Why don’t video game consoles have seizure warnings anymore? On the Wii, every time you’d start it up there would be a big screen with white text on black saying that it can cause seizures in a small group of people. I’ve heard that the PlayStation 3 also has this. However, the 3DS, Wii U, PlayStation 4, and Nintendo Switch never require you to see this—it is in a manual or hidden somewhere in some software built-in but not ever opened by normal users. Why did this change? Was there some legal decision or law that changed that caused this disclaimer to not be legally necessary?
No law change AFAIK - a technology change LED TVs don’t flicker at frequencies that can cause seizures like cathode ray tubes could.
You are absolutely allowed to discuss or describe or criticizes software (or books or other copyrighted or trademarked things) without any permission from the copyright holder or trademark holder. This includes teaching people how to use those things. You may not, however, copy protected software without permission. For example you could not include a CD with a copy of Windows 10 as part of a course you taught on using Windows 10, without permission from Microsoft. Also, you may not use a trademark in such a way as to imply that your course is approved or endorsed by the trade mark holder, or by the maker of the trademarked item. If reasonable people could think that your Windows course was approved by Microsoft, you are probably infringing their trademark. Use of screenshots is more of a grey area. Such use, for purposes of teaching or of commentary, is probably covered by fair use (in the US) or fair dealing (in any of several other countries). But that is always a case-by-case determination, and depends on the exact facts, such as how extensive the use is, and whether it in any way harms the market for the original. If in doubt consulting a lawyer experienced in IP issues is wise. But aside from the issues of screenshots, the makers or copyright or trademark holders of software have no right to grant or withhold permission to one who teaches about the softrware, nor to demand any fee from any such person.
european-union united-kingdom There are laws about consumer product safety that are not specific to umbrellas. In the EU, and including the UK for the time being unless its laws diverge, the framework is given in the General Product Safety Directive of 3 December 2001. Its preamble notes that It is very difficult to adopt Community legislation for every product which exists or which may be developed and so the Directive exists as a catch-all for products that aren't specifically covered elsewhere. As there is no Umbrella Tips Directive, here we are. The UK implementation was the General Product Safety Regulations 2005. Some children's umbrellas will be covered by the Toy Safety Directive of 2009 instead, and in the UK that is the Toys (Safety) Regulations 2011. The GPSD regime is quite general and its definition of a &quot;safe product&quot; is to be interpreted in the context of its marketing, likely uses, accompanying instructions, likelihood of degradation over time, and so forth. The TSD does have some more specific rules, such as that protruding points and edges of toys should be designed so as to reduce the likelihood of injury as much as possible. But this too is subject to contextual interpretation, and there is no direct rule saying how spiky the spikes can be, for example. Note that regarding umbrella safety, it's not just about the pointy bits. Ribs may be sharp, and catch fingers when the umbrella is being folded Spring-loaded mechanisms may cause the umbrella to unfold violently The fabric may be toxic If the handle is hard to grip, then it might blow out of my hands and injure somebody etc. If there are your proposed safety balls on the end of the ribs: They could fall off to leave an even sharper fixture than in conventional umbrellas They could be unscrewed and swallowed by a child They could shatter into little pieces when I accidentally whack the umbrella against a wall, and the little pieces might get in my eye etc What I mean to say is that it's not just about requiring a particular mechanism, but there are all sorts of things to think about in how the requirement is phrased. All of these are already implicitly dealt with by the current safety regime. Moreover, it can be adapted to changing technology and circumstances more easily than if it were fixed in primary legislation. So it is, with respect, not completely obvious that a law about umbrella tips would do the job better than the existing regulatory situation.
Modern websites use large amounts of Javascript scripts. These are small programs that are run on your machine. By accessing the website you implicitly give permission for this to occur. (Aside: I'm not aware of any case law on exactly what this implicit authorisation covers. CFAA case law on "authorised access" suggests that this is going to be complicated if it ever becomes an issue). Javascript is supposed to be run within a limited framework which allows the website to control the rendering of the website and track how you use it. So they can track your mouse clicks when the browser window has "focus", but not clicks you make when accessing something else. Like all software, the Javascript programs and the web browser "interpreter" that runs them can contain bugs. Javascript has to work on lots of browsers, so its not surprising when things don't always work properly. Coming on to the CFAA, criminal penalties only apply to intentional access. 5 (c) intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage and loss. So if a website runs Javascript on your computer with the intention of crashing it, that is a crime. However if the crash is inadvertent due to ordinary programming errors then it isn't. In this case it is almost certainly innocent. To prove otherwise you would need to study the code they are sending in detail to see if it is doing something strange and unreasonable.
