Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, Sep 24, 2015.
PETA is freaking scary. .
I don't see this going much of anywhere. Then I also wouldn't have thought that corporations would be ruled as people either.
corporations are people my friend, well except when it comes to jail someone, then no one is going to jail........
I will quite openly admit that I think that, generally speaking, monkeys are pr**ks.......
PETA is stupid. Our laws give minimal rights to animals, mostly a right to be treated humanly before we perform research on or slaughter them for dinner.
Before we go any farther, I want someone to explain to me why a monkey would ever need copyright privileges.
starting up again with Trad. hope I make it out close to the end of the season
Mandem need his P for bananas fam.
I don't get it, but I'm upvoting you cuz it sounds funny.
Oh PETA. I would have thought they'd have issue with the pig ****ing head of state but I guess not.
He needs money to pay off his banana habit
Even a super-squishy, animal-loving liberal like myself thinks this is a farce.
A loser pays system would put an end to these stupid ass lawsuits that take up time and money.
Brings new meaning to the term shutter monkey. Just like in a studio, the guy who sets up the lights and positions the camera is the genius behind the shot. Most of the time the guy behind the camera is also that guy. But those franchised mall studios have shutter monkeys who positions up the clients in the prescribed pose and clicks away.
IMO, the photographer owns the copyright since he did all the work. Shutter monkey != photographer.
PETA should change their name to PITA (Pain In The ...)
Makes you want to send them a care package of some sort of animal jerky.
Comeon. You gotta give the monkey some credit. It could've pooped on the camera instead of snapping the shot.
Corporations are only "people" in the sense that they are owned by actually humans. Or groups of humans, or irrevocable trusts administered by humans for the benefit of other humans.
PETA's goal of treating animals humanely sometimes gets taken to ridiculous extremes. This is one of those cases. But far better that they have the opportunity to bring it before a Court, and have a decision made according to our laws and precedents, rather than them resorting to violence or terror to achieve their ends.
LIKE the sea shepperds?
Actually I prefer they just demonstrate. Them dumping horse **** outside Claridge's in London wasted less money then a court case.
It could cause a lot of other problems by making it even more dangerous for certain parties to litigate regardless of who is in the right.
If you're going to do that, attach a note that reads "you are what you eat." PETA occasionally comes up with something thoughtful and well researched. It's not usually the case though, and obviously the really crazy statements are the ones that pop up on news sites. You would be bored by the others.
It's refreshing to see that PETA spends its time productively.
I see very few problems with a loser pays system and would grant the Judges the discretion to reduce court costs if it was a valid compliant but the person came down on the wrong side of the law. It's the only way to stop the ambulance chasing/class action lawyers who don't give a rip about anyone or the law, they just want to fill their pockets.
Okay. I'll give the monkey credit for being photogenic. He smiles with his eyes.
But the copyright still belongs to the photographer.
That wouldn't stop ambulance chasers. If someone is disabled temporarily or permanently due to a serious accident, it may be difficult or impossible to recover those costs from them. The law firm would not be the responsible party. Personal injury lawyers often charge on contingency. You also have the issue of computing these costs if something is defeated on appeal. It's never really simple. These points are just a small fraction of the total issues with such a system.