That is why many lawmakers didn't want to force the "big 3" go to bankruptcy: some businesses work their way back up while others just delay their collapse. A big chunk of our economy looking like it is collapsing might cause people to buy Toyotas because they will almost certainly be around until the end of their warranty period.
Really? They *must* reimburse you? And what happens if they say that's covered under your paycheck? I think your entitlement streak is a bit too big.
So is paper, pens, your work PC, the gasoline. You must also cover your share of the building lease and maintenance costs. Do you feel like working at that place?
An employee paycheck is payment for *work done* unless otherwise stipulated. Any payment for other things *MUST* be documented as such on your pay stub and their accounting for tax purposes. Employers are expected to provide the things *they dictate* you use for their business. That's not to say you can't take business calls on your personal cell phone as a convenience, but if an *employer* (contractors are paid by clients and operate under completely different rules) requires you to be contactable while outside their premesis then they generally are expected to pay for a method of contacting you. This article, however, is about a state reassessing which employees really need to be contactable 24/7.
Oh, and you can bet a blood test on the side of the road won't meet HIPAA requirements for electronic medical records
Taking blood is not rocket science. It is quite easy to setup a truck with the appropriate facilities for handling blood samples.
He's referring to legal requirements to protect medical records from unauthorized disclosure in the USA. They have little to do with the safety concerns I think you might be thinking about. However, a BAC test truck can meet these requirements just as easily as the mobile mammogram clinics that the hospital I work at operates.
What if you bought a CD, made one copy of it, and then took that to the student union (or any other gathering place) and just left it, sitting in a box with a sign that says "free CD", like a free puppies sign or something?
You violated copyright law by copying the CD for the purpose of distributing it.
If no one takes it, have you committed a crime by leaving it there, available for theft?
Yes, again, not for leaving them there to be stolen but for creating the copy for the purpose of willingly giving it to others.
What if you make 20 copies and do the same thing? It seems like even if no one takes them, it shouldn't be legal. However, it certainly doesn't seem like you should have to pay a bunch of cash to the RIAA, since none were taken.
Quantity doesn't matter for the purposes of determining guilt, just for the "counts" you would be found guilty of.
Finally, what if you did this, then came back a week later and the box was gone? If the staff claim they threw the CDs into the furnace and they don't know if any were missing at the time, what's your punishment, if any? You've no idea how many were taken, or if any were at all. Should you get off scott free?
Once again, the infriging act is the copying with the intent to permit others to take them as those copies are not covered under fair use laws.
However, I should point out that all of the above are illegal only because at some point you decided to create a copy of the song with the purpose of sending it to other people and NOT because you made it possible for them to take it. If, for example, you create a copy of all your CDs and forget to lock your door one day then you are not guilty of copyright infringement no matter how many of your CDs burnt for personal use people walk into your house and take. You are also not guilty of copyright infringement if someone you invite into your house makes a copy of your CDs without your assistance or knowledge.
What would this mean in practical terms? A burden of proof for the RIAA that this INDIVIDUAL placed copyrighted material in this folder for the purpose of sharing it with others. If they could somehow prove intent to distribute then they can easily make the claim that the copy being made was not part of "fair use". Otherwise the user is simply exercising their fair-use right to make personal backup copies of copyrighted material they purchased.
We gave you an atomic bomb, what do you want, mermaids? -- I. I. Rabi to the Atomic Energy Commission