The lady driver in this video is a freaking moron. First, "could you take your sunglasses off because I don't feel safe. I want to see your eyes." WTF? This is a true blonde lady. WTF. She needs to get a life. What's she trying to do, pick up this cop for a romantic date?
Second, when it says "no parking, fire lane" it means just that, it's a fire lane for emergency vehicles. Just because there isn't a fire doesn't mean you can park there. I bet this dumb lady parks in handicapped parking space because according to her, nobody was using it at the time she decided to park there.
LOLS Someone slapped that ignorant woman with a stupid stick.
Stupid people like her don't deserve to be let loose in public.
The thing that bothers me is that handshakes are not protected by copyright. It's like copyrighting the way you walk down the street or the way you cock your head to the side. Pardon me for saying this but this lawsuit is ridiculous and I hope the judge sees it as that and dismissed the lawsuit.
WTF? Handshakes protected by DMCA, copyright and trademark? Like I said: WTF. LOLS
Our country has survived for more than 200 years without the retention of ALPR data. So why all the rush to retain this data? If I didn't know any better, I'd swear that our ELECTED OFFICIALS don't trust Americans any more, those same American morons who keep electing the same American morons who are in favor of these kind of bills/laws.
Morons who support laws like The Patriot Act, ALPR data retentions, metadata retention and anything that compromises the privacy rights of any citizen in this country should not be voted into office.
We need a law that says that no American can run for elected office if they support any law, amendment or resolution that compromises any of our constitutional rights.
I'm no fan of our government and I'm also no fan of the politicians or agencies that are supposed to be managing our country. But, some courts, who routinely rule against the government find their decisions being overturned by other courts who are friendly to the Obama Administration. The U.S. Supreme Court is no different.
The U.S. Supreme Court are nothing more than lapdogs for President Obama and when ti concerns decisions that limit what the president can do, the Supreme Court routinely hands down decisions that benefit Obama and his corrupt organization.
I've rarely heard of an instance where the Supreme Court has ruled against Obama.
That didn't take long. Like I said in my comment above, the government is reviewing the court ruling and may end up appealing the decision:
U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch said on Thursday the Department of Justice was reviewing a court decision that revived a challenge to a controversial National Security Agency program that collected the records of millions of Americans' phone calls.
"We are reviewing that decision," Lynch said at a Senate budget hearing.
She said the collection was a "vital tool in our national security" and that she was not aware of any privacy violations under the revised program.
Yeah. I thought that techdirt does research on articles being written before they are published on the site. In this case, nobody at techdirt did any research on the article since the article was posted today.
All it took for me to find this information was less than five minutes to search Google. The article states that the vote hadn't happened yet when it actually has. Since the links in the article above were from April 23rd, it appears that nobody did any background on this new addition to Quebec's law before they published the article on the site.
I wasn't being mean when I posted, just stating that Techdirt could stand to research the articles it posts to ensure that the article has updated, factual information.
Much as I hope this ruling stands, I doubt that this ruling from the appeals court will stand. The ruling is going to end up getting struck down because the government will appeal the decision and a higher appellate court will either strike down that ruling or if it gets to the U.S. Supreme Court, they'll undoubtedly rule in favor of the government, who, rarely, rules against President Obama.
I'm still trying to find that article but the only reason that Spain gave the AEDE that restrictive copyright law was only on the condition that news publishers capitulate to Spain's demands.
From what I had read, and I wish I had saved the link, Spain's news publishers had been hammering Spain's government of late and the bad press regarding the government corruption was taking its toll. They wanted the news media to fall in line and to stop the negative reporting. That's when this Faustian deal was struck and the media stopped their negative reporting, just like we have seen over the past six years in regards to Democrats and President Obama here in the United States.
AEDE got their Christmas wish and Spain intervened on AEDE's behalf and passed that law. However, Google called their bluff and shut down Google news and blacklisted news publishers from the Google News service. The AEDE certainly has some big balls to demand Spain intervene, AGAIN, and stop Google's withdrawal. But, one thing that got me to thinking, is that Google probably wasn't even hosting the servers to Google News (Spain) in the country itself. They probably just had the domain name registered with a Spanish registrar.
AEDE should have realized that Google would not capitulate to AEDE like the AEDE capitulated to Spain's government.
Even if AEDE and the news publishers wanted to revoke the law, other news publishers have been reporting on this and noted the futility of such a move. It was stated that it would takes weeks, if not months, to reschedule another vote in order to repeal or amend the new copyright law.
