the fact of "excessive" copying having
occured has been established. Which concludes the needed proof
of copyright infringement. BANG! goes the gavel.
Any even half-competent defense atty will recognize the reality of that
situation. And go to settlement talks *immediately*.
There are precisely *two* reasons why this kind of infringement is not
prosecuted on a daily basis:
1) the time and effort of prosecuting the case is far more than what
one would recover in a judgement. 3 years, $100,000+ out-of-pocket
in legal fees is typical, for the *winning* side.
2) Copyright owner believes that they would lose more, in public "good
will" than they would gain in judgment.
Jbeck
I was wondering about the story behind the story. And I thank you for your
response.
Any accident is a tragedy.
Perhaps I am being overly sensitive, but, going back to the original post,
by them listing all three of the victims separately, it seems like there
were three fatal accidents that day, not one accident with three fatalities.
By the article listing them as they did, it would almost seem that the
pilots coming in are way out of control.
Again, thank you for the response.
"Glasair N68DJ" <N6...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ua4t8.303951$2q2.27...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
mike regish
but I know the difference.
Pro Crustes
curious as to what it means.
"mike regish" <mregi...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3CB61CA4...@attbi.com...
mike regish
left the P.O. He was the edgikated guy in the office.
B2431
>curious as to what it means.
>
Emissivity perhaps?
Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
rob...@bonomi.invalid
mike regish <mregi...@attbi.com> wrote:
>No-the word used was "emissability." Don't know if I spelled it right,
>but I know the difference.
If you say so. But there _isn't_ any such word, or even any reasonable 'root'
for it, listed in any of three separate unabridged dictionaries that I checked.
I looked at _every_ listing starting with "emis". The *one* _possible_
construct is from 'emit' / 'emission'; in that frame of reference, the form
'emissibility' would have to do with the ability to give off energy. I can't
see any conceivable relationship with legal validity.
You'll either have to provide a cite to a meaningful definition, or references
to 'in context' usage.
What you 'were told', as you report it now, bears only a DISTANT RELATIONSHIP
to legal standards of admissibility into evidence, in general. In some limited,
_specific_ contexts, as evidence of specific kinds of activity attributable to
specific parties, there *may* be some accuracy. I =will= suggest that you have
mis-understood, mis-remembered, or 'over-generalized', about what you were told.
It's *easy* to _prove_ me wrong -- provide a meaningful definition, by any
recognized, authoritative, source. OR the *full* context, with -verbatim-
quoting, in which it was used -- with verifiable 'source credit'.
Absent that, it stands somewhere between hearsay, and rumor. at best.
rob...@bonomi.invalid
B2431 <b2...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Please tell the rest of us. I've never heard of "emissability," and am
>>curious as to what it means.
>>
>
>Emissivity perhaps?
Well, there _is_ such a word. that's a start.
"Emissivity then, is a fractional representation of the amount of energy from
some material vs. the energy that would come from a blackbody at the same
temperature. The places in an emissivity spectrum that have a value less
than one are the wavelength regions that molecules are absorbing energy."
Damned if I can see any _possible_ relevance to copyright infringement, even
involving electronic media.
May we have the next candidate, please? <grin>
Ron Natalie
B2431 wrote:
>
> >Please tell the rest of us. I've never heard of "emissability," and am
> >curious as to what it means.
> >
>
> Emissivity perhaps?
>
Admissibility - The virtue of being acceptable (evidence).
mike regish
know where he got it or if it is a real word or not.
I do know that it is extremely pathetic that this thread-Accident at Sun
'n Fun (Remember? Somebody died in a plane?)-has resulted in nothing but
inane arguments about some ridiculously stupid copyright drivel.
So I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove you wrong or me right
or anything else.
Pro Crustes
"mike regish" <mregi...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3CBB5611...@attbi.com...
mike regish
share this message.
**************************************************************************
I received the following message from Gilbert Pierce...
Michael Reamy
Michael,
Steve's mother and I were in trail behind him when he was hit from
behind
and below by a an errant RV6A while on short final to Sun'N'Fun. The
tower controllers called all of our turns and our descent. During all of
this it was obvious from the calls from the tower that they had an
airplane out there they were having problems with. We had followed the
same 3 aircraft from Lake Parker in trail into the final so we thought
we were clear. At about 100 feet in the air the RV6 appeared to the
right and and below Stephan. The tower told the RV to side step to the
left runway. When he turned left his nose went up and he collided with
Steve's right main landing gear. Steve pitched straight down on top of
the RV and that is the the way they hit the ground. His mother and I
watched this unfold over
about a 3 second period in disblief. There was absolutly no warning
from
the tower until after the collision. This was our 8th time to fly into
the Show together so we are not novices. Fortunately I was taping the
radio on a mini-cassete so have the whole thing. Of course it
dis-agrees
with some statements from the tower folks.
Steve and his mother are still in Florida. I returned today with my
Clipper. Steve has broken right leg, a broken bone in his voice box and
a puncture of the esophogas. (Spelling?). That is the most serious
injury. He was on nothing by mouth until Saturday. Now he can only have
clear liquids. He is in great spirits however and looking for another
Clipper. The plan is to change the cast tomorrow, xray again his throat
on thursday and fly to DFW with his mother on Friday via Southwest thru
New Orleans. I plan to fly to Graham Texas on Friday or Saturday in the
Clipper.
