GMOs aren’t dangerous because of the genetic manipulation. They’re dangerous because of everything around it. Now it’s possible to create vegetables that survive a centimetre of glyphosate coating. And if the farmers reuse seeds, they’re breaching copyright law. With this, plants are copyrightable, would you like all of the cancer of contemporary American IP law applied to your food?
But then if you can’t copyright it companies wouldn’t invest money in it since it wouldn’t be profitable. That’s kinda the whole point of copyright, so that there’s an incentive for innovation. Why invest in R&D when you can just let your competitor do it and immediately steal it from then?
Copyright doesn’t create incentives for innovation it creates incentives for stagnation. It’s a guaranteed profit window for a static solution. Competition is what breeds innovation as you need to have the best product for its cost to capture market share. As copyright is inherently an anti-competitive practice only there to minimize risk it reduces innovation in favor of stable profits. Just because r&d costs money it doesnt mean that supply chains and production are handed to competitors for free. Its just a tool to minimize risk for venture capital because those who lobbied for it wanted to protect their assets from risk exposure and did so at the expense of consumers and innovation through lobbying. Removing it wouldnt stop people from creating solutions or trying to invent new products. Those who do the r & d always have a leg up as they have the research available to them for tweaking there process or final output that a competitor would not.
Yes, this is exactly what happens. Lone humans just can’t do much on their own, you need money to fund you, and money doesn’t fund anything that isn’t going to make them more money.
You think? Because the vast majority of innovation (beyond the first few) was done by men who either had money (or priviliege, which in that time was the same thing) or men who were paid (or rewarded in some way) by those who did, resulting in the same thing. People who had no money/privilege and were not paid/sponsored did not have time to innovate, they had to spend their day trying to survive.
If you were “paid” by your king/warlord or whoever, you think they allowed you to just go do the same for their enemy right after?
Besides, I think we can all agree that innovation has been incredibly fast since capitalism came along, though whether it’s a cause or correlation is debatable. If your argument is that they came up with fire without copyright, then I’m afraid it’s not a very good one.
The Epa was the only way we got them to stop with DDT.
They keep ratcheting the poison further and further up to keep weeds out. They basically carpet bombed the South with ddt to kill off something and that killed off the birds and fishes and sucked up anyone that ate it for twenty years.
Which was a lot of the South, but now hunting is a rich mans privilege down here. Wheras only rich folk ate cattle with any frequency, now it’s pretty common food.
I’ve often thought that Monsanto was the only thing wrong with GMOs.
GMOs aren’t dangerous because of the genetic manipulation. They’re dangerous because of everything around it. Now it’s possible to create vegetables that survive a centimetre of glyphosate coating. And if the farmers reuse seeds, they’re breaching copyright law. With this, plants are copyrightable, would you like all of the cancer of contemporary American IP law applied to your food?
The problems then aren’t GMOs but it’s the fact that someome can patent and copyright it, destroy the patent and copyright system not the GMOs
this is actually such a big problem in tissue culture
no one should be able to copyright LIVING BEINGS
ironically copyright laws as they are today are cancer, maybe they should copyright copyright so that it all just eats itself and dies
in tissue culture this is considered a DICK MOVE
deleted by creator
But then if you can’t copyright it companies wouldn’t invest money in it since it wouldn’t be profitable. That’s kinda the whole point of copyright, so that there’s an incentive for innovation. Why invest in R&D when you can just let your competitor do it and immediately steal it from then?
Copyright suffocate to death innovation by preventing people to use that technology and build on it, it’s just a dick move to make money.
Humans can innovate without shitright too, that’s what we have always done
Innovation is for making humanity greater, or at least it should be
Copyright doesn’t create incentives for innovation it creates incentives for stagnation. It’s a guaranteed profit window for a static solution. Competition is what breeds innovation as you need to have the best product for its cost to capture market share. As copyright is inherently an anti-competitive practice only there to minimize risk it reduces innovation in favor of stable profits. Just because r&d costs money it doesnt mean that supply chains and production are handed to competitors for free. Its just a tool to minimize risk for venture capital because those who lobbied for it wanted to protect their assets from risk exposure and did so at the expense of consumers and innovation through lobbying. Removing it wouldnt stop people from creating solutions or trying to invent new products. Those who do the r & d always have a leg up as they have the research available to them for tweaking there process or final output that a competitor would not.
“steal it” you cannot steal knowledge
copyrighting living beings is bad
You’re not stealing knowledge, you’re stealing someone else’s time, effort and money. There’s a reason there’s IP laws everywhere.
What then do you suggest as the alternative? Or is your suggestion just to stop innovation?
“no ones gonna do it if they cant exploit it for money” - very serious business human
Yes, this is exactly what happens. Lone humans just can’t do much on their own, you need money to fund you, and money doesn’t fund anything that isn’t going to make them more money.
Innovation happened before money as a concept existed.
You think? Because the vast majority of innovation (beyond the first few) was done by men who either had money (or priviliege, which in that time was the same thing) or men who were paid (or rewarded in some way) by those who did, resulting in the same thing. People who had no money/privilege and were not paid/sponsored did not have time to innovate, they had to spend their day trying to survive.
If you were “paid” by your king/warlord or whoever, you think they allowed you to just go do the same for their enemy right after?
Besides, I think we can all agree that innovation has been incredibly fast since capitalism came along, though whether it’s a cause or correlation is debatable. If your argument is that they came up with fire without copyright, then I’m afraid it’s not a very good one.
hey so how about we got rid of the profiteering glutton in between and gave the money directly to the researchers? :)
This could work, but would require a big societal change that goes beyond the level of “copyright bad” going on in this thread.
laur would like a word with you
free is good
“time effort and money”
im sorry but innovation will be sustained without copyright
no one is just gonna go “I cant make obscene amounts of money on this, better not do it at all” if they actually care about it
free is good only hurts the rich
why would anyone buy from someone who just copied it instead of made it?
and money has ruined innovation
are you suggesting that we would just stop innovationn without copyright?
But then the problem is not the GMO it’s the copyright laws
Exactly right. Well said.
The Epa was the only way we got them to stop with DDT.
They keep ratcheting the poison further and further up to keep weeds out. They basically carpet bombed the South with ddt to kill off something and that killed off the birds and fishes and sucked up anyone that ate it for twenty years.
Which was a lot of the South, but now hunting is a rich mans privilege down here. Wheras only rich folk ate cattle with any frequency, now it’s pretty common food.
I’ve often thought that Monsanto was the only thing wrong with GMOs.
their buissness model with certainty.
does anyone know how long the copyrights on seeds holds? i.e. i think for many pharmaceuticals it’s 20 years. does this apply here too?
Yes