Oh, the irony

S

Sovz

Vault Dweller
Dog Attacks Anti-Dangerous Dog Bill Author

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. - The author of a new state law that allows felony charges against owners of dangerous dogs was hospitalized over the weekend after his own dog attacked him.

Bob Schwartz, who also is Gov. Bill Richardson's crime adviser, was hospitalized at University of New Mexico Hospital on Sunday night with bites on both his arms, said Pahl Shipley, a spokesman for the governor.

A hospital spokeswoman declined to release Schwartz's condition, but Shipley said Schwartz is "going to be fine."

Schwartz has three dogs registered with the city: a boxer and two English bulldogs, said Denise Wilcox, who oversees Albuquerque's animal care centers.

Schwartz was instrumental in getting a law passed during this year's regular legislative session that would allow felony charges to be filed against owners of dogs deemed dangerous or potentially dangerous and that seriously injure or kill another animal or person.

The law was designed to make dog owners accountable, said Sen. Sue Wilson Beffort, who worked with Schwartz to pass the bill.

"But I guess when it happens in your own family, that's another story," she said. "That's tragic."

Wilcox said Sunday her office had not received a bite report from University hospital, which is required when a dog bite leads to medical attention.
Click to expand...

Rather ironic, don't you think.
 
It would have been ironic if his dog would have attacked somebody and he would have been convicted according to the bill he helped pass. What happened here is just bad luck, dog gets psycho on the master, shit happens.
 
He can still (and probably will) get convicted. The law clearly states a person will be considered legally liable for criminal/neglect charges if he owns a dog that is 1)Dangerous, or 2)Deemed to be potentially dangerous - BY attacking or injuring a person or an animal.
From a legal prospective it doesn’t matter if the injured person is you nor if you own the attacked animal. As long as it’s proven that your pet is deemed dangerous, you are considered liable for its actions.
 
Fogerty's is a sad tale, not only does he get fucked out of all the CCR royalties, then he gets sued for sounding like himself.

Boxers can be mean dogs, I've had a few and they sent myself and a friend in for stiches.
 
Cimmerian Nights said:
Fogerty's is a sad tale, not only does he get fucked out of all the CCR royalties, then he gets sued for sounding like himself.
Click to expand...

Music belongs to those who write it and perform it. Not some money-grabbing fucktard wearing a suit in an office. If you use devices used in another song, that's cool. Does whoever owns the rights to Shakepear's plays (if someone does) sue others for using iambic pentameter? (I know he didn't invent it, etc.) If your song sounds similar to another song, who cares? It's your problem - if you call it a problem. Censoring music for the sake of material goods is WRONG, and is unforgivable.

Dogs are dogs. If you can't handle the snappy-snarly-shiney-sharpy-bitey pain-making thing right at the front, don't get a dog. If you want one anyway, put up with it and if it bites you - DEAL WITH IT. SHIT HAPPENS. And if a dog bites once or twice only - that does not make it an aggressive/dangerous dog. If the dog in constantly aggressive or continually attacks, then it may be a dangerous dog.

Just remember that they are not robots - you can't program them. They are like people in that they do not take shit with out trying to retaliate. They do unexpected stuff and an unusual action is no reason to kill a dog, just as it is with a person. Dogs are not people, but they aren't remoted controled robots either. Cut them some slack.

End of rant.
 
No, music doesn't neccessarily belong to its creators.

Just like a painting can be sold, music can, too. Just that the rights to "display" or "reproduce" music are usually sold more than the actual music itself.
 
Ashmo said:
No, music doesn't neccessarily belong to its creators.

Just like a painting can be sold, music can, too. Just that the rights to "display" or "reproduce" music are usually sold more than the actual music itself.
Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah, according to the law it doesn't neccessarily belong to the creator but FUCK THAT. It's bullshit. A painting is a material, physical thing. An object that you hold in your hand. Is a song a physical thing? Can you hold it? A copywrite is a piece of paper. You can hold it in your hand. It has no connection to the song other than what we paint upon it.
Music is a language, just like any ordinary everyday language. Songs are stories, and stories take ideas, themes, devices, inspiration from other stories. How many books, do you think, could be written if there were copywrites for ideas like spaceships, magic, gnomes? How limited would literiture be if authors were not allowed to use devices like flashbacks, multiple storylines, etc? It would kill writing - yet this is exactly what these dickheads in their Warner Brothers office are trying to do to music. No music should be copywrited, patented, owned. It is immoral and wrong.

I've said what I have to say on dogs, other than that pugs are damn ugly.
 
ferdinand said:
A painting is a material, physical thing. An object that you hold in your hand. Is a song a physical thing?
Click to expand...
So, if I own a recording of a song, can I say that I own the idea behind it?

How does that differ from owning the physical representation of a visual idea? Is it only different because one is designed for multiple copies, whereas most paintings are thought of as being a single, discrete item? What about pop art prints, or other mass produced artworks?

If I own the sole recording of a song, do I own it in it's entirety?

Crazy hippy.
 
Big T said:
ferdinand said:
A painting is a material, physical thing. An object that you hold in your hand. Is a song a physical thing?
Click to expand...
So, if I own a recording of a song, can I say that I own the idea behind it?
Click to expand...

