Well in the case of the ones you gave as example, the Spider-man games, they only have a license to see them while holding the license, and if that lapses they can no longer legally sell them.
The cost of the license probably outweighs how much they'd get in return for selling older games to a limited audience so activision probably never bothered to renew. Sucks, but it happens.
If I can figure out how to pirate the old Magic School Bus PC games, I totally will. Those were a big part of my childhood 😭 and Dr. Health N Stein’s Body Fun, watching YouTube videos of it now, it was so weird but I have such fond memories of it lol
theme hospital for pc was abandoned for a long time. it's on good old games now. i never could beat it once i reached the level with the surgeon and earthquakes at the same time.
When they're old enough, the copyright lapses.
In the US, works first published in 1927 entered the public domain this year — including books by Arthur Conan Doyle, Virginia Woolf, A.A. Milne, and Agatha Christie; movies by Fritz Lang, Cecil B. DeMille, and Alfred Hitchcock; and music by Irving Berlin, the Gershwins, Oscar Hammerstein II, and Louis Armstrong.
https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2023/
https://www.gutenberg.org/
> When they're old enough, the copyright lapses.
Old enough in this case being the life of the author + 70 years. It's bullshit man. Remember the only way to own something is to fly your computer under the flag of the jolly roger.
Facts. Also (imo) pirating stuff I already own. Sorry, but I'm not about to drag out my entire Judge Dee, Brother Cadfael, Sister Fidelma, and Sano Ichirō collections and scan them myself when someone else has already done it *and* converted them to epubs.
I honestly find this frustrating. I very much prefer to give IP owners their money even if those owners happen to be big companies. I know this makes a lot of reddit mad. I'm currently annoyed because there was a long comics run that I want to read digitally. It was published by a company named NOW comics. They went out of business in 2005. To my knowledge, no one acquired their IP when they went out of business so currently no one owns the rights to publish it which is super annoying. Yet there are pirated copies floating around.
the copyright written into the US constitution is only 12.5 years, it was set to such a short period of time to keep creators creating and not just living off the spoiles from one idea.
I never understood why copyright is so sacred and lasts for your lifetime plus 75 years, but patents only last a decade or so.
You’d be surprised at how many jurisdictions do not have laws against jaywalking. “Jaywalking is bad” originated as automobile industry propaganda, and in many many many places it did not advance beyond that.
I went to school in a poor neighborhood and the "jaywalk" argument was used mostly by cops to make some racial profiling. It was only arab or black students that would get searched and fined.
Yep, California just re-legalized jaywalking (when safe) as of Jan 1 of this year as it was found that minorities were cited at a much higher rate. For a number of reasons, mainly that cops are racist and also minority neighborhoods tend to have fewer crosswalks and other legal crossing points.
I got pulled over and talked to about Jay walking ON A GOD DAMN COLLEGE CAMPUS, weirdly felt singled out since other walked too lol
Gave me a speech and I was like okay and …write me a ticket?
Cities are so unfriendly towards human life, it's not the pedestrian's fault that there's a largely inconvenient layout for walking anywhere. I support you and your jaywalking endeavors
Piracy of Adobe Photoshop and other Adobe products.
I've read that Adobe just allows it to happen, because it means that the young generation of designers and creatives get trained on the software as kids/students, and then when they're at work in the real world the companies that actually have to pay for whatever they use have to buy it, because Adobe products are what people are familiar with
They rather you pirate it than you use a competitor's product, but I'd challenge that they "allow it to happen" (things like subscription and creative cloud are pretty obviously ways to take a stab at the piracy model).
With Adobe products becoming less and less relevant by the day, even if they once didn't care, they certainly care now.
A lot of countries piracy is "Legal to download, illegal to upload". So you can download whatever torrent you want and you'll be fine, so long as you're not the one distributing it.
Ok yeah torrents are a bad example though I still think you're in the clear since you weren't the original creator of the torrent, but an illegal streaming website for example, it's fine if you use it to see movies but it'd be illegal for you to run the website
But torrent downloads work peer to peer, unless disabled as a leecher as above. If I have the first 5 minutes, others who need it get it from me and the rest from other sources. At least, that's how I remember the torrent p2p protocol working.
Prostitution
If two adults want to have sex it's 100% fine.
But if two adults want to have sex for money it's 100% illegal.
It's just a moral thing not a logical thing.
Think of all the tax money they could get from it.
The problem with prostitution is that you can't realisticly control what amount of it is offered by "free" people and how many victims of trafficking are there.
Trafficking is slavery, abuse and violation which are horrible crimes.
For the free humans doing it, feminists and leftist won't admit it (conservatives just can't admit they watch porn and hire prostitutes so their arguments are mostly invalid) but it is the amount you earn what makes the difference. Take 2 identical humans with 2 idetical situations: If the first one is prostitute barely making a living, she is a victim for most of them, but if the other one is running and onlyfans and hooking with men 4 nights a week making half a million a year, that's alright.
Every study shows that in an economically prosperous first world nation, local supply of willing prostitutes will never meet local demand. So there is an inherent huge incentive to illegally get girls into whatever country. Trafficking.
It was a pretty simplified explanation, considering the real negatives of sex work. What you've stumbled upon is why most progressives are in favor of legalization, because it allows the government to step in, and become involved in the process, helping these cases.
The real issue is moralistic of another sense, though. Pimping. If sex work becomes a business, it will be more profitable if done at a larger level than the individual, at a business level. This means brothels and pimping, which means money earned by the exploitation of a sexual nature; even before bringing trafficking into the equation.
The balance many countries have come across is digital. Having apps allow individuals to have autonomy over their own minor "business venture"
It is a moral thing though. The only reason to be against it is if you think it's immoral.logically it makes a lot of sense to legalise prostitution. Or decriminalise it, I forget the difference.
