what worries me is that our mind (at the very least mine and all like it) are ultimately intellectual constructions. thus intellectual property leads the way to mind property.
how can it be that if I know something, this knowledge is not mine?
Agreed. For example, a device which augments my memory by allowing me to replay and record my own experiences, would invariably violate copyright. Which is offensive to me.
What you're talking about isn't a problem until and unless whole-brain emulation becomes a thing. You cannot assert copyright over a human brain because you cannot copy a human brain; and insamuch that brain is capable of copying other works, that's already covered by standard copyright law. It would be a good plot for a 2000s-retro-futuristic cyberpunk book (P2Ppunk?) but I suspect the Supreme Court would rule that the 14th Amendment overrides copyright interest in human brains were that to become a problem.
(If you wanted a 2010s-retro-futuristic cyberpunk sequel book you'd have some far-right militia group arguing for bringing back slavery to protect author's rights or something. Call it Twitterpunk.)
I disagree with this - if I've memorised a tune, I'm not allowed to replay it without paying a fee. But the line between biological and physical memory seems arbitrary to me, and this will become increasingly so.
We can already read basic images from a brain using AI to reconstruct the image[1]. If that device shows an image which is copyrighted, who is liable, the person with the scanner, or the brain that was scanned?
How about if I create a device which helps people who are physically disabled - or locked in - to communicate by projecting sounds from their brains - but not at will? If the person thinks about a tune ("Happy Birthday"), have they "performed" it?
What happens if they think something which is considered enough to have you banned from popular platforms? What about if the technology is forced to remove their services because the thoughts you're creating are unacceptable?
These things don't seem at all unlikely within the next 10-20 years.
I disagree, what you describe is the extreme version of what I am worried about.
I'm not worried that about an external entity owning my entire mind. I'm worried about a society in which institutions and corporations have ownership over some parts of what I know.
And this is already happening, so many engineers and academics have signed NDAs, essentially giving up ownership (the ability to determine how to use) of certain information they have learned, in some cases even their own original ideas.
You might enjoy "Replicas," — https://youtu.be/ze_ANsckvS0 — a 2018 sci-fi thriller starring Keanu Reeves, which centers on whole-brain emulation. No spoiler review here!
It's not useless, knowledge grows with related knowledge, I take your company's top secret spaceship fusion warp drive knowledge and build a terrestrial power plant that uses that technology to create free electricity... I expressed it differently so I didn't breach any IP rights you had.
This kind of stuff happens all the time... Patents, are where this gets frustrating, where I can register a bunch of "expressions" of an idea and they get protected from execution... Then Software-patents are even worse in this realm...
I think that argument gets stuck on language. "Knowledge" is not a single, atomic thing. If I have warp drive "knowledge" that has been claimed by someone else, then there are two non-mutually-exclusive options:
- I have the knowledge of how to integrate a fusion plant and warp motor to form a warp drive. The only purpose of this knowledge is a warp drive, therefore I cannot express it.
- I have the knowledge of the fusion plant, and a warp motor, both of which are claimed. I cannot build the fusion plant even if I intend to integrate it with a terrestial power grid. I cannot build a warp motor even if I intend to integrate it with solar cells. There's no other purpose for any of this, so I am forbidden from expressing it.
I'm not seeing another way to define "knowledge" that would allow me to express it despite it being claimed by someone else, so I conclude IP makes knowledge useless.
Someday Disney will develop technology to delete copies of their movies from people's memories due to copyright infringement. People should not be able to simply remember the movie without paying for it after all.
how can it be that if I know something, this knowledge is not mine?