Answer:
1- "Copyright infringement" is the intelectual property involved in the case.
2- CCS would probably try to allegue "fair use" of the material associated with a "first sale" right to proceed (both very weak arguing considering strong evidence against CCS).
3- Court would probably rule the situation in favor of the demander Deep Topics - although situation looks commonplace -, for reasons as below:
Explanation: What grounds legal appeal to the case is the fact that CCS not only copies (enough infringing, but somehow tolerable depending on the limit), <em><u>but compiles</u></em> - from different sources of the same editorial company - <u><em>and sells </em></u>these materials: these are aggravating circumstances, for it reveals the <em>"purpose"</em> is simply profit, the <em>"amount"</em> of material copied and distributed vast, causing at least microregional <em>"sale loss/decrease"</em> to the original producer.
Also, it is unsustainable to argue that CCS copying was not "intentional", nor appropriate is to say that it was "first selling" lawfully copies (as dozens were made) neither could it even speculate Deep Topics INC. made a "late claim" violating legal prescriptional deadline. Lasts practically no legal appeal except, maybe, for an off-court settlement on "cease and desist" talk, but seems unprobable once the demander has already filed a suit to claim for its losses (and agreements do not result in any extraordinary financial compensation), leading an observer to believe that Deep Topics would not decline judicialization.
<span>The question is the following: which factor determines who in a society will produce goods and services for? And on the most basic level, the best asnwer would be A.the economic system in the society, even though it's not a "who". That's because in capitalism the market decides, in a a command economy the government deiced and in a mixed economy some aspects are decided by the government and some by the market (most countries have mixed economies)</span><span />
An observer who is inconspicuous in the room is being (B) Unobtrusive. The definition of inconspicuous is being unobtrusive, quiet, plain and muted. It also refers to insignificance, and unassuming.
Answer:
Short term climate changes are only temporary, they will come and go and they won't have a major effect on the ecosystem. Long term climate changes, on the other hand, are not as temporary, they either stay forever or long enough that we can say forever, and they have a huge effect on the ecosystem.
Explanation:
One example of a short term climate change is the seasons, it gets colder in the winter, but that is only a temporary change and even though the ecosystem changes, it is only small changes, and they are reversible.
One example of a long term climate change is the last ice age, it lasted a very long time, and had huge effects, like long-lasting frigid temperatures and frozen oceans, that had a huge effect on the ecosystem, which then took a very long time to expel.
Supreme Court Justices are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Once they are approved, they have lifetime terms.
I agree, and believe anyone would agree, with the quote. Getting a Supreme Court Justice nominated and approved, who shares your political views, means that you will have a very powerful person in the Judicial Branch exercising power for potentially several decades. Supreme Court Justices, especially through the power of judicial review, can exercise great power over the government without having to worry about reelection and with no end to their term. This means that the president, by extension, enjoys great influence over government through his nomination of these justices.