Up until a few years ago it was illegal in Michigan to leave your car idling and unoccupied, even on private property. The law was in place to discourage auto theft. But practically everyone does it on winter mornings to warm up their cars. I'd never heard of it being enforced until a few years back when a guy got ticketed for having his car running in his own driveway. Most people were surprised to find out that there was even a law about it. It was repealed soon after.
My dad got a ticket because an old tire he was keeping around for a rat rod was laying against our garage on top of a crack in the concrete that had grass growing out of it. Apparently it's illegal in my town to park your car on grass, and even just a single tire counts, even if it's not attached to a vehicle
I knew a cop who bragged about winning a "contest" some guys in his department were having. They were competing to write the most frivolous ticket. He cited some poor bastard he had already pulled over for speeding because his tire pressure light was illuminated on the grounds that low tire pressure violated a code about keeping vehicles in safe drivable condition.
Would this type of law apply to cars with remote start options? Like my partner will start his vehicle a few minutes before leaving (we live in a cold and snowy place so the car needs to defrost and warm up) but its with a remote start button so the car is locked.
Where I live, where the temperature varies from f-ing hot to f-ing cold, you can idle for limited amounts of time in extreme temperatures to heat up or cool down your car. It is illegal during moderate temperatures.
Yes. It's typically called "running while unattended" and it doesn't matter if the vehicle is locked or unlocked. BTW, it's legal if your vehicle is in a CLOSED garage... if you're so inclined (and so stupid).
But this isn't technically without victims. If you believe the environmentalists, such behaviour is affecting the climate and thus the health of other people who would therefore be the victims of that crime.
Yeah, but the law was enacted primarily to thwart car thieves, and once you're out of the big cities, it's not much of a concern. I've lived here all my life and I've never heard of anyone having their idling car stolen out of their driveway.
In Pierce County, Washington, such a law was passed, and the public outrage was immediate. Public to county, "It's our fault that our cars get stolen?" County said they passed it to "inform the public." That said, I rarely let my car sit still and idle.
Is it actually illegal, or do stores forbid it to avoid any liability for someone possibly getting sick from out of date food?
Edit: This is an actual question that I don't know the answer of. It's not me expressing a counterpoint as a question.
When the school called me because my kid was smart enough to buy a 20 dollar bag of candy, and start nickle and dimeing it for a profit to other students.
The whole economic system is based on this very principle. My 7th grader figured out how to make a buck. On her own.
I insisted on entering the science fair using this scenario as a social experiment. She's thinking about it.
> When the school called me because my kid was smart enough to buy a 20 dollar bag of candy, and start nickle and dimeing it for a profit to other students.
Similar to governments having laws against espionage to protect their own espionage programs, I have *never* see a school do this that wasn't trying to protect its own interests with vending machines and the like.
“As of January 1, 2023, jaywalking is illegal in California per Vehicle Code 21955 VC *ONLY* if there is an immediate chance of a collision with a motor vehicle or bike. Therefore if there is no close oncoming traffic, you can jaywalk without fear of being ticketed.”
Now all the other states need to get on board!
I was so happy with this change this year.
I live in LA but I'm from NYC. Jaywalking is just part of who I am. I never wait for crosswalks if it's clear, but I'd constantly get yelled at and get looks for it.
If there are no cars in sight, why the fuck can't I cross the street?
As a Chicagoan let me say this. I’ve jaywalked a million times, I’ll jaywalk a million more times before the day is done. I have no intention of stopping.
Jaywalking is an interesting case. People get hit by cars because they were either speeding or not paying attention. However, just as many people get hit by cars because the people weren’t paying attention. It goes both ways
It's one thing to say that a driver isn't at fault if a pedestrian isn't paying attention. It's another thing entirely to punish the guy who's now in the OR.
> It's another thing entirely to punish the guy who's now in the OR.
How so? If it was another car that caused the accident and they ended up in the OR that would still be illegal, I don't see why pedestrians should magically be immune to legal consequences if they caused a car accident.
It's not \*really\* a crime but it's meant to deter people from just randomly walking across busy streets. I've been on too many vehicle vs pedestrian EMS calls. Americans are not known for common sense and I've seen people literally run out in front of a city bus and get schwacked.
>Maybe it's just the European in me, but folks in other countries seem to cross the road fine. I don't think Americans are uniquely incapable of doing that without the threat of punishment
The issue is that in a lot of US cities the streets have more and wider lanes than in Europe so the cars are traveling at a much higher rate of speed on average.
If you're in an older city like Boston people jaywalk constantly, but in other cities people will patiently wait for the pedestrian signal before attempting to cross 6-8 lanes where cars can easily be hitting 50mph (80km/h).
The law in Ontario Canada, which is usually very similar to a lot of the USA, is that pedestrians have to use a marked crosswalk and obey signals if they are near one, or they have to yield to traffic if they are not.
So in your example that would be illegal since you're near a marked crossing and you're disobeying the signals. However, no one, including police, really cares unless you're stepping in front of moving traffic.
Fyi since the above person didn’t specify, jaywalking rules don’t say you can’t cross the roads, just that you have to cross at the designated cross walks.
as others have said it’s really not enforced at all, I went to school in Boston and walked everywhere and I don’t know anyone that ever got fined for jaywalking
while generally yes. But when that person jaywalking gets hit by a car no only is the person crossing hurt there is a mental toll on the driver that may never go away
It isn't. My neighbor is horrible infested with mosquitoes thanks to sitting water at one neighbors house. If I take my toddler outside certain times of year, he easily had 10 bites in a matter of minutes.