Needless to say we were stunned. We were arriving early at Sun'N"Fun
after a great flight from Memphis getting ready to kick back and enjoy
airplanes. In a split second that all ended. Feel free to pass this on
to
any who are concerned.
Ditch wrote:
>
> I got word today from a friend of mine who was flying a B-25 into SnF today. He
> said he witnessed a mid-air on short final. Anyone have the scoop on this?
>
> -John
> *You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
> American*
Pro Crustes
> I received the following message from Gilbert Pierce...
> I was taping the
> radio on a mini-cassete so have the whole thing. Of course it
> dis-agrees
> with some statements from the tower folks.
This is fascinating and will certainly be important to any investigation, I
think. I've never heard of it before, but know a number of pilots who wish
they'd made such tapes. I'm told that the request of ATC to "save the
tapes" is made fairly often (and pointlessly, I'm told, since they save them
anyway), but that it favors the ground because their transmissions cover
airborne transmissions.
Do many people have airborne audio recorders? Should they? Seems like it
would be an easy thing to add, at low weight.
mike regish
couple of those microcassette recorders that I might just start carrying
along. Not for evidence of controller mistakes, but just to listen to my
own transmissions for technique.
Now, this makes me wonder about the law about recording somebody without
their knowledge. I'm sure there are plenty of back porch lawyers ready
to jump all over *that* issue.
Pro Crustes
> I know my cheapy intercom has the jacks for a recorder. I've got a
> couple of those microcassette recorders that I might just start carrying
> along. Not for evidence of controller mistakes, but just to listen to my
> own transmissions for technique.
Both seem like good reasons to me.
> Now, this makes me wonder about the law about recording somebody without
> their knowledge. I'm sure there are plenty of back porch lawyers ready
> to jump all over *that* issue.
Heh. You know, when I got interested in learning to fly, I didn't know how
much that would mean dealing with legal crap. Flying is federally
regulated, so I'd guess you were under exclusively federal jurisdiction for
this issue. If so, then one could at least skip the various state laws
about it. And, if the ground is recording communications to begin with, I'd
guess that implied consent to be recorded, and that the consent extended to
being recorded by the pilot. Hell, nobody got the pilot's consent, did
they? (Well, yes... the government loves to say that one consents to pretty
much whatever the government wants, when one "agrees" to the conditions of a
government license. I still think it would work both ways, though.)
Of course, commercial jets record communications all the time. Dunno if
that means you get to record traffic you're not a party to, though. Anyone
want to ask a FSDO?
Tom Frey
>
> Now, this makes me wonder about the law about recording somebody without
> their knowledge. I'm sure there are plenty of back porch lawyers ready
> to jump all over *that* issue.
I never thought about radio, but in Oklahoma it's legal as long as at least
one of the actual parties is aware of it. But I think the law assumes that
it is a "telephone" conversation. On radio you would be recording
conversations you were not a part of. Does leave a good bit of room for
*artistic* answers doesn't it. :)
Cheers,
Tom
Russell Kent
> I know my cheapy intercom has the jacks for a recorder. I've got a
> couple of those microcassette recorders that I might just start carrying
> along. Not for evidence of controller mistakes, but just to listen to my
> own transmissions for technique.
>
> Now, this makes me wonder about the law about recording somebody without
> their knowledge. I'm sure there are plenty of back porch lawyers ready
> to jump all over *that* issue.
I would certainly hope that a judge would laugh the plaintiff (or prosecutor) out
of court: how could someone *possibly* have an "expectation of privacy" in the
public aircraft frequency band? "Expectation of privacy" is the common law basis
for the anti-wiretap laws in the US.
Russell Kent
Pro Crustes
"Tom Frey" <tfrey...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:jVfv8.111911$oN6.2...@news1.east.cox.net...
There actually are some federal statutes that relate to third-party
recording, but I think we should start by looking at the particular context.
Since commercial aircraft are required to have recorders (and those
recorders can't avoid third-party traffic), and since ground controllers are
also required to record, the general rules on recording probably do not
govern here. I've asked a friend at FAA for some help on this, and will
report back here if I learn an answer I can document.
Crusty
Pro Crustes
"Russell Kent" <r-k...@ti.com> wrote in message
news:3CBD8F5A...@ti.com...
I think you're confusing a Fourth Amendment issue with a power of Congress.
Most federal laws about communications are predicated on the powers under
the Commerce Clause, I think. After all, what privacy expectation do you
have in things you tell another person? Unless you swear them to secrecy,
you'd better expect your words might be repeated. Nevertheless, there are
loads of laws against secretly taping someone when they speak to you, even
if there are no laws at all against repeating what they said.
Maybe a more up-to-date ham can help me, but I seem to recall that it is
legal for me to listen to broadcasts between operators on my shortwave
radio, but not legal to tape record those, either. Not sure about that one,
though.
Russell Kent
> "Russell Kent" <r-k...@ti.com> wrote in message
> news:3CBD8F5A...@ti.com...
