On 9/5/05 20:59, in article ,
"Phil L" wrote:

snip
Why? - if I've had fuchsias growing for the past 20 years and decide to flog
12 dozen cuttings to the corner shop, what harm has been done? - his regular
supplier has lost a few quid?


After 20 years, you might be in the clear! But plants with Plants Breeders
Rights on them are exactly like inventions with a patent on them. You must
not produce copies (cuttings) of them. My husband has PBR on a couple of
things and I can tell you that to the breeder some plants are worth a lot of
money, depending on the demand and popularity. So, having done the work and
paid for the PBR and the trials and everything else that has to be done,
which can also cost a thousand or two, a plant breeder would have every
right to stop you selling his plants for your gain. And these things *are*
followed up to my certain knowledge. Now, all that said, nobody is going to
go after anyone who takes a few cuttings to give to friends or sell at a
charity stall - the rip off would have to be on a much larger scale than
that.
But your 144 fuchsias would take 144 royalty payments away from the original
breeder and it is quite possible that the breeder would take a dim view of
that if it became known. I know we certainly would. PBR is there to protect
the interests of the person who has done all the work, used their time and
their skill, spent their money, paid for the trials and licences, so
effectively, you would be taking their money away from them. I knew the man
who invented the Black & Decker workmate and some years ago he told me that
never a month went by without his agent having to fight some case over
others trying to rip them off with copies - as it is for large 'solid'
objects, so it is for PBR plants. Just because they're plants and easier to
copy (propagate) doesn't mean it isn't illegal to do so.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

In article ,
Sacha wrote:

But your 144 fuchsias would take 144 royalty payments away from the original
breeder ...

No, they wouldn't. Perhaps a dozen. That myth is quoted by the current
entertainment monopolists, to try to deprive the public of rights.

Note that I am not opposing PBRs in principle or most practice though,
as I said, I have seen them abused.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 10/5/05 9:29, in article , "Nick
Maclaren" wrote:

In article ,
Sacha wrote:

But your 144 fuchsias would take 144 royalty payments away from the original
breeder ...

No, they wouldn't. Perhaps a dozen. That myth is quoted by the current
entertainment monopolists, to try to deprive the public of rights.

Note that I am not opposing PBRs in principle or most practice though,
as I said, I have seen them abused.


To the best of my knowledge, every single plant sold of Nemesia 'Bluebird'
brings Ray a payment, so every single one of those hypothetical Fuchsias
would be doing the same, I should think. Naturally, some part of that goes
to others involved in the process but each plant is worth something to its
breeder.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

In article ,
Sacha wrote:

But your 144 fuchsias would take 144 royalty payments away from the original
breeder ...

No, they wouldn't. Perhaps a dozen. That myth is quoted by the current
entertainment monopolists, to try to deprive the public of rights.

Note that I am not opposing PBRs in principle or most practice though,
as I said, I have seen them abused.

To the best of my knowledge, every single plant sold of Nemesia 'Bluebird'
brings Ray a payment, so every single one of those hypothetical Fuchsias
would be doing the same, I should think. Naturally, some part of that goes
to others involved in the process but each plant is worth something to its
breeder.

You are assuming that, of 144 people who buy an unnamed variety of
Nemesia at a charity sale, all 144 would buy a named plant of Nemesia
'Bluebird' from somewhere else if the charity sale did not sell any
Nemesias. Sorry, but it ain't so.

I am happy to agree that people shouldn't propagate such varieties
improperly, but not that the royalty holder loses one fee for every
such plant so propagated.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 10/5/05 9:59, in article , "Nick
Maclaren" wrote:

In article ,
Sacha wrote:

But your 144 fuchsias would take 144 royalty payments away from the
original
breeder ...

No, they wouldn't. Perhaps a dozen. That myth is quoted by the current
entertainment monopolists, to try to deprive the public of rights.

Note that I am not opposing PBRs in principle or most practice though,
as I said, I have seen them abused.

To the best of my knowledge, every single plant sold of Nemesia 'Bluebird'
brings Ray a payment, so every single one of those hypothetical Fuchsias
would be doing the same, I should think. Naturally, some part of that goes
to others involved in the process but each plant is worth something to its
breeder.

You are assuming that, of 144 people who buy an unnamed variety of
Nemesia at a charity sale, all 144 would buy a named plant of Nemesia
'Bluebird' from somewhere else if the charity sale did not sell any
Nemesias. Sorry, but it ain't so.

