FAA: Drones Are Okay For Hollywood, But Not Okay For Sports

from the huh? dept

Fri, Sep 26th 2014 6:15am — Mike Masnick

We remain absolutely baffled by the FAA's bizarre rules about drones. As we've noted, the FAA has said that you can use drones for fun, but if it in any way involves profit, it's not allowed. So you can use a drone to take photographs from the sky for personal use, but if you're a real estate agent trying to do a flyover of a house you're trying to sell, that's illegal. And while some people still claim that drone use should be limited so they don't interfere with airplanes, that doesn't seem to (even remotely) be the concern here, otherwise the personal use of drones would be barred too.

But it's getting even more bizarre. Now, it seems that anyone who wants to use drones in anything close to an innovative way has to first go beg the FAA for permission. And the permission is sometimes given and sometimes withheld. Compare these two stories. The University of Michigan wanted to use drones to deliver the game ball before kickoff of a football game, but the FAA nixed the request. It's not at all clear why. This was for a sporting event, and it would just be for fun. It's hard to see how the use was "commercial" other than the fact that college football is big business. Meanwhile, compare that to the fact that the FAA is apparently granting permission to Hollywood to use drones to film things:

In May, seven aerial photo and video production companies asked for regulatory exemptions (known as a 333 exemption) that would allow the film and television industry to use drones with FAA approval. Those seven companies and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), were asked by the FAA to develop the guidelines and safety procedures under which they planned to operate. The FAA reviewed those procedures and is expected to approve the drone-specific rules and standards that will enable Hollywood to be exempt from existing aviation regulations.

Of course, the report from Forbes notes, this actually took four years of back and forth with the FAA to get to this point.

We've talked for a while about the concept of permissionless innovation and why it's important to keep the velocity of innovation moving forward at a rapid pace. Adding in this layer of bizarre, arbitrary and ridiculously slow regulation, and you're slowing down that pace. And while some say "does that really matter" for something as silly as flying drones, as we've noted, it's entirely possible that drones can create some amazingly powerful societal shifts. But each bit of "permission" needed along the way slows down that process and limits our ability to innovate and to adapt and adjust and learn.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: drones, faa, hollywood, innovation, movies, permission, regulations, sports

50 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Rabbit80 (profile), 26 Sep 2014 @ 4:55am

Meanwhile...
Over in Germany, the delivery service DHL has been granted permission to use fully autonomous drones to deliver parcels to an island over 7 miles away from its starting point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TimK (profile), 26 Sep 2014 @ 6:25am

Can we stop calling them drones? Please. They are remote controlled helicopters. I'm pretty sure that "drones" were typically at least semi-autonomous. When did the FAA start regulating Aerial RC vehicles outside of the small bubble around airports and helipads?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 26 Sep 2014 @ 10:35am
  
  Re:
  Can we stop calling them drones? Please. They are remote controlled helicopters. I'm pretty sure that "drones" were typically at least semi-autonomous. When did the FAA start regulating Aerial RC vehicles outside of the small bubble around airports and helipads?
  
  There are tons of such products on the market these days, some of which are autonomous, and some of which are remote controlled, but the general terminology used to talk about them is "drones." Get used to it.
  
  Those complaining about specific definitions of "drones" are losing the language battle. They're commonly referred to as drones. That's not the issue here.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2014 @ 10:39am
    
    Re: Re:
    “When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.”
    
    -- Lewis Carol
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - AJ, 26 Sep 2014 @ 11:15am
    
    Re: Re:
    Respectfully; I have to disagree with you on this Mike. I think the specific definition is extremely important.
    
    The FAA defined "hobbyiest" and in doing so caused a number of organizations to file a lawsuit.
    
    "One of the lawsuits was filed by four groups that contend the definition threatens their business:"
    
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/08/25/faa-drone-hobbyists-appeals-challe nge/14568609/
    
    Our government likes to define terms, and then wrap useless legislation around regulating them. Drawing a distinct line between the typical military used term "Drone", and the more civilian/hobbyist used term "RC Aircraft" may end up being as important as defining the difference between Hobbyist and Commercial use before its all over.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Vidiot (profile), 26 Sep 2014 @ 11:21am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Agree with the dissent. The etymology of "drone" has always been associated with military aircraft; and cameras, in particular, have been stuck onto hobbyists' remote control aircraft, both fixed wing and rotary wing, for decades.
      