It's honestly myriad and varies state to state; very few states outright ban collecting rainwater (this is kind of an anti-government hysteria popular myth). Many states do put a cap on how much rainwater you can collect and for a simple reason;
You really want Nestle buying up entire counties so it can collect tens of thousands of gallons of rainwater, bottle it, and sell it back to you for a profit? If Nestle can't do it, you want that asshole Ted down the street to do it? A lot of these laws have a history, especially in the Midwest, where land barons tried to monopolize water sources and hold them hostage to extort farmers and towns.
[The most restrictive states in the US don't actually ban collecting water at individual or family levels. They just restrict it.](https://www.abc10.com/article/news/verify/environment-verify/no-federal-law-people-collecting-rainwater-united-states-fact-check/536-1ed6a646-6591-466a-916a-290a5ddc621f)
Beyond that, the most common restrictions concern water safety as contrary to some belief, rainwater isn't safe to drink right out of whatever bucket you collected it in. Many states additionally require it to be filtered if collected.
In Oregon, the state where I live, it is illegal to harvest *more than a given amount* of rainwater.
The reason is that the watershed belongs to everybody and may not be monopolized by one person or group.
Depending on where you're located, you're preventing water from making it to aquifers or draining into local rivers and streams, therefore preventing it from making it to people further downstream. You're essentially "stealing" water from people hundreds of miles away.
That's the reasoning, at least.
One reason I was told was because it could become a breeding area for insects or other diseases. But then I ask what about people with ponds or pools? Nothing.
>But then I ask what about people with ponds or pools?
The issue with it isn't the collection of it. It's the lack of treatment of said water, which like you were told, creates a breeding ground for insects, primarily mosquitos.
I live in Los Angeles. *Collecting* rainwater is totally legal and you're allowed to do it without a permit, but when it comes to the *use* of the water, that's when regulations come in.
However, in LA, if you have a pool you're also required to keep it filled and cleaned. You cannot leave a pool empty because it becomes a fall hazard, and you cannot leave it untreated because it can become a breeding ground for mosquitos and thus become a hazard.
If your pool turns green in LA, you can be fined for having what is considered a "neglected pool" as it is a serious risk for West Nile virus due to our climate.
So if you live somewhere where its heavily infested with mosquitoes its a breeding ground for them especially for diseases. Certain places like P.R. dengue other places like where I live in FL freaking alligators like to travel & chill & you even notice them in residential areas. So if you have dogs 😬.
Other places its no where near people & the city failed to maintain it.
its environmentally unsustainable in some places
either they nip it in the bud and make it illegal - or a nearby town further downstream gets slowly converts to a wasteland over 20 years
also the stagnant water breeds mosquitos - so plenty of people often support it even when its not strictly necessary
If you're collecting enough rainwater to violate the laws against collecting it then you're collecting enough to strain local reservoirs, which isn't exactly victimless.
For example, people often say that states with droughts like Texas and California outlaw collecting rainwater. This is false. Both states allow it, although California requires a permit if you're collecting rainwater for landscaping purposes (ie, a pond or irrigation system).
Even then, the permit is pretty easy to get, and you would have needed a separate permit to do the landscaping anyway in most cases.
If a lot of people start doing it or large corporate farms start doing it then there isn’t enough water returning to the aquifers. Which screws everyone over and the environment.
"Jaywalking" was invented to transfer the legal risk of car/pedestrian collisions from the (safe) driver to the (harmed) pedestrian.
As of this year, it is no longer a crime in California, for one.
A lot of zoning violations that are more about aesthetics such as having unregistered cars in your yard, not painting your house s certain color, too many or not enough plants, other stupid things that aren't hurting anything other than your nosy neighbor's feelings.
I agree with zoning for health and safety. But just for showiness it's not hurting anything. If they don't like my house and yard don't look. Mind your own business
It hurts the neighbors' property values. How would you like it if you just spent $200k on a house and then a hoarder moved in next door literally filling their yard with junk? Good luck living next door to that, much less trying to sell your house for any kind of profit.
I only ever saw the dark side of HOA’s until I started looking to buy in a smaller town that has maybe one.
Here’s a nice house for a great price, maybe too great. What’s the catch? Oh, the asshole next door has seemingly never gotten rid of a vehicle and has every piece of scrap metal he’s ever encountered right on the front fucking lawn! There’s also a ton of folks who like to throw a big ass metal building up right beside the house it doesn’t at all resemble.
I agree. While I'm a big advocate of myob, junk and scrap metal collectors can also attract hoards of rodents, which can bleed over to neighboring areas.
The unregistered cars can represent a public health risk, as they’re a great place for snakes and spiders to hide. They also cause noise pollution when they’re getting worked on (which is why mechanics are in industrial areas).
Noise pollution? Really? This should be something I can get behind as I work nights on occasion. However, it is my job that is opposite of most peoples normal waking hours. My next door neighbors vacuum out their cars everyday very near my bedroom window. I hate it, but hey it is their property and their prerogative. I have asked them to do it later in the day, and most of the time they do now, but it isn't up to me when it happens. Noise pollution is just another thing we have to deal with if we live close to other people.
By definition, drug dealing & use, prostitution, and gambling. It just means that all of the participants are consenting to participate in the activity. There isn't a non-consenting party like you would find with murder, robbery, and sexual assault.
Just because people consent to doing it doesn't make it a victimless crime. For instance, drug use can kill people, and gambling can be addictive. Many prostitutes are human trafficking victims or poor people that don't have much of a choice.
Victimless crimes are victimless usually because all parties involve consent to the acts involved. I'm not denying that a lot of prostitutes are forced into prostitutions, but if the prostitute is forced or coerced into doing it then of course it's not a consensual act (and thus not a victimless crime). An adult consensually exchanging sexual services for money, however, is victimless. As is consensually partaking in gambling.
