Encoding DNA as Music for Copyrighting? 179
superposed writes "A Silicon Valley executive is proposing that biotech companies could improve on the U.S.'s 20-year patent protection for DNA sequences by encoding them as digital music files (Lame Free Registration required) and using copyright protection, which can last up to 100 years. Right now this is just a suggestion, and for what it's worth, the original author of some of the DNA-to-music software thinks its a bad idea. But it's still disturbing somehow."
And as Bill Hicks might've said... (Score:4, Funny)
Would Stop Cloning (Score:2, Funny)
... and blood tests (Score:2, Funny)
No doubt. And blood tests would be a considered a violation of the DMCA - using reverse-engineering to access a copyrighted work.
I think I'll make songs out of the various cold and flu viruses, charge a dollar royalty every time someone gets sick. I could use the extra bucks for Christmas shopping.
Yet another dumb idea that doesn't hold up. (Score:5, Insightful)
To get copyrightprotection it must be an original and creative work.
There's nothing creative about a DNA secuence, it's just a statement of fact, no matter in what form it is encoded.
Re:Yet another dumb idea that doesn't hold up. (Score:4, Insightful)
Money talks, and if one difference can be glossed over the other one can be too.
Besides, there's some pretty uncreative stuff out there that's still protected by copyright.... Windows, for example! (yes, it's the obligatory
Re:Yet another dumb idea that doesn't hold up. (Score:2)
As far as I'm aware patents should only be given to *processes*; a DNA sequence is just data, isn't it?
You're right about not being able to patent data, but it's the process used to isolate each gene (remember, isolated genes don't exist in nature, they're trapped in unrefined genetic material) that makes them patentable. The test for patentability under US law is, IIRC, "anything under the sun made by man".
Re:Yet another dumb idea that doesn't hold up. (Score:2)
Hmm, that's pretty broad.
It has to be. It's impossible to specify what can be patented because the purpose of patents is to protect as-yet unknown classes of inventions and processes. You can't specify what you don't know about.
The current answer is "yes", since genes don't exist. You take a chromosome (or maybe plasmid if you're working with bacteria/archaea) and do some magic on it to cut it up and produce a new chemical compound. In that sense, it's just like any other industrial chemical process. The process used for each gene is apparently novel enough to ensure patentability (the test for novelty in the US is really low, along the lines of "if trained monkeys couldn't think it up, then it's novel"; the EU is better in this regard, but then again the EU is better in most respects with regard to IP, especially in relation to biotech and IT).
What if I wanted to represent the same gene using different notation, using a different investigative process to get that representation?
Talking about representing genes isn't really relevant, since patents don't prevent you talking about patented subject matter; one of the objectives of patent law is the disclosure of new inventions through the requirement of publication (and this is one thing the evil people in the article are trying to get around). As for using a different process to get the gene: that's a big argument. It's a bit like saying that you could produce say, a phonograph that corresponded in every way to a patented phonograph, but avoid the patent by saying you used a different production process. It doesn't really work that way.
I guess that's what it comes down to, and whether or not you agree on whether the patent system's protection for pharmaceutical companies encourages or discourages basic research.
That's probably the important thing to remember: IP rights arise out of policy considerations rather than out of inherent moral rights (except perhaps for the right of workers, as against corporations, to be rewarded for their labour). The IP regime have to be tuned to ensure that progress in the fields they regulate occurs with the greatest rapidity possible; that's the principal benchmark of their effectiveness.
Re:Yet another dumb idea that doesn't hold up. (Score:2)
Isn't that what these people are saying that they've patented? A representation of a gene that they have managed to produce? Or is the issue that they are trying to hide which gene that is and protect it with the DMCA? (I'm feeling extra-stupid now -- I don't think I realised the exact point of the original story
It's a bit like saying that you could produce say, a phonograph that corresponded in every way to a patented phonograph, but avoid the patent by saying you used a different production process. It doesn't really work that way.
That may be because the patented phonograph could only be used in patented ways; this may also be the case with genes (when I resort to dodgy analogies, I'm way out of my depth, so I really don't know
I guess that could depend on whether your different process was sufficiently different... it just seems to me that protecting the result as well as the process is overly broad.
I guess the idea is to make the patent lawyers rich first and foremost.
The IP regime have to be tuned to ensure that progress in the fields they regulate occurs with the greatest rapidity possible; that's the principal benchmark of their effectiveness.
