I must take some offense to this.
The protection of Intellectual Property and the self determined value of one’s own labor is very different than a claim of ownership over a naturally occuring resource. You are committing an act of sophistry attempting to generate agreement with [what seems to be] your own political ideology [by means of an argument that at surface sounds rational and logical but really contains the essence of cannibalism].
No, what Matt considers, not ignores, is that he himself as well has been breeding for only 15 years, is thankful to those that came before him, and their intellectual property and labor [which he respects in line with the ethics meant to govern the industry he engages]. Somehow you found it in your heart to reverse his interpersonal feelings from your chair on his behalf?
An artist didn’t invent the act of painting or the concept. They didn’t invent colors or flat surfaces. Artists existed before them and inspired them. The universe crafted the stars. There is no such thing as a thing that doesn’t occur in the universe whether you want to claim it to be ‘natural’ or not [there is no way to invent the laws of the universe]. Anything ‘other than’ would be a supernatural claim. They did however create a unique and identifiable configuration from their own labor with what the universe provided them [and did so fairly]. What you have really done is challenge the concept of private ownership. Isn’t that a topic for another day? Considering Matt never mentions that he believes what you conflated with a poorly hidden strawman.
What gives you the right to decide the value of their labor and to do so without their consent? Did they hire your appraisal service? At least your run-of-the-mill Capitalist seeks contract and agreement. I am not allowed to kidnap you and force you to work for me, pay you nothing in return, and maybe show up and take your house while I’m at it because you didn’t invent wood.
Just because you have the ability to reproduce their work doesn’t mean you have the right to profit from their labor without willing participation [otherwise we call that act slavery among many related identifiers]. If you do so it just means you are a thief robbing others in an act of greed [and exploitation]. A plantation owner also has the ability to work in their field - that doesn’t gift them the right to take the labor / substance of others against their will. Trust is what occurs when Intellectual Property is offered - the ease of violating that trust does not make doing so acceptable. I notice there is no law that states you must drink water. There is no law against selling water. There is no law against bottling water. However, there are laws that protect Fuji from having its exact bottle and label reproduced.
All crafts are an alteration / modification of something that occured in the universe. This scenario is not a unique one. The rules do not change.
Is it that you do not understand the nature of their work [a lack of education perhaps] and believe you hold the right to appraise the value of their work? Apparently, you appreciate their efforts so little you value them at zero, and therefore you have every right to take it? How did you get anything at all in the first place? If you believe it to have no value you can choose to not purchase their products and instead make your own [without buying from anyone] but you do not get to decide the value of their products [otherwise, what would currency be used for if there is no longer a need for social contract? So you are requesting a scenario in which if you personally and subjectively decide something someone else produces isn’t ‘theirs’ you can take it? Isn’t that just the philosophy of a kleptomaniac? Participation is equal and the term would be accomplice]. That is for them to decide. I believe plantation owners had a similar mentality in appraising the value of others and their labor .
I have yet to meet a breeder that would complain that a strain they crafted would be used in another project. It clearly isn’t that simple. That isn’t the point at all. You made a statement, a blanket one, that provides no context for its application, and a failure to provide context when speaking of social interaction is a failure to be on topic.
Why disregard ethics in the community that you wish to succeed in? That sounds like very poor business acumen I most often find in fresh eyed robber baron types that see money as an amoral pursuit [in which they are outside of the law].
Samuel Adams. Did that company invent hops? I guess not. Want to start a company with me where we mimic the most popular beer recipes in the nation and have the best line ever? Low investment cost, no R&D, sounds perfect, and proven market to go with it - best thing ever right?
I have never met that breeder [that would actually say no one can create projects off of their work] other than a few examples, mostly in the industrial hemp industry, where people wish to protect the rights and sales around the cultivar they created for large scale cropping [no different than people do with their specific hops or corn]. The production and sales of those seeds is how they make a living. However, they are not claiming the rights to ‘all cannabis’ or ‘all seed sales’ or a ‘natural resource’. Simply, just the right to their own trademark names and exact craftsmanship. There are really good reasons for that. Sure, such can be abused, so you prevent abuse, not prevent the good part and punish everyone.
Their unique configuration and the labor required to create value in the marketplace is not naturally occuring. If it occured naturally their labor would not be required. It is in fact preternatural, at that point, not natural, and only occured because of their labor, regardless of if or if not a resource was used the universe provided [which are the only resources that we have]. The same goes for the painter - the painting is preternatural as the paint did not naturally form in that configuration without the influence of their intellectual energy and physical labor. That doesn’t mean they own ‘all of the paint’ by allowing them to own their work, does it?
The same people that you are falsely accusing agree with you, just as well, on the normal parts of your statement [which help mask the abnormal parts and make it ‘feel more agreeable’ to the reader. I mean, “who doesn’t want to save the children” am I right?]. No one owns this plant. It isn’t our plant or your plant. Not in general. That isn’t the point at all. It is that some ownership [or at least credit] exists. I mean come on… A little credit? People aren’t making it wealthy here and could use the ‘thank you’ for the [sometimes years put in] time they offered you to make you something awesome [that ranges from having saved the life of a child, perhaps your own child, and so on, to the best time you ever had at that one place with your friends. Memories. LIfe].
If people do not protect themselves what is stopping someone else from copyrighting their work and taking their property as their own? If people do not protect their Intellectual Property they will be homeless. I do not recall anyone stating that ‘all cannabis genetic markers are here by my property’ - Where was that stated exactly? Also, no one even takes it that far in general [outside of industrial hemp] and Matt himself surely does not. We, people that consider breeding to be a profession with its own set of ethics, do not like those people either, and exclude them socially.
I would agree with Strainly. Some sort of open source license setup correctly would match the ethics of most breeders perfectly. That is the spirit. Not ‘it isn’t your property and you don’t get credit’. I would recommend though, as I stated in my rules above [in my first comment], that you should ‘never let anyone in’, and setup this license yourself. Here is why: