Agri-terrorism outlaws seed libraries

[Rikurzhen]

Now the debate about PROHIBITING cities from taking on the liability issues of a "Seed Library" SHOULD be locally decided. But cities don't have massive legal pockets to defend accidental infringements of intellectual property rights. And it seems to me that the public interest is better served by having a more STRUCTURED definition of what may be freely shared.. So at least -- more thought has to go into the concept..

What, in your estimation, is the difference between a book/periodical lending library and a seed library? Doesn't a book library infringe on the copyright of authors?

 

[flacaltenn]

Now the debate about PROHIBITING cities from taking on the liability issues of a "Seed Library" SHOULD be locally decided. But cities don't have massive legal pockets to defend accidental infringements of intellectual property rights. And it seems to me that the public interest is better served by having a more STRUCTURED definition of what may be freely shared.. So at least -- more thought has to go into the concept..

What, in your estimation, is the difference between a book/periodical lending library and a seed library? Doesn't a book library infringe on the copyright of authors?

It would under certain conditions. Like making hard copies of content, or quoting without proper attribution. But NO COPIES are made by the lending process. -- nor is that allowed. In fact, publishers rely HEAVILY on sales to libraries. It reaches portions of the market that would never BUY a copy.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Monsanto headquarters need a Ryder truck stocked with ANFO sitting outside it's doors.

I am honestly wondering...should I send this post to the FBI?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They don't have to technically be ARTIFICIALLY GMO seeds. In fact -- the library concept simply doesn't work for MOST officially GMO seeds BECAUSE they produce STERILE plants !! The shared stock can be REGISTERED hybrids or strains. People do REAL WORK to produce ornamentals and garden varieties. It's no different than writing and performing music.. Unless the library is savvy enough to guarantee non-registered strains, they may be breaking laws.

You can copy all the "archaic" heirloom seeds you want.. I'm sure you can get original John Philips Souza tunes for free online also. Just don't infringe on other folk's work..

Let us assume you are right, how the fuck does that justify the state shutting down the seed bank? It might open the seed bank to civil suits from the owners of the patents on those seeds, but it doesn't justify the state steeping in and shutting down the sharing of seeds that are not protected by IP laws.

In other words, even if we assume you have a point, your defense of the state is still wrong.

You should assume that if I didn't have a point -- I wouldn't stick my neck out in public.
But actually, I've read a couple articles in Reason Mag about this and they generally take the anarchist free market side..

Plant breeders' rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plant breeders' rights (PBR), also known as plant variety rights (PVR), are rights granted to the breeder of a new variety of plant that give the breeder exclusive control over the propagating material (including seed, cuttings, divisions, tissue culture) and harvested material (cut flowers, fruit, foliage) of a new variety for a number of years.

With these rights, the breeder can choose to become the exclusive marketer of the variety, or to license the variety to others. In order to qualify for these exclusive rights, a variety must be new, distinct, uniform and stable.

Breeders can bring suit to enforce their rights and can recover damages for infringement. Plant breeders' rights contain exemptions from infringement that are not recognized under patent law. Commonly, there is an exemption for farm-saved seed. Farmers may store the production in their own bins for their own use as seed, but this does not necessarily extend to brown-bag sales of seed. Further sales for propagation purposes are not allowed without the written approval of the breeder. There is also a breeders' exemption (research exemption in the 1991 Act) that allows breeders to use protected varieties as sources of initial variation to create new varieties of plants (1978 Act),[1] or for other experimental purposes (1991 Act).[2] There is also a provision for compulsory licensing to assure public access to protected varieties if the national interest requires it and the breeder is unable to meet the demand.

Which actually proves my point, the state didn't even mention something like this, and doesn't have the authority to enforce this type of thing until it gets an order from a judge. Since none of this actually happened, and there is zero evidence that any of the seeds were actually being sold, you have no point.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Now the debate about PROHIBITING cities from taking on the liability issues of a "Seed Library" SHOULD be locally decided. But cities don't have massive legal pockets to defend accidental infringements of intellectual property rights. And it seems to me that the public interest is better served by having a more STRUCTURED definition of what may be freely shared.. So at least -- more thought has to go into the concept..

Libraries are great place to do this. Because they appreciate the restrictions on WRITTEN Intellectual Property. And probably would do a great
job IF -- they researched and understand the legal landscape..

Seed libraries do not violate IP laws, which are directly aimed at people getting a commercial profit from plants. Even if they did, the city could simply chose to not provide the seed that infringes the IP laws, thus eliminating the issues you erroneously think this whole thing is about.

But, please, keep posting nonsense you cannot back up. Alternatively, you could post an argument from the state of Pennsylvania that even remotely mentions the crap you are posting.