Too many businesses and governments are fixed on a short-term view of the future; governments because of the venality of the politicians (and by extension the voting public), and businesses because of the greediness of their boards & management (and by extension their shareholders).
Progress is a difficult thing to measure at the best of times, especially if you're too busy concentrating on the opinion polls or the quarterly results
Re:Yet another dumb idea that doesn't hold up. (Score:1)
Re:Yet another dumb idea that doesn't hold up. (Score:4, Funny)
When I first read this, it gave me ideas! I was thinking.. "Whoa! In that case, I'm gonna use the court's tendency to rule in favor of ridiculous copyright claims to my advantage! I'm gonna copyright my fingerprints, my retina, and my DNA! Then I'll sue the DMV if they refuse to remove my fingerprint from their databases! And from now on, I can proudly refuse to give away my fingerprints to banks and police!"
Pity..
Re:Yet another dumb idea that doesn't hold up. (Score:4, Interesting)
-- Spam Wolf, the best spam blocking vaporware yet! [spamwolf.com]
Re:Yet another dumb idea that doesn't hold up. (Score:3, Insightful)
God's lawyers are a bitch to deal with (Score:5, Funny)
Of course DNA is a creative work. But the author has a tendency to take things a bit personally when you step on his turf - plagues of locusts, seas of blood, 40 years wandering the dessert.
"False gods" are a particular sore spot. It also involved money and the creation of synthetic animals -- wasn't there something about cattle made of gold?
So sure, claim His work. But don't expect much sympathy when a Legion of Angelic Lawyers arrive to contest it.
</passover humor>
Re:God's lawyers are a bitch to deal with (Score:1)
Angelic Lawyers?! (Score:3, Funny)
If that's not an oxymoron...
Re:Yet another dumb idea that doesn't hold up. (Score:4, Insightful)
Cage, Reich, Stockhausen, all use found sounds in their works. They take samples of anything, people talking, jet engines, whatever, and use that to make their music, so creative, original fundamental components must not be a criteria.
Again, with Cage, his practice of indeterminacy, using chance to compose doesn't sound like it takes much creativity on his part. Basically, it comes down to intent, as it does with all art. Marcel Duchamp's "Fountain" was just a urinal he bought and signed his name on. Obviously some creativity went into the actual construction of the urinal, but Duchamp didn't do any of that work.
While this is completely arguable, it seems to me that pretty much _anything_ can be taken as art as long as the artist says it is. While the pieces or processes may not be original or creative, it's the insight of the "artist" to USE those particular pieces and processes, and the intent behind them that makes it art.
So, basically what my point is, is who are we to judge what is or isn't art? It would seem to me that just the idea of turning the DNA sequences into music is a creative idea, and can even be done a number of ways. Maybe each G, A, T, and C would be encoded as a single note. Or each pair could be expressed as a pair of notes. There are any number of creative ways the sequence could be expressed musically.
Anyways, I could go on, but I think I've made my point. While I definitely think this practice would be a horrible abuse of the copyright system (copyright was created to promote creativity, not control the entire known world with an iron fist), I don't think you can really say the result wouldn't be art.
Re:Yet another dumb idea that doesn't hold up. (Score:3, Insightful)
DennyK
John Cage's "music" (Score:2, Funny)
Let me tell you, it is by far his best work!
And all the record companies have to pay royalties for putting excerpts of his work in between the regular tracks of music on CDs.
But at least when I rip it to MP3, I can use a low bitrate without losing quality!
Re:Yet another dumb idea that doesn't hold up. (Score:3, Funny)
To get copyrightprotection it must be an original and creative work.
Naive you are. Read this [theage.com.au] you must.
Re:Yet another dumb idea that doesn't hold up. (Score:2)
Ironic that the October '01 story you linked to refers to the telephone numbers as the 'DNA of business'. Hmmm, maybe I should copyright every IP address, which would trump cybersquating laws. Amazon could tell me that Amazonsux.org violates their copyright, and I could countersue claiming that http://207.171.181.16/ [207.171.181.16] violates MY copyright!
As to the original post in this thread, the guy aparently doesn't get that since its possible to code any sequence of DNA deliberately, the fact that the DNA exists in nature would only be relevant in a patent case where prior work is a valid counter claim. To show copyright infringment, you need a prior owner of the copyright to enforce their right, and would likely need to be in a creative work that consisted ONLY of the sequence (i.e. gene) in question, not in the form of an entire chromosome. Thus the ability to copyright phone numbers as referenced above.
