That's a bad analogy. Photographs don't reproduce with each other. Trying to force the notion of "copyright" on nature is an absurdist take that needs to be rejected with prejudice.
If Monsanto's little wet dream does come to pass, I imagine you'll defend things like "Sorry, but Monsanto says you haven't paid your kidney licensing fees, we're going to have to take that transplant back" or "Looks here like you owe us money because one of your ancestors bought some genes from us".
You'll probably say that can't happen for some reason or another, but unless we push back forcefully now, it will. Once you've thrown reason in the trash, all that's left is greed.
> That's a bad analogy. Photographs don't reproduce with each other.
So what? How is this relevant? The crucial aspect is captured by the analogy: accidental copyright infringement is by and large not possible to prosecute, but deliberate infringement by pretending an accident is. Nobody lost a lawsuit to Monsanto just because their crops accidentally shared some genes with Monsanto plants.
> If Monsanto's little wet dream does come to pass, I imagine you'll defend things like
Are you able to maintain some minimal standards of politeness and charity in public discussions? First “spouting nonsense syllables that resemble speech”, now you’re creating a blatant straw man. Is this how you normally talk to people? Maybe I should pick a random organization that I’ll impute you are a fan of, invent some atrocious “wet dream” of it, and pretend that you defend that atrocity. How about that?
I'll be as clear as I can: natural processes such as reproduction of a species inherently cannot be "infringing" because applying copyright to nature is absurd. This is entirely unlike photographs, and I'm not sure how that was relevant to bring up.
> Maybe I should pick a random organization that I’ll impute you are a fan of
If you are "a fan of" any organization such as Monsanto, you should reconsider that choice. Monsanto won't love you back.
EDIT: I'm not really sure why you brought up being a fan of anything, not clear how that was relevant in the first place ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If you listen to the anti-GMO, anti-Monsanto people long enough, you realize they're arguing in total bad faith, with talking points that make no sense. There's some sort of irrational undercurrent driving it.
I didn't say anything about GMOs. They've done some nice things for humanity. When it's done with the goal of trying to "own" nature via imaginary concepts such as copyright, that is an odious act that must be called out and resisted.
I'm also not inherently anti-Monsanto. You're the one that brought up a scenario where they were acting like cartoon villians. Maybe that should make you pause and think. If you're involved with Monsanto in some way, perhaps you could take some initiative to discourage them from acts of cartoon villiany?
If Monsanto's little wet dream does come to pass, I imagine you'll defend things like "Sorry, but Monsanto says you haven't paid your kidney licensing fees, we're going to have to take that transplant back" or "Looks here like you owe us money because one of your ancestors bought some genes from us".
You'll probably say that can't happen for some reason or another, but unless we push back forcefully now, it will. Once you've thrown reason in the trash, all that's left is greed.