Almost certainly not You note that &quot;it was diagnosed as a having software issues,&quot; so you'd have to figure out exactly what software issue happened, and whose fault that was (assuming that it wasn't your fault). This would be pretty difficult, especially given that they wiped the system. Even assuming you have a backup copy and could figure out the exact problem, you probably also agreed to waive any such claims against the software authors that may have caused the problem when you received the software, because software companies don't want to pay for the consequences of every computer crash. Microsoft, for instance, requires you to agree that: Except for any repair, replacement, or refund that Microsoft, or the device manufacturer or installer, may provide, you may not under this limited warranty, under any other part of this agreement, or under any theory, recover any damages or other remedy, including lost profits or direct, consequential, special, indirect, or incidental damages. The damage exclusions and remedy limitations in this agreement apply even if repair, replacement, or a refund does not fully compensate you for any losses, if Microsoft, or the device manufacturer or installer, knew or should have known about the possibility of the damages, or if the remedy fails of its essential purpose. Most software has similar disclaimers. Stack Overflow has one, too, for instance. So even if you did somehow track down exactly which piece of software caused the crash, you probably already agreed that they aren't responsible for paying your damages.
Sort of. In the US, an example of a labeling requirement is 16 CFR Part 1101. In certain circumstances, there must be &quot;public disclosure of information from which the identity of a manufacturer or private labeler of a product can be readily ascertained&quot;. Not everything is subject to this mandatory disclosure – it is driven by safety of consumer products. The Consumer Product Safety Commission summarizes some of the requirements here, and the strongest requirements are on &quot;child products&quot;. A train car-load of pig iron would not be subject to such labeling (but then, you would probably know the manufacturer from the contract that you had to buy the iron). You can garner all of the safety regulations from 16 CFR Ch. II. 16 CFR Ch. I is the regulations established by the FTC under the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. This requires all &quot;consumer products&quot; to have a label, especially Part 500. This only applies to commodities in a package or with a label (not hardware from a bin or bulk sim-cards). §500.5 is the section that says that you have to say who the manufacturer is.
When the dangerous nature of a product is or should be known to a manufacturer and the product is being used in the usual and expected manner, the manufacturer has a duty to warn of the danger. Breach of that duty can lead to liability. The case Billiar v. Minnesota Mining and Mfg contains some useful precedent for understanding the issue. It is well settled that New York law holds the supplier of a product which it knows or should know is dangerous if used in the usual and expected manner to a duty adequately to warn users of the product of the danger unless the danger is obvious or well known. ... When the user is fully aware of the nature of the product and its dangers, however, the supplier cannot be held liable for failure to warn him.... The rationale for this &quot;knowledgeable user&quot; exception is that knowledge of the danger is equivalent to prior notice; no one needs notice of that which he already knows. In this particular case, plaintiff was injured mixing an electrical resin at work, but was (deemed to be) an unskilled worker. The court recites various cases where individuals with some relevant knowledge were nevertheless harmed (and won their cases), because the warnings were insufficient. Food allergies have a special treatment, thanks to the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004. Peanuts (and other things) are &quot;mandatory warning&quot; substances, where the label must say &quot;Contains peanuts&quot;. Omitting the warning makes the food misbranded. Also note that warnings carry a &quot;prominence&quot; requirement, which does not exist for ordinary ingredients which are typically in illegible microprint. Paragraph (w) spells out the labeling requirement, which is well worth reading for its complexity. The law does include the escape clause that if the name of the product contains the name of the allergen, you have been warned. If plaintiff is suing the manufacturer pro se and stipulates, in lieu of competent legal advice, that they knew that peanut butter contained peanuts and that they were allergic to peanuts, but they ate it anyhow, the manufacturer will not be liable.
Yes, it can First, your argument is scientifically vacuous - Sodium and Chlorine are highly dangerous substances - Sodium bursts into flame on exposure to air and Chlorine is both toxic and corrosive. Sodium Chloride is table salt - dangerous in its own way but not in the same class. The same is true in reverse of petrol and superphosphate (fertiliser) apart they are relatively benign, together they are a mining explosive. Second, even if your science was valid, it wouldn't matter. If the government wants to ban substance A and not substance B they have the legal power to do so.