Re:Yet another dumb idea that doesn't hold up. (Score:2)
There's nothing creative about a DNA secuence, it's just a statement of fact, no matter in what form it is encoded
I dunno about you, but I can think of some creative ways in which to share my DNA.
Kazaa (Score:1)
That's nasty!! EOF (Score:1)
Re:Kazaa (Score:1)
P2P DNA Sharing
You guys should try it sometime!
Re:Kazaa (Score:1)
Re:Kazaa (Score:1)
Sample of the music (Score:1)
G, A, C, A, T, T, T, G, A, C, A, T.
(and that's just a small part of my lameness gene)
Abuse of laws (Score:1)
Yes, please! (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, ANY abuse of the copyright/patent/IP system leading to monopoly trasfers looks a wonderful idea to me.
The "napster effect" is giving rise to a backlash against consumer rights, if the big guys abuse IP laws enough it will lead faster to a back-backlash against IP. Actually, if my business were based on patents/IP I'd fight tooth and nail against the people abusing them, for fear of losing protection....
RIGHT ON! (Score:1, Insightful)
If the laws are stupid and open to abuse, then abuse the heck out of them until they go away.
Re:Yes, please! (Score:1, Insightful)
I used to think that the same was true for the
Environment.
When the East Coast Fishery collapsed some 15
years ago, I thought it would be the wake up call
we needed.
Now the West Coast Fishery is about to do the
same.
Re:Yes, please! (Score:1)
By filing suit, we use the over-broad and just simply wrong tools that Corp. America has created against them!....people need to be shown just how stupid this all is, and nothing points out stupidity like wanton mis-use and unbridled legal wrangling!
Bring it on guys....I'm patenting/copyrighting EVERYTHING I do........and I'm a gonna sue!
DNA as an Art Form (Score:2)
rendering DNA into Music does not produce art.
If there is copy of this as MUSIC, then there should be no protection for the Music in another Artform.
Example: projecting the Music onto the backdrop of a Theater production.
Besides our understandinfg of DNA is sufficiently small that you can not consider the design of living creatures an art form at this time. When it does, then I can consider giving them the copyright.
I consider the body of work seen in the Australian Marsupials to be fantastic.
DNA is merely the notation of the configuration of the Life Form.
Re:DNA as an Art Form (Score:2)
Define "art" in this context. Personally, I look at Warhol's Campbells Soup Can & think that, given the right presentation, anything can be art.
If it were presented as "this is our product, as music", then I'd probably agree that it's just corporate game-playing with IP. But what if a performance artist had themselves sequenced, and made the sequence into music? Would that be art? If so, what's the difference between the two, besides just presentation?
Re:DNA as an Art Form (Score:1)
Re:DNA as an Art Form (Score:2)
If it were presented as "this is our product, as music", then I'd probably agree that it's just corporate game-playing with IP. But what if a performance artist had themselves sequenced, and made the sequence into music? Would that be art? If so, what's the difference between the two, besides just presentation?
I agree. DNA can be made into music, and copyrighted. But that doesn't copyright the underlying work, the DNA. In fact, it doesn't even stop someone else from making the same DNA into the same music.
It's just like the fact that my typing of "iqowpertyukalsjdhfgmznxbcv" does not copyright the entire alphabet, it only copyrights that particular arrangement of the alphabet (and doesn't even stop someone from independently creating that same arrangement).
there is nothing that isnt and is art. (Score:1)
just because person X doesnt think its art, or person Y thinks it IS art, doesnt make it any less art.
its up to the viewer to decide if its art to her, but in the end, its still art to someone.
Length of Copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
While I don't like psychoanalyzing dead people, I really doubt Walt Disney (the man) would have felt that Mikey Mouse needed such additional protection per the Sonny Bono Law.
When the concept of copyright was first hammered out, people created for other people. I think we've gotten away from that in the "mainstream" sector. Works aren't made for people anymore, they're made for "interest groups" and "demographic sectors". I'm still hopefull that this mentality is a "flash in the pan" in the global scheme of things, but sometimes I get nervous.
Don't get nervous (Score:2, Informative)
Don't get nervous.
And don't get all alarmist, pretending that this hurts ART, though. Yeah, it sucks that your buddies down at the Turf Club -- crappy faux artists who can't make a living in their crappy bands - turn bright green with envy as crappy faux artists go on tour and date other crappy faux artists. NONE of these pretenders make ART. And the RIAA, the Sonny Bono law, and all there kin will never kill ART.
