Christina and deanna were having a quiet conversation over drinks before the band started to play, but now they have to shout and even then can’t really hear what the other is saying. we can assume that once the band started to play, the signal-to-noise ratio in this scenario

Passport video produced a video documentary titled the definitive elvis, comprising sixteen one-hour episodes. the producers interviewed more than 200 people regarding virtually all aspects of elvis's life. passport sold the videos commercially for a profit. approximately 5 to 10 percent of the videos were composed of copyrighted music and appearances of presley on television and in movies owned by copyright holders other than passport. passport did not obtain permission to use those copyrighted works. elvis presley enterprises, inc., and other companies and individuals that owned copyrights to the presley works used by passport sued passport for copyright infringement. passport defended, arguing that its use of the copyrighted materials was fair use. the u. s. district court held in favor of the plaintiff copyright holders and enjoined passport from further distribution of its documentary videos. passport appealed. did passport act ethically in including the elvis presley copyrighted material in its video? why do you think passport video did so? has there been fair use in this case, or has there been copyright infringement?

Athief was passing by a house under construction when he noticed that the ladder being used by workers on the roof had copper braces supporting the rungs. after making sure that the workers on the roof could not see him, the thief used pliers that he had in his pocket to remove all of the copper braces that he could reach from the ground. a short time later, a worker climbed down the ladder and it collapsed. he fell to the ground and severely injured his back. the thief was apprehended a few hours later trying to sell the copper for scrap. a statute in the jurisdiction makes it a felony for "maliciously causing serious physical injury to another." the thief was charged with malicious injury under the statute and was also charged with larceny. after a jury trial in which the above facts were presented, he was convicted of both charges. if he appeals the conviction for the malicious injury charge on grounds of insufficient evidence, how should the court rule? a affirm the conviction, because the thief was engaged in criminal conduct at the time of the act that resulted in the injury. b affirm the conviction, because the jury could have found that the thief acted with malice. c reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief intended to injure anyone. d reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief bore any malice towards the workers on the roof.

The country of france is bordered by which two large countries