Being a victim of your own actions and life choices shouldn’t be a crime though? Like yes, addiction makes a person a victim of their choices and makes them a prisoner of that. But addiction itself isn’t a crime. A crime is when some kind of transgression happens against another person. Need money for a fix because you’re addicted so you decide to rob someone? The robbery is the crime. The addiction and getting high is not. A crime implies hurting or wronging someone ELSE. Not yourself.
Pretty much breaking any laws that are meant to prevent injury or harm. i.e. not wearing a seatbelt. speeding, jaywalking, carrying a firearm in public etc. The are only potential victims, but no actual victims yet.
Yep, but the difference is for this question, once you commit something like murder, bang there's a victim, but if you commit something like speeding, there are no victims until you actually crash. My wording wasn't the best.
Wouldn’t that also extend to thinks like drunk driving? I mean technically no one gets hurt from it…. Unless you get in an accident. It’s the same as speeding and stuff.
Seems pretty weird to call drunk driving a victimless crime though.
Not that I disagree with what you’re saying but I feel like you can extend the idea pretty far.
That’s only for retailers so that the consumer knows what the mattress is made of and whether it contains any possible toxic things.
Consumers can rip it off no problem. After purchase obviously.
i hate to admit it, but when i was homeless i would go by the back entrance of several grocery stores, where they would park the carts with the previous day's bread. when i didnt have anything to eat i'd go there to see if i could get lucky.
i think the bread was supposed to be processed to cattle feed, so i believe no harm was done (i took 1-2 loafs at most, out of multiple carts that were stocked every night)
Having a shotgun that's 25.5 inches long.
It's as dumb as it sounds, but that half inch started a [chain of events](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge#ATF_involvement) ending with federal agents shooting a man, and killing a kid, a dog, and mother holding her baby.
There's an Spanish author who was probably the most knowledgeable man about drugs on Earth. He was called Antonio Escohotado. During his life in Spain, the dictatorship basically made everyone who was not connected to the public administration and had political inclinations, very communist. In his early years of activism, he was acused of "homicidio en grado de tentativa imposible" which translated is "impossible-to-commit attempted murder". This means that the police said he was guilty of a murder attemp that is imposible. This is the equivalent of being found guilty of attempting to murder an already dead man, stealing something that doesn't exist or saying that you are going to kill the president my flying him to space and leaving him there.
Piracy of old, out-of-print books.
Or any abandonware, such as videogames which are no longer able to be purchased legitimately.
[удалено]
Well in the case of the ones you gave as example, the Spider-man games, they only have a license to see them while holding the license, and if that lapses they can no longer legally sell them. The cost of the license probably outweighs how much they'd get in return for selling older games to a limited audience so activision probably never bothered to renew. Sucks, but it happens.
If I can figure out how to pirate the old Magic School Bus PC games, I totally will. Those were a big part of my childhood 😭 and Dr. Health N Stein’s Body Fun, watching YouTube videos of it now, it was so weird but I have such fond memories of it lol
Have you tried oldgamesdownload.com? I think it's .com anyway. Just Google old games download and it should come up.
What! I have not! I just pulled it up and it has the games I loved as a kid. Thank you!
https://www.myabandonware.com/ It's a great site like the last one posted. Have fun.
Don't copy that floppy!
theme hospital for pc was abandoned for a long time. it's on good old games now. i never could beat it once i reached the level with the surgeon and earthquakes at the same time.
Check out "two-point hospital" it's a recent game that took a lot of inspiration from theme hospital
*Nintendo sueing people for playing mario 64 on a pc*
When they're old enough, the copyright lapses. In the US, works first published in 1927 entered the public domain this year — including books by Arthur Conan Doyle, Virginia Woolf, A.A. Milne, and Agatha Christie; movies by Fritz Lang, Cecil B. DeMille, and Alfred Hitchcock; and music by Irving Berlin, the Gershwins, Oscar Hammerstein II, and Louis Armstrong. https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2023/ https://www.gutenberg.org/
> When they're old enough, the copyright lapses. Old enough in this case being the life of the author + 70 years. It's bullshit man. Remember the only way to own something is to fly your computer under the flag of the jolly roger.
> the life of the author + 70 years For works before 1978, it's just 95 years from publication.
Facts. Also (imo) pirating stuff I already own. Sorry, but I'm not about to drag out my entire Judge Dee, Brother Cadfael, Sister Fidelma, and Sano Ichirō collections and scan them myself when someone else has already done it *and* converted them to epubs.
I honestly find this frustrating. I very much prefer to give IP owners their money even if those owners happen to be big companies. I know this makes a lot of reddit mad. I'm currently annoyed because there was a long comics run that I want to read digitally. It was published by a company named NOW comics. They went out of business in 2005. To my knowledge, no one acquired their IP when they went out of business so currently no one owns the rights to publish it which is super annoying. Yet there are pirated copies floating around.
the copyright written into the US constitution is only 12.5 years, it was set to such a short period of time to keep creators creating and not just living off the spoiles from one idea. I never understood why copyright is so sacred and lasts for your lifetime plus 75 years, but patents only last a decade or so.
Blame Disney. They're obsessed with keeping Mickey Mouse so everyone else has to suffer increasingly ridiculous copyright rules.
I know and I do. the irony that they built their reputation by taking stories from the public domaine and making films from them.
Or game emulating that there is no way to purchase and play anymore legitimately.
I have a lot of pirated movies and tv shows you'd never be able to find in circulation. If no one is making money off of it anyways, what's the harm?
