Operation Iraqi Not-Quite-Freedom - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

SecretMethod70 · 11-13-2004, 02:21 PM

This <a href="http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/13/2023220&tid=191&tid=155&tid=219">news today</a> about the emerging "freedom" in Iraq:

Quote:

The American Administrator of the Iraqi CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) government, Paul Bremer, <a href="http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/20040426_CPAORD_81_Patents_Law.pdf">updated Iraq's intellectual property law</a> to 'meet current internationally-recognized standards of protection.' The updated law makes saving seeds for next year's harvest, practiced by 97% of Iraqi farmers in 2002, the standard farming practice for thousands of years across human civilizations, <a href="http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/iraq_seeds.htm">newly illegal</a>. Instead, farmers <a href="http://www.grain.org/articles/?id=6">will have to obtain a yearly license</a> for genetically modified seeds from American corporations. These GM seeds have typically been modified from IP developed over thousands of generations by indigenous farmers like the Iraqis, shared freely like agricultural 'open source.' Other IP provisions for technology in the law further integrate Iraq into the American IP economy."

I guess that genetically modified seeds now fall under the you-don't-really-own-it-after-all description

What are your thoughts? Could this perhaps even be detrimental to acquiring more support from Iraqis?

The Prophet · 11-13-2004, 03:01 PM

I think you will find this to be an assumption on the part of those reporting. While the new law is designed to prohibit the unlicensed use and trade in patented plant varieties, including seed, I do not think it prohobits the free trade of seed that is unpatented.

Of course the genetic modification of any naturally sustainable plant population is immoral and goes against nature, that is another arguement.

Lebell · 11-13-2004, 03:01 PM

Depends.

Were they saving seeds from genetically altered crops or the old fashioned kind?

If they were saving seeds from altered crops, crops that are resistant to pests and disease and that give greater yields, then yes, they should pay for the them.

Manx · 11-13-2004, 03:02 PM

I wonder if they use genetically modified IP protected Opium seeds in Afghanistan.

Now that would be cool.

Seriously though - sure, it's detrminetal to acquiring more support from Iraqis, atleast in so far as the issue gains traction over there. How could it not? I mean, we're essentially saying that if they want to grow food, they have to pay us for the right. In their own land.

The bigger issue is the one of IP-protected seeds everywhere. The problem is the cross-pollination of fields which are using non-IP-protected seeds - suddenly, that private crop produces seeds which are technically the IP property of someone else - through no fault or controlability of the field owner. You can't stop wind or bugs from crossing a road and turning your field into the genetic equivalent of your neighbors, the Monsanto farmers, field.

SecretMethod70 · 11-13-2004, 03:13 PM

As far as I'm aware it only applies to genetically modified seeds, but I still think it's rediculous. You mean to tell me that if something is genetically modified by someone else, they own it? That's an excellent precedent. When we become able to eliminate diseases through gene therapy of unborn children parents will have to decide whether they want their kid to be susceptible to alzheimer's or if they'd rather have the true authority over their child lie in the hands of Medicorp X. No thanks. When I purchase a physical property, I have complete ownership of that physical property. This even still applies to CDs - you OWN the CD and can do absolutely whatever you want with it, you simply don't own the content of it. Likewise, the purchaser of genetically modified seeds owns the physical seeds. They simply do not have the right to look at the genetic modificiations and make profit off of them. At least, tha's the way any reasonably thinking person would want the situation to be. I don't see this as being any different than if you paid $20 for a CD and, despite there already being laws to keep you from claiming the content as your own, they say you have to pay another $10 every year you want to keep the physical CD.

The Prophet · 11-13-2004, 03:14 PM

For a really good example of the perils of G.M.O. (genetically modified organisms) check out this site-

http://www.percyschmeiser.com/

This is an attempt by the worlds giant agricultural firms to take over all trade in seeds.

Irishsean · 11-13-2004, 03:28 PM

I'm not sure why this is focused on Iraq. The same rules for the storage and reuse of Genetically modified seeds has also applied to US farmers for quite a while. It's one of the main reasons more US farmers don't use them.

Manx · 11-13-2004, 03:31 PM

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.

The Prophet · 11-13-2004, 03:34 PM

Here is the danger of this, especially in a country such as Iraq, or worse in third world countries where sustenance farming is the rule and not the exception.