The obvious answer is NO. It was meant as a rhetorical device. Duhh.

A recording is to a performance as a print on a piece of glossy paper is to the Mona Lisa, unless it was you that played/wrote the song. Just because you have a poster of the Mona Lisa doesn't mean you own the Mona Lisa.

Big T said:
How does that differ from owning the physical representation of a visual idea? Is it only different because one is designed for multiple copies, whereas most paintings are thought of as being a single, discrete item? What about pop art prints, or other mass produced artworks?
Click to expand...

I presume that you are talking about music when you refer to multiple copies. This whole paragraph is meaningless, and this is why: A song is the subjective version, if you will, of a story read aloud to an audience. They are both things that are temporary, and need to be recreated for each telling. A painting is eternal - created once, there forever - it is physical. A painting has absolutely no connection with a song. They are fundamentally opposite things. You cannot compare them. Your entire argument is baseless.

Also, saying that songs are designed for multiple copies is dumb. Last time I checked music had been around for a lot longer than the recording process. You could say that they are heard by many people, but that is the same as a painting being seen by many people.

But talking of copies and paintings is pointless as music is a LANGUAGE. Playing a song is exactly the same as reading a book or a poem to people, just in a different language. Try and reason that a song is more like a painting than a story. Go on. Give it your best shot.
 
ferdinand said:
I presume that you are talking about music when you refer to multiple copies. This whole paragraph is meaningless, and this is why: A song is the subjective version, if you will, of a story read aloud to an audience. They are both things that are temporary, and need to be recreated for each telling. A painting is eternal - created once, there forever - it is physical. A painting has absolutely no connection with a song. They are fundamentally opposite things. You cannot compare them. Your entire argument is baseless.
Click to expand...
I call bullshit.
First of all, each version of a painting is a retelling of the same story, just as each replaying of a song the a new retelling is.
Once you record one of those retellings, as you do with a painting, you have a 'permanent record' of it. Once you start making exact copies, that still remains the case.

Furthermore, the permanence of a song is represented by the composition made by the composer(s), hence the composer can own the copyright to a song, as it is a composition.

Also, your argument about flashbacks and storytelling techniques is moot, because those aren't copyrighted, only its specific implementations per book.
The same goes for music, you can't just copyright using time signatures, but you can copyright a piece of music where you use a time signature.
 
ferdinand said:
But talking of copies and paintings is pointless as music is a LANGUAGE. Playing a song is exactly the same as reading a book or a poem to people, just in a different language. Try and reason that a song is more like a painting than a story. Go on. Give it your best shot.
Click to expand...
Many pieces of visual art are stories.

Many songs are not. They are often just "pleasant sounds", just like the fact that some pieces of visual art are just "pretty pictures".

If you view a painting as simply a collection of pigments attached to canvas/paper/whatever, ignoring any "story" inherent in it, then your argument works. But one could consider a piece of music to just be a collection of pigments on a sheet of music paper, a collection of grooves in a piece of vinyl or, at it's basic, unrecorded level, a collection of movements in a fluid medium.

If you consider the other functions and properties of it then your argument is baseless.
 
Big T said:
If you view a painting as simply a collection of pigments attached to canvas/paper/whatever, ignoring any "story" inherent in it, then your argument works. But one could consider a piece of music to just be a collection of pigments on a sheet of music paper, a collection of grooves in a piece of vinyl or, at it's basic, unrecorded level, a collection of movements in a fluid medium.
Click to expand...
Mayby in the future it is like that, but not today, cause no matter how many times you enlargen a painting you can't get the whole original painting as collection of polygons cause if you enlargen it more than 2 times more, the painting seems more original. Same goes for the audio, as consert vs. audio record. Ahh, this is the artists problem, so "would you be happier" that it isn't mine. :lol:
 
Where did this ferdinand crawl in from?

ferdinand said:
Music is a language, just like any ordinary everyday language.
Click to expand...
So you're saying that no one should be able to copyright a story written in English either? According to your logic, a printed book would only be as a worthless reflection of a story, much like you compare sheet music to posters of the Mona Lisa.

ferdinand said:
How many books, do you think, could be written if there were copywrites for ideas like spaceships, magic, gnomes? How limited would literiture be if authors were not allowed to use devices like flashbacks, multiple storylines, etc?
Click to expand...
Geez. Like Sander, I call bullshit. Do you seriously believe that various performance techniques and general music theory can be copyrighted, or are you just plain stupid? Assuming the latter, allow me to inform you that such things can not be copyrighted, and it is how you use them that is important, not 'that' you use them. Using time signatures in music works as a good comparison to using grammatically correct sentences in a book. Using a specific chord progression can be compared to using a special timeline in a book. Using a certain key can be compared to a setting in a book. Do you want me to continue?

Stealing for example a lead theme straight off, however, is and should be considered theft. That can be compared to copying a few key chapters from an already existing book and using without altering in your own. As a composer, I really think it would be stupid if one couldn't protect his music. And sure, I can get inspiration from anything I listen to, just as a writer can get inspiration from anything he reads - inspiration is a good thing. Stealing is bad, m'kay? Don't come talking about morals when you advocate legalizing theft, you intellectual property communist.
 
You gotta love those useless topics of mine, always a place of useless debates and newb gangbang action :wink:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top