The artistic instinct within us, it evolved over millions of years. As we rose from mostly apelike creatures with slightly larger brains into the social, communicative, deeply inquisitive things we are today, our need to express ourselves in transcendent ways arose as well. Music is perhaps most closely associated with this type of expression. Religious ceremonies, mating rituals... the things that are OUTSIDE ourselves
But music (lowercase m) now has become commoditized. It is not the Music we evolved and honed over the eons. Now it is used an opportunity for a company, with a pre-selected mass audience, to increase profit. This doesn't mean Music isn't being created SOMEWHERE. It is. It just means that what we are hearing now, on the radio, on our CDs, is not likely to be Music. We are not hearing this deeper expression of our souls.
What passes for music has become background for the commute home Using the LANGUGE of Music, it babbles away unintelligently. We sway to its rhythms, but continue to hunger for something more. "The RIAA (and its likes) have killed music." Wrong. Mass media has made "music" sound empty, derivative and hollow, but it has not - will not, in fact can not destroy real artists, it cannot kill the Music.
Independent (good) bands, unknown prodigies, people in tune with their deeper selves and the need to express something that will touch others... these people will create something beautiful, something real. It won't matter how it is packaged. A record label might pick it up, or it might not. Just because the label selects what will sell to the masses
Or maybe they won't, and the Music will sit in obscurity, waiting to be discovered someday. It still exists.
And as for the artist? Well, if we are being honest here, then for the sake of the Music itself, the true creator of Music doesn't need to be "paid" - it is the desire to make it that makes it worthwhile. The artist being paid is looking at the problem thought the lens of a businessperson. That's fine. If they want to be in business. But then we aren't REALLY whining about ARTISTS anymore but businesspeople. The artist who needs to get paid is thinking like a commodity. Hurrah if ANY artist gets paid, but ultimately it doesn't matter for the Art. Not if what they are producing is Art. If they are producing Art then the sight of the Art realized is enough.
So - yeah, the RIAA pretty much guarantees that what you'll find on a CD at Best Buy isn't MUSIC and yeah it'll hurt all our buddies in garage bands. But you know what? The ART will still thrive. You just gotta dig a little. Times have changed. But don't go getting nervous thinking that this'll kill the Art. Art will live on.
OT: Length of Copyright (Score:1)
Trademarks don't have expiration dates -- they are valid as long as you actively police them, which Disney (the Co.) does with a zeal that trumps the "(blank) Inside" company any day.
So, the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether Disney can produce another Mickey Mouse cartoon; it only allows them to keep making money off of "Steamboat Willie" instead of releasing it to the public domain. In other words, the SBCEA's (presumably intended) effect is exactly the opposite of encouraging new creative works; instead, it encourages the milking of existing works for profit as long as possible.
don't fight it (Score:2, Interesting)
As this is about Intellectual Property Laws... (Score:3, Insightful)
restrict such competition to long timelines will have to compete with
licenses that don't.
Ever hear of GNU?
How about Lawrence Lessigs efforts to make a variety of such Licenses
available for free use? Of which I suspect they can be modified for any
type of IP, even non-computer related...
Point being, although there may be these really stupid "Cannot" based
laws who's time lines continue to get extended in what amounts to
infinity, there is the law of license that can over rule.
I mean if you can sign away your (US citizen constitutional rights) right
to free speech in such things as NDAs then the ability to create licenses
that get around the problems created by law makers who have lost touch
with the original intent of the creation of IP laws....so as to more so
or better fit the originators..
The IP laws should be "Can" Based. That's where Licenses like GPL come
in. (exception in GPL is that you cannot take without giving back - and
that is the exception to prove the rule valid. For it is so bad to say you
cannot be unfair?)
Perhaps it's time more people start realizing there is a choice with which
laws they want to be influenced by. By supporting their choice openly.
Re:As this is about Intellectual Property Laws... (Score:2)
The IP laws should be "Can" Based. That's where Licenses like GPL come in.
Hmm, sounds like a "can not" to me.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:If it's my DNA... (Score:2, Interesting)
What happened was that the charity discovered these two genes that could be used in a test for some form of cancer.
It published its findings and its test. Then this company came along and patents the two genes on both sides of the atlantic.
