Justice is served, but at the same time all parties can avoid the time and effort to take it through the full court system.
While I agree that plea bargains are pretty much a necessary evil with our overburdened court systems, I cannot consider them to be "justice" while prosecutors are allowed to coerce defendants with threats of astronomical sentences. Defendants are basically agreeing to plea bargains while under duress, which is supposed to be a huge no-no with our legal system.
...you should worry about what kinds of activities you would be encouraging and supporting by operating a TOR exit node.
Warning! reductio ad absurdum ahead:
...you should worry about the kinds of speech you would be encouraging and supporting by advocating First Amendment rights for everyone.
Also, it seems to me that Tor exit nodes fall dead center within the definition of an ISP in regards to Section 230 safe harbors. Do you have an argument as to why they shouldn't be protected by Section 230?
When you consider the volume and scale of the violations...
Wouldn't that indicate that the business model we've enshrined in law as "copyright" needs a major overhaul in this day and age where everyone walks around with copying machine in their pocket?
If you want the masses to respect copyright, then perhaps we need to change our copyright laws in ways that will create that respect. With copyright terms beyond my great-grandchildren's lives, the lack of public domain replenishment and unfathomable penalties, it's no wonder that many do not respect copyright laws.
... hashes could be used effectively for this issue...
As far as I know, no one has developed a hash algorithm that can determine whether the use of a particular file is Fair Use or not. Apparently you are using a very liberal interpretation of the word "effectively".
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.