I find it totally dishonest and ridiculous for people to screw over everyone to just protect a small group of "some people" who can't follow basic instructions.
You're saying this company should be permitted to continue performing these tests without offering any evidence that they're accurate. They could be using a random number generator for all we know. It really doesn't matter how well people can follow instructions, or how small this group is that you keep insisting is insignificantly small without any evidence.
Nothing is going to be 100% accurate.
Is that what the FDA is demanding? No? Then why are you bringing it up?
Being totally ignorant is worse.
Then why are you blaming the FDA, rather than 23AndMe for failing, over a long period of time, and with multiple communications and opportunities to comply, to do what they knew perfectly well needed to be done to keep their product on the market?
Then make them put a label on the box stating that they don't get the FDA's gold star of approval. Locking these tests behind some sort of regulatory regime limits *my* choices.
Of course it does. Just as product safety regulations limit your choice to buy dangerous toys, and environmental regulations limit your choice to buy leaded gasoline. That's what regulations do - restrict choices. As for a label, that isn't how the FDA works in any other case - they don't allow dangerous drugs to go on the market as long as they're labeled as dangerous. This is no different.
As for the government's actual motives, I will grant that I can't know them. But I do think it is significant that the US has not just banned imports of the product (online gambling.) It as banned the product itself.
Forgot to mention - I should have been explicit here. I believe the government's ulterior motive is to protect state lotteries and campaign contributors (casinos, horse tracks) from competition. This motive applies equally to domestic and foreign sources of competition.
there is no way to confirm that any given gambling site is legitimate.
Today, no. It would be possible to establish systems for ensuring legitimacy.
someone just photocopies the work and distributes it far and wide himself so that you don't get paid, the proceeds that you have made have been stolen from you.
What it is, exactly, that you had before this event that you do not have after? Money? No - you're talking about money you might have made but now didn't*. Things? No - the other person didn't take any things away, he made copies. So what is it that's been stolen?
* if you run a pizza place and someone opens another pizza place across the street, there is money that you might have made that now you won't because of the competition - did he steal from you?
Most courts would find the market here to be the market for granting a license to use the work for advertising purposes--here the license would not be, as you suggest, to use the original song but rather to create a derivative work--and the effect on that market of doing so without permission to be substantial.
Except that as others have pointed out and I didn't think of before, there is no market for licensing this song for a commercial, whether the original or a derivative, because the Beastie Boys would be unwilling to grant any such license. So there can't be any effect on the market.
And the fourth is probably the most damning since there is plainly a market for licensing songs for use in commercials--in fact, that's one of the primary ways musicians make a living these days--even if it's a market in which the Beastie Boys choose not to participate.
The fourth factor is not whether there's a market, but the use's effect on that market. Since it's pretty obvious this seller of creative toys for girls would never even have considered setting their commercial to the original song, clearly that effect is (at worst) zero. It could even have a beneficial effect by driving more interest in the original.
I don't agree with your assessment of the "nature of use" factor either - I find the transformativeness much more important than the commercial aspect of the use. But that would be something for a court to decide.
About 200 deaths among bus riders in a 6 year period is at most a statistical blip compared to total motor vehicle deaths in the US (per year, let alone over six years). So I would still say it is a very rare occurrence.
I can understand a blanket prohibition on online gambling. It is not possible to verify that the dice and cards are "fair."
Even if that's true, which I doubt (difficult yes, but with so much money at stake I'm sure a solution could be found), I don't think that's the real reason for the ban.
Antigua wanted to market an unsafe product to US citizens and has instead gained an authorization to steal from US citizens.
Except that stealing is a poor analogy for copyright infringement, and you have also presented no evidence that Antiguan gambling sites are fraudulent. I don't see why an analogy is necessary anyway; this isn't that complicated.
Since the police risk their lives every day to keep all of us safe, the very least you can to is show some appreciation and cooperate with them. Refuse? Then what crimes are you hiding?
Did you really just write that? Is this just flame bait, or do you actually believe anyone not interested in doing whatever a cop asks of them for any or no reason is a criminal? It's exactly that attitude on the part of police (anyone who doesn't roll over for me must be guilty of something) that causes a lot of the bad feeling toward police in this country.
As some (your regular readers and fans too) have noted, TD has degraded significantly recently, its the place to go for a laugh about whatever is upsetting you NSA, Prenda and whatever else,, people are sick of it.
If you hate it so much, why do you still read it? I almost wish I had so much time on my hands that I found it worthwhile to read blogs I don't like. But not quite.
All humor aside, I think it's a seriously major issue and don't understand why people don't protest in the streets regularly about how bus companies apparently don't care enough about their safety to install a few hundred dollars worth of anchors and straps in each bus.
Because it's not a seriously major issue. Buses rarely get into accidents worse than a fender bender because A) (I hope) bus drivers are trained better than your average driver and B) they're enormous and so other drivers notice them. Secondly, even if they are in an accident, odds are it will be with a vehicle that weighs much, much less, so the acceleration (in the physics sense) of the bus (and so its passengers) will be small. Therefore, not much need for seatbelts.
The exceptions are buses driving (sorry, careening) off of mountain roads, and buses colliding with tractor trailers or other very large vehicles. Neither of which happens very often, at least in the US. Or if it does I'm blissfully unaware. :-)
The answer is obviously that someone should have just had the wisdom to make an exception knowing full well that an exception in this case would not be a precedent for any other exception arguments.
If we could trust bureaucrats to make the right decision all the time, we wouldn't need regulations to begin with. The rules can't be "buildings must have safety features A B and C unless the inspector decides they're not necessary" which is what you're suggesting. Besides the problem of varying levels of competence and wisdom, it would practically guarantee corruption.
As long as it's done right, no risk of smoke inhalation or collapse is possible to the building from any contained fire.
Wouldn't it be best to assume things are not being done right? That way if you're wrong then someone has incurred some extra expense. If you assume it's being done right and you're wrong, people could die. That's basically the whole point of safety regulations: we don't trust businesses to do everything right on their own.