      I know, hey, it's only words; but sometimes words are all we've got.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Mike Masnick (profile), 26 Sep 2014 @ 12:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The etymology of "drone" has always been associated with military aircraft
        
        The people at http://diydrones.com/ might disagree with you.
        
        At this point, they're regularly referred to as drones.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Atkray (profile), 26 Sep 2014 @ 7:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ...and file sharing is regularly referred to as theft.
        
        Words do matter.
        This battle may very well be lost but I agree that calling quad-copters drones is a bad idea.
        
        I suspect most people when they hear drone think of the scene in Bourne Identity where a large plane fires missiles to kill people. (see also Anwar al-Awlaki)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2014 @ 4:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "The people at http://diydrones.com/ might disagree with you.
        At this point, they're regularly referred to as drones."
        
        And some people in the government regularly refer to whistle-blowers as "terrorists". Your point?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2014 @ 6:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      drone
      drōn/Submit
      verb
      1.
      make a continuous low humming sound.
      "in the far distance a machine droned"
      synonyms: hum, buzz, whirr, vibrate, murmur, rumble, purr
      "a plane droned overhead"
      speak tediously in a dull monotonous tone.
      "he reached for another beer while Jim droned on"
      synonyms: speak boringly, go on and on, talk at length; More
      move with a continuous humming sound.
      "traffic droned up and down the street"
      noun
      noun: drone; plural noun: drones
      1.
      a low continuous humming sound.
      "he nodded off to the drone of the car engine"
      synonyms: hum, buzz, whirr, vibration, murmur, purr
      "the drone of aircraft taking off"
      informal
      a monotonous speech.
      "only twenty minutes of the hour-long drone had passed"
      a continuous musical note, typically of low pitch.
      a musical instrument, or part of one, sounding a continuous note, in particular (also drone pipe ) a pipe in a bagpipe or (also drone string ) a string in an instrument such as a hurdy-gurdy or a sitar.
      2.
      a male bee in a colony of social bees, which does no work but can fertilize a queen.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2015 @ 1:10pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Drones film me masturbating with tubs of butter by my side. I like to put my ex on speaker and listen to her and her new guy getting busy
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

antidirt (profile), 26 Sep 2014 @ 6:56am

This was for a sporting event, and it would just be for fun. It's hard to see how the use was "commercial" other than the fact that college football is big business.

It's hard to see how the use would be "commercial," except for the fact that it would be part of the huge commercial "big business" of a football game? I'm not following you on this one, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ed, 26 Sep 2014 @ 6:59am

FAA: Drones Are Okay For Hollywood, But Not Okay For Sports
Are you dense or something? You can't understand the difference between a movie set in a well controlled are and a football stadium with 100,000 unsuspecting people in it?
FAA is looking at possible endangerment to people. For the move set, they are requiring the operator to have a private pilot license and that the drone stay in visible range. They've got safety teams that will be making sure that everyone knows what to do.
the FAA's job is to protect the public. There have already been numerous instances of drones causing issues with safety. Think of how safe it would be if 20 Paparazzi decided to use one to film there favorite star. Do you think that would be a safe environment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  antidirt (profile), 26 Sep 2014 @ 7:08am
  
  Re: FAA: Drones Are Okay For Hollywood, But Not Okay For Sports
  Are you dense or something? You can't understand the difference between a movie set in a well controlled are and a football stadium with 100,000 unsuspecting people in it?
  
  But, but, but... there's a special rule for Hollywood! Argh!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - AJ, 26 Sep 2014 @ 7:49am
    
    Re: Re: FAA: Drones Are Okay For Hollywood, But Not Okay For Sports
    Trollish attitude aside, IMO there is an underlying point here.
    