I am a small farmer who raises a crop for my own consumption and for trade with my friends and neighbors. I have saved my seed every year to plant the the same crop the next year. It is the same seed variety my father and grandfather raised, and I raise it in the same manner, for the same purpose. Down the road is a larger industrialized farm that is raising the same crop I am, only theirs is a genetically modified variety. When the gmo-variety down the road NATURALLY produces pollen, the pollen from those fields blows down to my crop and UNCONTROLLABLY cross-pollinates some of my plants. This cross pollination is unwanted and unknown to me and I derive no benefit from the genetic alteration (it is most often done to allow that plant to withstand a certain herbicide, or an extreme dose of a certain herbicide. If I don't use that herbicide, I derive no benefit from the genetic modification). The patent owner of the industrial farmer's crop finds out my plants contain the genes they developed and BY PATENT LAW, THEY OWN MY CROP! If I do not pay royalties to that patent owner, I cannot reuse the seed I have been saving for generations.

SecretMethod70 · 11-13-2004, 03:40 PM

You're right - my CD analogy is poor. However, I think my child analogy is still sound, assuming of course that a child modified to be immune to alzheimer's would produce children who are also immune to alzhemer's.

The Prophet · 11-13-2004, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

I wonder if they use genetically modified IP protected Opium seeds in Afghanistan.

Now that would be cool.

Theoretically, a poppy could be be genetically modified so the opiates were altered, either to have less effect or even worse, detrimental side effects. By dusting a poppy field with genetically altered pollen at the correct time in its lifecycle and VOILA -

NOT COOL!

And don't think this is not being contemplated.

roachboy · 11-13-2004, 04:20 PM

my understanding is that in the wonderful new world of i.p, law, corporations were able to trademark and effectively own both the category of seed and the genetically modified variants simply because there was no existing claim for this kind of ownership before i.p. made them "necessary"...in terms of agriculture, that is one of the major problem created for many poorer countries by this i.p. juggernaut.

more generally, who on earth confuses capitalism and freedom?

MSD · 11-13-2004, 10:35 PM

If I plant a crop and grow it, let it die, and it grows back the next year because some seeds were preserved, I have to pay for them? I'd fly to the headquarters of the company who sold them to me just so that I could be there in person to drop my pants and tell the CEO to kiss my ass.

martinguerre · 11-13-2004, 10:52 PM

we can't get water, lack of gunshots and explosions, or basic human services to much of the country, but we *CAN* cap their corporate tax rate at 17% and import intellectual property law?

What the F$ck?!

11-13-2004, 03:01 PM	#2 (permalink)
The Prophet Tilted Location: Space, the final frontier.	I think you will find this to be an assumption on the part of those reporting. While the new law is designed to prohibit the unlicensed use and trade in patented plant varieties, including seed, I do not think it prohobits the free trade of seed that is unpatented. Of course the genetic modification of any naturally sustainable plant population is immoral and goes against nature, that is another arguement. __________________ "The death-knell of the republic had rung as soon as the active power became lodged in the hands of those who sought, not to do justice to all citizens, rich and poor alike, but to stand for one special class and for its interests as opposed to the interests of others. " - Theodore Roosevelt

11-13-2004, 03:01 PM	#3 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Depends. Were they saving seeds from genetically altered crops or the old fashioned kind? If they were saving seeds from altered crops, crops that are resistant to pests and disease and that give greater yields, then yes, they should pay for the them. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

11-13-2004, 03:13 PM	#5 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	As far as I'm aware it only applies to genetically modified seeds, but I still think it's rediculous. You mean to tell me that if something is genetically modified by someone else, they own it? That's an excellent precedent. When we become able to eliminate diseases through gene therapy of unborn children parents will have to decide whether they want their kid to be susceptible to alzheimer's or if they'd rather have the true authority over their child lie in the hands of Medicorp X. No thanks. When I purchase a physical property, I have complete ownership of that physical property. This even still applies to CDs - you OWN the CD and can do absolutely whatever you want with it, you simply don't own the content of it. Likewise, the purchaser of genetically modified seeds owns the physical seeds. They simply do not have the right to look at the genetic modificiations and make profit off of them. At least, tha's the way any reasonably thinking person would want the situation to be. I don't see this as being any different than if you paid $20 for a CD and, despite there already being laws to keep you from claiming the content as your own, they say you have to pay another $10 every year you want to keep the physical CD. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

