5 ms·

I am in no way a Monsanto cheerleader, I would very much like them to disappear completely so I could get on with my career. As it is, they are so thoroughly ha

by Blahah 13y ago

I am in no way a Monsanto cheerleader, I would very much like them to disappear completely so I could get on with my career. As it is, they are so thoroughly hated that every plant biologist is tarnished if they so much as attend a conference where Monsanto have a stall. I have to be extremely careful not to interact with Monsanto, and it's really quite annoying. If they could just handle their own PR properly I could spend more time doing my job and less time correcting poor genetics education on the internet. > He never agreed with anybody to not do this, or signed contracts to control what he does with what ends up on his property. That's not how the law works. I never agreed with anyone not to commit murder or (more relevant) not to pirate music. But I can still be prosecuted for it. And if I have a problem with that, it's the law that I have a problem with, not the people who made the music.

manicdee 13y ago
Murder doesn't commit itself, copyright violation doesn't commit itself. Plants to seed and grow by themselves, without any outside help. Whether or not a farmer encourages a particular seed to grow, the seeds would have sprouted and grown of their own accord. That is the fundamental difference between copyright violation and gene patent violation.
- Blahah 13y ago
  That is not the difference. If a farmer doesn't knowingly violate, he will not be prosecuted. Having read a large number of court summaries from Monsanto cases, I haven't yet found one where they brought a case against someone who was simply dealing with accidental contamination. If copyright infringing files were to end up on my computer by genuine accident, I would not be prosecuted for copyright infringement. For example, if I downloaded a zip file that was supposed to contain an album that I had paid for, but also accidentally contained an extra mp3 of a file I hadn't paid for, no court would find me in violation of copyright law. There has to be intent, which nullifies the argument that it matters that seed self-replicates.
- mpyne 13y ago
  > Murder doesn't commit itself, copyright violation doesn't commit itself. Plants to seed and grow by themselves, without any outside help. Plants may grow, but fields of plants don't spray Roundup all over themselves either.

by Blahah 13y ago

manicdee 13y ago

Murder doesn't commit itself, copyright violation doesn't commit itself. Plants to seed and grow by themselves, without any outside help. Whether or not a farmer encourages a particular seed to grow, the seeds would have sprouted and grown of their own accord. That is the fundamental difference between copyright violation and gene patent violation.

Blahah 13y ago
That is not the difference. If a farmer doesn't knowingly violate, he will not be prosecuted. Having read a large number of court summaries from Monsanto cases, I haven't yet found one where they brought a case against someone who was simply dealing with accidental contamination. If copyright infringing files were to end up on my computer by genuine accident, I would not be prosecuted for copyright infringement. For example, if I downloaded a zip file that was supposed to contain an album that I had paid for, but also accidentally contained an extra mp3 of a file I hadn't paid for, no court would find me in violation of copyright law. There has to be intent, which nullifies the argument that it matters that seed self-replicates.
mpyne 13y ago
> Murder doesn't commit itself, copyright violation doesn't commit itself. Plants to seed and grow by themselves, without any outside help. Plants may grow, but fields of plants don't spray Roundup all over themselves either.