> > mike regish wrote:
> >
> > > I know my cheapy intercom has the jacks for a recorder. I've got a
> > > couple of those microcassette recorders that I might just start carrying
> > > along. Not for evidence of controller mistakes, but just to listen to my
> > > own transmissions for technique.
> > >
> > > Now, this makes me wonder about the law about recording somebody without
> > > their knowledge. I'm sure there are plenty of back porch lawyers ready
> > > to jump all over *that* issue.
> >
> > I would certainly hope that a judge would laugh the plaintiff (or
> prosecutor) out
> > of court: how could someone *possibly* have an "expectation of privacy" in
> the
> > public aircraft frequency band? "Expectation of privacy" is the common
> law basis
> > for the anti-wiretap laws in the US.
>
> I think you're confusing a Fourth Amendment issue with a power of Congress.
> Most federal laws about communications are predicated on the powers under
> the Commerce Clause, I think.
Sorry, I was unclear. The basis for the prohibition of recording of
conversations is the common law expectation of privacy, to wit: persons engaged
in a face-to-face conversation, or a conversation over the public telephone
system, likely expect that their conversation will not be electronically
eavesdropped or recorded. The courts have buttressed this premise by requiring
electronic monitoring and wiretap subpoenas before government agents may engage
in that activity. Notice that I said "engage" in that activity, not "be able to
use evidence so gathered in court." The same laws that prohibit those actions
apply to government actors and private citizens (its just that the government
can get court-ordered "exceptions").
My position is: in the case of transmissions over the public aircraft frequency
band where it is known that conversations are electronically monitored and
regularly recorded, how can the person transmitting have *any* expectation of
privacy? If they cannot have an expectation of privacy, then the common law
basis doesn't exist, at which point any law prohibiting the recording of such a
conversation would need to find another basis.
I don't have any case law citations on this. My theory would be that things
written on to open electronic bulletin boards (BBSes, Yahoo forums, etc.) could
be freely entered into evidence without subpoena, while things written in
private communications (email, IM) would require subpoena for a third party to
have access.
> After all, what privacy expectation do you have in things you tell another
> person?
It isn't my expectation of privacy w.r.t. whether that other person will repeat
what I have said (exceptions for clergy, etc.), but rather my expectation that
my actual speech is not being monitored or recorded.
> Unless you swear them to secrecy, you'd better expect your words might be
> repeated.
True, but not the issue I was trying to make. I call you and tell you
something. You can repeat to the court what you remember hearing. In general,
you *cannot* record my speech and then play it for the court (actually, laws
about this vary by jurisdiction) without first obtaining a court order to
violate my expectation of privacy.
> Nevertheless, there are loads of laws against secretly taping someone when
> they speak to you, even
> if there are no laws at all against repeating what they said.
Exactly the point I was trying to make. Those "loads of laws" are based upon
the expectation of privacy. If the expectation of privacy cannot exist, then I
would hope that the law would not apply. But I'm no legislator. :-)
> Maybe a more up-to-date ham can help me, but I seem to recall that it is legal
> for me to listen to broadcasts between operators on my shortwave radio, but
> not legal to tape record those, either.
If so, I think the law is wrong. The ham operators should have no expectation
of privacy.
A recent, roughly approximate, U.S. Supreme Court ruling came down saying that
the government (the local police or sherriff in this case) cannot use thermal
imaging to detect "grow" lights inside a residence (used to grow marijuana)
without a court order to search the residence. The ruling said that the
resident had an expecation of privacy that technological means would not be used
to search the residence without due process controls. The same regulations
apply to electrical bills, for example.
See:
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-8508.ZS.html
Russell Kent
Larry Smith
"Pro Crustes" <pro_c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:JTgv8.54$Xm5....@news1.news.adelphia.net...
>
> "Tom Frey" <tfrey...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:jVfv8.111911$oN6.2...@news1.east.cox.net...
> >
> > "mike regish" <mregi...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > news:3CBC677A...@attbi.com...
> > >
> > > Now, this makes me wonder about the law about recording somebody
without
> > > their knowledge. I'm sure there are plenty of back porch lawyers ready
> > > to jump all over *that* issue.
> >
> > I never thought about radio, but in Oklahoma it's legal as long as at
> least
> > one of the actual parties is aware of it.
The last I checked this is the law in NC, but in FL it's a felony to
secretly record, or to record without permission, even if you are a party to
a phone conversation. The question comes up occasionally in misc.legal and
always makes for heated discussion. One FL poster said that whenever a
person was videotaped, say at a sporting event, the camera operator always
obtained permission before the sound recorder was turned on. So there was
always video footage before the sound came on.
The last time in my recollection FL's harsh anti-taping law was discussed in
misc.legal, a customs agent was tape recorded against his will by an irate
traveler coming in from overseas. The traveler was arrested and held for
prosecution but apparently the DA elected not to prosecute.
I'll see if I can dig up those wild FL statutes this evening. They were on
the web a few years ago.
On the question of whether a pilot can record Florida air traffic
conversations, I doubt that that would be illegal. But you never know. If
it were illegal to record the speech of a public officer during the
performance of his duties, what would the world come to? Fasc----oh, I
can't say it.
