And, of course, the report confirms that Google receives millions of actual legitimate takedowns, but you don't care about that.
I don't care about the legitimate takedowns myself.
The legitimate takedowns are not prior restraint of speech. The bogus takdowns, on the other hand, can and usually are unconstitutional prior restraint (IMHO, IANAL), being that the DMCA is law backed by the might of the US government.
The First Amendment should always trump copyright law when they collide, if you ask me.
Reason 1: Qualifying your statement with "I'm not saying it's a fact, just my opinion." makes it pretty damn clear that your statement is an opinion.
Reason 2: Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. Being that you qualified your statement not once, but twice, with "my opinion", most reasonable readers would view that as not a verifiable fact.
Reason 3: Remark was made on the internet. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole.
When has this ever actually happened in the history of story telling? Every story is built upon the works of others, either consciously, unconsciously or both.
Even Roddenberry himself admitted that Star Trek was basically a copy of the TV series "Wagon Train", set in outer space instead of the Wild West. He also said that he leaned on Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels for the format that combines an adventure story with a moral message.
I am sitting here completely stunned that multi billion dollar a year profit spewing Google needs a tax break for anything. Considering all the shit they are in for their tax management techniques around the world, it seems almost laughable that anyone would give them a break.
Why should we treat Google any different from other large corporation? Is it just because they are Google?
Not only did we gave General Motors $50 billion in bailout money, we also quietly gave them an additional $45 billion tax break. As a result, in 2011, GM's effective tax rate was negative 1.5%. The IRS paid GM $110 million in 2011. And that tax break continues for a period of 20 years.
Sure, but in heavy traffic a signal can also be used to ask someone to let you move over. You don't have to, but it's a dick move not to if you can do it easily.
I agree and I do exactly that when it feels like I was asked. It's when I feel like I was commanded or just automatically expected to yield that I tend to be a bit of an *asshole. Courtesy is a two-way street.
* It might be that I really am an asshole, since I often have to resist the urge to park in handicapped spaces just to watch handicapped people make handicapped faces.
No. People who drive as if thier destination and thier time is infinitely more important than anyone else on the road with them is a pet peeve of mine. Using your turn signal as if it's a command signal that others should defer to, instead of a signal of your intentions is indictative of that sort of driver to me. Those are the idiots I was referring to.
I see it the other way. The person changing lanes, expecting other drivers to "defer" to their turn signal is the one being discourteous. Why should I have to accommodate some idiot who doesn't know which lane they should be in?
...and then pull in behind them and honk at them for being a jerk who doesn't know to defer to someone with a turn signal on.
Defer? In my state it is the person who is changing lanes responsibility to make sure the lane is clear. There is nothing in our laws that says other motorists have to "defer" to your turn signal, adjust their speed or even make room for you.
Where in the world are you from, where that looks like an everyday occurrence? I've lived all over the US and also outside it, and I don't believe I've ever seen sandbags in the road obstructing traffic, particularly in the middle of "a busy thoroughfare"!
I've seen sandbags in the middle of the road where I live more than once. They are used to weigh down temporary construction signs and sometimes do not get picked up with the sign.
I know it may hurt your one track mind, but have you considered that it discourages one type of crime but may encourage another? Crime isn't a one size fits all thing.
Ok, I get that it discourages phone theft, but what crime is being encouraged here? The "crime" of protecting your own personal privacy? The "crime" of being able to have private conversations with other people? The "crime" of not wanting to be geo-tracked wherever you go? What "crimes" are you talking about?
Why shouldn't the procedures for domain name seizure include an adversarial hearing prior seizing the domain name? A domain name cannot flee or be destroyed. The government informs the operator of the hearing and if the operator really is a bad actor, the chances of them showing up are next to nil and the domain get seized ex parte anyways.
This simple procedure change would alleviate the government from First Amendment scrutiny altogether and the results would most likely be the same, except that the truly innocent would have a chance to defend themselves.