    I could easily make a distinction between a football stadium with thousands of people at a sporting event, and the controlled environment of a movie set. I also think we need to start making a distinction between RC aircraft and Drones. Although there is quite a bit of grey area, my understanding is that a Drone is capable of autonomous flight, where an RC aircraft must remain under constant control by the operator/pilot. So from what I've read.. technically, both the movie studio and the football organization were both wanting to use RC aircraft, not Drones... therefore they do not fall under FAA rules unless they are flying them in a regulated airspace.. airports, over the white house, etc.. etc... which a stadium may actually fall under.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ed, 26 Sep 2014 @ 8:17am
      
      Re: Re: Re: FAA: Drones Are Okay For Hollywood, But Not Okay For Sports
      I don't think that there any real definitions for drones. But even using your definition, the lines between drones and RC models are blurring quickly. There a many hobbyist devices that can support automated flight. One of the more popular, the ARDrone has the ability to automatically follow a pre-programmed flight for miles outside the viewing range of the owner. And they can easily fly high enough to get into the range of some aircraft operations.
      The thing about this autonomous flight is that it is blind. It doesn't know if it's about to crash into a building, or fly into the intake of a jet turbine on take-off or approach to an airport. And yes, there are people stupid enough to be flying drones at the edge of an airport.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ed, 26 Sep 2014 @ 8:17am
      
      Re: Re: Re: FAA: Drones Are Okay For Hollywood, But Not Okay For Sports
      I don't think that there any real definitions for drones. But even using your definition, the lines between drones and RC models are blurring quickly. There a many hobbyist devices that can support automated flight. One of the more popular, the ARDrone has the ability to automatically follow a pre-programmed flight for miles outside the viewing range of the owner. And they can easily fly high enough to get into the range of some aircraft operations.
      The thing about this autonomous flight is that it is blind. It doesn't know if it's about to crash into a building, or fly into the intake of a jet turbine on take-off or approach to an airport. And yes, there are people stupid enough to be flying drones at the edge of an airport.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - AJ, 26 Sep 2014 @ 8:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: FAA: Drones Are Okay For Hollywood, But Not Okay For Sports
        "There a many hobbyist devices that can support automated flight. "
        
        I think the lines are perfectly clear. I have a very large RC P51 mustang at home. If i fly it in it's current configuration I must stay in control.. it's an RC aircraft. If I install a computer and mechanical device to manipulate the servo's to guide the plane on a specific flight path, it is a drone.
        
        Also; To maintain your "Model Aircraft" or RC status, you should stay below 400 ft. If you go above 400ft, you are in FAA regulated airspace.
        
        http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/1acfc3f689769a56862569e7 0077c9cc/$FILE/ATTBJMAC/ac91-57.pdf
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 26 Sep 2014 @ 7:28am
  
  Re: FAA: Drones Are Okay For Hollywood, But Not Okay For Sports
  You know, I'm all for public protection like you mentioned but it's clear that the FAA is being completely random here just for bureaucracy sake. You seem to have missed the point entirely.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2014 @ 7:45am
    
    Re: Re: FAA: Drones Are Okay For Hollywood, But Not Okay For Sports
    Agree or disagree with its rationale, but the FAA does publish proposed rules for public comment prior to implementation. Where in my view articles like this one fall short is that they make no attempt to examine the rationale associated with FAA rules to identify pros and cons. Superficial analysis is not particularly helpful in educating the public about the myriad of issues/concerns associated with remotely controlled piloted vehicles.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      antidirt (profile), 26 Sep 2014 @ 8:14am
      
      Re: Re: Re: FAA: Drones Are Okay For Hollywood, But Not Okay For Sports
      Where in my view articles like this one fall short is that they make no attempt to examine the rationale associated with FAA rules to identify pros and cons. Superficial analysis is not particularly helpful in educating the public about the myriad of issues/concerns associated with remotely controlled piloted vehicles.
      
      "Superficial analysis" is, unfortunately, Mike's bread and butter. It's not about identifying the "pros and cons" or giving any sort of balanced and nuanced reasoning, it's merely about smearing "Hollywood" and making unprovable assertions that this decision will be detrimental to "innovation."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ninja (profile), 26 Sep 2014 @ 11:39am
      
      Re: Re: Re: FAA: Drones Are Okay For Hollywood, But Not Okay For Sports
      Well please help us with articles and the likes that prove that using a drone to deliver a ball to a game is anywhere dangerous. I'm not being ironic or something.
      
