From: Peter on
"nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:180520101807518346%nospam(a)nospam.invalid...
> In article <hsv2l001dgr(a)news7.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke
> <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote:
>
>> US law does not apply to Chinese airlines doing business in the Far East.
>
> neither does the opinion of a lawyer from the uk.


Assuming that one really exists.

--
Peter

From: Peter on
"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f2m5v5lcmnio1bpj0p5q0eg9gh83i3vn13(a)4ax.com...
> On Tue, 18 May 2010 09:16:01 -0700, C J Campbell
> <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On 2010-05-18 05:29:38 -0700, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> said:
>>
>>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 04:12:29 -0700, C J Campbell
>>> <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2010-05-18 00:41:41 -0700, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> said:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 17 May 2010 16:45:41 -0700, C J Campbell
>>>>> <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You have confused "private property" with "private place." An
>>>>>> airplane,
>>>>>> cruise ship, restaurant, sports stadium, or garden might well be
>>>>>> private property. But they are public places -- open to the general
>>>>>> public. As such, the burden of proof is on you to show that you have
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> reasonable expectation of privacy in such places.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Everyone should beware amateur "legal experts" who post on Usenet
>>>>> newsgroups.
>>>>
>>>> ROFL! Such as yourself, you mean?
>>>
>>>
>>> On the contrary, because I shoot images for a living, I have to know
>>> where I stand in relation to the law. As a result, I pay for, and
>>> take account of, specialist legal advice.
>>>
>>> You, on the other hand, can give all the BS advice you want, because
>>> you haven't any experience to tell you just how wrong you are. You
>>> are completely out of touch with reality.
>>
>>Actually, I also pay for specialist legal advice.
>>
>>Okay, so my lawyer disagrees with your lawyer.
>
>
> Mine is one of the UK's top intellectual property lawyers who also
> lectures in IP law at two Ivy League universities and at the UK's top
> law school.
>
> I emailed him a copy of this thread. He called me to thank me for
> giving him his best laugh so far in 2010 (it was your comments that he
> found especially amusing) and asked me if he could use the discussion
> in his lectures as a particularly good illustration of people's
> ignorance about the law. I said that appeared to be almost a
> definition of "fair use" and he laughed even more ...
>
> You are truly hilarious. Congratulations!
>
>


If he was half the expert you claim him to be he would have pointed out that
laws differ in different jurisdictions.
IOW....................................


--
Peter

From: nospam on
In article <4bf32972$0$30201$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, Peter
<peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:

> In the mid- 70s cockpit doors were usually shut. The one exception I
> remember was flying Concord. I was permitted to stand at the entrance, with
> the door open. I could not take any pictures, not because of regulations,
> but because I had no film in my camera.

concorde didn't have a cockpit door. that was one of the reasons for
its retirement post-911, where a reinforced cockpit door was mandated.
retrofitting it would have cost quite a bit.
From: nospam on
In article <4bf32c42$1$27744$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, Peter
<peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:

> >> US law does not apply to Chinese airlines doing business in the Far East.
> >
> > neither does the opinion of a lawyer from the uk.
>
> Assuming that one really exists.

i'm sure there are lawyers in the uk :)
From: Peter on
"nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:180520102038129623%nospam(a)nospam.invalid...
> In article <4bf32972$0$30201$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, Peter
> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>
>> In the mid- 70s cockpit doors were usually shut. The one exception I
>> remember was flying Concord. I was permitted to stand at the entrance,
>> with
>> the door open. I could not take any pictures, not because of regulations,
>> but because I had no film in my camera.
>
> concorde didn't have a cockpit door. that was one of the reasons for
> its retirement post-911, where a reinforced cockpit door was mandated.
> retrofitting it would have cost quite a bit.


Can't tell you whether there was one or not. All I remember was the open
cockpit.

Concord had been running at a loss and the airfare was quite high. I only
flew because the client, who was paying for my flight, needed me at a
particular meeting.

--
Peter