[free-sklyarov] re: Celebs

Kris kris at firstworld.net
Thu Aug 16 17:22:45 PDT 2001

At 12:17 AM 8/17/2001 +0200, Tom wrote:

 >I don't think it extends to fictional beings. aside from that, there'll
 >probably be some trouble producing a court-acceptable document with the
 >copyright transfer. plus: THAT would definitely be an expired copyright.
 >tiny rant: how can stuff like DNA be anything but public domain?
 >spending 5 thoughts on the subject makes clear that any copyright,
 >trademark or patent on HUMAN DNA is just unbelievable stupid and
 >against all what those rights stand for. now we may talk about
 >engineered DNA, but human is just so obvious - nobody created or
 >invented it, so how can anyone claim patent or copyright protection?
 >the act of FINDING is NOT covered by any of those. I mean, columbus
 >didn't get a patent on america, did he?

Well, I don't know if I want my specific DNA to be public domain.  Nor do I 
what another me running around.    However, copyrighting DNA is 
ridiculous.  After all, if your DNA is stolen and a clone is produced from 
it, what recourse does the "copyright holder" have?  It's not like you can 
have the clone destroyed.   Nor could one prevent the clone from cloning, 
should the clone so choose.  Also, in the case of twins, which twin gets 
the copyright?


More information about the Free-sklyarov mailing list