the difference in opinion here comes right out of engels, and i could understand it being confusing to somebody that doesn't have a basic understanding of marxist theory. i hinted at this previously. but, let's talk about the flip side of limited liability, which is corporate personhood.

unlike most of the faux-left, i don't have any particular opposition to the concept of corporate personhood. if anything, i'd like to take the issue to its logical conclusion, although i've been frustrated by that in canada, which separates "legal personhood" from "natural personhood" and allows for different rights protections based on it. so, we can't tax corporations like people, because they're not natural people. alas.

but, this really is right out of engels.

if you haven't read this, do it. i cite it all of the time. it's so very important:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm

Before capitalist production — i.e., in the Middle Ages — the system of petty industry obtained generally, based upon the private property of the laborers in their means of production; in the country, the agriculture of the small peasant, freeman, or serf; in the towns, the handicrafts organized in guilds. The instruments of labor — land, agricultural implements, the workshop, the tool — were the instruments of labor of single individuals, adapted for the use of one worker, and, therefore, of necessity, small, dwarfish, circumscribed. But, for this very reason, they belonged as a rule to the producer himself. To concentrate these scattered, limited means of production, to enlarge them, to turn them into the powerful levers of production of the present day — this was precisely the historic role of capitalist production and of its upholder, the bourgeoisie. In the fourth section of Capital, Marx has explained in detail how since the 15th century this has been historically worked out through the three phases of simple co-operation, manufacture, and modern industry. But the bourgeoisie, as is shown there, could not transform these puny means of production into mighty productive forces without transforming them, at the same time, from means of production of the individual into social means of production only workable by a collectivity of men. The spinning wheel, the handloom, the blacksmith's hammer, were replaced by the spinning-machine, the power-loom, the steam-hammer; the individual workshop, by the factory implying the co-operation of hundreds and thousands of workmen. In like manner, production itself changed from a series of individual into a series of social acts, and the production from individual to social products. The yarn, the cloth, the metal articles that now come out of the factory were the joint product of many workers, through whose hands they had successively to pass before they were ready. No one person could say of them: "I made that; this is my product."

when we speak of corporate personhood, we need to put it into this context of the socialization of production eliminating the ability to separate the specific roles of individuals in a corporation. as nobody can claim that this is their product, nobody can assume liability for it; the product is owned only by the corporation, and only the corporation can be held liable for it's defects. this is corporate personhood, regardless of what else you've heard about it.

but, how does the internet work? am i more like the worker on the production line, engaging in but one of a series of social acts that is bringing a product to market? or am i in truth more like the medieval guildsperson, engaging in an act of individual production? i would argue the latter and, as such, would argue against the idea of sharing liability for the product. i can truly say these words in good faith: i made this; this is my product.

so, we're back to the provider as publishing house again, except to point out that the great conflict that occurred in the medieval period was over the commons, and the question of whether there should be private property or not. there were wars and revolutions fought over this question, ending in the conversion of feudalism to capitalism. so, are we going to relive this conflict, as the technology hits a breaking point? should we have publishing houses that buy and sell copyrights or otherwise offer their services for a fee, or should we hold it all in common and provide free and unfettered access to all?

we will need to figure this out.

but, read the engels pamphlet. it's not esoteric; it's meant for workers. it gets the point across very clearly, as to why it is that i'm approaching these things so differently.