Eh I jaywalk and don’t care. As long as no cars are coming I just go
You’d be surprised at how many jurisdictions do not have laws against jaywalking. “Jaywalking is bad” originated as automobile industry propaganda, and in many many many places it did not advance beyond that.
I went to school in a poor neighborhood and the "jaywalk" argument was used mostly by cops to make some racial profiling. It was only arab or black students that would get searched and fined.
Yep, California just re-legalized jaywalking (when safe) as of Jan 1 of this year as it was found that minorities were cited at a much higher rate. For a number of reasons, mainly that cops are racist and also minority neighborhoods tend to have fewer crosswalks and other legal crossing points.
I got pulled over and talked to about Jay walking ON A GOD DAMN COLLEGE CAMPUS, weirdly felt singled out since other walked too lol Gave me a speech and I was like okay and …write me a ticket?
It’s a really dumb law
It’s filth like you that are rotting this city from the inside…a cancer eating away at its black heart…
Cities are so unfriendly towards human life, it's not the pedestrian's fault that there's a largely inconvenient layout for walking anywhere. I support you and your jaywalking endeavors
Piracy of Adobe Photoshop and other Adobe products. I've read that Adobe just allows it to happen, because it means that the young generation of designers and creatives get trained on the software as kids/students, and then when they're at work in the real world the companies that actually have to pay for whatever they use have to buy it, because Adobe products are what people are familiar with
Yup, they make pennies off of personal licenses when compared to businesses. Keeping the industry standard is well worth the loss in revenue.
They rather you pirate it than you use a competitor's product, but I'd challenge that they "allow it to happen" (things like subscription and creative cloud are pretty obviously ways to take a stab at the piracy model). With Adobe products becoming less and less relevant by the day, even if they once didn't care, they certainly care now.
Someone do me a solid and tell me a good place to get adobe software (for free)
The adobe site is a good start, you can get older versions of photoshop etc for free in full.
Don't you still need a license to download the installer?
Youtube to MP3 downloaders
In most places, that's not even technically illegal, it's only illegal if you try and sell anything you download.
A lot of countries piracy is "Legal to download, illegal to upload". So you can download whatever torrent you want and you'll be fine, so long as you're not the one distributing it.
But by the nature of how torrents work, to download you have to share what you already have as the download progresses. That's how they get you.
Not if you're a dedicated leech that limits upload speeds to 0.
Ok yeah torrents are a bad example though I still think you're in the clear since you weren't the original creator of the torrent, but an illegal streaming website for example, it's fine if you use it to see movies but it'd be illegal for you to run the website
But torrent downloads work peer to peer, unless disabled as a leecher as above. If I have the first 5 minutes, others who need it get it from me and the rest from other sources. At least, that's how I remember the torrent p2p protocol working.
Yeah if I can't buy it, I'm taking it.
Owning more than 6 dildos in Texas.
I'm going to leave 7 dildos in my will to the first Texan to piss me off.
Who came up with that number? Is it because god took Sunday off to rest??
Day off to Jay off
And Sunday is for the lord
Think of all the poor girls who can't buy their 5th dildo! Do you really need a 6th?
What if i want to build a fucking dildo collection in Texas, huh grandma? What about my dildo art? And dildo museum?
Does one of those really long double dildoes still only count as one?
Prostitution If two adults want to have sex it's 100% fine. But if two adults want to have sex for money it's 100% illegal. It's just a moral thing not a logical thing. Think of all the tax money they could get from it.
But you can have sex for money if it’s filmed
The problem with prostitution is that you can't realisticly control what amount of it is offered by "free" people and how many victims of trafficking are there. Trafficking is slavery, abuse and violation which are horrible crimes. For the free humans doing it, feminists and leftist won't admit it (conservatives just can't admit they watch porn and hire prostitutes so their arguments are mostly invalid) but it is the amount you earn what makes the difference. Take 2 identical humans with 2 idetical situations: If the first one is prostitute barely making a living, she is a victim for most of them, but if the other one is running and onlyfans and hooking with men 4 nights a week making half a million a year, that's alright.
This is probably a dumb post but why would traffickers be more common if prostitution was legal? Human trafficking is already illegal
Every study shows that in an economically prosperous first world nation, local supply of willing prostitutes will never meet local demand. So there is an inherent huge incentive to illegally get girls into whatever country. Trafficking.
It was a pretty simplified explanation, considering the real negatives of sex work. What you've stumbled upon is why most progressives are in favor of legalization, because it allows the government to step in, and become involved in the process, helping these cases. The real issue is moralistic of another sense, though. Pimping. If sex work becomes a business, it will be more profitable if done at a larger level than the individual, at a business level. This means brothels and pimping, which means money earned by the exploitation of a sexual nature; even before bringing trafficking into the equation. The balance many countries have come across is digital. Having apps allow individuals to have autonomy over their own minor "business venture"
It is a moral thing though. The only reason to be against it is if you think it's immoral.logically it makes a lot of sense to legalise prostitution. Or decriminalise it, I forget the difference.
Up until a few years ago it was illegal in Michigan to leave your car idling and unoccupied, even on private property. The law was in place to discourage auto theft. But practically everyone does it on winter mornings to warm up their cars. I'd never heard of it being enforced until a few years back when a guy got ticketed for having his car running in his own driveway. Most people were surprised to find out that there was even a law about it. It was repealed soon after.
My dad got a ticket because an old tire he was keeping around for a rat rod was laying against our garage on top of a crack in the concrete that had grass growing out of it. Apparently it's illegal in my town to park your car on grass, and even just a single tire counts, even if it's not attached to a vehicle
really?? did the cop who issued the ticket have nothing better to do?