      I hope it's not in the field of "it may fall and kill someone from above" or "because criminals can use for this and that" because these non-issues. Even the paparazzi example is bad because there are laws against such behavior already and again it can't be stressed enough: JUST BECAUSE IT CAN BE USED FOR THE WRONG AND ABUSED IT DOES NOT MEAN IT MUST BE PROHIBITED. This idiotic rationale does not work in reality.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Sep 2014 @ 12:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: FAA: Drones Are Okay For Hollywood, But Not Okay For Sports
        The thing that would worry me is a deliberate attempt to jam, or take control off the drone. With any large partisan crowd there are likely to be those who will do this for the LOLs, or to upset the opposition.
        A similar concern would apply to drones over demonstrations, except in this case law enforcement could well have access to military grade jammers, and we all know how much cops like being filmed in such circumstances. Anything capable of carrying a pig skin is getting heavy enough to injure people if it falls on them from more than a few feet up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ed, 26 Sep 2014 @ 8:20am
    
    Re: Re: FAA: Drones Are Okay For Hollywood, But Not Okay For Sports
    Read the details before assuming that they are completely random. drone flying by a certified pilot in controlled environments is not just randomly different than student Tom flying it in a stadium of 100,000 people.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2014 @ 8:08am
  
  Re: FAA: Drones Are Okay For Hollywood, But Not Okay For Sports
  This looks like atypical confused ruling by a bureaucracy, who do not really understand the risks. Flying over crowds is potentially dangerous, especially as there is a potential for jamming, Therefore it would be sensible to prohibit flying RC vehicles over any large public gathering, which especially include demonstrations, as I would not put it past law enforcement to use a jammer and blame the pilot.
  The issue should not be commercial non commercial use, but rather risks to people, and especially due to deliberate interference with control of a vehicle when a crowd is present.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ed, 26 Sep 2014 @ 8:27am
    
    Re: Re: FAA: Drones Are Okay For Hollywood, But Not Okay For Sports
    The commercial vs non-commercial was the only way that the FAA could use to try to limit usage while they are in their rulemaking process. They didn't want to limit the RC flyers who have safely flown using for many years.
    In the FAA there are big differences between commercial aircraft operations and non-commercial ones. A Private pilot is not allowed to accept enumeration for flying their aircraft. There's a lot more training required for commercial pilots.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - AJ, 26 Sep 2014 @ 8:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re: FAA: Drones Are Okay For Hollywood, But Not Okay For Sports
      Again, the lines are not blurred. What your seeing is the government confusing everyone by using terms such as UAV and Drone in an effort to regulate everything that flies.
      
      People have been flying RC aircraft for a very very long time. The FAA itself issued guidelines for model aircraft, and openly called it "advisory for model aircraft".
      
      The example you gave is a bad example. The predator can be remote controlled and fly autonomously. It also flies in airspace above 400ft. It's a text book Drone. It doesn't meet the criteria of an RC aircraft.
      
      "The lines are blurred. Some of the smaller hobbyist devices have extreme intelligence and operate very autonomously. The stuff that Google, Amazons, DHL, and others are looking at are exactly the same that the hobbyist can buy."
      
      Look man, the lines are not blurred. When you attach a device to allow an RC aircraft to fly by itself, it is now a drone. Not blurry at all. You have taken an RC aircraft and re-purposed it to a drone.. its a very easy distinction to make.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - AJ, 26 Sep 2014 @ 8:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: FAA: Drones Are Okay For Hollywood, But Not Okay For Sports
        .... whoops, this was a reply to your other comment..lol
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2014 @ 9:30am
    
    Re: Re: FAA: Drones Are Okay For Hollywood, But Not Okay For Sports
    That is actually completely backwards regulatory vs how things work sense. RC ones would lose steering if jammed. A drone is autonomous and could easily have sanity checking behavior to fall back on and if it loses the signal do something safe like return to base or slowly land. Ah technophobia.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - steell (profile), 26 Sep 2014 @ 9:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re: FAA: Drones Are Okay For Hollywood, But Not Okay For Sports
      "A drone is autonomous and could easily have sanity checking behavior to fall back on and if it loses the signal do something safe like return to base or slowly land. Ah technophobia."
      