11-13-2004, 03:14 PM	#6 (permalink)
The Prophet Tilted Location: Space, the final frontier.	For a really good example of the perils of G.M.O. (genetically modified organisms) check out this site- http://www.percyschmeiser.com/ This is an attempt by the worlds giant agricultural firms to take over all trade in seeds. __________________ "The death-knell of the republic had rung as soon as the active power became lodged in the hands of those who sought, not to do justice to all citizens, rich and poor alike, but to stand for one special class and for its interests as opposed to the interests of others. " - Theodore Roosevelt

11-13-2004, 03:28 PM	#7 (permalink)
Irishsean edited for content Location: Austin, TX	I'm not sure why this is focused on Iraq. The same rules for the storage and reuse of Genetically modified seeds has also applied to US farmers for quite a while. It's one of the main reasons more US farmers don't use them. __________________ There are no absolute rules of conduct, either in peace or war. Everything depends on circumstances. Leon Trotsky

11-13-2004, 03:02 PM	#4 (permalink)
Manx Loser	I wonder if they use genetically modified IP protected Opium seeds in Afghanistan. Now that would be cool. Seriously though - sure, it's detrminetal to acquiring more support from Iraqis, atleast in so far as the issue gains traction over there. How could it not? I mean, we're essentially saying that if they want to grow food, they have to pay us for the right. In their own land. The bigger issue is the one of IP-protected seeds everywhere. The problem is the cross-pollination of fields which are using non-IP-protected seeds - suddenly, that private crop produces seeds which are technically the IP property of someone else - through no fault or controlability of the field owner. You can't stop wind or bugs from crossing a road and turning your field into the genetic equivalent of your neighbors, the Monsanto farmers, field.

11-13-2004, 03:31 PM	#8 (permalink)
Manx Loser	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.

11-13-2004, 03:34 PM	#9 (permalink)
The Prophet Tilted Location: Space, the final frontier.	Here is the danger of this, especially in a country such as Iraq, or worse in third world countries where sustenance farming is the rule and not the exception. I am a small farmer who raises a crop for my own consumption and for trade with my friends and neighbors. I have saved my seed every year to plant the the same crop the next year. It is the same seed variety my father and grandfather raised, and I raise it in the same manner, for the same purpose. Down the road is a larger industrialized farm that is raising the same crop I am, only theirs is a genetically modified variety. When the gmo-variety down the road NATURALLY produces pollen, the pollen from those fields blows down to my crop and UNCONTROLLABLY cross-pollinates some of my plants. This cross pollination is unwanted and unknown to me and I derive no benefit from the genetic alteration (it is most often done to allow that plant to withstand a certain herbicide, or an extreme dose of a certain herbicide. If I don't use that herbicide, I derive no benefit from the genetic modification). The patent owner of the industrial farmer's crop finds out my plants contain the genes they developed and BY PATENT LAW, THEY OWN MY CROP! If I do not pay royalties to that patent owner, I cannot reuse the seed I have been saving for generations. __________________ "The death-knell of the republic had rung as soon as the active power became lodged in the hands of those who sought, not to do justice to all citizens, rich and poor alike, but to stand for one special class and for its interests as opposed to the interests of others. " - Theodore Roosevelt

11-13-2004, 03:40 PM	#10 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	You're right - my CD analogy is poor. However, I think my child analogy is still sound, assuming of course that a child modified to be immune to alzheimer's would produce children who are also immune to alzhemer's. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

11-13-2004, 04:20 PM	#12 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	my understanding is that in the wonderful new world of i.p, law, corporations were able to trademark and effectively own both the category of seed and the genetically modified variants simply because there was no existing claim for this kind of ownership before i.p. made them "necessary"...in terms of agriculture, that is one of the major problem created for many poorer countries by this i.p. juggernaut. more generally, who on earth confuses capitalism and freedom? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 11-13-2004 at 04:26 PM..

11-13-2004, 10:35 PM	#13 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	If I plant a crop and grow it, let it die, and it grows back the next year because some seeds were preserved, I have to pay for them? I'd fly to the headquarters of the company who sold them to me just so that I could be there in person to drop my pants and tell the CEO to kiss my ass.

11-13-2004, 10:52 PM	#14 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	we can't get water, lack of gunshots and explosions, or basic human services to much of the country, but we CAN cap their corporate tax rate at 17% and import intellectual property law? What the F$ck?! __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16