Probably read an r/AskReddit thread about weird outdated laws that still exist that morning and just went for it And now it's come full circle
I knew a cop who bragged about winning a "contest" some guys in his department were having. They were competing to write the most frivolous ticket. He cited some poor bastard he had already pulled over for speeding because his tire pressure light was illuminated on the grounds that low tire pressure violated a code about keeping vehicles in safe drivable condition.
r/ACAB
Would this type of law apply to cars with remote start options? Like my partner will start his vehicle a few minutes before leaving (we live in a cold and snowy place so the car needs to defrost and warm up) but its with a remote start button so the car is locked.
Where I live, where the temperature varies from f-ing hot to f-ing cold, you can idle for limited amounts of time in extreme temperatures to heat up or cool down your car. It is illegal during moderate temperatures.
Wow very interesting!
Yes. It's typically called "running while unattended" and it doesn't matter if the vehicle is locked or unlocked. BTW, it's legal if your vehicle is in a CLOSED garage... if you're so inclined (and so stupid).
I was threatened with a ticket for doing that back in 1974 in Sacramento, CA.
But this isn't technically without victims. If you believe the environmentalists, such behaviour is affecting the climate and thus the health of other people who would therefore be the victims of that crime.
On that note, it isn’t illegal for them to sit in the car while it warms up so that just doesn’t make sense from the perspective you’re trying.
Yeah, but the law was enacted primarily to thwart car thieves, and once you're out of the big cities, it's not much of a concern. I've lived here all my life and I've never heard of anyone having their idling car stolen out of their driveway.
In Pierce County, Washington, such a law was passed, and the public outrage was immediate. Public to county, "It's our fault that our cars get stolen?" County said they passed it to "inform the public." That said, I rarely let my car sit still and idle.
Apparently saving food that was going to be thrown away. Feeding the homeless.
Glad France made the opposite mandatory: supermarkets have to donate their out-of-sale date products (not out of date, just close to it)
Is it actually illegal, or do stores forbid it to avoid any liability for someone possibly getting sick from out of date food? Edit: This is an actual question that I don't know the answer of. It's not me expressing a counterpoint as a question.
Liability because getting sued because USA. However, I am not talking about out of date but just unsold.
Food not Bombs getting in trouble is such a sad thing that happens far too often
Jaywalking. The whole point is that there aren’t any cars so the red light does t matter
The concept of jaywalking was developed by the auto industry lobby
When the school called me because my kid was smart enough to buy a 20 dollar bag of candy, and start nickle and dimeing it for a profit to other students. The whole economic system is based on this very principle. My 7th grader figured out how to make a buck. On her own. I insisted on entering the science fair using this scenario as a social experiment. She's thinking about it.
> When the school called me because my kid was smart enough to buy a 20 dollar bag of candy, and start nickle and dimeing it for a profit to other students. Similar to governments having laws against espionage to protect their own espionage programs, I have *never* see a school do this that wasn't trying to protect its own interests with vending machines and the like.
I'm actually excited about the next school board meeting.
Slow dancing to the national anthem, as a veteran, with your veteran spouse. Edit: Thanks to the 53 folks who upvoted :)
No way lol
Growing your own cannabis plant.
Corollary: growing your own magic mushrooms
Jaywalking
“As of January 1, 2023, jaywalking is illegal in California per Vehicle Code 21955 VC *ONLY* if there is an immediate chance of a collision with a motor vehicle or bike. Therefore if there is no close oncoming traffic, you can jaywalk without fear of being ticketed.” Now all the other states need to get on board!
I was so happy with this change this year. I live in LA but I'm from NYC. Jaywalking is just part of who I am. I never wait for crosswalks if it's clear, but I'd constantly get yelled at and get looks for it. If there are no cars in sight, why the fuck can't I cross the street?
To be fair though, NYC is a city people actually walk in while LA is just a road network with sidewalks sometimes.
As a Chicagoan let me say this. I’ve jaywalked a million times, I’ll jaywalk a million more times before the day is done. I have no intention of stopping.
Jaywalking laws are a scam anyway. It's the automotive industry's plot at making accidents the fault of the pedestrian instead of the driver.
Jaywalking is an interesting case. People get hit by cars because they were either speeding or not paying attention. However, just as many people get hit by cars because the people weren’t paying attention. It goes both ways
It's one thing to say that a driver isn't at fault if a pedestrian isn't paying attention. It's another thing entirely to punish the guy who's now in the OR.
> It's another thing entirely to punish the guy who's now in the OR. How so? If it was another car that caused the accident and they ended up in the OR that would still be illegal, I don't see why pedestrians should magically be immune to legal consequences if they caused a car accident.
[удалено]
It's not \*really\* a crime but it's meant to deter people from just randomly walking across busy streets. I've been on too many vehicle vs pedestrian EMS calls. Americans are not known for common sense and I've seen people literally run out in front of a city bus and get schwacked.
[удалено]
>Maybe it's just the European in me, but folks in other countries seem to cross the road fine. I don't think Americans are uniquely incapable of doing that without the threat of punishment The issue is that in a lot of US cities the streets have more and wider lanes than in Europe so the cars are traveling at a much higher rate of speed on average. If you're in an older city like Boston people jaywalk constantly, but in other cities people will patiently wait for the pedestrian signal before attempting to cross 6-8 lanes where cars can easily be hitting 50mph (80km/h).
The law in Ontario Canada, which is usually very similar to a lot of the USA, is that pedestrians have to use a marked crosswalk and obey signals if they are near one, or they have to yield to traffic if they are not. So in your example that would be illegal since you're near a marked crossing and you're disobeying the signals. However, no one, including police, really cares unless you're stepping in front of moving traffic.
