To follow up on the other part of your question (what do I do), here are my suggestions.
- See if there are any documents that back you up on this, e.g. style documents, and so on. Use them to your advantage.
- Find people he's worked with before and see if this is a chronic issue, or if they've ever made headway on getting him to clean things up.
- Get a feel of the culture there. If there's a culture of "get 'er done", you might be out of luck.
- Talk to him. Let him know that you're having a hard time following his work in the format he typically hands to you, and that you end up spending a great deal of time refactoring things so that you can properly implement it. Emphasize that the whole project will go much smoother and faster if he's willing to spend some of his time cleaning things up. If you're lucky, he cleans things up. If you're less lucky, maybe he'll at least acknowledge the extra overhead, and manage his expectations of you accordingly.
- Give up. If the guy is senior enough, or he's got an "in" with upper management, or he's just an asshole, then it might be better for you to just slog along and wait until the product launches.
17 USC Section 301
(c) With respect to sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, any rights or remedies under the common law or statutes of any State shall not be annulled or limited by this title until February 15, 2067. The preemptive provisions of subsection (a) shall apply to any such rights and remedies pertaining to any cause of action arising from undertakings commenced on and after February 15, 2067. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 303, no sound recording fixed before February 15, 1972, shall be subject to copyright under this title before, on, or after February 15, 2067.
(d) Nothing in this title annuls or limits any rights or remedies under any other Federal statute.
So in other words (if I understand the ruling & law correctly), for songs recorded before 1972, the parts of the DMCA granting rights & remedies apply, but not the parts of the DMCA removing previous rights and remedies (i.e. the safe harbour bits).
As for the belief/morality.. while it varies, it usually stems from the perception that many animals are thinking, feeling, social creatures.. not as intelligent or self aware as humans but possessing the same basic capabilities in diminished capacity.. thus they apply the same moral standards that society normally receives for diminished humans like babies or the mentally handicapped. Thus treatment that we would generally not accept for such people are also morally reprehensible to them for animals. Naturally there is a lot of variance there though.
And hence my confusion. If these people want a better life for these animals, then why are they so willing to kill them? I mean, at least WBC makes a certain twisted amount of sense - they hate everyone, believe everyone is going to hell, and believe that their job is to remind everyone of the horrible plight that will befall them. It's horrible, but at least it's consistent. For animal rights activists to kill animals simply beggars belief.
I am willing to abandon all modern medicines beyond antibiotics from say, 20 years ago.
So to clarify, you'd willingly give up the vaccinations for Lyme disease, rotavirus, and HPV? And finally, I hope that you never get cancer, because I'd be willing to wager that the best drugs have been developed fairly recently.
We also have to agree though to stop developing chemicals which cause new and old diseases to proliferate.
You do realize that antibiotics are the drugs most likely to cause resistant strains of bacteria, right? Other than that, I have no idea what chemicals are allowing diseases to proliferate.
Oh and stop feeding animals with inappropriate diets which cause things like prions to also spread. Who's with me?!
I'll give you this one, but I'm unsure as to how this relates to the rest of your post.
So if they believe a priori that animal testing is wrong, then I'll argue with them there. But surely they have to have a deeper reason than that. I mean, I can easily see the argument that animal testing is or can be cruel to animals, and I'm more than willing to take steps to reduce the animals' suffering. So if that's the case, then why are groups like them (and PETA - see PETA's disturbingly low adoption rates) so intent on rescuing animals only to kill them?
Put all of the relevant information in your will, or in a sealed & notarized envelope only to be opened upon your death. Accounts, password, approximate contents, the whole shebang. If you're worried about someone taking this information before you're dead, put in a single account and password to your KeyPass database, or an e-mail account that only has usernames / password, etc. Then, find some way of tracking access to that account, so that it pings you when someone uses it. Heck, even add a 1-week timer to it, so that they have to be sure you're dead before they can get those passwords.
Basically, rely on the systems we've always used to pass along our inheritance.