Unfortunately, in their TOS available here, section 4.3 has language that specifically addresses servers. It says,

You also may not exceed the bandwidth usage limitations that Verizon may establish from time to time for the Service, or use the Service to host any type of server.

Now that does imply there can be limits to unlimited but specifically disallows servers of any kind.

People dying from suicides is not an inflated number it s people dying due to easy access of guns.

But it is completely disingenuous to consider it a gun crime. Well, I guess maybe not if you are willing to consider someone contracting aids from a random hookup and dieing as a homicide too.

Last I checked, it was not a crime to kill yourself. It was only illegal if you break the law in the process. Counting suicides by gun as gun crimes is nothing more then an attempt to exaggerate the numbers. It's misleading, false, and dishonest.

It's done this way in downtown because when the areas are congested, averaging 35mph will be impossible.. Instead, they average the speed from a complete stop to the speed limit with heavy traffic considerations and it comes out usually to slightly less then the posted speed limit.

Most modern traffic systems can dynamically change this to match the flow of traffic. The set timeings are holdovers from the old more difficult to change systems. Los Vegas Nevada actually sends monitors out on foot and to drive along the routes in order to direct the changing of these timeings to increase the flow of traffic. Of course they are of the impression that they make their money from successful businesses paying taxes not from penalizing people trying to patronize those businesses.

You don't see a problem with the city saying drive this fast, "trust us it is safe to do" by posting the speed limits, then rigging the intersection to where you have to drive slower else pay them a large fine?

I seen those in New Jersey near college campuses. When pedestrians break an electronic beam on the side of the cross walk, flashing lights in the road and on signs go off for a few seconds while they cross. Ohio has some similar things with nothing embedded in the roads that I know of but I've seen them around some larger cities where there isn't a traffic light.

The first time you drive up on one of the flashing cross walks in NJ, you will think you are entering a crash scene or something, they are all over the road and freak you out until you notice what is going on.

TFA makes it sound like they're all speed cameras anyway, not line cameras, and points out that of the two cameras which were operating one was in a school zone where you really do want these things enforced

Just a note, in Ohio, the school zone speed limit is only during certain hours and when activity is present outside of those hours unless the speed limit is marked with a normal speed limit sign. The law actually says "during school recess and while children are going to or leaving school during the opening or closing hours"

The problem here is that if you are not familiar with the specific school in question, those times can vary from district to district and on certain cases day to day (delays in opening school because of weather, half days, recess times, and so on). Sometimes you will not know you are in one of those restricted times until you have already entered the school zone and are capable of observing the activities associated with them. You also have the question of whether these cams were in place and ticketing people outside of those hours without the proper speed limit signs indicating that the speed is 20 mph all the time. I can easily see entrapment- or a scam happening here.

It sure can. Unfortunately, once it finds it cannot lift it, it can give itself the power to do so. It's like when redbull gives you wings.

You are missing the "why" are we seeing a report like this just when the government is being forced to cut it's budget.

But I agree, technology will alleviate much of these doomsday scenarios.

Fair use is a defense to a violation not and exception to controls. It works out in reality that it can be an exception, but only after the claim of a violation is made.

I'm not really sure what you think has to do with it. It's all about what the person who filed the notice thinks. If they have a claim, then there is a claim. The validity of that claim might be questioned but it still doesn't negate the claim as far as the law is concerned.

Good catch. I was under the impression that MBL actually went to court to get a blog shut down and content removed in the late 1990's and won. But I can find no reference to this now.

They can if they own the copyright. It owuld be a distinction between why they normally do not assert their ownership to fan created videos and they are now.

Now I'm not saying NASCAR is the owner, but Major League Baseball and some of the NFL franchises assert ownership of anything documented at their games. If NASCAR is in the same legal position, you will find they are a valid owner regardless of failing to exert any rights to that ownership in the past. MLB has actually won this in court already.

And if you otherwise ignore NASCAR, I'm not entirely sure why you are upset over this as the content has been restored.

Well, First, I don't watch NASCAR on purpose. But you have to marvel at the engineering involved that allows cars to fly around a track as 160-200+ miles per hour speeds, often just inches away from each other, and when they do have an accident, the drivers walk away with little more then their wallets damaged better then 90% of the time.

If you have to compare the wrecks on the track to wrecks that injure spectators, think of it more like watching kids driving bumper cars at the county fair verses your teenager driving your car and an accident happens. On one, there is a comfortable margin of safety. Or maybe a demolition derby which is a staple at most county fairs would be more accurate.

Where does it say they lied about the copyright?

Major League Baseball asserted ownership of the copyright of anything that happened at their games. This has been long enough ago that a lot of other organizations have done the same. It has even withstood court challenges. If NASCAR asserts the same ownership at their events, then they could very well have a copyright ownership. Their lack of enforcement in the past does not forbid them from enforcement in the future, it just makes them a dick for selectively doing it, and less of a dick for doing it for these reasons. It has nothing to do with not caring about safety as all the information, likely along with more video coverage then the fan's created coverage, will be sent to regulators and authorities for review.

No, a false take down notice if it is knowingly false, subject whoever made the false accusation to liability to all damages including legal fees as a result of the take down.

The problem is in showing you were injured in a way that can be monetized.

There may be rules of the court in which allow for someone to be restricted from an action in the future, but the law only provides for the recovery of damages, costs, and lawyer fees involved with it.