GPS/XM Weather Question

"Jose" wrote in message
t...
Is it a user fee when I purchase an aviation chart or approach plates?

IF it were illegal to reuse charts, yes. But it's not. So no.

What does that have to do with whether it's a user fee or not? Anyway, it's
certainly illegal to not be familiar with the current charts and airport
information. You can reuse old charts, but you ARE responsible for being
aware of the information on the current ones.

Besides, it's not illegal to not use XM weather. I appreciate it if you're
agreeing with my point, but I find that much less interesting than a valid
but opposing viewpoint.

Do you have a valid but opposing viewpoint? If so, I can't see it.

Pete

Kyle Boatright wrote:


FSS:"We have convective activity from the middle of nowhere, stretching
northwest to an abyss on the other side of nowhere".


The ones I love are the six minute missives that go something like

"We have a general area of activity *static* from just north of
*static* to *static* level 5 *static* ...

Is it a user fee when I purchase an aviation chart or approach plates?
IF it were illegal to reuse charts, yes. But it's not. So no.
What does that have to do with whether it's a user fee or not?

Call it what you wish; what you call it is more semantics than anything
else. The difference I am bringing up is that when you purchase a
chart, you are not purchasing "the right to use the chart for a
specified time". It is like purchasing a book. You can read it any
time you want, you can lend it out, you can share it with friends. If
you download a tune on some services, you are most emphatically =not=
allowed to listen to it anywhere you want. You may not share it with
friends, and after you've played it a certain number of times, it
evaporates. You are paying for the "use" of the tune, but you are
paying for the =book= itself.

This is a non-trivial difference in the music world.

Something similar operates here simply due to the timeliness of the data
being used. A radar picture is not very useful a day later, so you
really are essentially paying for the =use= of the image. And,
impractical as it may be, you are probably not allowed to re-transmit
the data to the plane behind you. A similar issue exists with (say) the
Jepp subscription. You can hand your paper approach plates to another
pilot, who can use it in another plane. However, you can't do the same
with the subscription data in your GPS. And you can buy plates a state
at a time, but if you want to update your GPS, it's the whole country or
nothing. These are also non-trivial differences.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote in news:wFGCg.8331$uo6.3623
@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:

Call it what you wish; what you call it is more semantics than anything
else. The difference I am bringing up is that when you purchase a
chart, you are not purchasing "the right to use the chart for a
specified time". It is like purchasing a book. You can read it any
time you want, you can lend it out, you can share it with friends. If
you download a tune on some services, you are most emphatically =not=
allowed to listen to it anywhere you want. You may not share it with
friends, and after you've played it a certain number of times, it
evaporates. You are paying for the "use" of the tune, but you are
paying for the =book= itself.


Your description of the music download senerio flies in the face of the
"fair use" doctrine.

--
-- ET :-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

Your description of the music download senerio flies in the face of the
"fair use" doctrine.

Maybe so. Wanna be the test case?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote in
m:

Your description of the music download senerio flies in the face of
the "fair use" doctrine.

Maybe so. Wanna be the test case?

Jose

I guarantee, if your interpretation was true, you would have seen many
many "test cases" in the media already. Every single, without an
exception, case in the media has been against people "holding out" or
"sharing" songs with the expectation that others will reciprocate. In
other words "swapping" or "bartering" songs. The headline may SAY
"illegal downloader sued" or some such, but when you read the article,
it's always an illegal "barterer".

If you find a case of someone being sued or prosecuted for "giving" a
cd(even a burned CD), or an ipod full of music to someone, I'd like to
know about it.

(Sorry about the OT deviation)

-- ET :-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

Every single, without an
exception, case in the media has been against people "holding out" or
"sharing" songs with the expectation that others will reciprocate. In
other words "swapping" or "bartering" songs.

But I can "swap" or "barter" books, CDs, and aviation charts. I can't
"swap" or "barter" songs or Jepp updates.

That is a significant difference. It is a difference I believe is
relevant to whether or not one might reasonably call something a "user fee".

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
m...
Call it what you wish; what you call it is more semantics than anything
else.

I'm not the one proposing to call them user fees and I already pointed out
that this is purely a semantic question.

The difference I am bringing up is that when you purchase a chart, you are
not purchasing "the right to use the chart for a specified time".

You are, at least as much as you are purchasing the right to use weather
information for a specified time. That is, while you are permitted to keep
the chart, the chart is not useful for legally required purposes beyond a
certain time. Likewise, as far as I know there are no contractual
prohibitions against retaining the weather information provided by XM
weather...it's just that the data goes out of date, just as a chart goes out
of date.

[...]
Something similar operates here simply due to the timeliness of the data
being used. A radar picture is not very useful a day later, so you really
are essentially paying for the =use= of the image.

The radar and charts are equally time-limited in their usefulness, other
than the exact time period during which they are useful.

And, impractical as it may be, you are probably not allowed to re-transmit
the data to the plane behind you.

First of all, I'm not aware of any such prohibition. If you don't have
specific knowledge of one, I don't see how it's a relevant point.

A similar issue exists with (say) the Jepp subscription. You can hand
your paper approach plates to another pilot, who can use it in another
plane. However, you can't do the same with the subscription data in your
GPS.

Sure you can. You can pass a GPS receiver around just like you could
approach plates.

And you can buy plates a state at a time, but if you want to update your
GPS, it's the whole country or nothing. These are also non-trivial
differences.

They are trivial differences. They pertain only to the specific
subscription model, and have nothing to do with the question of "user fees"
as that phrase has been applied to aviation products.

Pete

You can pass a GPS receiver around just like you could
approach plates.

Not an installed one.

At least not without passing the entire plane around... which sort of
defeats the purpose.

The radar and charts are equally time-limited in their usefulness, other
than the exact time period during which they are useful.

This is non-trivial when it comes time to actually re-use them.

[It has] nothing to do with the question of "user fees"
as that phrase has been applied to aviation products.

You are right inasmuch as they differ from "FAA user fees", but if they
effectively accomplish the same thing, then it makes little difference
that an end run has been made around the dictionary.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote in
:

Every single, without an
exception, case in the media has been against people "holding out" or
"sharing" songs with the expectation that others will reciprocate.
In other words "swapping" or "bartering" songs.

But I can "swap" or "barter" books, CDs, and aviation charts. I can't
"swap" or "barter" songs or Jepp updates.

That is a significant difference. It is a difference I believe is
relevant to whether or not one might reasonably call something a "user
fee".

Jose

Sure you can, as long as the song or update you swaped was your only
copy.

But back to the original subject, it's a "convienience fee" leveled by
an individual company. For it to be a "user fee' in the same context of
"user fees" discussed by the FAA it would come from the gov't or a gov't
contractor.

--
-- ET :-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams