5 ms·

What is a human though? Corporations aren’t all humans, there are also machines there, buildings, vehicles, custom software… If it’s “any of it is human”, how

by trasz 4y ago

What is a human though? Corporations aren’t all humans, there are also machines there, buildings, vehicles, custom software… If it’s “any of it is human”, how about AI cooperating with a human? Or perhaps connected to a human brain? But does it have to be a brain? What if it’s, say, a human appendix? It would fulfill the same role it does in humans. EDIT: Some people apparently don’t realize that to corporations, humans are just another asset, like buildings or software. And they get replaced much more often than buildings and some machines. Corporations aren’t humans - they use humans. You could argue it’s usually humans who makes decisions - however, 1. Not always and you can’t tell from outside; 2. Even when it’s humans, they are based on data prepared by a machine; and 3. Even law handles consequences of those decisions differently from decisions made by humans for themselves.

kube-system 4y ago
> EDIT: Some people apparently don’t realize that to corporations, humans are just another asset, like buildings or software. Figuratively, maybe. Legally, no. This conversation is about specific legal terms, so figurative usages do not apply.
- trasz 4y ago
  Legally too, which I’ve demonstrated in the comment above. Sure, you can’t, say, buy humans, only lease them, but it’s the same with many other assets, from Technicolor cameras to land in many cases.
  - kube-system 4y ago
    No, in the 21st century, employment and labor law is wholly different than property law. The only way they can be equated is if you make generalizations so broad and metaphorical as to be legally meaningless.
    - trasz 4y ago
      The law that regulates IP is also wholly different from other kinds of property. Same about owned land.
tsimionescu 4y ago
A corporation is made up entirely and exclusively of humans. Machines, buildings, vehicles, software - these are no more part of the corporation than your own car or phone is a part of you. The legal definition of a person is very clear. Even the logical definition is actually quite clear: anything that can possibly exercise most of the rights of a human in a meaningful way can be considered a person. Can a horse own a piece of land in the same sense that a human does? Not really, as a horse simply can't exercise the right to sue someone who would infringe on its property rights even if it were granted one. Sure, a small child or an adult in a coma may be in a similar situation, but the child may eventually grow up and become able to exercise such a right, and the adult may eventually wake up from that coma. A machine of any kind that actually exists today is far farther from being able to recognize and exercise any human-like rights than the horse is, in fact. So it's even more absurd to assign copyright to a machine than to an animal.
- visarga 4y ago
  > A machine of any kind that actually exists today is far farther from being able to recognize and exercise any human like rights than the horse is, in fact. Tell that to Blake Lemoine. /s
- trasz 4y ago
  >The legal definition of a person is very clear. Indeed: “The reason for the term "legal person" is that some legal persons are not people” (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person)
- cwillu 4y ago
  The actual legal decision we're talking about was quite clear that a corporation being composed of humans was not relevant: “While these opinions addressed different questions – concluding that neither corporations nor sovereigns can be inventors – our reasoning did not depend on the fact that institutions are collective entities.” (A collective entity is a technical term that does carry the implication of being composed of humans)
kube-system 4y ago
You know what a human is. Connecting a human to a machine doesn’t change the rights of the human, and it doesn’t give any rights to the machine.
hermitdev 4y ago
> there are also machines there, buildings, vehicles, custom software These are all assets of the corporation; they are not the corporation.

by trasz 4y ago

kube-system 4y ago

> EDIT: Some people apparently don’t realize that to corporations, humans are just another asset, like buildings or software. Figuratively, maybe. Legally, no. This conversation is about specific legal terms, so figurative usages do not apply.

trasz 4y ago
Legally too, which I’ve demonstrated in the comment above. Sure, you can’t, say, buy humans, only lease them, but it’s the same with many other assets, from Technicolor cameras to land in many cases.
- kube-system 4y ago
  No, in the 21st century, employment and labor law is wholly different than property law. The only way they can be equated is if you make generalizations so broad and metaphorical as to be legally meaningless.
  - trasz 4y ago
    The law that regulates IP is also wholly different from other kinds of property. Same about owned land.

tsimionescu 4y ago

A corporation is made up entirely and exclusively of humans. Machines, buildings, vehicles, software - these are no more part of the corporation than your own car or phone is a part of you. The legal definition of a person is very clear. Even the logical definition is actually quite clear: anything that can possibly exercise most of the rights of a human in a meaningful way can be considered a person. Can a horse own a piece of land in the same sense that a human does? Not really, as a horse simply can't exercise the right to sue someone who would infringe on its property rights even if it were granted one. Sure, a small child or an adult in a coma may be in a similar situation, but the child may eventually grow up and become able to exercise such a right, and the adult may eventually wake up from that coma. A machine of any kind that actually exists today is far farther from being able to recognize and exercise any human-like rights than the horse is, in fact. So it's even more absurd to assign copyright to a machine than to an animal.

visarga 4y ago
> A machine of any kind that actually exists today is far farther from being able to recognize and exercise any human like rights than the horse is, in fact. Tell that to Blake Lemoine. /s
trasz 4y ago
>The legal definition of a person is very clear. Indeed: “The reason for the term "legal person" is that some legal persons are not people” (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_person)
cwillu 4y ago
The actual legal decision we're talking about was quite clear that a corporation being composed of humans was not relevant: “While these opinions addressed different questions – concluding that neither corporations nor sovereigns can be inventors – our reasoning did not depend on the fact that institutions are collective entities.” (A collective entity is a technical term that does carry the implication of being composed of humans)

kube-system 4y ago

You know what a human is. Connecting a human to a machine doesn’t change the rights of the human, and it doesn’t give any rights to the machine.

hermitdev 4y ago

> there are also machines there, buildings, vehicles, custom software These are all assets of the corporation; they are not the corporation.