From the Now I've Seen Everything Dept:
"Maxygen's scientists and lawyers are proposing [to] encode the DNA sequences as MP3s or other music files and then copyright these genetic 'tunes'….As the 'authors' of these DNA-based songs, Maxygen could, in theory, control the rights to the compositions for 95 years or more–as opposed to the 17 years given under current patent law."
http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,52666,00.html
As laughable as Maxygen's proposal is, it also hints that the structural defects of copyright–which is supposed to protect the lowly from the mighty–are independent of the particular situation of art and artists.
What's next, a Celera Genomics press conference with guest spokesman Lars Urlich?
I pity you science fiction writers out there, trying to think up futures as bizarre as our present.
jon
copyrighting DNA tunes
-
Type: discussion
Comments
In a message dated 5/21/2002 8:49:59 AM Central Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:
> I pity you science fiction writers out there, trying to think up futures as
> bizarre as our present.
>
> jon
Yeah me too Jon. If I may ask, what was your reaction when I threw tickets
at that panel? I remember the speaker ignored it, said "to be glad we live
in a country" and gave me a dirty look, then I got the hell outta dodge.
My only actual dispute with your stated opinions is that once you said at
AEN/Walker that "people love Michael Jordan, he's a winner," or something to
that effect. And the topic was competition among artists! Remember this is
pre-911 when Brad Brace was so upset about creaky curation. So individual
competition for stardom I think is not good vis-a-vis netart revenue, guild
being a better way to go, but aren't guilds socialist?
We've come a long way, baby,
Max Herman
http://www.geocities.com/genius-2000/Focusgroup.GIF
PS–What is your take on the Eyestorm demise? Professionally?
++