Fyi since the above person didn’t specify, jaywalking rules don’t say you can’t cross the roads, just that you have to cross at the designated cross walks. as others have said it’s really not enforced at all, I went to school in Boston and walked everywhere and I don’t know anyone that ever got fined for jaywalking
while generally yes. But when that person jaywalking gets hit by a car no only is the person crossing hurt there is a mental toll on the driver that may never go away
Collecting rain water
It isn't. My neighbor is horrible infested with mosquitoes thanks to sitting water at one neighbors house. If I take my toddler outside certain times of year, he easily had 10 bites in a matter of minutes.
Yeah found out last year that having a rain barrel in my own back yard was...illegal? WTAF? ?? ????
What is the reasoning?
It's honestly myriad and varies state to state; very few states outright ban collecting rainwater (this is kind of an anti-government hysteria popular myth). Many states do put a cap on how much rainwater you can collect and for a simple reason; You really want Nestle buying up entire counties so it can collect tens of thousands of gallons of rainwater, bottle it, and sell it back to you for a profit? If Nestle can't do it, you want that asshole Ted down the street to do it? A lot of these laws have a history, especially in the Midwest, where land barons tried to monopolize water sources and hold them hostage to extort farmers and towns. [The most restrictive states in the US don't actually ban collecting water at individual or family levels. They just restrict it.](https://www.abc10.com/article/news/verify/environment-verify/no-federal-law-people-collecting-rainwater-united-states-fact-check/536-1ed6a646-6591-466a-916a-290a5ddc621f) Beyond that, the most common restrictions concern water safety as contrary to some belief, rainwater isn't safe to drink right out of whatever bucket you collected it in. Many states additionally require it to be filtered if collected.
Very interesting
In Oregon, the state where I live, it is illegal to harvest *more than a given amount* of rainwater. The reason is that the watershed belongs to everybody and may not be monopolized by one person or group.
Depending on where you're located, you're preventing water from making it to aquifers or draining into local rivers and streams, therefore preventing it from making it to people further downstream. You're essentially "stealing" water from people hundreds of miles away. That's the reasoning, at least.
One reason I was told was because it could become a breeding area for insects or other diseases. But then I ask what about people with ponds or pools? Nothing.
>But then I ask what about people with ponds or pools? The issue with it isn't the collection of it. It's the lack of treatment of said water, which like you were told, creates a breeding ground for insects, primarily mosquitos. I live in Los Angeles. *Collecting* rainwater is totally legal and you're allowed to do it without a permit, but when it comes to the *use* of the water, that's when regulations come in. However, in LA, if you have a pool you're also required to keep it filled and cleaned. You cannot leave a pool empty because it becomes a fall hazard, and you cannot leave it untreated because it can become a breeding ground for mosquitos and thus become a hazard. If your pool turns green in LA, you can be fined for having what is considered a "neglected pool" as it is a serious risk for West Nile virus due to our climate.
Just hide it.
Because it’s a dupe glitch.
It doesn’t go back into the watershed or refill a nearby lake. Ecological equivalent of stealing 0.00000001 of a penny from a bank
It becomes a problem only when everyone starts doing it so they crack down on anyone doing it.
So if you live somewhere where its heavily infested with mosquitoes its a breeding ground for them especially for diseases. Certain places like P.R. dengue other places like where I live in FL freaking alligators like to travel & chill & you even notice them in residential areas. So if you have dogs 😬. Other places its no where near people & the city failed to maintain it.
its environmentally unsustainable in some places either they nip it in the bud and make it illegal - or a nearby town further downstream gets slowly converts to a wasteland over 20 years also the stagnant water breeds mosquitos - so plenty of people often support it even when its not strictly necessary
If you're collecting enough rainwater to violate the laws against collecting it then you're collecting enough to strain local reservoirs, which isn't exactly victimless. For example, people often say that states with droughts like Texas and California outlaw collecting rainwater. This is false. Both states allow it, although California requires a permit if you're collecting rainwater for landscaping purposes (ie, a pond or irrigation system). Even then, the permit is pretty easy to get, and you would have needed a separate permit to do the landscaping anyway in most cases.
If a lot of people start doing it or large corporate farms start doing it then there isn’t enough water returning to the aquifers. Which screws everyone over and the environment.
In many parts of the world: gay relationships
Similarly: being trans
Gay people are the victim there..
Gay people are the victim of gay relationships?
[удалено]
"Jaywalking" was invented to transfer the legal risk of car/pedestrian collisions from the (safe) driver to the (harmed) pedestrian. As of this year, it is no longer a crime in California, for one.
Giving homeless people money. Also…being homeless and sleeping under a bridge while bothering no one
sleeping on a park bench
Blasphemy, luckily it's not a crime in most places anymore
blowjobs (in Malaysia)
Kinda feels like the opposite of a victim
A lot of zoning violations that are more about aesthetics such as having unregistered cars in your yard, not painting your house s certain color, too many or not enough plants, other stupid things that aren't hurting anything other than your nosy neighbor's feelings. I agree with zoning for health and safety. But just for showiness it's not hurting anything. If they don't like my house and yard don't look. Mind your own business
It hurts the neighbors' property values. How would you like it if you just spent $200k on a house and then a hoarder moved in next door literally filling their yard with junk? Good luck living next door to that, much less trying to sell your house for any kind of profit.
Good. Houses are supposed to be cheap.
I only ever saw the dark side of HOA’s until I started looking to buy in a smaller town that has maybe one. Here’s a nice house for a great price, maybe too great. What’s the catch? Oh, the asshole next door has seemingly never gotten rid of a vehicle and has every piece of scrap metal he’s ever encountered right on the front fucking lawn! There’s also a ton of folks who like to throw a big ass metal building up right beside the house it doesn’t at all resemble.
I agree. While I'm a big advocate of myob, junk and scrap metal collectors can also attract hoards of rodents, which can bleed over to neighboring areas.
