3 ms·
> Furthermore, what's wrong with a subscription model? GMO seeds costs money to develop and that has to be recouped somehow. The alternative is paying some sort
by memco 4y ago
> Furthermore, what's wrong with a subscription model? GMO seeds costs money to develop and that has to be recouped somehow. The alternative is paying some sort of upfront fixed cost, which is probably even worse on a farmer's finances and gives large scale operations even more of an advantage (they have easy access to capital).
A subscription isn’t in and of itself a bad thing, but the expectation is a little strange given that the plants themselves spread and grow in places that cannot be regulated by the developers. Thus someone could subscribe once then cancel but still grow the crop. Further, people who didn’t subscribe could end up having some of the crop spread onto their land then could unintentionally grow it without permission. This has sometimes led to attempts to either force people to pay for services they didn’t agree to or to destroy something growing on their own land through no fault of their own. In those cases, non-customers are actively penalized for their non-participation rather being left alone or being incentivized to try product through positive means.
- gruez 4y ago>but the expectation is a little strange given that the plants themselves spread and grow in places that cannot be regulated by the developers. Thus someone could subscribe once then cancel but still grow the crop. 1. As mentioned before, what isn't applicable to hybrid crops. If you try to collect the seeds of hybrid crops and try to plant them, you'll get the seeds of the parents, which aren't going to have the attributes you're looking for. 2. I take it that you're also against copyrights? After all, you can theoretically buy a blu-ray once, and copy it infinitely. >Further, people who didn’t subscribe could end up having some of the crop spread onto their land then could unintentionally grow it without permission. This has sometimes led to attempts to either force people to pay for services they didn’t agree to or to destroy something growing on their own land through no fault of their own. In those cases, non-customers are actively penalized for their non-participation rather being left alone or being incentivized to try product through positive means. Source for this? It's been often alleged that monsanto engages in this behavior, but according to wikipedia[1] they've only gone after farmers that were intentionally trying to reverse engineer/breed their seeds. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases#As_plaintiff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases#As_plaint...
- Dylan16807 4y agoIf I kept getting sent single frames of a bluray whether I want them or not, but I was forbidden from putting those frames together into the full movie, I'd be pretty annoyed about that use of copyright too.