 

[whitehall]

I'm not sure what the point of the post is trying to make. Mich and PA are blue states and Barry Hussein is still president. Why do democrats fear heirloom seeds?

 

[flacaltenn]

Let us assume you are right, how the fuck does that justify the state shutting down the seed bank? It might open the seed bank to civil suits from the owners of the patents on those seeds, but it doesn't justify the state steeping in and shutting down the sharing of seeds that are not protected by IP laws.

In other words, even if we assume you have a point, your defense of the state is still wrong.

You should assume that if I didn't have a point -- I wouldn't stick my neck out in public.
But actually, I've read a couple articles in Reason Mag about this and they generally take the anarchist free market side..

Plant breeders' rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plant breeders' rights (PBR), also known as plant variety rights (PVR), are rights granted to the breeder of a new variety of plant that give the breeder exclusive control over the propagating material (including seed, cuttings, divisions, tissue culture) and harvested material (cut flowers, fruit, foliage) of a new variety for a number of years.

With these rights, the breeder can choose to become the exclusive marketer of the variety, or to license the variety to others. In order to qualify for these exclusive rights, a variety must be new, distinct, uniform and stable.

Breeders can bring suit to enforce their rights and can recover damages for infringement. Plant breeders' rights contain exemptions from infringement that are not recognized under patent law. Commonly, there is an exemption for farm-saved seed. Farmers may store the production in their own bins for their own use as seed, but this does not necessarily extend to brown-bag sales of seed. Further sales for propagation purposes are not allowed without the written approval of the breeder. There is also a breeders' exemption (research exemption in the 1991 Act) that allows breeders to use protected varieties as sources of initial variation to create new varieties of plants (1978 Act),[1] or for other experimental purposes (1991 Act).[2] There is also a provision for compulsory licensing to assure public access to protected varieties if the national interest requires it and the breeder is unable to meet the demand.

Which actually proves my point, the state didn't even mention something like this, and doesn't have the authority to enforce this type of thing until it gets an order from a judge. Since none of this actually happened, and there is zero evidence that any of the seeds were actually being sold, you have no point.

As it states in the wiki above, infringement doesnt REQUIRE a sale. The very concept of making copies is enough. And as currently structured, the seed library RELIES on making copies to function.. Need a different paradigm for this. In the age of electronic publishing, Libraries are gonna have to rethink what they stock and how copies are controlled when it comes to books as well.

 

[Darlene]

This is the very reason Missouri is getting a Constitutional Amendment for the right to practice agriculture..

yay us!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You should assume that if I didn't have a point -- I wouldn't stick my neck out in public.
But actually, I've read a couple articles in Reason Mag about this and they generally take the anarchist free market side..

Which actually proves my point, the state didn't even mention something like this, and doesn't have the authority to enforce this type of thing until it gets an order from a judge. Since none of this actually happened, and there is zero evidence that any of the seeds were actually being sold, you have no point.

As it states in the wiki above, infringement doesnt REQUIRE a sale. The very concept of making copies is enough. And as currently structured, the seed library RELIES on making copies to function.. Need a different paradigm for this. In the age of electronic publishing, Libraries are gonna have to rethink what they stock and how copies are controlled when it comes to books as well.

It does? Where? The only places I see it mentioning things other than sales are the exemptions to the rights of the breeder.

And I am still waiting for any evidence that the state actually used this as an excuse to shut down the seed library. Are you ignoring the question because you know it proves you wrong?

 

[flacaltenn]

Which actually proves my point, the state didn't even mention something like this, and doesn't have the authority to enforce this type of thing until it gets an order from a judge. Since none of this actually happened, and there is zero evidence that any of the seeds were actually being sold, you have no point.

As it states in the wiki above, infringement doesnt REQUIRE a sale. The very concept of making copies is enough. And as currently structured, the seed library RELIES on making copies to function.. Need a different paradigm for this. In the age of electronic publishing, Libraries are gonna have to rethink what they stock and how copies are controlled when it comes to books as well.

It does? Where? The only places I see it mentioning things other than sales are the exemptions to the rights of the breeder.

And I am still waiting for any evidence that the state actually used this as an excuse to shut down the seed library. Are you ignoring the question because you know it proves you wrong?

To be honest -- I am kinda ducking comments on HOW and WHO shut it down. Because that isn't the important part right now. Folks need to take a breath, realize this isn't 1820 anymore and RETHINK how to get to the goal here. EVERYONE is jumping the gun on this concept. And typically, technology or innovation is widely out of control before govt gets its' pants on.