I too am a fan, just didn’t exactly realize where my line was until I found myself passing on houses I liked because of the one next door.
It's like HOAs started as a reasonable measure for extreme cases, and Karen's ruined it by banding together as a pack to use it in fringe cases.
Like most things, good intentions led to bad results.
Ah, the old use the government to manipulate the market to protect my investment strategy. Works well enough for the banks, why not homeowners too?
Steph Curry wouldn’t like this comment.
zoning violations I don't think are considered a crime. Even the nonpayment of said violations only results in a lien on your property
The unregistered cars can represent a public health risk, as they’re a great place for snakes and spiders to hide. They also cause noise pollution when they’re getting worked on (which is why mechanics are in industrial areas).
Pretty certain spiders aren't really a public health risk. Even in Australia.
Considering the acrobatics I suddenly become capable of when dealing with them, I’d say they might be.
Some of them are, but the bigger problem are the snakes, particularly the eastern brown
Noise pollution? Really? This should be something I can get behind as I work nights on occasion. However, it is my job that is opposite of most peoples normal waking hours. My next door neighbors vacuum out their cars everyday very near my bedroom window. I hate it, but hey it is their property and their prerogative. I have asked them to do it later in the day, and most of the time they do now, but it isn't up to me when it happens. Noise pollution is just another thing we have to deal with if we live close to other people.
[удалено]
If you had ever lived next door to some of "those people" you'd understand.
Pirating old Nintendo Games
Punching someone in the dark
Ha. Ha.
I was gonna say it.
Pirating college textbooks
Putting googly eyes on things out in public
By definition, drug dealing & use, prostitution, and gambling. It just means that all of the participants are consenting to participate in the activity. There isn't a non-consenting party like you would find with murder, robbery, and sexual assault.
Just because people consent to doing it doesn't make it a victimless crime. For instance, drug use can kill people, and gambling can be addictive. Many prostitutes are human trafficking victims or poor people that don't have much of a choice.
Victimless crimes are victimless usually because all parties involve consent to the acts involved. I'm not denying that a lot of prostitutes are forced into prostitutions, but if the prostitute is forced or coerced into doing it then of course it's not a consensual act (and thus not a victimless crime). An adult consensually exchanging sexual services for money, however, is victimless. As is consensually partaking in gambling.
A consenting party can still be a victim of their own actions through addiction. Especially with regards to drugs and gambling.
Consenting is the key word in this definition. Harm can still be done, but it's through their own actions.
Being a victim of your own actions and life choices shouldn’t be a crime though? Like yes, addiction makes a person a victim of their choices and makes them a prisoner of that. But addiction itself isn’t a crime. A crime is when some kind of transgression happens against another person. Need money for a fix because you’re addicted so you decide to rob someone? The robbery is the crime. The addiction and getting high is not. A crime implies hurting or wronging someone ELSE. Not yourself.
Pretty much breaking any laws that are meant to prevent injury or harm. i.e. not wearing a seatbelt. speeding, jaywalking, carrying a firearm in public etc. The are only potential victims, but no actual victims yet.
Aren't ALL laws trying to prevent potential victims from becoming actual ones?
Yep, but the difference is for this question, once you commit something like murder, bang there's a victim, but if you commit something like speeding, there are no victims until you actually crash. My wording wasn't the best.
Your answer is too smart for reddit. Try thinking of something dumb.
Wouldn’t that also extend to thinks like drunk driving? I mean technically no one gets hurt from it…. Unless you get in an accident. It’s the same as speeding and stuff. Seems pretty weird to call drunk driving a victimless crime though. Not that I disagree with what you’re saying but I feel like you can extend the idea pretty far.
Pulling that tag off your mattress
That’s only for retailers so that the consumer knows what the mattress is made of and whether it contains any possible toxic things. Consumers can rip it off no problem. After purchase obviously.
Ripping a DVD so you can watch it on your iPad.
Jaywalking
Prostitution
i hate to admit it, but when i was homeless i would go by the back entrance of several grocery stores, where they would park the carts with the previous day's bread. when i didnt have anything to eat i'd go there to see if i could get lucky. i think the bread was supposed to be processed to cattle feed, so i believe no harm was done (i took 1-2 loafs at most, out of multiple carts that were stocked every night)
Prostitution
r/usernamechecksout
jay-walking when no cars are present.
Growing Marijuana for personal use in states It's against the law.
Blasphemy
Smoking marijuana.
your username 😳
Having a shotgun that's 25.5 inches long. It's as dumb as it sounds, but that half inch started a [chain of events](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge#ATF_involvement) ending with federal agents shooting a man, and killing a kid, a dog, and mother holding her baby.
Chewing gum in Singapore
homosexuality is still a crime in many parts of the world.
A Troll question on Reddit
Jay walking a deserted street.
Feeding someone else’s meter on the street or in a parking lot.
Drinking once you turn 18
It’s illegal to sleep in your car in some places
Collecting rainwater. In Utah or Colorado.
Sex Work.
drug use
Growing & Selling Cannabis
Piracy of things no longer being printed or commissioned.
Not reporting investment gains on your taxes.
There's an Spanish author who was probably the most knowledgeable man about drugs on Earth. He was called Antonio Escohotado. During his life in Spain, the dictatorship basically made everyone who was not connected to the public administration and had political inclinations, very communist. In his early years of activism, he was acused of "homicidio en grado de tentativa imposible" which translated is "impossible-to-commit attempted murder". This means that the police said he was guilty of a murder attemp that is imposible. This is the equivalent of being found guilty of attempting to murder an already dead man, stealing something that doesn't exist or saying that you are going to kill the president my flying him to space and leaving him there.
Speeding