We're talking from two different viewpoints. I am simply saying that if a
plant breeder has rights over a plant, only he or she has those rights. And
if someone propagates 144 of N. 'Bluebird' plants and sell them for *their*
profit, they have taken that profit from the breeder to whom, rightfully,
they should be sending the 30p or the 10p or the 50p per plant that is
their royalty. I'm talking about propagating a plant which is under PBR
specifically, and selling it as that plant, not just something raised in a
yoghurt tub.
snip
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

Phil L wrote:
Mike Lyle wrote:
[...]
You have to be a qualified electrician to do electrical work and
be a member of 'FENSA' to replace glass...

Where? Since when? By whose rules?


In the UK. since April 2002. Building regulations.
http://www.fensa.co.uk/homeowners.html

Others have commented already, but here's my twopennnorth.

There's nothing new about Building Regs. I've looked at the site, and
I can certainly replace a pane of glass myself without being a member
of anything. What's involved here is _replacement installation_, not
repair. Replacement windows and doors have to meet new requirements,
that's all: and that's a very good thing. A sample from the site:

Where a window or windows is/are completely replaced (as opposed to
repaired) in existing dwellings, they must comply with Approved
Documents Parts L1 and N (safety in relation to impact).

And you don't have to be a qualified electrician to do electrical
work. You have to meet the regs, that's all. It's been true all my
life, give or take a detail or two.

It seems the FENSA thing is just a hassle-saving measure you should
approve of: as I read it, some installers will be allowed to
self-certify instead of waiting for Building Control to come out and
check.

On music copyright, no, it isn't just a free-for-all: there are
rules, and everybody in the business knows them.

[...]

HTH,
--
Mike.

In article ,
Sacha writes:
|
| We're talking from two different viewpoints. I am simply saying that if a
| plant breeder has rights over a plant, only he or she has those rights. And
| if someone propagates 144 of N. 'Bluebird' plants and sell them for *their*
| profit, they have taken that profit from the breeder to whom, rightfully,
| they should be sending the 30p or the 10p or the 50p per plant that is
| their royalty. I'm talking about propagating a plant which is under PBR
| specifically, and selling it as that plant, not just something raised in a
| yoghurt tub.

Sorry, Sacha, it is nothing to do with viewpoints. I am talking
about facts.

I am simply saying that if a plant breeder has rights over a
plant, only he or she has those rights.

That is a simplification of the law, but is roughly correct.

If ..., they have taken that profit from the breeder to whom,
rightfully, ...

That is factually wrong. Let us ignore the morality implied by
the "rightfully", as that IS a matter of viewpoint - and I doubt
that you actually know mine on this matter :-)

But they have NOT taken the profit FROM the breeder unless they
have prevented the breeder making a comparable number of sales.
They may have made an illegal profit, but in general the large
majority does not correspond to a loss of profit for the breeder.
Some may, but typically only a small proportion.

If they had not done that, you would NOT have seen a comparable
jump in profit, neither in the short term nor the long.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 10/5/05 10:56, in article , "Nick
Maclaren" wrote:


In article ,
Sacha writes:
|
| We're talking from two different viewpoints. I am simply saying that if a
| plant breeder has rights over a plant, only he or she has those rights.
And
| if someone propagates 144 of N. 'Bluebird' plants and sell them for *their*
| profit, they have taken that profit from the breeder to whom, rightfully,
| they should be sending the 30p or the 10p or the 50p per plant that is
| their royalty. I'm talking about propagating a plant which is under PBR
| specifically, and selling it as that plant, not just something raised in a
| yoghurt tub.

Sorry, Sacha, it is nothing to do with viewpoints. I am talking
about facts.

I am simply saying that if a plant breeder has rights over a
plant, only he or she has those rights.

That is a simplification of the law, but is roughly correct.

It is correct enough to allow the breeder or his agents to stop those who
are breeding from the mother plants without licence to do so.

If ..., they have taken that profit from the breeder to whom,
rightfully, ...

That is factually wrong. Let us ignore the morality implied by
the "rightfully", as that IS a matter of viewpoint - and I doubt
that you actually know mine on this matter :-)

Not entirely - I am aware that some people think plants don't 'belong' to
anyone but if that attitude prevails, new hybrids and new varieties simply
will cease to come along. It costs someone money to produce them on a small
scale for evaluation and then a large scale for selling and that someone or
someones have the law behind them in terms of having the right to be paid
for their work through royalties.

I think I do know your attitude to this because I think you expressed it
once before when this came up but I might be misremembering.

But they have NOT taken the profit FROM the breeder unless they
have prevented the breeder making a comparable number of sales.
They may have made an illegal profit, but in general the large
majority does not correspond to a loss of profit for the breeder.
Some may, but typically only a small proportion.

You are not allowing for e.g. Mail order sales. If a plant is not available
locally, which this illegal one would be, most people who really want it
will find somewhere to obtain it by mail order, as we see on here quite
often. They then buy it from a nursery which has paid its dues to the
supplier which get passed back to the breeder.
While I agree absolutely that a few plants sold here or there doesn't bother
anyone, the fact is that those plants are sold illegally, just as the
rip-off copies of the Workmate would have been. Just recently we found
somewhere selling Bluebird and enquired of the agent as to whether these
people had paid for the right to sell it. They hadn't and were asked to
stop selling it or to obtain future plants from the wholesalers. This was
a small nursery so the numbers being sold ran only into hundreds or possibly
thousands, not just a few at a plant sale. As I say, it would have to be
someone very pernickety who objected to that.

snip
We could argue this 'til the cows come home and I'm not prepared to bore us
all with that. I'll content myself with saying to the OP that selling a few
PBR protected plants for charity almost certainly won't upset anyone but
making your own sideline business out of someone else's PBR protected plants
almost certainly would.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

In article ,
Sacha writes:
|
| Not entirely - I am aware that some people think plants don't 'belong' to
| anyone but if that attitude prevails, new hybrids and new varieties simply
| will cease to come along.

Which is why there were so few new varieties developed before that
law was passed? Oh, come now!

| It costs someone money to produce them on a small
| scale for evaluation and then a large scale for selling and that someone or
| someones have the law behind them in terms of having the right to be paid
| for their work through royalties.

That is true.

| I think I do know your attitude to this because I think you expressed it
| once before when this came up but I might be misremembering.

No, I have never expressed it on Usenet, let alone on this group.
It is not what you think, and the reason I have never posted it
is that my views on the matter are too complex and philosophical
for such a medium.

| You are not allowing for e.g. Mail order sales. If a plant is not available
| locally, which this illegal one would be, most people who really want it
| will find somewhere to obtain it by mail order, as we see on here quite
| often. They then buy it from a nursery which has paid its dues to the
| supplier which get passed back to the breeder.

Yes, I am. What you say is true, but you are assuming that all 144
people really want that variety - and remember that the context was
that it was being sold as an UNNAMED variety. I doubt that, of those
144, more than a dozen would buy the named variety if they had not
bought the unnamed one in a charity sale.

| We could argue this 'til the cows come home and I'm not prepared to bore us
| all with that. I'll content myself with saying to the OP that selling a few
| PBR protected plants for charity almost certainly won't upset anyone but
| making your own sideline business out of someone else's PBR protected plants
| almost certainly would.

Oh, yes, quite agreed. That is a very fair summary.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...
snip

there's nothing new about Building Regs. I've looked at the site, and
I can certainly replace a pane of glass myself without being a member
of anything. What's involved here is _replacement installation_, not
repair. Replacement windows and doors have to meet new requirements,
that's all: and that's a very good thing. A sample from the site:

Where a window or windows is/are completely replaced (as opposed to
repaired) in existing dwellings, they must comply with Approved
Documents Parts L1 and N (safety in relation to impact).

And you don't have to be a qualified electrician to do electrical
work. You have to meet the regs, that's all. It's been true all my
life, give or take a detail or two.


Whats the site? I've just replaced a number of internal doors, would be
interesting to see what regs apply to a door! I wonder if a door purchased
from a DIY store would anyway meet the regs? And how would someone buying my
house in say 5 years time know if they had been replaced/met the regs?

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

Tumbleweed wrote:
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
...
snip

there's nothing new about Building Regs. I've looked at the site,
and
I can certainly replace a pane of glass myself without being a
member
of anything. What's involved here is _replacement installation_,
not
repair. Replacement windows and doors have to meet new
requirements,
that's all: and that's a very good thing. A sample from the site:

Where a window or windows is/are completely replaced (as opposed
to
repaired) in existing dwellings, they must comply with Approved
Documents Parts L1 and N (safety in relation to impact).

And you don't have to be a qualified electrician to do electrical
work. You have to meet the regs, that's all. It's been true all my
life, give or take a detail or two.


