>> Is it because someone has to be paying for hosting?

Yes, unlike an animal that can live on its own, somebody's computer must actually run the thing. Indeed, as in the case of "worms" and the "breadwinner bot" we can clearly trace responsibility, it is quite difficult to claim that there is autonomy here. Although it is foreseeable that as a society we may find it convenient to claim that programs run themselves, right now we have objective information to the contrary...

But the bot could pay for his own hosting using bitcoin.

If the original author no longer has control over the process (either because he's been shut out, or because he's deceased), does it really matter what "the law" says?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_Autonomous_Organi...

And then set it's self up as a corporation. And "corporations are people my friend." It would need human directors but the AI could hire them with bitcoins.

At that point, it'll argue in court if it should be responsible and be able to own property or not.

Note also that the program could pay someone to actually go and buy some hardware and set it up in a co-lo or what-have-you. That person would be doing work-for-hire for the corporate entity the program controls, so the corporation, not the person, would end up owning the hardware. Then the program could copy itself onto said hardware. Now who's responsible?