But I'm not wrong on the analogies to music file sharing or even book copyrights. It IS a matter of restraining folks from making unlicensed copies.

rights granted to the breeder of a new variety of plant that give the breeder exclusive control over the propagating material (including seed, cuttings, divisions, tissue culture) and harvested material (cut flowers, fruit, foliage) of a new variety for a number of years.

EXCLUSIVE CONTROL means no copies. You might be able to use it to make a totally NEW variety by cross-breeding, but not to copy the registered variety. (I don't know the details or the scope of the exemptions) and you MIGHT be entitled to be granted a license..

Which BTW is one avenue TO getting a Seed Library started. Just like the ASCAP royalties for the Music Biz, a gym might pay $20/month to play music that goes into a general fund for artists and publishers. MAYBE a Seed Library pays a royalty into a Breeder's Fund for the rights to loan out and trade seeds.

So I'm definitely FOR the concept. And there is some workable ideas out there. You just cant steal other peoples work..

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As it states in the wiki above, infringement doesnt REQUIRE a sale. The very concept of making copies is enough. And as currently structured, the seed library RELIES on making copies to function.. Need a different paradigm for this. In the age of electronic publishing, Libraries are gonna have to rethink what they stock and how copies are controlled when it comes to books as well.

It does? Where? The only places I see it mentioning things other than sales are the exemptions to the rights of the breeder.

And I am still waiting for any evidence that the state actually used this as an excuse to shut down the seed library. Are you ignoring the question because you know it proves you wrong?

To be honest -- I am kinda ducking comments on HOW and WHO shut it down. Because that isn't the important part right now. Folks need to take a breath, realize this isn't 1820 anymore and RETHINK how to get to the goal here. So EVERYONE is jumping the gun on this concept. And typically, technology is widely out of control before govt gets its' pants on.

If you support the government arbitrarily shutting down things just because you are afraid of technology you should move to the 1820s because you are 100% wrong. all that matters in this situation is that the fucking government is wrong, just like you if you try to justify it.

But I'm not wrong on the analogies to music file sharing or even book copyrights. It IS a matter of restraining folks from making unlicensed copies.

You are wrong, because no one has alleged that the seeds involved in this library are protected in any way. You can keep repeating nonsense all day long, it won't change the facts.

And, as I pointed out, since they weren't actually selling anything, you are wrong even if you are right.

rights granted to the breeder of a new variety of plant that give the breeder exclusive control over the propagating material (including seed, cuttings, divisions, tissue culture) and harvested material (cut flowers, fruit, foliage) of a new variety for a number of years.

EXCLUSIVE CONTROL means no copies. You might be able to use it to make a totally NEW variety by cross-breeding, but not to copy the registered variety. (I don't know the details or the scope of the exemptions) and you MIGHT be entitled to be granted a license..

Actually, it doesn't, which is why they wrote exceptions into the law.

But feel free to pretend you can read legalese.

Which BTW is one avenue TO getting a Seed Library started. Just like the ASCAP royalties for the Music Biz, a gym might pay $20/month to play music that goes into a general fund for artists and publishers. MAYBE a Seed Library pays a royalty into a Breeder's Fund for the rights to loan out and trade seeds.

That was funny.

ASCAP licenses songs for public play, which is entirely outside the realms of anything you tried to accuse the library of doing. Even if Napster had paid ASCAP they would have lost the case because they were not actually playing the songs publicly.

But I do appreciate you demonstrating your total ignorance about the law, it makes the case you are trying to make all the more absurd.

So I'm definitely FOR the concept. And there is some workable ideas out there. You just cant steal other peoples work..

No one stole anything. No one other than you even alleged that theft was taking place. In other words, you created a conspiracy out of your delusions. Until you understand that simple fact you really have no business discussing this.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm sure all the peer libraries appearing under Nabster alledged that nobody was stealing anything also.
Making copies DESTROYS exclusive rights to I. Property. Just read any Installation Warning on a Software package..

Do you KNOW that no theft has been charged against a seed library? You only have to read the Titles on the drawers. Or respond to subpoena for testing the contents of MISLABELED drawers. I sure you feel that every song in the Nabster network was not rights protected either. Because Nabster cared so much about not violating property rights. It is only a matter of time for a court date if there hasn't been any already..

 

[JWBooth]

Just that the term agri-terrorism can be used without universal howls of derision is a sign of just how far we have come, how much we have accepted state control, how thoroughly we have handed over our liberty and freedom.

 

[flacaltenn]

All I'm saying here is that the concept of "seed libraries" has to be mature and responsible enough to avoid property rights violations. And that the music, software, and electronic publishing businesses already offer many models to COMPLY with the applicable restrictions. Which contrary to what Mr Contrary is trying to assert --- really do exist. And librarians with NO KNOWLEDGE of these restrictions need to rethink the structure and RULES for their "seed libraries"..

