3 ms·

> Its stupid to try and assign copyright to things that aren't legal persons. Good thing they got that covered, then. As per the article: > In a historic ruli

by latexr 2y ago

> Its stupid to try and assign copyright to things that aren't legal persons. Good thing they got that covered, then. As per the article: > In a historic ruling, the legal personhood of the Los Cedros biological reserve was recognised by Ecuador’s constitutional court in 2021, when it determined to cancel mining permits in the reserve. > Instead people should just assign the copyright to some sort of trust or non-profit dedicated to the forest. People can be corrupted and bought. Someone who acts on behalf of another can betray the latter for personal gain. See for example the stories of Britney Spears and Brain Wilson. On the other hand, if the entity owns itself, you can’t legally harm it without consent, which can’t be given. See also The Tree That Owns Itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_That_Owns_Itself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_That_Owns_Itself

bawolff 2y ago
> On the other hand, if the entity owns itself, you can’t legally harm it without consent, which can’t be given. By the same token, the forest can't exactly start a lawsuit either (unless someone acts on its behalf, in which case we are back at the same person). Just because they declared it a legal person, doesn't mean it actually is, in terms of how that phrase is normally used. At the very least a legal person normally can enter into contracts, buy and dispose of property. Like you said, the forest can't consent, and being able to consent is what it means to be a person.
- Teever 2y ago
  The implication of what you're saying is that medically incapacitated individuals can't have legal representation.
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    On the contrary: it means that incapacitated individuals must have legal representation. A forest is like an incapacitated individual: you can assign a legal representative to it (which was exactly what was suggested upthread) but you can't expect it to actually take legal matters into itself.
    - Teever 2y ago
      We are in complete agreement.
- sthatipamala 2y ago
  Corporations (which are legal persons) also cannot autonomously do any of those things. They only act through the stewardship of natural persons who serve in their interest. You could do the same for a forest by electing some trustees or whatever.

by latexr 2y ago

bawolff 2y ago

> On the other hand, if the entity owns itself, you can’t legally harm it without consent, which can’t be given. By the same token, the forest can't exactly start a lawsuit either (unless someone acts on its behalf, in which case we are back at the same person). Just because they declared it a legal person, doesn't mean it actually is, in terms of how that phrase is normally used. At the very least a legal person normally can enter into contracts, buy and dispose of property. Like you said, the forest can't consent, and being able to consent is what it means to be a person.

Teever 2y ago
The implication of what you're saying is that medically incapacitated individuals can't have legal representation.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  On the contrary: it means that incapacitated individuals must have legal representation. A forest is like an incapacitated individual: you can assign a legal representative to it (which was exactly what was suggested upthread) but you can't expect it to actually take legal matters into itself.
  - Teever 2y ago
    We are in complete agreement.
sthatipamala 2y ago
Corporations (which are legal persons) also cannot autonomously do any of those things. They only act through the stewardship of natural persons who serve in their interest. You could do the same for a forest by electing some trustees or whatever.