Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Selling Plants for charity | United Kingdom | |||
Charity Plant Stall | Gardening | |||
Worm farms to require licences | United Kingdom | |||
Gardening for Charity? | Edible Gardening | |||
Mahonia "Charity" source? | Gardening |