It is becoming seemingly apparent that some of the folks here have a different concept of the words 'own' and 'right' from mine, and that's all good just as long as it survives the test of law.
The law, in terms of 'rights', can be viewed as a scale where lets say my 'rights' are on one side of the scale and yours are on the other.
Either side can exercise said rights just as long and up until such aerobics begin to disturb the other side of the scale in such a way as to interfere with the exercise happening elsewhere by others.
In other words the exercising of your 'rights' cannot unduly interfere with someone else exercising their rights.
The law, in terms of 'ownership' requires a valid claim to said ownership.
It seems that some here think that the only things they own are that which is brought by corporations or by 'man' etc such as a car or a house etc, but for me the greatest 'ownership' responsibility comes in the area of what we all commonly own together.
Nature is one such place where we all have equal reach and responsibility to (and are a part of).
Monsanto et al seeks to impose, or do extreme aerobics on one side of the scale where you and I and all others are on the other side in terms of ownership and exercise. The extreme aerobics in effect begin not only to shake the scale for us all, but attempts to rid us of the scale all together.
This Act only seeks equal protection for yours mine and our rights with respect to 'the commons' as well as the 'rights' of 'the commons' itself if you can understand that concept...