I hate circuses and this is a circus.

And I'm vegan.

Whole freaking copyright law is a circus. It needs to change, because this way generally only the leeches and arseholes profit from it.

 

Only if the singer is Eric Burdon

 

Smart choice. I never heard of a tomato or potato suing humans.

 

vegetable rights... coming to a country near you soon...

humans, you must learn this earth was not made for you !!!

 

You mean I can be sued by the monkey in my avatar???

 

It's the owner ,never the dog When I leash up my bitches and walk , I have 300 pounds of STFU attached to my wrist. <My puppy's literally make people cross the street buT they are the sweetest dogs , Labs and Pit mixes , so sweet but if you come on my property .. well my bad If you get your dick bit off, the dogs are the least of the worries, i WILL SHOOT YOU.

 

Last edited: Apr 28, 2018

foster might be a candidate if the scalded cat ever hears his last effort....... eeeeoooowwww just kidding foster...wherever u are

 

@TonyG .. "You could always sue PETA".

But that would be a PITA.

 

You are partly correct. Changes are needed and are on the way. However, we must remember that good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws. We should not blame the current laws, we should blame us.

 

@TonyG
I love animals and I believe like anything living they have a right to live and to exist.
One of the earliest parts of the document that seemed lacking, without clogging this thread up with all that were a trite lacking in some common sense, as a decent example:
"The panel held that the complaint included facts sufficient to establish Article III standing because it alleged that the monkey was the author and owner of the photographs and had suffered concrete and particularized economic harms."

While I am certainly no lawyer, someone is almost perverting the law by twisting it to meet their own needs is what it seems to someone like me uneducated in legal jargon.
The most logical methods to me to ascertain validity would surely be:
1. Can the person or animal in question reason?
2. If the person or animal cannot reason then this is not valid.
3. If the person or animal can reason, does it understand that it has been violated in one form or another?

To reiterate I am certainly no lawyer, but the above definitely at the least seems moderately sensible at the most grounded common sense level.

Preventing physical harm I am all for with anything living.
Photographing harm??? A little too grey an area I think.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Apr 28, 2018

If I was better educated in law, I might be able to see it as something other than some lawyer or law firm seeing it as another means to make a lot of money from an animal that does not understand it has been photographically or otherwise violated in a non-harmful manner to it's existence

 

you couldnt be more wrong. if you have an accident and are unconscious, you cannot reason or know youve been violated. so can i steal from you or kill you?

it was a bad choice of a case in the first place because the ape did not take the photos, he accidentally triggered a motion sensor while looking at the camera.
it should have been a case like when an animal paints a painting (ive seen both elephants and monkeys do it), they make choices, look at it, add some more. then if you take it away and sell it and dont even give them a banana on sundays, then you have a case.

 

Moooo

 

So if I disable Ns-1, my dog partially owns the songs I recorded for artists?

I feel a interesting swindle comming up.

 

I was once sued by a turtle. That was a slow year.

 

if he howled and barked in the background, or if he is your only remaining family?
(not sure what ns-1 refers to)
dogs have been known to inherit fortunes

 

As I said I am no lawyer, but still it only looks like an excuse to make money from a monkey which was one word used, that does not know he is being defended or that he might have a legal bill ,or if he wins that he won.
If they gave the monkey the money on a win, do you know what he'd do with it?
Probably use it as toilet paper. That alone is a statement on the validity.

 

Members you need to read the whole case in order to learn what lead the panel to the hear this case in the first place. The panel that heard this case was bound to do so by precedent set in that Circuit that even the panel notes was wrongly decided. That case, Cetacean Cmty.v Bush, must be followed by every district court and panels of the Ninth Circuit unless it is overruled by a panel consisting of said Circuit or the United States Supreme Court. As it was explicitly stated, prior to Cetacean no court ever intimated that animal possess interests that can form basis of a case in controversy. To put an end to this charade by groups like PETA, the Ninth Circuit should sit en banc and overruled Cetacean. PETA is not going to stop unless something is done. I am not against PETA but its actions in this case are deplorable. As the concurring judge notes: "It is clear that PETA's real motivation in this case was to advance its own interests, not Naruto's. PETA used Naruto as a pawn to be manipulated on a chessboard larger than his own case."