Mike Lorrey writes:
> hal@finney.org wrote:
> > We are not able today to make biological changes, but we can support
> > the existing mechanisms which allow for quasi- and virtual-persons to
> > exist under the law. Corporations, partnerships, marriages and other
> > groupings should be allowed to be treated as individuals when they choose,
> > to the maximum degree practical.
>
> In one word, NO. Corporations do not create anything through their own
> imagination. The individuals do so to greater and lesser degrees. The
> janitor doesn't create a building or machine design, doesn't design a
> logo or ad campaign. The secretary doesn't create a business plan or
> program an application. It is individual human beings who create.
You are focusing on the issue of creativity here, while I was looking
at larger issues of ownership, liability, responsibility, etc.
But even if we look just at creativity, you will agree that groups
are able to create things that the individuals alone could not have
accomplished. Look at all the famous partnerships in history, Rogers
and Hammerstein, Lennon and McCartney, Watson and Crick. Or take your
own example of biological creation. No individual can create a baby,
it has to be done by a couple.
> Any creation of art should be credited to those individuals who created
> it, in proportion to the degree of their original creative contribution
> to the final result, and any financial gain from the sale of said art
> should be in proportion to their respective degree of contribution.
I think it is up to the people involved to decide how to divide up the
financial gain. I am surprised that you feel entitled to step in and
get involved in other people's business like this. If you came into
my marriage and told me and my wife how to split up the results of our
collaboration in life I would tell you to get lost.
Also, it seems doubtful to me that you can quantify creativity in the
manner you describe. Recall Edison's dictum about genius being 99%
perspiration. Even the janitors and secretaries play an important role
in the creative efforts of a group.
But more importantly, think about the examples I suggested of future
applications of technology to allow people to work together much more
closely and intimately. How will your philosophy adapt to a world where
minds are open systems which can interact and interconnect in ways far
more flexible than is possible today?
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:16 MDT