What is the point of saying &quot;no trespassing&quot;? The more I've thought about my question about no-trespassing signs saying &quot;POSTED&quot;, I've realized that &quot;no trespassing&quot; doesn't really make sense either. Trespassing is, by definition, illegal, making &quot;no trespassing&quot; a tautology. Saying &quot;no trespassing&quot; is equivalent to putting a &quot;no stealing&quot; sign on a car or a &quot;no speeding&quot; sign on a road. &quot;No trespassing&quot; is a true statement anywhere, even if the public is allowed, because if everyone is allowed to be on the property, nobody is trespassing, making &quot;no trespassing&quot; an irrelevant statement, just as a &quot;no stealing&quot; sign on a car is irrelevant to someone who is not stealing it and a &quot;no speeding&quot; sign is irrelevant to someone who is driving at the speed limit. Why do some private property signs say &quot;no trespassing&quot;? &quot;Private Property&quot; seems like the most logical wording in cases where &quot;POSTED&quot; is not legally necessary, and while it is common, &quot;no trespassing&quot; is also quite common.
Trespassing requires knowledge by the trespasser If you are on somebody’s land without knowing you are, or under the impression (which is the default for unenclosed land) that you have permission, you aren’t trespassing. The signs, if prominent enough, make the entry knowingly against the wishes of the controller and therefore trespassing.
Trespass to chattels — which is &quot;intentionally… dispossessing another of the chattel, or using or intermeddling with a chattel in the possession of another.&quot; But don't hold your breath re having a valid case. An attempt to sue would likely be dismissed as de minimis. This is just a trivial interpersonal issue.
The applicable Singapore statute is: Singapore Statute There it says: 441 Criminal trespass ...Criminal trespass Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit criminal trespass It seems highly unlikely that the local authorities would consider it trespass if it was done by another person lawfully in the property.
In Ohio, a stop sign would be a traffic control device, but not a traffic control signal. From R.C. 4511.01: (QQ) &quot;Traffic control device&quot; means a flagger, sign, signal, marking, or other device used to regulate, warn, or guide traffic, placed on, over, or adjacent to a street, highway, private road open to public travel, pedestrian facility, or shared-use path by authority of a public agency or official having jurisdiction, or, in the case of a private road open to public travel, by authority of the private owner or private official having jurisdiction. (RR) &quot;Traffic control signal&quot; means any highway traffic signal by which traffic is alternately directed to stop and permitted to proceed.
Bob has no defense Speeding in western-australia, as it is throughout australia, is a strict liability offense. That means that intention to or knowledge that you are breaking the law is not required. Don’t know the limit? Doesn’t matter, you are still legally obliged to comply. However, all the way up the chain, from the police officer, through the administrative arm to the judge, each person has discretion to waive the infringement notice. Basically, they can do that if they don’t think it’s “fair” on Bob in the circumstances. Given that Bob managed to reach 40+km/h within 20m of a more than 90 degree corner I think the infringement notice is very fair. Negligent Driving is possibly the more appropriate offense. However, it’s possible to imagine circumstances where waiving the infringement notice is fair. For example, if a speed limit sign has been removed or completely obscured by foliage or a parked vehicle and Bob could show he was not familiar with the area. The question on Alice is, from above, moot.
No it is not legal; it is trespassing. the common law definition of trespassing is to enter someone's land or property without their permission. By locking the door they have denied permission to everyone except those to whom they have given a key. If someone finds a key that happens to fit the lock, there is no longer a physical restriction but as they do not have permission, the legal restriction is still in force.
It is not legally reaching into a person's property if you post a sign on your property that can be seem from the person's property. If the fence is physically on / over your friend's property, the fence is encroaching and would be removable by legal means: a sign on the fence would encroach just as much as the fence does. Your friend can legally construct a fence on a portion of his property than makes the offending fence invisible; or your friend could ignore the sign.
There is ample reason to conclude that "non-commercial" would include a church, as well as advocating a political cause or candidate. The hard part of "personal". In the context of (Canadian) bankruptcy law, it can mean "non-business use"; in the context of "personal use property", it can be "A type of property that an individual does not use for business purposes or hold as an investment. In other words, property that an individual owns for personal enjoyment". US tax law takes "personal purposes" to refer to non-business purposes. But in the context of copyright (especially music downloading / copying), it is taken to refer to the use of or by an individual. Distributing free copies of a protected work does not get legally sanctioned due to the copying being non-commercial. The alternative term "private" is much clearer, in identifying "just you", but is probably avoided in this kind of context so as to avoid the wrong inference that you can only play Pokemon in the privacy of your own home. So the slightly less clear term "personal" is used instead of "private" especially in copyright-related contexts. "Personal" and "private" are not exactly the same, but when it's about use, I don't see any difference, and I think there is no question that use to attract to a church or political candidate is not "private", it is public. Since the license does not define "your own personal purposes" and there is not an existing crystal-clear definition of "personal purposes", the phrase could be given its "ordinary (plain) meaning". Of course, plain meaning has to give way to contractual intent, so we have to figure out what the parties intended. Except, you don't have a contract with Niantic, but still, plain meaning surely has some place in the law of licenses. At this point, in a lawsuit, both sides would hire an expert witness like a linguist or English teacher to make the case that a church or other non-commercial non-private use is / is not included in the meaning of "personal purpose". A silly argument could be made to the effect that if you personally have an interest in doing something then it is a personal purpose (if specifically commercial, it would be precluded by the term "noncommercial"). What makes this silly is that everybody does things for personal purposes (even acting in a way that benefits others, since you do so for the personal reason that you should do so), and thus "personal" would not mean anything. That is, "personal purposes" does not mean "whatever motivation or interest you personally have". You can also gain a certain understanding of what "personal purposes" means by looking at similar licenses. In the context of academic publishing, authors are typically granted license to copy "for personal, professional, or teaching purposes". Professional purposes and teaching purposes are things that the person has an interest in, so by mentioning these things separately, we must conclude that "teaching" is not a "personal purpose". And so: I would conclude that a court could find that using a product to support a political campaign, philosophy, or religion, is a "public" purpose, not a "personal" purpose. At the same time, at least as I understand it, a lure module is a thing that others besides yourself personally can see (I admit, I don't go), which implies that the purpose of the thing is not entirely private. In addition, there is a fair amount of buzz out there about how a lure could be good for business, which is (1) clearly in contradiction of the license terms and (2) clearly a golden opportunity for Niantic, perhaps in a few weeks after everybody gets hooked and then they will offer non-personal licenses. Their license terms also say that you will not "use the Services or Content, or any portion thereof, for any commercial purpose or for the benefit of any third party or in a manner not permitted by these Terms". I would say that that definitively says "No don't do it", and it also means that you can't be nice to a neighbor. So what they literally say and what they really intend are probably completely different things.