      You mean like the drone captured by the Iranians that fooled it into landing?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 26 Sep 2014 @ 10:38am
  
  Re: FAA: Drones Are Okay For Hollywood, But Not Okay For Sports
  Are you dense or something?
  
  Depends on who you ask.
  
  You can't understand the difference between a movie set in a well controlled are and a football stadium with 100,000 unsuspecting people in it?
  
  I can, and do, understand the difference. I did not say they are the same situation. I just questioned the wisdom of the FAA barring the latter.
  
  FAA is looking at possible endangerment to people.
  
  Yes, you're right. I am pointing out that they're overreacting to a very tiny risk, and in doing so, massively delaying important innovations.
  
  For the move set, they are requiring the operator to have a private pilot license and that the drone stay in visible range. They've got safety teams that will be making sure that everyone knows what to do.
  
  And it still took 4 years to get approvals.
  
  the FAA's job is to protect the public.
  
  No, it's not, but okay.
  
  Think of how safe it would be if 20 Paparazzi decided to use one to film there favorite star. Do you think that would be a safe environment?
  
  Did you know if you eat a truckload of vegetables, you'd die?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2014 @ 7:17am

My, the trolls are out in full force today
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2014 @ 7:40am
  
  Re:
  Perhaps they are out in force, but it would be a nice change to so someone comment on the merits of points being made instead of falling back on a dismissive "troll" comment as somehow being definitive.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2014 @ 7:49am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Perhaps they are out in force, but it would be a nice change to so someone comment on the merits of points being made instead of falling back on a dismissive "troll" comment as somehow being definitive."
    
    Too funny. I "trolled" you with a troll comment. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOL
    
    You made my day!!! Haha!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ACasey (profile), 26 Sep 2014 @ 7:36am

Why the hell are we even letting people use drones outside of the military in the first place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AJ, 26 Sep 2014 @ 8:08am
  
  Re:
  Most of what we call Drones are RC controlled aircraft. If the thing has a computer and your can program it to fly a specific flight path, then its a drone. If it has to stay under the control of the pilot, then its a RC aircraft... if it has any combination of the two, i would argue its a drone... If your careful when you read these types of stories you can spot the error, a lot of the time, they've confused the two. In the case of Hollywood, the aircraft will stay under constant control of the pilot = RC aircraft.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ed, 26 Sep 2014 @ 8:33am
    
    Re: Re:
    This isn't quite true. Many of the military drones are flown entirely by pilot, albeit 4,000 miles away.
    Size has been one factor, the predator drone is pretty big compared to most RC aircraft. But take a look at any of the RC magazines and you'll find folks build some pretty big "RC aircraft"
    The lines are blurred. Some of the smaller hobbyist devices have extreme intelligence and operate very autonomously. The stuff that Google, Amazons, DHL, and others are looking at are exactly the same that the hobbyist can buy.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2014 @ 8:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Again, the lines are not blurred. What your seeing is the government confusing everyone by using terms such as UAV and Drone in an effort to regulate everything that flies.
      
      People have been flying RC aircraft for a very very long time. The FAA itself issued guidelines for model aircraft, and openly called it "advisory for model aircraft".
      
      The example you gave is a bad example. The predator can be remote controlled and fly autonomously. It also flies in airspace above 400ft. It's a text book Drone. It doesn't meet the criteria of an RC aircraft.
      
      "The lines are blurred. Some of the smaller hobbyist devices have extreme intelligence and operate very autonomously. The stuff that Google, Amazons, DHL, and others are looking at are exactly the same that the hobbyist can buy."
      
      Look man, the lines are not blurred. When you attach a device to allow an RC aircraft to fly by itself, it is now a drone. Not blurry at all. You have taken an RC aircraft and re-purposed it to a drone.. its a very easy distinction to make.
      