Pro Crustes
No, you were pretty clear. I just think you're mistaken, Ken. There is no
common law prohibition of recording conversations. Such prohibitions are
all statutory, and neither refer to, nor require, reliance on any basis in
common law. And, in some states, statutes permit the unconsented recording
of a telephone conversation by any party wishing to do so. In New York, for
example, we used to record phone calls made within the state all the time,
and never told the person we were talking to that we did it. Perfectly
legal, there. In Virginia, it's not legal. Expectation of privacy has
nothing to do with it in either state; it's all up to the local
legislatures, under their plenary police powers.
> The courts have buttressed this premise by requiring
> electronic monitoring and wiretap subpoenas before government agents may
engage
> in that activity. Notice that I said "engage" in that activity, not "be
able to
> use evidence so gathered in court." The same laws that prohibit those
actions
> apply to government actors and private citizens (its just that the
government
> can get court-ordered "exceptions").
You're mixing a few kinds of fruit, there. Prohibitions on government
intrusions into privacy do not require that the intrusion be for the purpose
of submitted evidence. Consider the Bowers/Griswold/Roe series of cases,
none of which were about evidence, but all of which were about the
constitutional right of privacy.
> My position is: in the case of transmissions over the public aircraft
frequency
> band where it is known that conversations are electronically monitored and
> regularly recorded, how can the person transmitting have *any* expectation
of
> privacy?
I'm afraid that question isn't really important to the government's power to
criminalize the recording of a tranmission. I think you're still confused
about the relevant constitutional grant of authority to congress. Congress
doesn't need to show any expectation of privacy to pass a law authorized by
the Commerce Clause. (Now, the expectation _might_ matter in a purely
private suit between citizens; that's not what we're talking about, though.)
> If they cannot have an expectation of privacy, then the common law
> basis doesn't exist, at which point any law prohibiting the recording of
such a
> conversation would need to find another basis.
That basis is the Commerce Clause. In fact, without it, Congress could not
constitutionally pass a law solely based on an expectation of privacy, even
if there were such an expectation. The expectation could _prevent_ Congress
from passing a law, but the constitutional right of privacy lacks an
enabling clause, so it's not a basis for congressional legislation. It is a
_restriction_ on such legislation.
> I don't have any case law citations on this. My theory would be that
things
> written on to open electronic bulletin boards (BBSes, Yahoo forums, etc.)
could
> be freely entered into evidence without subpoena, while things written in
> private communications (email, IM) would require subpoena for a third
party to
> have access.
Now there I agree with you, since the record being submitted was created
with the implied consent of the person who posted the message. Creating a
record without consent might be prohibited by an act of Congress, though.
> > After all, what privacy expectation do you have in things you tell
another
> > person?
>
> It isn't my expectation of privacy w.r.t. whether that other person will
repeat
> what I have said (exceptions for clergy, etc.), but rather my expectation
that
> my actual speech is not being monitored or recorded.
True, but that's just the motivating reason, not a legal authorization, for
laws against unconsented recording.
> > Unless you swear them to secrecy, you'd better expect your words might
be
> > repeated.
>
> True, but not the issue I was trying to make. I call you and tell you
> something. You can repeat to the court what you remember hearing. In
general,
> you *cannot* record my speech and then play it for the court (actually,
laws
> about this vary by jurisdiction) without first obtaining a court order to
> violate my expectation of privacy.
You've got that backwards, Ken. In general, I _can_ do that. The only
states I know of where I can't are states that have prohibited it by
statute. There are no longer any common law crimes in the United States.
There might be states that would give you a common law right to sue over an
unconsented recording, but I've never heard of one. Most states have, I
believe, codified their civil claims based on privacy right violations.
> > Nevertheless, there are loads of laws against secretly taping someone
when
> > they speak to you, even
> > if there are no laws at all against repeating what they said.
>
> Exactly the point I was trying to make. Those "loads of laws" are based
upon
> the expectation of privacy.
I'm afraid you're just mistaken on this point.
> If the expectation of privacy cannot exist, then I
> would hope that the law would not apply. But I'm no legislator. :-)
Well, you might make a good one, but in this case the ones we've got don't
all see it your way. States, unlike Congress, have plenary authority to
criminalize whatever they want to, unless it violates your constitutional
rights. So, unlike Congress (which must find a grant of authority in the
constitution before it can pass a law (and which it always does, and almost
always under the Commerce Clause)), a state can prohibit unconsented
recording whether there is an expectation of privacy or not.
> > Maybe a more up-to-date ham can help me, but I seem to recall that it is
legal
> > for me to listen to broadcasts between operators on my shortwave radio,
but
> > not legal to tape record those, either.
>
> If so, I think the law is wrong. The ham operators should have no
expectation
> of privacy.
>
> A recent, roughly approximate, U.S. Supreme Court ruling came down saying
that
> the government (the local police or sherriff in this case) cannot use
thermal
> imaging to detect "grow" lights inside a residence (used to grow
marijuana)
> without a court order to search the residence. The ruling said that the
> resident had an expecation of privacy that technological means would not
be used
> to search the residence without due process controls. The same
regulations
> apply to electrical bills, for example.
