What is the difference between ownership and exclusive sovereignty in terms of US land law? Yesterday a Law YouTuber by the handle 'Lehto's Law' made a video titled &quot;Yes, You Own the Airspace Over Your Property&quot; in which he describes that indeed you do own the air over your property. However 49 U.S. Code § 40103 states that &quot;The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.&quot; These things seem to conflict, to my knowledge. Do I actually own the space above my house? What is the legal difference between ownership and exclusive sovereignty? can I sell the airspace above my house? Can I exert any common law power over the air above my house?
Ownership is different from sovereignty Sovereignty means the right and power to make and enforce laws. Ownership means having property rights over something. Put simply, the United States (Federal and States considered collectively) has sovereignty over everything in the US (and some things outside) but everything in the US is not owned by the US. It’s owned by a bunch of different entities: individuals (US and non-US citizens), corporations (foreign and domestic), local, state and Federal governments etc. Ownership rights are subservient to sovereignty - the government may pass a law restricting what you can do with your property because they have sovereignty over it. Can you exert your rights to that airspace? Of course, however, the invention of aircraft required modification to the right of exclusive ownership. From United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946): (a) The common law doctrine that ownership of land extends to the periphery of the universe has no place in the modern world. Pp. 328 U. S. 260-261. (b) The air above the minimum safe altitude of flight prescribed by the Civil Aeronautics Authority is a public highway and part of the public domain, as declared by Congress in the Air Commerce Act of 1926, as amended by the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938. Pp. 328 U. S. 260-261, 328 U. S. 266. (c) Flights below that altitude are not within the navigable air space which Congress placed within the public domain, even though they are within the path of glide approved by the Civil Aeronautics Authority. Pp. 328 U.S. 263-264. (d) Flights of aircraft over private land which are so low and frequent as to be a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land are as much an appropriation of the use of the land as a more conventional entry upon it. Pp. 328 U. S. 261-262, 328 U. S. 264-267. This is a perfect example of the difference between ownership and sovereignty. People used to own the airspace “up to heaven” then the sovereign in the shape of the US Government changed the rules so now they don’t. Whether you can sell the airspace above your property depends on whether the sovereign (the US) has a law that allows or prohibits the splitting of airspace rights from the underlying land. I know such a split is usually possible with water and mineral rights. Exclusive sovereignty in the case of a Federal nation like the US means that only the Federal government has power. When only the states have power it’s called residual power and when power is shared it’s called concurrent.
Copyright law is a country-by-country matter. Most countries are signatories to the Berne Convention, which provides a common framework, but there are still variations, generally in the duration of copyright or the definition of copyrightable material. According to the Hirtle chart, a video game that was first published in Europe in the year 2000 and subsequently published in the United States is still copyrighted in both the United States and whichever European countries it was published in. It is likely to be a work of corporate authorship, so the US copyright will expire on January 1, 2096 (unless a law extending the duration is passed). In the United States, the requirement to register a copyright was eliminated in 1989 as part of the Berne Convention Implementation Act; registration still provides benefits when filing a copyright-infringement lawsuit. Most European countries eliminated their registration requirements much earlier, if they had them at all: the Berne Convention dates from 1887. Copyright does not simply cease to exist when the owner does, or if the owner cannot be determined. The difficulty of tracking down copyright holders for old or little-known works is the driving force behind orphaned works legislation. There are no orphaned works laws in the United States, and since copyright is country-by-country, European laws won't help you if you're interested in publishing in the US. In order to track down the copyright holder, you'll need to figure out who originally held the copyright (probably the publisher, but it could be either development company, or both, or the game might be a collective work of the individuals who worked on it). If it was a work of corporate authorship, and none of the game-copyright sales mention it, copyright will have been transfered when the company owning the copyright was sold (as part of a general "and all intellectual property" clause).
Intellectual property is property and the owner can do all the things that can be done with property including selling it, gifting it and bequeathing it. It can also be licensed; the closest analogue to normal property being renting or lending it except you can license to more than one person at a time. The current owner can do anything the original owner could do with it. Transfer of ownership does not affect the duration or status of the rights at all.
