05 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by richjohnsonNot the sequence itself. The sequence exists in nature. You have it. I have it. What is patented is the USE of the sequence in treating disease.
Oh yeah?
"The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has granted thousands of patents on human genes – in fact, about 20 percent of our genes are patented. A gene patent holder has the right to prevent anyone from studying, testing or even looking at a gene. As a result, scientific research and genetic testing has been delayed, limited or even shut down due to concerns about gene patents."
http://aclu.org/freespeech/gen/brca.html
So for example, somebody thinks a mutation in sequence PDQ causes Alzheimer's. So they want to study the administration of the correct PDQ sequence as a therapy ("gene therapy" ) -- maybe by introducing the sequence into a stem cell line and then introducing those cells into the patient (I am NOT an expert on this, but I think this is the general idea!)
Obviously, if they spend money (a LOT of money!) to develop that therapy, they want to be able to sell it to patients. They don't want somebody else to say, "Oh, good idea," and produce a generic version of the same thing the next day.
So the system is functioning as it does for molecule-based drug therapies.
05 Jun 09
Originally posted by spruce112358"What is claimed is:
Not the sequence itself. The sequence exists in nature. You have it. I have it. What is patented is the USE of the sequence in treating disease.
So for example, somebody thinks a mutation in sequence PDQ causes Alzheimer's. So they want to study the administration of the correct PDQ sequence as a therapy ("gene therapy" ) -- maybe by introducing the ...[text shortened]... he next day.
So the system is functioning as it does for molecule-based drug therapies.
1. An isolated DNA coding for a BRCA1 polypeptide, said polypeptide having the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:2."
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5747282.PN.&OS=PN/5747282&RS=PN/5747282
05 Jun 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadOk i'll come clean, I don not download music. I am a musician, and if people want to download my music, I say go for it.In most cases it is a MUTUALLY beneficial for the artist and the listener. The only people it hurts are the record companies, who as I've stated, has been exploiting artists for huge sums of money for decades. The record companies need to change in many ways or they will only make money of megastars, and as far as I'm concerned they can have them. I'll even put my philosophy where my mouth is, these are my three albums that I play bass that are currently being sold and I believe are all available for free somewhere out there on the web:
But are acts of civil disobedience that are mostly beneficial to the individual just an excuse? If you believed that taxes should be lower would you find ways to avoid paying tax (illegal ways) as an act of civil disobedience? Would you expect other tax payers (who now have to pay more to make up for your civil disobedience) to understand your position?
...[text shortened]... in South Africa. Can I steal food from shops that are involved as an act of civil disobedience?
'Small Reserves' -The Very Foundation
'Failure Looks So Good'- The Wanteds
'Things Look Different When the Sun Goes Down' Kate Mann
Go ahead download them, if you like them you might opt to buy the album to get the better quality sound of the CD or record. If you don't have the money you might see the band next time I'm on tour. If you hate them, so what I got you to listen to them .
08 Jun 09
Originally posted by StTitoWhy does everyone keep bringing up how rich and undeserving record companies are. How is it relevant? Is it OK to steal from someone because they are rich or exploited someone else? Why is it different when it comes to copying music? If it did hurt musicians, would that change whether or not piracy was morally acceptable? If all this piracy is so good for musicians why do they not scrap the record companies and put their music online for free?
The only people it hurts are the record companies, who as I've stated, has been exploiting artists for huge sums of money for decades.
Is it OK for me to cheat on my taxes because the only person it hurts is the government that has been exploiting me for huge sums of money?
08 Jun 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou could argue that downloading is actually good for musicians. I won't go into details, but I'm sure the logic will present itself to you. (You're still equating copying with stealing, which it is not).
Why does everyone keep bringing up how rich and undeserving record companies are. How is it relevant? Is it OK to steal from someone because they are rich or exploited someone else? Why is it different when it comes to copying music? If it did hurt musicians, would that change whether or not piracy was morally acceptable? If all this piracy is so good for ...[text shortened]... e the only person it hurts is the government that has been exploiting me for huge sums of money?
08 Jun 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI am sure it is good for some musicians (and some do put their music online for free download.) But that is irrelevant to whether or not it is OK to copy the music of a musician who has not given you permission to do so.
You could argue that downloading is actually good for musicians. I won't go into details, but I'm sure the logic will present itself to you. (You're still equating copying with stealing, which it is not).
I am not equating copying with stealing, I am asking why you, or anyone else believes that the rules are different. Specifically, why can you use the argument that the victim is a rich exploiter when dealing with piracy, but not when dealing with theft?
08 Jun 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThat's a poor argument, considering that nothing stops them from distributing their work for free even if there are copyright laws.
You could argue that downloading is actually good for musicians. I won't go into details, but I'm sure the logic will present itself to you. (You're still equating copying with stealing, which it is not).
08 Jun 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't use the rich exploiter argument. Rather, I believe that in downloading their material, I am doing artists a favour. Thanks to me, people who'd never heard of them have gone on to become fans of artists I've introduced them to and bought their music by the bucketload!
I am sure it is good for some musicians (and some do put their music online for free download.) But that is irrelevant to whether or not it is OK to copy the music of a musician who has not given you permission to do so.
I am not equating copying with stealing, I am asking why you, or anyone else believes that the rules are different. Specifically, why ...[text shortened]... t that the victim is a rich exploiter when dealing with piracy, but not when dealing with theft?
08 Jun 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadUnlike stealing, copying is not a zero-sum activity in an economic sense. Therefore you can't really speak of "victims" in the same sense as you would when it concerns real crime.
I am sure it is good for some musicians (and some do put their music online for free download.) But that is irrelevant to whether or not it is OK to copy the music of a musician who has not given you permission to do so.
I am not equating copying with stealing, I am asking why you, or anyone else believes that the rules are different. Specifically, why ...[text shortened]... t that the victim is a rich exploiter when dealing with piracy, but not when dealing with theft?
08 Jun 09
Originally posted by PalynkaWell, maybe the musicians simply don't realize what their best strategy is.
That's a poor argument, considering that nothing stops them from distributing their work for free even if there are copyright laws.
Or maybe the best strategy is simply to make a moral appeal to customers that they should buy their records - while at the same time condoning illegal downloading.
In any case, I think Radiohead has done well commercially with distributing their latest record for free. It's good for their image in the hipster community and they are still charging atrocious amounts for people who want to see their (crappy) music live in concert.
08 Jun 09
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIs that supposed to be a counter argument?
Well, maybe the musicians simply don't realize what their best strategy is.
Or maybe the best strategy is simply to make a moral appeal to customers that they should buy their records - while at the same time condoning illegal downloading.
In any case, I think Radiohead has done well commercially with distributing their latest record for free. It' ...[text shortened]... ll charging atrocious amounts for people who want to see their (crappy) music live in concert.