Currently in america it is charging a hugely inflated price for the test, and they are now sueing the National Health Service, and the charity for supplying it in the UK at cost price.
The whole underlying argument here is whether the patenting of genes is legal. For example in order for something to be patented it has to be something new or an improvement on something that already exists, however if something is already in the public domain it cant be patented.
Seeing as many people around the world already have these genes, then surely they are already in the public domain?
Re:If it's my DNA... (Score:2, Informative)
Check this [actionbioscience.org] and this [genomic.org]; I agree it's crazy, but as always money talks - at least in the U.S, that is.
Re:If it's my DNA... (Score:1)
So in theory, if you contributed DNA and someone else made a discovery and created a software service (e.g. submit DNA and get back your chances of say certain types of cancer), the precedent would be that you don't benefit financially, only the group who actually "knows" what to do with the DNA. On the other hand, human nature is quite reactionary
Golden Rule
LL
Re:If it's my DNA... (Score:2)
You don't "own" your DNA ...
Right, because I didn't "create" my DNA. My parents "own" the copyright on my DNA, because my parents created it, and it is an original work of authorship.
Re:If it's my DNA... (Score:3, Informative)
So no, it's not your DNA, nor is it anyone else's.
And yeah, patents are supposed to protect inventions, but then the MPAA and RIAA are supposed to entertain us, rather than intefere with the computer industry through asinine laws (while producing absolute shit in the meantime).
Re:If it's my DNA... (Score:1)
Who has righst to the copyrights here? (Score:4, Interesting)
If a program is used to generate music, and the situation is further complicated by seeding the program with a DNA sequence, who has actually composed the music, and who, therefore is actually entitled to receive a copyright for it?
The author of the program? The person or plant/animal from whom the DNA sequence was extracted? Or the person who merely loaded the DNA info and clicked the button?
Numerous programs have been created that create music -- some in the style of a specified composer. It might be worth finding how the copyright issue were handled on the output of these programs.
In either case, it strikes me as clearly nonsensicle for the user of an application to be permitted to copyright the output of a program where the program's output is determined without consequential input from the user, and in this case, the user is not performing any creative act by feeding in an already predetermined string of data which is found in nature.
My feeling would be that if anyone has a right to the copyright of the output of this program, it would be the program's author, not the user.
I have a degree in music theory and composition, and this sort of arrangement is not very much different than much of the "avant guard" work produced in the 20th century -- i.e. composers like Stockhausen, Babbit, Reich, Cage, et alii, often were more concerned with the *methodology* they constructed which then generated the musical work, than the actually work itself.
In other words, in this sort of "post-modern" art music, the act of composing became more about the creation of a methodology (or algorithm) to create a work of art in liue of a common practice, and allowing the resulting work to be partially or totally controlled by the process originally established -- like setting up a system in which samples on tape loops are phase-shifted according to a set of rules, or tossing i-ching coins to randomly produce data that controlls all aspects of the composition.
In light of the history and practice of musical composition in the last century, there is really little doubt that the author of the program should be the only person to have rights to the works output by his program. He has done nothing very different than John Cage -- just substitute tossing the i-ching to generate data with using DNA information which controll the salient aspects of the composition.
The act of composition was in defining the process by which the work was created.
Re:Who has righst to the copyrights here? (Score:3, Insightful)
This same argument applies to DNA patents themselves - should it belong to the people whose DNA was used, the people who designed the PCR machines, or the mutliple alignment software, rather than the people actually performing the experiments?
Enough is enough! (Score:1)
That tears it! Why don't we just ammend the Constituion so that ideas and concepts are treated just like physical property. That way, the rich and the government can not only own every square inch of land that we walk on, but also our hearts and minds too. Hell, while we're at it, we might as well hold an auction on every word, thought, or idea that is currently public domain now. After all, Big Money Corporate America can surely do a better job of managing the sum of all human knowledge than us mere peasants; we should be gratefull to pay to think THEIR thoughts and use THEIR ideas. Scumbags that seriously consider this kind of shit make Star Trek's Ferrengi look like a bunch of socialists.
Rant mode off...
Bad idea, (Score:3, Funny)
And in other news... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:And in other news... (Score:2)
hmmm (Score:1)
Thats just dumb (Score:1)
Although it may add a new way of owning games. Take the sequence from a cd, encode it as digital music, and say its yours, get the copyright, then sue game companies.