Whats the site? I've just replaced a number of internal doors,
would
be interesting to see what regs apply to a door! I wonder if a
door
purchased from a DIY store would anyway meet the regs? And how
would
someone buying my house in say 5 years time know if they had been
replaced/met the regs?

The site is:
http://www.fensa.co.uk/faq.html#1

I can't imagine what relevance it might have to _interior_ doors.
Well, I suppose there must be something to stop idiots using ordinary
glass at child height in interior doors, but you wouldn't have done
that.

I don't know when you last sold a house, but these days purchasers'
surveyors are extremely picky and own-arse-covering (I bear the
psychological scars a year later!) It helps a lot if you've got
evidence of Building Regs approval, too; a certificate from a FENSA
member is apparently equivalent.

--
Mike.

Janet Baraclough wrote:
:: The message
:: from "Phil L" contains these words:
::
::
::: Err..I'm fairly new here and haven't got a clue what plant
::: breeders rights are,
::
:: We noticed. Why advise others on a subject you haven't a clue
:: about?

Is that the Royal 'we'?....don't presume that you speak for anyone else on
this group or any other because you don't, no - one does.
I advised the OP to take no notice of 'the winged monkeys of death' notices,
if there are any...she asked whether there would be 'trouble', which
obviously there will not...from what I can gather these PBR's are nothing
more than a type of 'copyright' on a certain plant, this can do no more than
stop a rival comercial grower from reproducing them, it cannot stop
individuals from doing what they want.
ever.


--
If God had intended us to drink beer, He would have given us stomachs.

On 10/5/05 19:15, in article
, "Phil L"
wrote:

snip
from what I can gather these PBR's are nothing
more than a type of 'copyright' on a certain plant, this can do no more than
stop a rival comercial grower from reproducing them, it cannot stop
individuals from doing what they want.
ever.


"from what I can gather" is not a good premise on which to advise other
people on a potential legal question.
Your pronouncement is a little on the over-confident side. What will deter
individuals from reproducing plants with PBR is volume and intention and the
reaction of the plant breeders' agents to both.
--

Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)

Sacha wrote:
:: On 10/5/05 19:15, in article
:: , "Phil L"
:: wrote:
::
:: snip
::: from what I can gather these PBR's are nothing
::: more than a type of 'copyright' on a certain plant, this can do
::: no more than stop a rival comercial grower from reproducing them,
::: it cannot stop individuals from doing what they want.
::: ever.
:::
::
:: "from what I can gather" is not a good premise on which to advise
:: other people on a potential legal question.

OK, what I should have said is, "go ahead and do what you like, no one has
ever been prosecuted in the UK for infringing these PBR's"

Wake up and smell the coffee Sacha! - imagine if the OP is at her Charity
sale and the owner of the PBR *himself* walks past (the one person out of 60
million in the UK) what is he to do? - phone the police?....even without the
astonomical odds of this happening aside, do you think that:
A) the police either know or care about this law?
B) can spare the manpower to deal with it?
C) would attend the scene at all if there were no firearms involved?


:: Your pronouncement is a little on the over-confident side. What
:: will deter individuals from reproducing plants with PBR is volume
:: and intention and the reaction of the plant breeders' agents to
:: both.

As I said earlier, can you point me in the direction of an *individulal*
being sucessfully prosecuted in the UK?
The OP was talking about a car boot sale or similar, hardly Kew Gardens is
it?

IMV these laws are aimed at companies and other nurseries stealing the
copyright or PBR of another, once they are sold to the general public, no
one has *any* kind of control over what happens next and rightly so.

--
If God had intended us to drink beer, He would have given us stomachs.

Thanks all.

Sounds like I can get on with potting up my surpluses.

I'n not planning to take cuttings of anything that I know to be a specific
named, protected variety, or sell any plants as named types, but, for
example, I know I have at least four different 'named varieties' of
strawberry plant in the garden, plus a couple of things which probably had
names once but not by the time I got them.

Given the habits of strawberry plants and the regrettable inattention I
have paid them over the last 8 months ;-), I have no idea which the ones
that have generously planted themselves all the way down my bark path are.

I'm fairly sure one of the varieties had a label threatening winged monkeys
of death (or similar), but I don't know which one is which.

Now I know that no-one is likely to be checking, or bothered about it, I
can just mark them 'strawberry' (which will at least be accurate, if brief)
and leave it at that.

Now I think about it, I think the 'winged monkey' protected strawberry was
also described as an old French variety.

Surely it can't be a traditional variety and a protected genetic variant
???

Victoria