>I have some sympathy for the concept. In medicine, where
>development and testing of drugs takes many years and millions of
>dollars, there exists a scheme where only the developer can sell
>the drug for a given number of years - this is for profits to defray
>development costs, otherwise pharmaceutical companies would not
>be viable.
Yet, this is at the cost of, possibly, the lives, or the non-treatement of
the poor that cannot afford these drugs. Imagine insulin copyrighted today.
Lives and suffering measured in script.
>If someone spends 50 years breeding a blue rose by cross-pollination,
>it seems fair that the breeder can benefit from the labour, rather
>than be wiped out by Joe Tissue-Culture a year later. It is sad that
>one rapacious individual has brought the whole concept into
>disrepute and contempt.
Quite true. But mere legislation cannot prevent a gardener from giving his
neighbour a cutting of a "copyrighted" or PVR plant. Legislation, in this
instance, is specious, because it cannot be enforced in most cases.
The onus is on the copyright (PVR) holder to prove that the plant being
sold, or given away, infringes upon the copyright. Most of my plants have
been given me, without charge. I cheerfully give away cuttings, seeds and
extra plants to anyone that admires them. No copyright infringement there,
and if there were, how does one prove it?
I very much agree that someone who devotes years into the development of a
"blue rose" should be treated with respect and should be rewarded in some
manner. If that person has done this in the expectation of realizing a
profit through sales, however, I am afraid that they will be vastly
disappointed.
Kind Regards,
Rand Nicholson (Canada)