If this really happens, I'll be amazed
Encoding digital music as a number (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Encoding digital music as a number (Score:3, Interesting)
Absurd (Score:1)
hehehe.. (Score:2, Funny)
Why not DNA-image? (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't it ridiculous? I personally just think that people skimmed the Nature article and then came to the wrong conclusions. DNA is just data, which I can convert to any format I want. If I gzip the latest Steven King novel, I've changed its format, can I copyright that? If I change the DNA so that it's converted into a jpeg, can I copyright that?
This whole topic is so ridiculous, I don't know how to begin...
Genes which have been worked on -- where people have elucidated their function, cloned the gene, figured out what it does -- I have no problem with patents on that... but just patenting because the format is different? Ridiculous!
Re:Why not DNA-image? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why not DNA-image? (Score:1)
Is it still the same work? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Is it still the same work? (Score:2)
If the underlying data is the same (and it kinda has to be for this to work) then no, you have the same "work" it just has a few extra bytes such as file headers for whatever format it is in. I'd say this is more analogous to putting a painting in a new frame - is it a derivative work then? Of course the perseption of it is always as something completely different and serving a different purpose (which is something that no painting analogy can show).
That's it... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:That's it... (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but I already own the copyright on you. I got a hair sample the last time you went to the barber and had your DNA sequenced and copyrighted.
You are hereby under notice that any attempt to use your DNA to create a derivative work is a violation of copyright law, DCMA, SSSCA, CBDTPA, CDA, CHIPA, and FUBAR.
-
Common Sense! (Score:1, Insightful)
as music, it seems to me that it would have no effect on using and publishing these same
sequences for their intended purpose
the word "CAB" in a novel violates some copyrighted song with a note sequence of "CAB"
somewhere within. It would, I suppose, prevent someone else from using these same
sequences as "music".
File Format (Score:1)
Ogg Vorbis? MP3? Wave?
Re:File Format (Score:2)
Oh, please (long) (Score:5, Insightful)
Feh. Let them keep their secrets. As sequencing technology improves (I work in crystallography, a related field. Sequencing is improving rapidly in both accuracy and speed.) More and more sequences will be deciphered in an academic context and released into the public domain. [expasy.org] Public science will suffer far more from companies trying to exert some kind of intellectual property rights over this genetic information that it will from academics having to do the work of sequencing.
Secondly, the whole concept is an insult. The company that copyrights the music (or, whoever owns the copyright on the music - another poster was keen to raise this as a question) owns only the music, not the sequence the music was derived from. If I'm going to use that sequence in any kind of peer-reviewed publication, I will have to make it available to other scientists, free of charge. Now, I presumably purchased some kind of access rights to the sequence, which included (a probably unenforceable) clause not to redistribute the sequence itself; this will likely prevent me from publishing in any reputable journal. Such non-redistribution agreements are common when scientists acquire physical research tools from industry - if I purchase a plasmid (that's a tiny piece of DNA that replicates in bacteria; most antibiotic resistance in bacteria is conferred from plasmids) I have to agree not to take that plasmid, copy it myself, and sell it or give it away. I'm free to talk about the sequence of the plasmid, however. So, any scientist who purchased access to your digital music would have to sign a non-disclosure agreement regarding the DNA the music converted into, since that DNA sequence itself is not subject to copyright. If, however, someone else (who hadn't signed such an agreement) acquired the DNA sequence, and dumped it in SwisProt, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to tell where it came from originally; unless you "watermarked" each DNA sequence you distributed with errors of some kind.
Of course, this raises fundamental questions of the validity of digital copyright law, which amounts to copyrighting integers. I can write a program (which I copyright) that converts some particular string of babble (which I also copyright) into the text of War and Peace. Do I now own the copyright to War and Peace? Obviously not! I can distribute, and charge money for "wnpcmake.exe", but I have no claims on the OUTPUT that wnpcmake.exe always produces. If wnpcmake.exe happens to produce content owned by someone else, say, "The Ground Beneath her Feet" by Salman Rushdie, then I'm in violation of Rushdie's copyright. I have no claims of my own.
The copyright is on some real world thing, not on any particular digital representation. So, Amgen might own "Human liver fatty acid binding protein cancer-prone allele in C minor," which happens to map somehow to the sequence of that allele (an allele is a particular sequence/variant of a gene); they own the right to perform that piece of music, they own the right to distribute recordings of that music (digital or otherwise) and so forth. But, they can't write some program that converts War and Peace INTO this piece of music (or vice versa) and claim that they own War and Peace. Likewise, just because a DNA sequence HAPPENS to convert to their music, under some set of rules THEY have devised, cannot reasonably be expected to grant them rights over the sequence.