Not only that, but AEDE's instance that Spain authorities intervene and stop Google News from closing is also outside the purview of Spanish legislators or the government. Just like "The Independent" called it, it's not Google's responsibility to save the Spanish news media just as it's not the responsibility of Spanish authorities to force Google to continue operating in their country.
If the AEDE hadn't been so gung-ho about this new copyright law, this would never have gotten this far. One important view that techdirt never included in its article, and it took a lot of hard digging to find this information, that AEDE capitulated to the Spanish government in order to get their copyright law passed.
Apparently, Spanish authorities weren't happy about all of the negative press the government had been receiving from the Spanish media of late. Lawmakers agreed to give the AEDE their draconian copyright law if news publishers toned their criticism of the government down. When Spanish news publishers agreed, they gave the news media their restrictive copyright law. The corruption of the Spanish government was now applied to the Spanish news media who started publishing good news stories about the Spanish government and stopped publishing negative news articles about the government.
I don't remember what news publisher I saw the article on but I'll try to find it. But, Spain didn't agree to the new copyright law until the news publishers started falling in line with the Spanish government. This is the intended result.
What AEDE fails to realize is that nobody can force any business, corporation, entity or individual to keep their website operating or to keep their business from closing. Governments simply do not have the ability to do that.
If Google decides it wants to shut down its website in Spain, there is absolutely nothing Spain can do to prevent that.
I find it ridiculous that AEDE wants to keep the new copyright law but also wants to force it to keep operating its website in Spain. That's like a government forcing you to remain in their country and to keep paying taxes, even though you want to leave the country and move elsewhere.
Spain has no jurisdiction over Google and if Google wants to shut down its services, there is nothing anyone can do about it.
The AEDE are frakking morons. Not only is Spain asking for Spain to force Google News to stay open, they also did not request that the new copyright law be repealed, that they are demanding that Google News in Spain remain open and that they be forced to pay the 'Google Tax' for news snippet licensing.
Morons. Google does not censor. If anything, it's the liberal news publications who continue to be biased and they NEVER EVER present both sides of the issue. How many times have we seen the media cherry pick their stories to make President Obama and the Democrats look good. I can't remember the last time news media reported or published an article that reported on a Democrats violating his moral or ethical obligations to the taxpayers of this country.
if you think that Google is censoring anything, I've got news for you. It's the media. I can't remember the last time I saw an investigative report done by the media. It's just become a propaganda machine for liberals.
Don't blame Google, blame the news media. After all, these are the same morons who keep removing the ability for their readers to comment on their articles or editorial decisions and they defend their actions, claiming that banning comments is a good thing for news publishers.
Hell, Huffington Post deletes comments all the time when someone posts a negative message about Democrats or question how their policies are destroying this country by not reigning in police harassment or in their unwillingness to repeal The Patriot Act, the NDAA and warrantless wiretapping.
When was the last time you read an article at a news publisher where they investigate the abuses of law enforcement or the out of control copyright policies in this country.
The biggest problem that nobody has realized is that the AEDE, has just been granted expansive powers under the new copyright law, meaning that news publishers wouldn't be collecting those payments directly, it would be the AEDE collecting those licensing payments for the news publishers.
Spain needs another rights organization like we need another dictator.
The moron who stated that this law set a precedent is totally ignorant of how the law works. Precedents are only set by a court of law, where a decision by a court has such far reaching consequences that it affects other court cases in the future. LAWS do not set precedents, as they are constantly overturned all the time or repealed.
Seriously, learn how the freaking law works before you show people exactly how ignorant you really are.
AC, what a moronic statement. This isn't a silly copyright squabble. Spain's law was aimed directly at Google because the major news publishers in Spain don't believe in fair use and that just posting news snippets isn't violating true copyright law.
Google wasn't making any money off Google News and the news publishers benefited more from featuring those news publishers in its service, free of charge.
The fact is that news publishers in Spain thought they could bluff Google and ended up having their bluff called. When you're holding a pair of deuces, you don't try to bluff the other players into thinking you have a better hand because you're already betting on a losing hand.
Fact is, Google called Spain's bluff and just opted to shut down their news service in Spain. This law is nothing more than an attempt to penalize U.S.-based tech companies and it seems that the E.U., as a whole, has set its sights on Google, as there are a number of investigations and bills being considered to not only tax Google but also to break them up.
If Spain wants its news services back, then they can create their own news aggregators. Oh, wait. Spain's news aggregators would also be subject to this new copyright law.
Spain officials are morons. They said that bloggers and social media would not be subject to this law, which is a lie. Bloggers, social media and any website that sends traffic to news publisher websites will also be subject to this 'licensing fee'. News publishers in Spain want to be paid when you send internet users to their websites.