Your legal reasoning is pretty good, Ken, but you're having a problem
connecting the common law principles and the constitutional principles with
the different grants of authority, and the restrictions on that authority,
that apply to the federal and state legislatures. Privacy expectations
mostly pertain to what a government _cannot_ do. A government's power to
prohibit what private citizens may do arises from either police power or
constitutional grant, not from common law treatment of privacy expectations.
> See:
> http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-8508.ZS.html
Thanks for the cite. I wish more people would post a reference when they
make an argument. The case you've chosen is purely a Fourth Amendment
matter (says so, right at the top, in a rare example of clarity by the Ninth
Circuit. 8-))
Crusty
Pro Crustes
news:ubrkaeg...@corp.supernews.com...
> The last I checked this is the law in NC, but in FL it's a felony to
> secretly record, or to record without permission, even if you are a party
to
> a phone conversation. The question comes up occasionally in misc.legal
and
> always makes for heated discussion.
On Usenet? Really? ;-)
> One FL poster said that whenever a
> person was videotaped, say at a sporting event, the camera operator always
> obtained permission before the sound recorder was turned on. So there was
> always video footage before the sound came on.
That's how it is here in Virginia, too. Private investigators can make
videos without permission, but only the disreputable ones will make audio
tapes that way. New York, OTOH, permits one-party consent to audio taping
of phone conversations (but it has some tricky laws on what you can do in a
face-to-face encounter).
> On the question of whether a pilot can record Florida air traffic
> conversations, I doubt that that would be illegal. But you never know.
If
> it were illegal to record the speech of a public officer during the
> performance of his duties, what would the world come to? Fasc----oh, I
> can't say it.
I think the best argument so far would be to rely on the fact that all
controller traffic is taped to begin with, so consent by the controllers
already exists, at some level. (I say "at some level," because my FAA
friend suggested that the controllers' union might have had something to say
about whether anyone else is allowed to make such tapes; I'll post what I
learn on this, as I acquire it.)
Crusty
Pro Crustes
> [something]
> > ...you were pretty clear... Ken.
Oops! Clear as you were, I goofed on your name. My apologies, Russell.
Chrustie
Russell Kent
> > > ...you were pretty clear... Ken.
>
> Oops! Clear as you were, I goofed on your name. My apologies, Russell.
>
> Chrustie
Apology accepted. Gracious of you to notice your error and apologize.
Your right: I think I am getting confused between the federal versus state
powers, and where the anti-wiretap (et al.) laws spring from.
It seems to me that the "expectation of privacy" springs directly from
"pursuit of happiness." (Can we agree that we the people would be unhappy
if we had no privacy?) I forget where "property" gets turned into "pursuit
of happiness".
It would seem that the 4th amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifically
enjoins the -federal- government from violating our privacy without due
process:
"...secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures"
I wonder if privacy fits as an "effect"?
Further, it would seem that the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution
specifically enjoins the -state- governments (and their incorporated
entities) from violating our privacy without due process:
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law"
If the 4th amendment says that citizens have the right/privilege -not- to
have their privacy violated without due process, then it would seem that the
14th amendment extends this prohibition against the states, correct?
Then what is left is the private citizen. Both governments (federal or
state) have passed laws regulating whether recording conversations by
private citizens is permitted and under what conditions. (Thus the crazy
quilt of laws around the states). But the 4th amendment does not appear to
limit the action of just the Congress, the federal government, or the state
governments. It says:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to
be seized.
This would seem to enjoin -everyone- against acts that would violate that
right. Perhaps this is just one of those many, many situations where the
laws on the books are unconstitutional (in this case, those laws that permit
unconsented recording) but no one has bothered to make enough of a stink to
get it corrected. I'm not enough of a law scholar to say with certainty.
On the other hand, the "right to privacy" is one of those important things
that gets people and governments really, really worked up. Witness the
current goings on w.r.t. non-European companies having to deal with E.U.
laws regarding electronic privacy. What a mess.
Russell Kent
Pro Crustes
> Pro Crustes wrote:
>
> > > > ...you were pretty clear... Ken.
> >
> > Oops! Clear as you were, I goofed on your name. My apologies, Russell.
> >
> > Chrustie
>
> Apology accepted. Gracious of you to notice your error and apologize.
I probably confused your name due to my fondness for the work of Maestro Ken
Russell 8-).
> Your right: I think I am getting confused between the federal versus state
> powers, and where the anti-wiretap (et al.) laws spring from.
>
> It seems to me that the "expectation of privacy" springs directly from
> "pursuit of happiness." (Can we agree that we the people would be unhappy
> if we had no privacy?)
We sure can, and several legal scholars have argued that the (in)famous
decision in Roe v. Wade is really just the Supreme Court's way of protecting
a privacy right that actually _isn't_ in the constitution, but _should_ have
been.
> I forget where "property" gets turned into "pursuit
> of happiness".
Actually, it went in the other order. "Pursuit of happiness" was one of
those unalienable rights they mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.
The parallel phrase in the constitution is "life, liberty, or property,"
and first appeared in the Fifth Amendment, later appearing again the
(in)famous Fourteenth Amendment. How "the pursuit of happiness" morphed
into "property" is a question for historians, and I am no historian. But it
_is_ interesting, isn't it?
