That's the "risk" (among others). But at least you'd test it on a group of people where you can actually see more than just whether the crap kills them.
Then again, it could have the unwanted side effect to unveil prematurely that the crap doesn't do jack but line the pockets of its maker...
The problem is that this doesn't offer them a "way out", that whole shit ensures they stay down in the gutter. 'cause, well, you don't think they get paid according to the risk to their health, do you? They get paid just enough for them to get by and keep them dependent. It's drug pushers we're talking about. Legal drug pushers, but why does anyone think they're in any way morally better than the average drug cartel. Paying the bums more than absolutely necessary not only costs more than it has to, but it also potentially threatens your "test bed", because if someone managed to climb out of the gutter on your money, you'd lose one guinea pig to test on.
The Dream was that you can make a mistake but start over and claw your way back to the top. Forget it. The ugly reality is that once you're in the gutter, you stay in the gutter. You make a legal mistake and you'll be labeled for life. You make an economic mistake and you permanent credit history will ensure you'll never ever get a loan again. And once you're in the gutter, that's where you'll stay for the rest of your natural life.
I don't have my people tested for drugs. For more than one reason. First and foremost, I fear they could find something. Actually, I'm pretty sure they'd find something with one or two of the guys.
Then, why the fuck should I care what they do in their spare time? I'm neither their mommy nor their nanny. I care about them coming to work sober and being able to do their job. That they do. So where's my interest in anything beyond that?
That's swell. Abusing religious laws to fight religious bullshit.
Would it make me the devil if I can't help but giggle?
That's what I love about sane countries. Your religion means fuck if it conflicts with laws, first you have to obey the real laws, then the ones of your imaginary friend.
If your imaginary friend conflicts with the law, he can take a hike.
By typing "how the fuck can I get rid of the damn ads" into google.
In other words, I went looking for it. Nobody ever bothered to shove their crap in my face to convince me it's a good idea. They had plenty of others who did that convinced me without even trying.
If there's a market for a product, there's no need to slap someone in his face with it.
When people learned that working won't get them a house that you want to live in and that one income just ain't enough to get by on, let alone when you have kids and a dog.
That far already? Not just considering them a "lower class" but already a "lower being"?
Just so I can confirm my prejudice: Democrat or Republican?
What decision for fuck's sake? "Allow them to stick needles in me or starve?"
That is no decision. That's like me offering you the decision to dance for my amusement or end up with a bullet in your head, and then me claiming that dancing like an idiot was your own free will.
Oh yeah, like they have a choice. A decision entails that there is a viable alternative. And I kinda doubt they go "hmm... become a human guinea pig or pursue my career in advertising...".
We're still talking abusing the plight of a person. I don't know about you, but in my books that's kinda immoral. According to our law books, that's even illegal under certain conditions.
If you don't own the CD you're ripping, it's obviously illegal.
Well, there are ways to do it with CDs you don't own where you will be protected from legal trouble. But in practice, it never comes up.
No, the car doesn't count.
Let's look at a bit more of the relevant language in the statute:
A âoedigital audio recording deviceâ is any machine or device of a type commonly distributed to individuals for use by individuals, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine or device, the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private use
It's what the primary purpose of the digital recording function is (or is marketed as) that matters. We disregard the car and the rest of the machine altogether.
I think you really need to go back and read up on Copyright Law (17 USC). The license is implied in Copyright Law.
No, there's no license, particularly no license 'implied in the law,' whatever that means.
You have an inherent free speech right to do anything with a work that you like, except for things that copyright gives an exclusive right to the copyright holder about. A copyright holder can only possibly grant a license for something that he holds a right to; he cannot give you permission to do something you don't need his permission for. And once the copyright on the work expires (no, seriously), you're no longer limited as to the exclusive rights either.
So for example, there is an exclusive right to publicly perform music, but not an exclusive right to privately perform music. Even if you have a stolen CD that was itself made illegally, you can lawfully privately perform it without infringing on copyright. No license or anything.
All this licensing bullshit basically is a side effect of stupid (and largely unnecessary) practices in the software industry. It's mostly folk myths. If there's a license, you'll usually know it: it will almost certainly be pages and pages long, written, and you'll have to expressly agree in some way. Record companies would not sell CDs with some sort of implied license.
No, the CD is the work, it is not the derivative.
Depends. Assuming you just mean an album, and not the piece of plastic, it'll either be a work or a compilation.
You do have a right to transform it.
No, that's preparation of a derivative work, probably; an exclusive right at 17 USC 106(2), and doing it is infringing at 17 USC 501(a). You'll need an exception to copyright, or for the work not to be copyrighted, or a license, in order to just make the derivative, never mind distributing it. And if it's not a derivative work after all (see the definition at 17 USC 101), it's likely an infringement of the reproduction right at 17 USC 106(1).
By definition, Fair Use is not an infringement.
Correct. Though as a practical matter, it's treated like an affirmative defense... it just makes more sense to do it that way, even though it is indeed an exception to copyright.
in the long term, the book stores go out of business now its harder to find interesting books.
Nonsense.
Look at Baen's model... the first few chapters of all of their books are available for free, all on-line, all trivially easy for you to browse and sample, at no risk, wherever and whenever it's convenient to you. For that matter, they offer full novels from their top authors for free. So you can read the first book of a 15-novel series at no cost, hooking you for the other 14.
How can book stores, with their limited shelf space and immobility, compete with that?
Of course, that's Baen, not Amazon. Because Baen is a publisher, they have the freedom to do things like offer the first ~50 pages free, while Amazon has to obey the publishers' rules. But in a world where browsing bookshelves is gone, Baen's approach, or something like it, will be necessary to generate sales, so it will be done.
Just because you're accustomed to one way of finding good reading material doesn't mean it's the only one, or even the best one.
We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts. -- Patrick Moynihan
