This will be the place to get informed and to ask your questions about the Liberland Constitution. We are working continuously on the newest draft and making improvements, so that when presented to you, our supporters and Liberlanders, it will be truly the constitution which our nascent new nation deserves. Those curious about the content or about the underlying principles and philosophy of our revided Constitution are welcome to ask their questions here.
- This category is to be used to post questions and for us to announce news about the ongoing revision of our draft Constitution;
- Please come here for the definitive information about anything regarding the Constitution;
- Please post your curious questions here regarding the Constitution, the philosophy behind it, libertarian constitutionalism in general. Please also enter here any suggestions and proposals so that we may consider it for our legislative project;
- This category exists to separate topics regarding the Constitution from other cathegories. Please focus on the Constitution, constitutional law and legal philosophy in the ‘big picture’ aspect while posting here.
Does this Constitution recognize Intellectual Property of any form (trademark, copyright, patent…)?
It recognizes property of a person to their own life in the broad sense and to objects.
The “framers” certainly intended that this excludes intellectual property, stuff like patents, etc. though the real interpretation is on the court.
As I understand it, though not protected as ownership of property, the Assembly could, if it so chose, make a law about patents and then it will be up to the Supreme Court to judge it’s constitutionality. I believe the decision will be that this law tries to circumvent the Constitution because it defines a “new” type of property in order to exit the framework of the Constitution and it also infringes several constitutional rights as well, such as freedom of action and freedom of commerce. Thus I think that we will have no patent law and that patents won’t be enforceable before the court.
We must however make a differentiation between a patent and a copyright. If you sell something under the condition that the buyer can copy it further only with your agreement and otherwise they must pay you something, then that’s at your liberty. But the State will in no wise help you enforce this against everybody. All you can enforce it is against the other party of your contract. Which is a very weak enforcement and so I would say that copyright would probably not exist as well. You can’t do anything with the situation that your work somehow got out and now others are copying it except that you make all your buyers contractually responsible for damages sustained by your lost opportunity. I don’t know how about you but I would NEVER sign such a contract.
We will have to see what will be required of us by the international law (which I personally hold in a deep contempt) in order to become accepted as a state. That might require some painful decisions of balancing the “normalcy” of our conduct as a state and our uncompromising libertarian nature as a free state. Let us cross that bridge when we come to it
@Michal_Ptacnik thanks for your explanation.
Regarding international tolerance of our IP laws (or lack thereof) I personally think that we should be able to get at least some international support regardless of whether we choose to take the “purist” or “pragmatic” approaches (or something in between). There are countries that have so-called “Pirate” political parties which are opposed to things like copyright laws.
@Michal_Ptacnik you did not mention details about trademarks. I have an innovative concept for a very limited, objective, and verifiable trademark system which can be handled completely by computers with no bureaucratic burden (aside from possible technical maintenance). I am still working on writing and organizing my own thoughts on this, but it could possibly be integrated with Liberland’s blockchain of choice for the voting system.
I am sorry for not mentioning trademarks. They are basically amongst the plentitude of institutes which we do not in any way plan to regulate at this point. That translate to the total freedom of entrepreneurs to start a business doing what in other countries public authorities or sometimes even the state does. If those trademarks would be then something like a contract or even a smart contract (blockchains…), let’s say there would be an infringement (that’s where the trademark ‘comes alive’ besides being a preventive instrument ‘passively’). This infringement, the trademark being made as a kind of a contract, private arrangement or however else it is constructed based on consensual business relationships, would then be suable at the court in Liberland. That would be the only public - private junction. You are able to go there not because it is about a trademark but because it is about a consensual relationship in which one of the parties doesn’t fulfil their obligations. Of course I am speculating as I do not know exactly how your system works, nor need to know (I expect you want to keep it as a trade secret for your future business venue ).
Years ago, I came up with this, perhaps it will be useful:
After reading Cal Newport’s Deep Work, Digital Minimalism, and Edward Snowden’s Permanent Record, as well as left-libertarian works, I decided that right-libertarian solutions (no collective rights) were not sufficient to prevent technocracies that reduce the freedoms of individuals. So I attempted to create a libertarian constitution to ensure such violation of the sanctity of individuals is prevented.
No collective shall have a right that any individual does not also possess.
i.e. corporate positions, role privileges. e.g. ceo, database owner.
Only participants are privy to their private data.
Facilitators and interceptors of data are not the participants of the data. Data is governed solely by the participants of the source data. Metadata must inherit the same privacy of its original data.
Data which is governed as public by the original participants of the data, must have all its associated metadata public too.
Exclusive data and its corresponding metadata may only be available to the participants of the data.
The original participants of data may elect to add additional participants to the data, during or after its initial creation, this requires absolute agreement of all original “host” participants, this permission set may be delegated to an automatic policy, however at no time may data facilitators and interceptors be made privy to such data without explicitly the same representation as other participants.
Bob and Jill have a private communication among themselves, facilitated through a Google application.
At no time may Google be privy to the data or metadata of this private communication, unless granted explicit permission by the original participants to become a participant, in which Google must explicitly be listed alongside both Bob and Jill as a participant.
At no point may Google deviate the privacy of the communication, its data, its metadata, and any subsequent data it generates from this communication.
If Google does generate additional data from the communication, this additional data must share the same privacy of the conversation, and must be made available directly alongside the conversation’s representation to Jill and Bob.
Two relevant videos from Liberland’s official YouTube: