4 ms·

>I own the stuff I am made of, because I own myself as a person. buyers of CD/DVD/iPhones/etc... also thought they "owned". At least they had some idea about t

>I own the stuff I am made of, because I own myself as a person. buyers of CD/DVD/iPhones/etc... also thought they "owned". At least they had some idea about their fair use rights. That ideas were severely adjusted by the army of lawyers and DMCA. Wait a bit and the new "genetic DMCA" will make it clear that you get a "limited use license" for your genetic material and the biomass you're composed of. Any circumvention or modifications will be prohibited, until they licensed from the genetic iTunes or from whatever will take its place. It is really hilarious to imagine your screams about fair rights use for your body and genetic info :)

geuis 16y ago
That's actually a very interesting and scary point. What we have to do now, and is the original point of the article, is to make sure that no one is able to say that we somehow don't have the rights to our own genetic material.
- VladRussian 16y ago
  >no one is able to say that we somehow don't have the rights to our own genetic material. the genetic code is a code executed on biocomputer. You mother and father created the code by merging copies of their own codes (and the IVF clinic may have done some bug fixing). Did the mother and father have the rights to do so, ie. to copy and modify? For example, it is frequent case in the dog breeding that you can have this nice puppy, yet you wouldn't have the rights to breed him, i.e you get a "license to use" and not a license to produce modified copies. It is easy to see that the same logic easily applies to humans as well. Lets say some designer produced a very popular eye color DNA alteration. You bought it for your future child. Would it come with perpetual license, ie. right to pass it to your grandkids or not? (or, God forbid, your child when grown let his/her friends to copy the code for their children :) The answer by Monsanto is clear and is completely in line with legal copyright framework.

geuis 16y ago

That's actually a very interesting and scary point. What we have to do now, and is the original point of the article, is to make sure that no one is able to say that we somehow don't have the rights to our own genetic material.

VladRussian 16y ago
>no one is able to say that we somehow don't have the rights to our own genetic material. the genetic code is a code executed on biocomputer. You mother and father created the code by merging copies of their own codes (and the IVF clinic may have done some bug fixing). Did the mother and father have the rights to do so, ie. to copy and modify? For example, it is frequent case in the dog breeding that you can have this nice puppy, yet you wouldn't have the rights to breed him, i.e you get a "license to use" and not a license to produce modified copies. It is easy to see that the same logic easily applies to humans as well. Lets say some designer produced a very popular eye color DNA alteration. You bought it for your future child. Would it come with perpetual license, ie. right to pass it to your grandkids or not? (or, God forbid, your child when grown let his/her friends to copy the code for their children :) The answer by Monsanto is clear and is completely in line with legal copyright framework.