      Also; the military uses both RC and Drones. Just because it's military doesn't suddenly mean its a drone.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 26 Sep 2014 @ 9:45am
  
  Re:
  They're not military drones. They toy remote controlled airplanes and helicopters that have been around forever, but now that they have cameras on them people call them drones.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
zip, 26 Sep 2014 @ 7:37am

terrorism bogeyman
The "drone" issue is another example where the terrorism bogeyman gets drawn into the argument. Radio-controlled model aircraft owners have long complained that all the zero-tolerance no-fly zones that the FAA draws up and slaps down are extreme overkill when it prevents anyone from flying an almost-pocket-sized toy in an open field far away from the nearest road, commercial flight paths, or whatever. (I especially hate it whenever the US president comes to town, and the whole city goes into lockdown mode). Sadly, the FAA doesn't seem to see much difference between a commercial jumbojet and a toy airplane -- they're all banned under no-fly-zone rules.

It wouldn't surprise me if we get to the point in which getting a "drone" license will be about as difficult as getting a license to own a machine gun (which by the way Hollywood studios seem to have no problem getting, despite California's restrictive gun ownership laws)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2014 @ 8:09am
  
  Re: terrorism bogeyman
  The terrorist bogeyman with drones is just like the gun control issue. Honest people will comply, criminals/terrorists will not. So what is the point of either drone or gun control? Make laws to punish the offenders, which is really all that can be done, and quit worrying about the what-ifs. Criminals don't obey laws so the what-ifs don't go away because of some "ban".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
saulgoode (profile), 26 Sep 2014 @ 7:38am

The NCAA should hire Spielberg to film it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2014 @ 7:45am

TimK has it right. These are RC models, not "drones" in the military sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2014 @ 7:57am

No surprising at all
The Democrats corporate masters, and yes, Dems have corporate masters just like Repubs, which is Hollywood in this case, have pulled some strings with the administration to get this cleared. So this is not surprising at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
steell (profile), 26 Sep 2014 @ 9:00am

To those complaining about the use of the word "Drone", good luck with that. You'll get just as far as I did complaining about the use of the word "Billet", so you're just wasting your time. Terminology gets corrupted by the general ignorant public and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

There is an excellent site run by an attorney about Drone laws and regulations where he argues convincingly that the FAA lacks the authority to control most drones, and even argues that the San Jose Police Department is correct in their determination that the FAA lacks the authority to regulate drone use by Public Agencies. And he shows it in teh FAA's own words.

Read it at http://dronelawjournal.com/

.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
me, 26 Sep 2014 @ 9:12am

the real stinker here is...
Hollywood is trying peddle NSA driven bullshit in their attempt to criminalize their very very customer base. Stupid, stupid stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
steell (profile), 26 Sep 2014 @ 9:12am

I sure wish one of you folks would cite your source for your definition of "Drone". I've searched the FAA site but came up empty, and doing a web search hasn't helped, so where are you getting your authority to say that the the word "Drone" is defined by the device's ability to operate autonomously ?

This inquiring mind wants to know.

.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
steell (profile), 26 Sep 2014 @ 9:30am

"FAA has regulatory and oversight authority over civil aircraft operations. Public aircraft operations are conducted by or on behalf of many different government agencies and departments, including state and federal, from the Forest Service and the DOI, to the Justice Department to the U.S. military. By statute, authority for the safety oversight of these operations belongs to the agency or department responsible for the operation."

- Statement of Nicholas A. Sabatini, Associate Administrator for Regulation and Certification (June 2, 2004).

From the website dronelawjournel

Apparently I was wrong to classify the San Jose Police Dept as idiots, at least in this instance.

.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Sep 2014 @ 9:33am

now who thinks the entertainment industry still isn't more important than anything or anyone else? i would like to know how much it has cost them to get the approval and how long it will be before they are using the drones for other tasks (i wasn't home when my internet was used to download the movie.

then who is this x-ray picture of on date, time, place?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Sep 2014 @ 11:37am

In Portugal drones are allowed in sports.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]