6 ms·
A (sufficiently complicated) cross-border ownership arrangement should make machine-owned property undetectable.
by fraserharris 10y ago
A (sufficiently complicated) cross-border ownership arrangement should make machine-owned property undetectable.
- a3n 10y agoThere would never be machine ownership in this (or probably any other) case. It would merely be a case of the change of status (death of the owner) going undetected for awhile. It would be a machine operated business, but not machine ownership. That would require a change in law.
- nilson 10y agoProbably first such machines will operate illegaly in some countries and hire protection from humans for its phyisical assets.
- notahacker 10y agoBy definition, if a jurisdiction doesn't recognise the corporation at all, it isn't a corporation. If the jurisdiction requires human beneficial owners to recognise it as a corporation, the named human beneficial owners are the owners, even if they're very passive owners who don't have any say in the operations or take anything out of the business (like, for example, the average AAPL stockholder). And we already have a word for software that prevents people with the legal title to assets from using them and pays out to other people instead: it's not "machine owned corporation", it's malware.
- a3n 10y ago> illegally How can a machine break the law? EDIT: If there is a positive answer, it might be similar to how money and other assets can be sued in asset forfeiture cases.
- crgt 10y agoLaw: do not kill. Machine kills. It has broken the law, and would, presumably, be subject to asset seizure, temporary deactivation, or, in extreme cases, permanent termination. Much like how other 'persons' break the law and are held accountable.
- a3n 10y agoWithout a change in law, I don't see it. The owner or manufacturer of the machine is liable; they're subject to the law and prosecution. The machine could "suffer" the actions you describe, but that would be at most punishment against the owner, or more neutrally just removal of a hazard. Guns and cars aren't prosecuted for murder. I'm assuming autonomous cars won't be either.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- wtvanhest 10y agoThe Machine will not be able to easily go to court in any jurisdiction and fight for its own ownership. If the machine is producing any real value, human lawyers will untangle the mess and a human will take ownership.
- crgt 10y agoCan a machine not hire a lawyer? I can't successfully fight in court on my own behalf..what makes a machine different?
- parenthephobia 10y agoWhen the machine refuses to pay his lawyer, who does the lawyer name as the defendant?
- crgt 10y agoThe machine, obviously. Same way a corporation is named when they refuse to pay a bill. In our modern world, natural persons are merely a subset of 'persons'. No reason machines couldn't be included in the broader set. Rivers, corporations..why not machines?
- parenthephobia 10y agoWhanganui River, a river of great cultural significance to the people that live along it, was declared a legal person after 140 years of negotiation. This is not the same situation as a machine being declared a person because it responds correctly to legal documents. Whilst there's no reason a machine couldn't be a legal person, in the sense that the sentence describes a possible future, that future is not near, and it will take more than a competent robolawyer to bring it about.
- kmicklas 10y agoBy the time machine owned enterprises exist, I suspect the janky opaque paper trail system of cross national ownership will be replaced.