> It would seem that the 4th amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifically
> enjoins the -federal- government from violating our privacy without due
> process:
>
> "...secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
> unreasonable searches and seizures"
>
> I wonder if privacy fits as an "effect"?
Brother, whole books have been written on this. I won't even try to
summarize them, but if you're interested (and every good American should be,
IMHO), a Google search will get you a million or so starting points.
Originally, the Fourth Amendment was only binding on the federal government.
Its privacy protections are now regarded as binding on the states, owing to
a series of post-Civil War cases that "incorporated" some parts of the Bill
of Rights into the state constitutions, under an interpretation of the
Fourteenth Amendment (and thereby giving rise to what is now known as "the
incorporation controversy," once almost dead, but lately exhumed by amateur
lawyers who live in trailer parks, and not entirely without some legal
validity, IMHO). Anyway, I think "effects" just refers to your stuff, as it
were.
> Further, it would seem that the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution
> specifically enjoins the -state- governments (and their incorporated
> entities) from violating our privacy without due process:
Now ya got it.
> If the 4th amendment says that citizens have the right/privilege -not- to
> have their privacy violated without due process, then it would seem that
the
> 14th amendment extends this prohibition against the states, correct?
Yeppir (see above).
> Then what is left is the private citizen. Both governments (federal or
> state) have passed laws regulating whether recording conversations by
> private citizens is permitted and under what conditions. (Thus the crazy
> quilt of laws around the states). But the 4th amendment does not appear
to
> limit the action of just the Congress, the federal government, or the
state
> governments. It says:
>
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
> papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
> shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon
> probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly
> describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to
> be seized.
>
> This would seem to enjoin -everyone- against acts that would violate that
> right.
You'd make a good law student. As written, you could say that the
prohibition against unreasonable searches was universal. As it has been
applied, however, the Fourth has been exclusively treated as a restriction
on government. Again, there's a ton of scholarship you could read. Best
place, however, is always the same one: The Federalist Papers. I would
hazard to guess you're the kind of bloke who'd find that interesting
reading. It will certainly make you the centerpiece of the next party you
go to, anyway. (Read Numbers 10 and 78, if nothing else.)
> Perhaps this is just one of those many, many situations where the
> laws on the books are unconstitutional (in this case, those laws that
permit
> unconsented recording) but no one has bothered to make enough of a stink
to
> get it corrected. I'm not enough of a law scholar to say with certainty.
Keep going. You're doing fine.
> On the other hand, the "right to privacy" is one of those important things
> that gets people and governments really, really worked up. Witness the
> current goings on w.r.t. non-European companies having to deal with E.U.
> laws regarding electronic privacy. What a mess.
My own little personal view is that people have rights that aren't in the
constitution. Some folks love their rights so much that they insist the
constitution guarantees them all, but I think that's an example of passion
overwhelming reason. On the other hand, people like me can't exactly say
where the source of our "extra" rights resides, unless we claim they come
from God or from natural law, two philosophies that I personally have other
problems with. International activists make frequent reference to "human"
rights, but they also seem to skip over the part about just where those
rights come from, exactly. Must be hell on lefties, who seem very fond of
the idea that human rights are inherent and inviolable, yet hate it when
conservatives insist that right and wrong are objective absolutes. I can
never figure out how they hold both views at the same time without exploding
in a cloud of contradictions.
Whew. Much too much law for one day. Can anyone suggest a good plans-built
two-seater in all-wood construction that will take a VW engine? I'm
thinking about building an airplane...
Crusty
Dave Hyde
> > > ...you were pretty clear... Ken.
>
> Oops! Clear as you were, I goofed on your name. My apologies, Russell.
He also answers to "Bun-bun"
Dave 'Shorty' Hyde
na...@brick.net
Roger Halstead
"Pro Crustes" <pro_c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:JTgv8.54$Xm5....@news1.news.adelphia.net...
>
> "Tom Frey" <tfrey...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:jVfv8.111911$oN6.2...@news1.east.cox.net...
> >
> > "mike regish" <mregi...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > news:3CBC677A...@attbi.com...
> > >
> > > Now, this makes me wonder about the law about recording somebody
without
> > > their knowledge. I'm sure there are plenty of back porch lawyers ready
> > > to jump all over *that* issue.
> >
> > I never thought about radio, but in Oklahoma it's legal as long as at
> least
> > one of the actual parties is aware of it. But I think the law assumes
that
> > it is a "telephone" conversation. On radio you would be recording
> > conversations you were not a part of. Does leave a good bit of room for
> > *artistic* answers doesn't it. :)
>
> There actually are some federal statutes that relate to third-party
> recording, but I think we should start by looking at the particular
context.
> Since commercial aircraft are required to have recorders (and those
> recorders can't avoid third-party traffic), and since ground controllers
are
Yah, but...that happens to be a federal reg and doesn't really have anything
to do with you or me taping ATC. The federal statute covers just about
everything except broadcast with the privacy act. Broadcast is covered by
copyright.
BUT think about how many tapes are floating around of the Oshkosh tower
frequency.
No one has ever complained about taping ATC for practice, or familiarization
and I know of no one challenging for, or against that taping. However I
don't think I've ever seen any tapes for sale either.
