[ExI] intellectual property again

[Emlyn]

On 5 March 2010 02:40, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Ben Zaiboc <bbenzai at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com>
>>>
>>> I'm firmly on the free side.
>>
>>> I want to offer a longer perspective
>>
>>>
>>> The short version:
>>> We are increasingly and will eventually entirely *be*
>>> information. If
>>> we allow ownership of information, we eventually lose
>>> ownership of
>>> ourselves.
>>
>
> ### I don't understand. Shouldn't it be "If we forbid the ownership of
> information, and if we are information,  then we forbid the ownership
> of ourselves."? Without IP we will have, among others, no defense
> against unauthorized copying of us (i.e. making of slave copies).
>
> Rafal


This is a good, and difficult point that Rafal raises.

Rafal's position assumes that our human rights derive from property
rights (h/t Jeffery Davis). Is that even supportable from a
libertarian perspective?

Having a read of this article on self-ownership,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-ownership
I don't find myself terribly enlightened. There seems to be a
conflation of the idea of self-ownership, and of the sovereign
individual, which to me appear to be very different things.

I agree that personal sovereignty is desirable. We should have power
over ourselves comparable to a sovereign state over its territory
(putting aside our feelings about sovereign states for the minute).
But, self ownership implies the ability to sell oneself. Does
sovereignty require that? Does the rights-based-in-property-rights
position require the ability to sell oneself into slavery?

I don't want people to have to deconstruct my position here, so I need
to state a fundamental principle which I hold, that I don't think
libertarians hold, and it is that of assymetric power relations.
Simply, i think we are always in a situation where power is
distributed unevenly (in many more or less intertwined pareto
distributions, no?) and that, unfettered, those with more power will
impose their will on those with less. Our social world is an uneven
playing field par excellence. To not take this into account is to
build a theory naive to the real world.

I think the libertarian idea that we can begin with property rights
and derive everything else from them is elegant, but doesn't work
(from a utilitarian point of view), largely because of its parsimony.
It is too simple, and ignores power.

I tend much more toward rule utilitarianism. I think we need to
enforce a set of more or less inviolable rules that safeguard some
basic rights of individuals, directly; these are human rights which
together comprise basic individual sovereignty, and whose purpose is
to protect the individual from others with more power who would
otherwise oppress that individual (violate their sovereignty). Part of
that protection is actually to deny individuals the ability to sell
themselves into slavery! More precisely, I would say that there should
be no ability to enforce a contract that includes servitude of one
party to another. Probably many human rights can be framed in terms of
classes of unenforceable contracts.

I flat out deny that in a landscape of strongly assymetrical power
relations, we can simply assume that all contracts are entered into
freely. Those with more power will coerce those with less power, in
myriad ways, into contracts which run counter to the interests of the
less powerful party. This is the very nature of power, it is what it
means to have power. Even when more powerful parties don't exercise
their power, it still warps the landscape, it is still apparent to the
less powerful party and constrains their actions. For example, anyone
in a management position should go ask an underling if they think the
manager is doing a good job; do you get an honest answer, or a
political answer?

So back to the matter at hand, I hold sovereignty over the self as
basic, not derived from property rights. I don't have to "own" myself
to not be enslaveable; rather, it should be impossible for me to enter
into a binding contract which causes me to be enslaved, and the state
or other equivalent holder of a monopoly on force should intervene on
my behalf should I find myself enslaved. Similarly with other breaches
of individual sovereignty.

So then what of digital copies of uploads? This will depend very
strongly on the legal status of a copy. Is it someone else, or is it
me? If it is me, then copies made by another party of me, without all
of my preexisting copies' consent and that new copy's consent, is a
breach of my individual sovereignty and action must be taken if I will
it, and there is no prior agreement into which I (or my copies) can
enter which will change that fact. On the other hand, if the copy is a
new person, then the same considerations apply, but only regarding the
sovereignty of the copy; I (the original) have no say in the matter
(although sovereignty over reproduction might be covered by basic
human rights).

Copyright should not apply to copies of oneself, it makes no sense.
Even though you are your pattern, are you the creator of your pattern?
Not really. It is created by, what, evolution + the transformations
imposed by the technical process of uploading + the cultural
environment in which you exist + some input by you, but only in a very
indirect way. We are not The Lord who mysteriously created Himself :-)
. We are not our own creative work in the sense copyright would
require.

But we do have an expectation of individual sovereignty. This should
obtain for any sentient (feeling) creature, be it animal or machine,
created or evolved. Individual sovereignty is sufficient to guard our
freedom in a world where we are information, I believe.

-- 
Emlyn

http://www.songsofmiseryanddespair.com - My show, Fringe 2010
http://point7.wordpress.com - My blog