fossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 17 days agoimaginemander.xyzimagemessage-square34fedilinkarrow-up1410arrow-down119
arrow-up1391arrow-down1imageimaginemander.xyzfossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 17 days agomessage-square34fedilink
minus-squareTar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up12arrow-down22·17 days agoNo they won’t. They will sue you if you take your neighbors pesticide resistant seeds, sow them, douse them in pesticide so only the resistant ones survive, and sow your entire field with them.
minus-squareNollij@sopuli.xyzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up39arrow-down1·16 days agoYes, they will. You’re taking the approach of an independent farmer that didn’t sign a contract with Monsanto. What you said mostly aligns with that scenario. For the farmer that did sign a contract with Monsanto, that is a standard and required clause, and they do enforce it.
minus-squareunalivejoy@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up31·17 days agoClassic piracy. The original product is still there; you’re just making a copy.
minus-squareTar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up21arrow-down2·17 days agoI mean, I totally agree with all forms of breaking IP law on ethical grounds. But I also recognise that it’s still breaking the law right now.
minus-squareDragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nzlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·16 days agoWhy “but”? Why are those two statements viewed as contradicting each other in tone?
minus-squareAltheaHunter@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up15·16 days agoIsn’t classic piracy boarding ships and taking all their shit at gunpoint?
No they won’t.
They will sue you if you take your neighbors pesticide resistant seeds, sow them, douse them in pesticide so only the resistant ones survive, and sow your entire field with them.
Yes, they will.
You’re taking the approach of an independent farmer that didn’t sign a contract with Monsanto. What you said mostly aligns with that scenario.
For the farmer that did sign a contract with Monsanto, that is a standard and required clause, and they do enforce it.
Classic piracy. The original product is still there; you’re just making a copy.
I mean, I totally agree with all forms of breaking IP law on ethical grounds. But I also recognise that it’s still breaking the law right now.
Why “but”? Why are those two statements viewed as contradicting each other in tone?
Isn’t classic piracy boarding ships and taking all their shit at gunpoint?