Open Sourcing -- derived from the S/W industry is one important model for doing this legally..

Plant Breeders Release First 'Open Source Seeds' : The Salt : NPR

A group of scientists and food activists is launching a campaign Thursday to change the rules that govern seeds. They're releasing 29 new varieties of crops under a new "open source pledge" that's intended to safeguard the ability of farmers, gardeners and plant breeders to share those seeds freely.

It's inspired by the example of open source software, which is freely available for anyone to use but cannot legally be converted into anyone's proprietary product.

At an event on the campus of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, backers of the new Open Source Seed Initiative will pass out 29 new varieties of 14 different crops, including carrots, kale, broccoli and quinoa. Anyone receiving the seeds must pledge not to restrict their use by means of patents, licenses or any other kind of intellectual property. In fact, any future plant that's derived from these open source seeds also has to remain freely available as well.

These days, seeds are intellectual property. Some are patented as inventions. You need permission from the patent holder to use them, and you're not supposed to harvest seeds for replanting the next year.

Even university breeders operate under these rules. When Goldman creates a new variety of onions, carrots or table beets, a technology-transfer arm of the university licenses it to seed companies.

This brings in money that helps pay for Goldman's work, but he still doesn't like the consequences of restricting access to plant genes — what he calls germplasm. "If we don't share germplasm and freely exchange it, then we will limit our ability to improve the crop," he says.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm sure all the peer libraries appearing under Nabster alledged that nobody was stealing anything also.
Making copies DESTROYS exclusive rights to I. Property. Just read any Installation Warning on a Software package..

Do you KNOW that no theft has been charged against a seed library? You only have to read the Titles on the drawers. Or respond to subpoena for testing the contents of MISLABELED drawers. I sure you feel that every song in the Nabster network was not rights protected either. Because Nabster cared so much about not violating property rights. It is only a matter of time for a court date if there hasn't been any already..

I am sure they did, but that has absolutely nothing to do with seed banks. The proof of that is relatively simple, no seed producer has filed a civil suit against any seed bank anywhere. What happened here is that the government stepped in and used a fake terrorism scare to shut down a community project that was perfectly legal. The fact that you keep mentioning Napster simply proves that you do not understand the difference between civil suits and regulatory action taken by the government.

But, by all means, keep digging.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Just that the term agri-terrorism can be used without universal howls of derision is a sign of just how far we have come, how much we have accepted state control, how thoroughly we have handed over our liberty and freedom.

Preach it brother.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

All I'm saying here is that the concept of "seed libraries" has to be mature and responsible enough to avoid property rights violations. And that the music, software, and electronic publishing businesses already offer many models to COMPLY with the applicable restrictions. Which contrary to what Mr Contrary is trying to assert --- really do exist. And librarians with NO KNOWLEDGE of these restrictions need to rethink the structure and RULES for their "seed libraries"..

Open Sourcing -- derived from the S/W industry is one important model for doing this legally..

Plant Breeders Release First 'Open Source Seeds' : The Salt : NPR

A group of scientists and food activists is launching a campaign Thursday to change the rules that govern seeds. They're releasing 29 new varieties of crops under a new "open source pledge" that's intended to safeguard the ability of farmers, gardeners and plant breeders to share those seeds freely.

It's inspired by the example of open source software, which is freely available for anyone to use but cannot legally be converted into anyone's proprietary product.

At an event on the campus of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, backers of the new Open Source Seed Initiative will pass out 29 new varieties of 14 different crops, including carrots, kale, broccoli and quinoa. Anyone receiving the seeds must pledge not to restrict their use by means of patents, licenses or any other kind of intellectual property. In fact, any future plant that's derived from these open source seeds also has to remain freely available as well.

These days, seeds are intellectual property. Some are patented as inventions. You need permission from the patent holder to use them, and you're not supposed to harvest seeds for replanting the next year.

Even university breeders operate under these rules. When Goldman creates a new variety of onions, carrots or table beets, a technology-transfer arm of the university licenses it to seed companies.

This brings in money that helps pay for Goldman's work, but he still doesn't like the consequences of restricting access to plant genes — what he calls germplasm. "If we don't share germplasm and freely exchange it, then we will limit our ability to improve the crop," he says.

You reaqlly have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

There is zero evidence outside your delusions that the seed library in question violated any IP laws. Even if they had, it would not be the province of the state to arbitrarily step in and shut them down,. What would have happened is that they people whose rights had been violated would have filed a suit in court, and the library would have the choice of dropping the seeds being challenged or fighting the case based on their belief that what they were doing was legal.

Since that did not happen, everything you have posted in this thread is a waste of electrons.