|
SecretMethod70 - Your analogy is interesting, but not quite right. When you buy an IP-protected seed, you are licensing the right to use it that one time. You do not have the right to plant it, extract additional seeds and then either plant those or, even worse, sell those.
Think of it this way - when you buy a CD, you have the right to listen to the music whenever you want (and due to the somewhat ambiguous consumer rights, the right to make copies for yourself). But you do not have the right to compress it (plant it) and distribute or sell the MP3 (the next-gen seeds).
Even that alteration to the CD analogy is not quite right, because the IP protection is essentially saying you cannot use the material produced by next-gen seeds (which in many cases is moot, as the original seeds are genetically manipulated to prevent next-gen seeds).
The real problem is not the license agreement. A license agreement is a voluntary process. If you don't want to be limited by the IP protections, you don't have to purchase the license.
The real problem is the uncontrollability of genetic dissemination. There are quite a number of documented cases where fields have been contaminated with pollen from genetically modified plants, resulting in genetically modified next-gen seeds. Using those seeds would be tantamount to theft, as there is no license. But since the contamination is due to the inability of the farmer of the licensed seeds to control his/her pollen, it is absurd to penalize another farmer for having their crop contaminated.
Another issue here is the fact that contaminating fields has resulted in livelyhoods being infringed - a certified organic farm will lose that certification if the crop is contaminated with genetically modified pollen. Farmers should not have the right to use GMO if they cannot guarantee the containment of their crop.
|