is Comcast a utility? do they have a legal right to access utility easements? In my small town (Lafayette, CO), Comcast is upgrading the fiber network which involves going onto residents' properties to access the green box in the yard. For reasons beyond my comprehension, one of our residents thinks that Comcast owes him $10k for the privilege of accessing the cable box in his back yard: http://www.dailycamera.com/lafayette-news/ci_32228752/lafayette-residents-comcast-dispute-endangering-service-hundreds-neighbors In February of 2015, the FCC ruled in favor of net neutrality which reclassified broadband as a telecom (i.e. a utility). This, presumably, meant that cable providers were considered to be utilities. And, as a utility, they enjoy the benefits of being able to access utility easements. In February of 2017, our city entered into a franchise agreement with Comcast granting them access to the utility easements: 2.1 Grant (A) The City hereby grants to Grantee a nonexclusive authorization to make reasonable and lawful use of the Rights-of-Way within the City to construct, operate, maintain, reconstruct and rebuild a Cable System for the purpose of providing Cable Service subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Franchise and in any prior utility or use agreements entered into by Grantee with regard to any individual property. This Franchise shall constitute both a right and an obligation to provide the Cable Services required by, and to fulfill the obligations set forth in, the provisions of this Franchise. 2.2 Use of Rights-of-Way (A) Subject to the City's supervision and control, Grantee may erect, install, construct, repair, replace, reconstruct, and retain in, on, over, under, upon, across, and along the Rights-ofWay within the City such wires, cables, conductors, ducts, conduits, vaults, manholes, amplifiers, pedestals, attachments and other property and equipment as are necessary and appurtenant to the operation of a Cable System within the City. Grantee, through this Franchise, is granted extensive and valuable rights to operate its Cable System for profit using the City's Rights-of-Way in compliance with all applicable City construction codes and procedures. As trustee for the public, the City is entitled to fair compensation as provided for in Section 3 of this Franchise to be paid for these valuable rights throughout the term of the Franchise. In June of 2018, net neutrality was repealed. My gut says that our city signed an agreement, at a point in time when broadband was classified as a utility, that gave Comcast the right to access easements. A deal is a deal. There's a theory floating around that, because net neutrality classified broadband as a utility and net neutrality was repealed, Comcast is no longer a utility and therefore cannot access utility easements. Is anyone in this forum able to provide some clarity?
The franchise provided to Comcast by the town is separate and distinct from any legal theoretical argument that broadband is a utility. The former may have been created to solidify the potential rights provided by the latter, along with ensuring the responsibilities on each side, but evidently does not rely on it. However, the franchise is a contract between the town and Comcast; this is predicated on the ability of the town to grant "a nonexclusive authorization ..." in the first place, for example by assigning use of an easement it possesses already. Whether or not the town has or had such a right would be something specific to the case, perhaps covered by its incorporation documents or a constitution, or other legal arguments using precedent.
I'm assuming you are talking about something like this You didn't specify where you live, but in many places it is illegal to block the sidewalk with a car. I just looked up my local ordinances and it is there. In fact, it is your driveway, but often the land up to and including the sidewalk is considered part of a public easement. Typically you are required by law to maintain any grass in the easement, but if the sidewalk were to fall into disrepair, the local government would fix it. Information on easements can also be found in your local ordinances, here is an example in my area. Should I fight this ticket? You can try, but I doubt you will win. Is there anything I can do to my driveway to allow me to actually use it? I would suggest asking on Lifehacks. And post a link here to your question if you do, I'd be curious to know what they come up with.
Costar Group Inc. v. Loopnet, Inc., 164 F.Supp.2d 688 (D. Md., 2001) touched on this. The court distinguishes Playboy Ent. v. Russ Hardenburgh, Inc., 982 F.Supp. 503 (N.D.Oh.1997) which held that "contributory liability could attach where infringing performances enhance the attractiveness of the venue to potential customers." (internal quotes omitted) This sounds like your concern. The Costar court stated explicitly that merely adding value does not constitute direct benefit. In Costar the court found that Whereas in Playboy and Fonovisa, the finding of added value to the defendant was evidence that the defendant induced the infringement, for the purposes of the DMCA, the financial benefit must be "directly attributable to the infringing activity." 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(B) (1998). CoStar might make an argument that the indirect type of benefit cited in Hardenburgh is also present here. However, such a benefit does not fit within the plain language of the statute. Accordingly, § 512(c)(1)(B) does not present a barrier to LoopNet remaining in the safe harbor. You could also take a look at Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Fung, 710 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir., 2013) the relevant inquiry is “ ‘whether the infringing activity constitutes a draw for subscribers, not just an added benefit.’ That case cites Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir., 2004) Ellison ultimately concluded that the financial benefit standard was not met, because there was inadequate proof that “customers either subscribed because of the available infringing material or cancelled subscriptions because it was no longer available.” But back to Fung, check this out (I quote this in its entirety because it's not that long and it should lead you to your own conclusion): Against this background, we note that we have never specified what constitutes a “financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity,” 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(B) (emphasis added), where, as here, the service provider's revenue is derived from advertising, and not from users. We do so now. Here, the record shows that Fung generated revenue by selling advertising space on his websites. The advertising revenue depended on the number of users who viewed and then clicked on the advertisements. Fung marketed advertising to one advertiser by pointing to the “TV and movies ... at the top of the most frequently searched by our viewers,” and provided another with a list of typical user search queries, including popular movies and television shows. In addition, there was a vast amount of infringing material on his websites—whether 90–96% or somewhat less—supporting an inference that Fung's revenue stream is predicated on the broad availability of infringing materials for his users, thereby attracting advertisers. And, as we have seen, Fung actively induced infringing activity on his sites. Under these circumstances, we hold the connection between the infringing activity and Fung's income stream derived from advertising is sufficiently direct to meet the direct “financial benefit” prong of § 512(c)(1)(B). Fung promoted advertising by pointing to infringing activity; obtained advertising revenue that depended on the number of visitors to his sites; attracted primarily visitors who were seeking to engage in infringing activity, as that is mostly what occurred on his sites; and encouraged that infringing activity. Given this confluence of circumstances, Fung's revenue stream was tied directly to the infringing activity involving his websites, both as to his ability to attract advertisers and as to the amount of revenue he received. Edit to add: There is also some legislative history that some courts point to at H.R.Rep. No. 105-551, Part 2. (I include the link to the closest thing I could find.) This language shows its age! I think the only thing that speaks to your issue is the last sentence (bc it's not you). In determining whether the financial benefit criterion is satisfied, courts should take a common-sense, fact-based approach, not a formalistic one. In general, a service provider conducting a legitimate business would not be considered to receive a ‘financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity' where the infringer makes the same kind of payment as non-infringing users of the provider's service. Thus, receiving a one-time set-up fee and flat, periodic payments for service from a person engaging in infringing activities would not constitute receiving a ‘financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity.' Nor is subsection (c)(1)(B) intended to cover fees based on the length of the message (e.g., per number of bytes) or by connect time. It would however, include any such fees where the value of the service lies in providing access to infringing material.