The actual law in BC, the Residential Tenancy Act, guaranteed a tenant's rights to the rental unit and the common areas, and restricts the landlord's right to enter the rental unit. Common areas are distinct from the rental unit. A common areas is "any part of residential property the use of which is shared by tenants, or by a landlord and one or more tenants", and a rental unit is a "living accommodation rented or intended to be rented to a tenant". In this case, that would be the room. There is no restriction at all on landlord's access to common areas, and there is no requirement that landlord access to common areas be for specific purposes. Access to the rental unit, on the other hand, must be for a reasonable purpose.
The term "The Property" does not intrinsically include or exclude a garage in this situation, so the answer has to come from other considerations. The lease is unclear, so the courts will need to look at other factors (such as the picture) to decide which interpretation is correct. Insofar as the landlord wrote the contract and could have included a clause explicitly excluding the garage, but didn't, the courts may rule in your favor under the doctrine contra proferentem. The physical arrangement does support the conclusion that the garage is part of The Property, in particular the access to the part constituting your yard. This assumes that there actually is access to your yard from the garage. Scouring the entire contract, there may be some subtle indication of how the garage is to be treated, such as a clause presupposing that you have access to the garage ("shall clean the garage..."). Then we come to the matter of the key. You say the landlord changed the key: does that mean you used to have a key that gave you access to the garage? If you used to have access to the garage, using a key provided by the landlord, that would support the conclusion that the garage was not a separate item governed by its own contract. If you have never had and were not given access to the garage (no key), that would support the contention that the garage is separate. Similar questions would be raised about the actual use of the garage: has the landlord been using it to store equipment? That would support his contention. Had you been using the garage previously and now months later the landlord wants to charge rent for the garage? That runs counter to his claim that you didn't rent the garage. In other words, since the wording does not answer the question, the full set of circumstances would have to considered.
You always run some legal risk when you drive. As long as you are insured (you have a card in your hand) and you have permission to drive the car, it does not matter who owns the car. There is a difference between the legal minimum insurance coverage and actually adequate coverage, and since you are not getting separate insurance where control the insurance levels, you theoretically run some liability risk if you have an accident and the coverage is less than the damages (insurance doesn't mean that the other guy can't take you to court for the rest of the amount). There is also a risk that the housemate will do something crazy like cancel the insurance coverage for you, or report the car stolen, so you have to decide how worried you are about that possibility.
In the US, radio communication proper is regulated by the FCC and the NTIA. The FAA has nothing to do with it; they regulate things as they affect airplanes, but the actual radio rules are set by the FCC, and since frequency allocation is a purely radio thing the FAA has nothing official to do with it. The breakdown between FCC and NTIA is that the FCC deals with non-federal communications, while the NTIA deals with federal communications; they split the spectrum. Now, with things like Wi-Fi, many of the rules are set by non-governmental standards organizations. Wi-Fi is not regulated by the FCC; it falls within the frequencies and transmission powers that the FCC has deemed to be not regulated. So, the FCC never set aside 2.4 GHz for wireless Internet; they set it aside for any low-powered transmissions anyone wants to make (subject to interference rules). With LTE and satellite communications, there's more regulatory control; they are high-powered communications, and are licensed to individual operators for a specific frequency range. As Flup said, there is international coordination for obvious reasons (the ITU actually predates the UN by almost a century). The ITU helps coordinate spectrum usage, and also assigns satellite orbital slots in geostationary orbit (where most communication satellites are).
The part about "If I'm the owner of the content, surely I have the right to request its deletion" is the problem. Sure, you have the right to request, but you can't legally compel. You have an agreement with them, according to which you got something, and they got something. You can't then take back the thing that you gave them, which is permission to use. You didn't give them the IP itself, which you still hold. Here's an analogy. You may own a car, and can give a person permission to use the car (let's say "if you bring me back a pound of cheese from the store"). You cannot later change your mind (especially after you've gotten the cheese) a say that you retract that permission and therefore they actually stole your car. When permission to use is given, as long as the conditions for granting permission are satisfied, you can't un-give permission.