Note that I am not a lawyer, and can speak only for what is logical and sensible. To the extent that law may deviate from sanity, I cannot comment. Since patenting DNA sequences flies in the face of all reason anyway, I pretty much expect to be unpleasantly surprised.
Questions about digital copyrights (Score:2)
Absolutely right! And it's even worse when it's encrypted and it's illegal to publish the encryption algorithm.
Suppose the "secret" algorithm amounts to a "one way pad" method. A one-way-pad allows one to decode any similar-length message from the encrypted data, by choosing an appropriate key. I could encode my film made at the "El Cheapo" studies in Tijuana and copyright the digital data encrypted by my secret one-way-pad, which, thanks to the DMCA, I can keep secret and send to jail anyone who claims to be able to break.
Later, in 2005, I can apply a different secret key to my encrypted data and recover a full digital version of "Titanic II - That Sinking Feeling", and claim it as my work.
A different scam, without the need for encryption: I disassemble Windows XP and copyright the resulting source code under the GPL. Yes, I know the EULA has restrictions on reverse-engineering, but how can you prove that on court?
Re:Oh, please (long) (Score:1)
So what you're saying is that scientist would have to sign a NDA to get access to the DNA?
Now that I've had more time to think about it... (Score:2)
How would this be different from taking a DNA sequence and markup, prininting it out and claming copyright as a visual work of art? or just copyrighting that same text as a novel?
I am sure laws exist to prevent that sort of idiocy, right? right?
Re:Now that I've had more time to think about it.. (Score:2)
There is a short story entitled "The Preserving Machine". (Can't recall who wrote it). In this story musical scores can be changed in to animals and back again... The idea is that works of art can be preserved by turning them into animals. Problem is that they don't breed true.
Shakespeare (Score:1)
Yes, but..... (Score:1, Funny)
Sure it will undoubtedly be static, but... (Score:2, Funny)
This is WDNA, all biotech, all the time.
Come to think of it (Score:4, Funny)
Absurdities and Reality (Score:5, Insightful)
Napster was an opening shot in a very big issue that is only beginning to grow. That is, the Internet is making intellectual property rights unmanageable. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is such a sea change our current legal framework doesn't know how to wrap itself around the issue. In a world where everything that can be digitized is essentially as free and transmuteable as water, how the heck do you establish rights and precedents and flow of profits or anything? There is no gradual change here, there is just: here's a brave new world, deal with it folks, because there's no going back.
So we have the future happening outside of anyone's control, and a legal and business system unable to know what to do with our new reality. Things will only get weirder and more contentious, as those who accept the new reality grapple with those who are still in denial. And all along no one knows anything about what to do to maintain the engines of innovation and progress that reward the best songwriters, reward the best biotech scientists, reward the best filmmakers, reward the best software writers. Their works essentially have a distribution value of zero and no one can maintain a system that ensures they get rewarded for their work.
As older, slower, bulkier distribution systems go by the wayside, the artificial resistance to free information they represented goes away. But they also represented a means of controlling that information to make sure that people responsible for the best information got rewarded. That goes away too!
What do we do? I don't know...
I for one love that I can get free music off of Kazaa, I am gleeful that software like Kazaa is essentially a Pandora's Box that can never be closed again, and that the old-school model of Music Distribution is going the way of the dinosaur in a few decades no matter how much they kick and scream. But while I sit there listening to this music, I know that I am also ripping off the artist. How does the artist get paid?
I love that we have all of these wonderful new drugs. And I love the fact that some brave pharmacists in Thailand are making their own cocktails to fight AIDS and thumbing their nose at the big Pharmaceutical companies by offering the cocktails at the tiniest fraction of previous cost. But I know these two joys are mutually exclusive, because hate the pharmaceutical companies all you want, no one can argue with the fact that as they currently exist, they are the greatest engines of drug innovation, and it is because of them we have all of these wonderful medical advances. You can't bite the hand that feeds you.
Change the legal and business system that protects their high prices and you can say goodbye to that innovation. Controlling patents on DNA is, to me, an abhorent idea. It is abhorent for religious reasons, for moral reasons. It just stinks of unnatural evil to me, meddling with nature. But it gives people and companies the incentive to do amazing things. Would I accept strong global DNA patents if I knew that it would theoretically allow companies to cure Malaria? That is one of the reasons big drug companies don't research Malaria. They know they won't make any profits. Do you have any idea how many people Malaria kills evey year?