Is this legal for the county to enforce? Yes. And can I sue if they try to enforce it? You could, but you would very likely lose your lawsuit. A more fruitful approach would be to go to the county planning board and seek a variance to permit you to do what you want to do.
Art 14 GG provides a right to personal property, but not without limitations. In particular, expropriation is allowed on the basis of a concrete law with fair compensation, when necessary for a public interest. In 2013, these disputes relating to the Garzweiler mine were decided by the German constitutional court. In decision 1 BvR 3139/08, one such expropriation law was found constitutional. It gave public interests such as: supplying the economy with raw materials maintaining jobs in the mining industry maintaining and growing the economy More recently, the goal of fulfilling political energy strategies (e.g. energy independence) has become more prominent as well. Such public interests don't automatically override the right to property – all relevant rights and interests must be balanced. But in practice, the economic interests of a large corporation do seem to override individuals' right to their property, especially since they must be given fair compensation. Opposing public interests might weigh more strongly. It will be interesting to see how recent expropriation for the purpose of lignite mining will be viewed in retrospect, given that climate protection has also been found to be a constitutionally protected interest.
Is it a correct inference that the right &quot;to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects&quot; extends to even a private corporation? No. It's not even a correct inference that it extends by its own terms to state and local governments. In Barron v. Baltimore (1833), the Supreme Court held that the Bill of Rights was enacted as part of the federal constitution and only restricts the exercise of the federal government's authority. State and local governments are instead bound by the Fourteenth Amendment, which says that 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; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Over the years, the courts have held that state action that deprives someone of fundamental rights deprives them of life, liberty, or property without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Wolf v. Colorado (1949), the Supreme Court held that the right against unreasonable searches and seizures is a fundamental right, so state action violating it is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Most of the Bill of Rights has been held to be &quot;fundamental,&quot; and people routinely say &quot;the state violated the Fourth Amendment&quot; instead of &quot;the state violated the Fourteenth Amendment by conducting an unreasonable search of the sort that would violate the Fourth Amendment if conducted by the federal government.&quot; Courts will say &quot;the Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth.&quot; But the point is that the Fourth Amendment itself is not applicable to anyone except the federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment, by its terms, only restricts the states. The Fourth Amendment only restricts the federal government. With rare exceptions, neither applies to private entities.
The answer is, "No, it will not default to the state where the recording device is located." Whether your recording is legal or not may depend on where the device is located, but it may depend on other things as well. For example, to sue under Florida law, "the persons bringing suit must be Florida residents or the improper "interception" must have occurred in Florida." Thus, if the someone from NY is recorded while in Florida by someone in NJ, Florida law does not apply. The rules used to determine which state's laws apply under which circumstances are explained thoroughly here. The issue of which state's laws apply is what is known as "conflict of laws." The basic idea is simple: Because you and the insurance company are citizens of different states, you have "diversity of citizenship." If the laws in your states differ, the court must decide whose law applies -- is it the state you called from, the state you called to, or federal law? Unfortunately for you, choice of law is hard even for lawyers to get a handle on. There are several different approaches states use to answer questions about conflict of law. Which approach a state uses to settle conflicts of law will determine whose law that state's courts will apply. To get a correct answer, you need to talk to an attorney who understands conflict of law and the admissibility of wiretaps.
It would be up to your HOA agreement. If you signed a contract agreeing to pay for services then yes. If not then no. An HOA agreement is just a contract like any other and you would have to abide by what you agreed to. Also, they may not have an actual contract for you to sign, but by moving to the community you would be agreeing to follow the by laws of the HOA. If you have a disagreement with them that can not be resolved, you can let a judge decide in court, but that could cost more than just getting the service. https://www.wishtv.com/news/local-news/indianapolis-man-battles-homeowners-association-over-solar-panels/ So to sum it up, you can refuse but they have the right to take you to court if they choose. I would assume a judge would rule in your favor since it's an issue of what goes on in your own home, but there is really no way for anyone to say what someone else will do.