I think it's absolutely ridiculous to claim copyright on DNA. Here's why: each generation of organisms only gets half of its DNA from each of its parents. So unless a Monsanto soybean is planted and pollinated by another Monsanto soybean plant, I would say that the resulting generation was only half Monsanto. The next generation only 1/4th, and so on.
If an organism only owes half of its DNA to a Monsanto seed, is it still a Monsanto seed, or is it something new (a derivative work, if you will)? If not half, how about 1/4th? 1/8th? At what point is a plant "not Monsanto enough" to fall under their IP?
Given enough time, Monsanto could claim that all soybeans grown in North America are theirs, because the wind blows pollen every which way, and sooner or later their trademarked genes may turn up anywhere.
This is insanity. Let's be honest: Monsanto did not "invent" anything. They observed nature. They realized that there are different varieties of soybeans all over the world. they picked a few with characteristics they liked, cross-pollinated them, and managed to fool someone into thinking the result was a new "invention."
Yelp has currently filtered out 84 of Hadeed's 91 reviews. Another 6 were totally removed. Most of those 6 are outside Hadeed's area, so I can imagine they were totally inappropriate/spam/etc. But I wonder why 84 reviews were filtered out, leaving only 7? That seems suspicious, as if Yelp is trying to tell us there's been a lot of shenanigans.
Re: Mike again makes no distinction between "mine" and "yours"
"Mike skips over the actual crimes and focuses on details of HOW gov't got the information."
Well yes, the FBI's flagrant violation of the 4th amendment is the story, not the alledged criminal activity.
I don't give a rip what crime he's accused of. He could be accused of eating babies for all I care. We can't have law enforcement throwing out the Bill of Rights whenever it pleases them. This guy has only been accused, not convicted. It's INNOCENT until proven guilty, not the other way around.
You have got to be kidding. You're darn right the burden is on the "offended." That's where it belongs. If you think you're entitled to justice, your options are simple. Consult a lawyer who can advice you if you can legitimately make that claim in court. Then you find out what it will cost to properly make that claim, and you decide whether to proceed, or take your lumps and stfu.
On the other hand, if you sue me willy-nilly over some half-cocked notion, you place an unfair burden on me to defend myself. If it is determined that you were in the wrong, why should I have to pay legal fees?
Under "loser pays" you'll think twice before you try to pervert the legal system by turning it into a weapon.
Isn't it obvious? Sure, the number of people EMPLOYED is up, but the number of people with JOBS is rapidly disappearing. You see, just because someone is employed, it doesn't necessarily mean that they have an actual job to do.
My neighbor gave me the key to his house so I can water his plants while he's on vacation. Apparently the minute I entered his house, I committed breaking and entering, because the lock was designed to keep me out. Is that the logic we're employing here?
You only had to read one more sentence to find the point you're claiming doesn't exist:
"the studios and other copyright holders seem to insist that a single IP address is proof positive of liability, doesn't it seem reasonable to question the studios about this bit of evidence as well?"
These guys are putting so much effort into going after file sharers, you'd think at the very least they'd get their own houses in order first.