Information wants to be free. It always has. But the difference is that the pace of communication is accelerating to such a point nowadays that it's much more rapid free dissemination is threatening the engines of innovation like it never has before. Something must give.
Unlikely, Under 17 USC 102(b) (Score:2, Informative)
relevant U.S. law:
U.S. Code Section 17 Title 102(b)
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/102
(b) In no case does copyright protection for an
original work of authorship extend to any
idea, procedure, process, system, method of
operation, concept, principle, or discovery,
regardless of the form in which it is
described, explained, illustrated, or
embodied in such work
A DNA sequence is clearly a set of process
instructions for assembling proteins. I don't
think the courts will be fooled by a biotech
company trying to copyright it in musical form.
>:K
It doesn't matter... (Score:2)
I recommend a lot of you go to your library and get a book on intellectual property law, and read it from cover to cover. God knows you (yes, you!) speculate about it enough.
So what? (Score:1, Insightful)
Look at it this way. The DNA-encoding sequence is a method for producing music. The music, once created, is a creative work. That's like inventing a new musical instrument, and using it to play a song. Now try to claim that your patent on the instrument lasts as long as the copyright on the song. The whole scheme collapses under the tiniest bit of scrutiny.
Let's not worry too much about this one, kids. The bigger issue is that DNA can be patented at all, not the length of time some sleazeballs might want to tie up a particular sequence with stupid ideas that would have exactly zero chance of surviving in a court of law.
Okay, so here's my question... (Score:1)
I mean what happens if some parents try to sue their child and get the copyright to their DNA?
RIAA, a tool for ZPG? (Score:1)
already tried and failed (Score:1, Informative)
Copyright is not a Patent (Score:2, Interesting)
You only need to provide a means of proving that you were the original creator. When someone takes my DNA, and changes it to music they do not hold the copyright to it, even if the write copyright 2002 or whatever. I don't think that it would be too difficuly, given the means, to prove that the DNA was mine to begin with. The person who transformed it into 'music' could get a patent, which would be legally binding, if I couldn't prove that the patent was based on something to which I am the copyright holder.
Perhaps they can own copyright and petent for the actual song, but not my DNA. If they COULD.. it would mean that by making DNA into music, no one could reproduce the DNA as a picture or even program code. But I am not even sure if you can put a patent on a derivative work anyway. Anyone?
Let me get this straight... (Score:2, Funny)
Would this make DeCSS legal? (Score:2)
Wouldn't playing the DNA music be decrypting it..illegal under the DMCA?
I dunno. It's early on Sunday morning and I haven't had any coffee yet. But I'd rather listen to someone rambling DNA sequences than Shakira. Hey, maybe Snoop Doggy Dogg will bust out some hard-core "keepin' it real" inner city DNA shiznat!
I hope he does it. (Score:2, Interesting)
Before someone nit picks my response note that the entire 'cure' doesn't have to encoded in DNA but some of the critical parts that make the cure a functional whole could be.
Peter
Twins & Lawsuits (Score:1)
Damn this is stupid. (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, you might well have copyright to the music. (You might not; if it's purely deterministic, it's not itself a creative work, and is at most a derivative work.) However, a recording of some guy singing Shakespeare does not give you any control over the original text.
Creation vs discovery. (Score:2)
You might be able to stop me encoding my DNA as music the same way you did, but that does not copyright the original DNA.
You are in violation of the law !! (Score:2)
Check THIS [magnus-opus.com] out, we're all stealing music !!!
Just sign the license in Blood.... (Score:2)
When will this be a DIY project? (Score:2)
My question is how long will it be before someone could walk into a univeristy med lab, get a sample taken, prep it, send that off to a sequencing lab and get back a CD with a sizable chunck of their DNA for under $1000?
Won't work...not allowed by law... (Score:2)
Courts have interpreted this mean that a non-trivial creative component must be part of the work; a mechanical translation of DNA to some "musical" format would therefore fail to be lawfully copyrightable.
No doubt, this idiot executive saw the DNA-to-music exhibit at the Exploratium in San Francisco...
Of course, a little legal problem like that won't stop someone from forming a business around the idea, raising funding, etc...
DMCA (Score:2)