Why copyrighting organisms is STUPID

[Taskmage]

Say you and your neighbor have soybean farms. You take pride in running your farm the old-fashioned way and receive certain benefits from marketing your product with an Organic label. Your neighbor prefers to use genetically modified seeds he bought from BigBad Agricultural Corporation. This is all well and fine until one day some helpful insects, doing what they do, carry some pollen over from your neighbor's field and fertilize your plants with it. Now your seeds have artificially engineered gene sequences in them, meaning they can no longer be certified as organic and your product loses value, price preference, subsidies and what have you, causing measurable damage to your business. Not only can you not sue your neighbor or BigBad for the damage, BigBad can actually sue you for using their copyrighted gene sequences without their permission. This is essentially like John Hammond charging you for park entry if you get attacked by escaped velociraptors.

GMO Goliath Monsanto Crushes Organic David In Brooklyn Court · NYU Local

[Takelli]

Re: Why copyrighting organisms is STUPID

This is why I hate GMOs, and people who decide to grow organic next to GMO farms.

Hell, even if you live miles way in an all "Organic" farm, it can still get to you. Rain, Run off, Wind, Bugs, and so on can bring it to you.

[Jarre]

Re: Why copyrighting organisms is STUPID

Where is the common sense the farmer didn't deliberately use the gene.... Nature took its course, maybe they should sue the insects for cross pollination.

[cidbahamut]

Re: Why copyrighting organisms is STUPID

You can copyright organisms?

[Raydeus]

Re: Why copyrighting organisms is STUPID

[Takelli]

Re: Why copyrighting organisms is STUPID

Where is the common sense the farmer didn't deliberately use the gene.... Nature took its course, maybe they should sue the insects for cross pollination.

It would be basically like the guy trying to sue god. XD

[Raydeus]

Re: Why copyrighting organisms is STUPID

Thanks to the NDAA insects can now be detained indefinitely if the military thinks they are bio-terrorists.

[Etra]

Re: Why copyrighting organisms is STUPID

I came into this thread thinking it was about copyrighting orgasms.
I was intrigued.
I was disappointed.

[Taskmage]

Re: Why copyrighting organisms is STUPID

Copyrighted orgasms: Woman sues man for child support; man countersues for unauthorized derivative work.

[Aksannyi]

Re: Why copyrighting organisms is STUPID

I'm copyrighting myself. Anyone who wishes to use me must pay a hefty fee.

Wow, when I put it that way, it makes hookers look a lot better. They're just protecting their intellectual property.

[Armando]

Re: Why copyrighting organisms is STUPID

Like Taskmage implied, I think your likeness belongs to your parents until they die. Porn stars infringe upon the copyrights of their parents.

[Yellow Mage]

Re: Why copyrighting organisms is STUPID

Like Taskmage implied, I think your likeness belongs to your parents until they die.

Don't forget the 20 years after!

[Armando]

Re: Why copyrighting organisms is STUPID

It's 70 years, actually, but if I remember right the copyright is passed to your children unless you run a corporation, so Aks would get the copyright to her looks when her parents die.