> also required to record, the general rules on recording probably do not
> govern here. I've asked a friend at FAA for some help on this, and will
> report back here if I learn an answer I can document.
When it comes to radio traffic which includes cell phones and cordless
phones, it's the FCC that has jurisdiction, not the FAA even if it is an FAA
facility being recorded. Even Amateur (Ham) radio now falls under the
privacy act
Once upon a time we had receives that covered from very low frequency to
well up into the GHz range. Now, because people using cell phones and
cordless phones weren't smart enough to realize they were using a radio,
it's actually illegal to sell receivers that cover the 800 MHz range.
Course, there are a lot of old receivers and HTs out there that still cover
the whole range.
On top of that the services are going digital which is just noise in a
regular receiver, but because of the analog stuff they bowed to the pressure
from the industry and unknowing public. Sounds like something that most of
us in aviation can identify with as well. Just read the NOTAMS and the
reason for the Chicago TFR.
--
Roger (K8RI EN73)
WWW.RogerHalstead.com
N833R, World's Oldest Debonair? S#CD-2
>
> Crusty
>
>
>
Roger Halstead
"Russell Kent" <r-k...@ti.com> wrote in message
news:3CBDFCAF...@ti.com...
> Pro Crustes wrote:
>
> > > > ...you were pretty clear... Ken.
> >
> > Oops! Clear as you were, I goofed on your name. My apologies, Russell.
> >
> > Chrustie
>
> Apology accepted. Gracious of you to notice your error and apologize.
>
> Your right: I think I am getting confused between the federal versus state
> powers, and where the anti-wiretap (et al.) laws spring from.
Which have nothing to do with radio transmissions.
Even Amateur Radio (Ham Radio) falls under the privacy act and it is illegal
to tape/record amateur transmissions without the written consent of all
parties recorded.
We didn't want to be included, but the FCC (not FAA) included us anyway.
Last I knew "land line" and RF were still treated differently.
However, as I said in a different thread...Just look at how many tapes of
the Oskosh Tower frequency are floating around. That doesn't make them
legal, but no one has complained.
--
Roger (K8RI EN73)
WWW.RogerHalstead.com
N833R, World's Oldest Debonair? S#CD-2
>
mike regish
legalese...
I should have known better.
<sigh>
Roger Halstead
"mike regish" <mregi...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3CBCB880...@attbi.com...
> And once again, this thread devolves into completely unrelated
> legalese...
>
> I should have known better.
>
> <sigh>
>
> Roger Halstead wrote:
> >
What did I say that wasn't related.?
Pro Crustes
"Roger Halstead" <rdha...@tm.net> wrote in message
news:32qv8.1$Ev5....@monger.newsread.com...
Except that it further suggests that consent by anyone on those frequencies
to be recorded is implied by their use of them, since they know that both
federal and private entities are legally recording them all the time.
> No one has ever complained about taping ATC for practice, or
familiarization
> and I know of no one challenging for, or against that taping. However I
> don't think I've ever seen any tapes for sale either.
That could be as simple as a proof problem. That is, maybe taping for
practice is common, but still against some reg or statute, yet no one can
stop it because no one can really prove any particular instance of it.
> When it comes to radio traffic which includes cell phones and cordless
> phones, it's the FCC that has jurisdiction, not the FAA even if it is an
FAA
> facility being recorded.
That's a good starting point, but not necessarily how the law works. Any
particular agency can be authorized to regulate pretty much anything. For
example, the regulation of compressed-gas vessels is under DOT. Regardless,
I'm working on it, and the answer's probably out there somewhere.
> Once upon a time we had receives that covered from very low frequency to
> well up into the GHz range. Now, because people using cell phones and
> cordless phones weren't smart enough to realize they were using a radio,
> it's actually illegal to sell receivers that cover the 800 MHz range.
Commercially. I believe private sale is still legal.
Pro Crustes
> And once again, this thread devolves into completely unrelated
> legalese...
>
> I should have known better.
You did know better. You predicted that legal opinions would follow from
your own question about recording the radio traffic, and you were right.
What's the problem?
Pro Crustes
>
>
>
> "Russell Kent" <r-k...@ti.com> wrote in message
> news:3CBDFCAF...@ti.com...
> > Pro Crustes wrote:
> >
> > > > > ...you were pretty clear... Ken.
> > >
> > > Oops! Clear as you were, I goofed on your name. My apologies,
Russell.
> > >
> > > Chrustie
> >
> > Apology accepted. Gracious of you to notice your error and apologize.
> >
> > Your right: I think I am getting confused between the federal versus
state
> > powers, and where the anti-wiretap (et al.) laws spring from.
>
> Which have nothing to do with radio transmissions.
Actually, they have a lot to do with radio transmissions. For example, the
federal laws that criminalize the transmission of threats in interstate
communications are written so as to include any medium, and have been
applied to commercial broadcast radio. Last I looked, the wiretap statute
was similarly all-inclusive. (It's kind of unfortunate that this section of
the USC is called the "wiretap" act, since that tends to suggest wires,
which radio doesn't use between parties, of course; but Congress knows how
to use phrases like, "wire, oral, or electronic communication," as opposed
to "the telephone." See 18 USC 2511)
Hmmm... having dug into the USC, here's a part that might be relevant, from
2511(d):
It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person [...] to intercept
a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to
the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given
prior consent to such interception[.]
If one is in the pattern and communicating with the tower, one is probably a
party to all communications on the frequency, so I think the party exception
probably applies there. If one is merely on the ground, we're back to the
consent question. Farther down, there are some other exceptions that might
also apply. It's 0245 here, and I'm too sleepy to excerpt them all. And,
"intercept" is not the same as "record," so this isn't the end of the
inquiry.
Maybe more later.
Ron Wanttaja
wrote:
>If one is in the pattern and communicating with the tower, one is probably a
>party to all communications on the frequency, so I think the party exception
>probably applies there. If one is merely on the ground, we're back to the
>consent question.
Is there the possibility, in that the communications is being performed under
a federal license, that the federal communications law (single-party consent)
might take precedence over any local laws that require two-party consent? Can
we consider airspace as federal territory, like a Post Office, and thus
federal laws have sway?
I guess then you might end up with interpretation problems such as "you can
record the tower talking to you (single party consent) but not the tower
talking to another aircraft" or "You cannot record unless you also have
transmit capability (indicating you are potentially a party in the
conversation rather than a mere evesdropper)".
Now I remember why I became an engineer instead of a lawyer. :-)
Ron Wanttaja
Pro Crustes
"Ron Wanttaja" <ikv...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:egtsbuc15eq90vccv...@4ax.com...
Why not do both? I did. ;-)
Your thinking makes sense to me, and there is a legal doctrine that suggests
a state cannot regulate something the feds have taken entirely unto
themselves ("occupied the field," as the phrase goes). Might well apply to
federally licensed radio communications, since there is--I believe--no such
thing as state-level licensing.
Goodness, I can't seem to sleep this morning, but I just realized I'm much
too bushed to say more about this now, other than that is in an interesting
topic with only marginal relation to homebuilt aircraft. Maybe I'll find
more to post later.
C
mike regish
there someplace, but it's been lost in the noise.
mike regish
any discussion that could reduce the chance that this might happen
again. I'd like to attend one of these functions someday, but this
incident is a reason I don't. I know no more about how to avoid a repeat
now than I did when this thread started. I know a shitload about
copyright laws, constitutional rights and privacy laws. Think that'll
get me into Sun 'n Fun safely next year? Or will it just give my family
info on who and how to sue on my behalf?
Pro Crustes
> I guess nobody gives a crap about the victims
Mike, I can't speak for others, but after reading this group on and off for
several years, my way of showing respect for victims of air crashes mostly
takes the form of not commenting on them before the professionals have
rendered their reports. The rush to blame dead pilots for crashes hardly
anyone here has witnessed is, at times, little short of awe-inspiring in its
arrogance. I wasn't there. I didn't see it. I don't know what happened.
Admitting those things and holding my tongue is how I try to help let the
victims get their due. If that's not good enough for you, well... I'm sorry
anyone was hurt. What else do you want me to say?
C.D.Damron
speculation. Few, frame their comments as anything other than speculation
and just about everybody benefits from such discussions.
While official investigations have to get it right, we don't bear the same
burden. I think that this group has done a pretty good job in the past if a
post goes too far.
The idea that a pilot's death is more noble or tragic if it wasn't a result
of pilot error, is misguided.
This idea that we can't talk about fatal accidents until the official
investigation is over is equally misguided.
Such conversations make flying safer, at no expense to a pilot's memory.
"Pro Crustes" <pro_c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:LqBv8.120$%H3.3...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
Denny
not... I have no details on this one other than the picture of the
two crashed planes, and my own experience flying into these airshows
over a 40 year period...
This appears, at first blush, to be the typical high wing/low wing
accident... A low wing plane descending onto a high wing from above,
with each plane being in the others blind spot.. It is also likely in
my experience that one plane was instructed to land long and the other
to land short, and that someone got confused...
I have landed on the taxi way at LAL when 3 planes at a time were
being put down simultaneously.... An RV6 was landing short and
instructed to hit the first marker cone, I was landing over top of him
in my Viking and instructed to hit the midfield marker cone, and I was
behind a low wing (don't remember the model) that was instructed to
land long, right at the final marker cone... The controller expected
(and demanded) that we touch down right at the called out markers...
At the time we made the turn onto final I was side by side with the
RV6 and the controller asked me if I could land over the RV6 with
adequate clearance... At that time the RV6 pilot and I could see each
other and gave a mutual thumbs up, so I replied affirmative... The
long plane was down and rolled about two plane lengths when the RV6
touched down ( I slid right about ten feet so I could watch him)... A
few seconds later I slid over and touched down... The RV6 pilot came
over after parking and said it was as pretty as watching a ballet...
What we have are pilots of wildly varying experience and training
operating in a close environment.... They are nervous and they
develop tunnel vision to the touchdown point and lose sight of each
other... If you feel this is unaceptable, don't go... But those who
keep situational awareness and don't develop tunnel vision don't have
collisions... Go to the airshow, by whatever means, and sit near the
approach end with a radio and listen and watch the landings... You
will learn a lot...
Denny
mike regish <mregi...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<3CBCD29E...@attbi.com>...