> Data can't be owned in the first place

Of course it can. Ownership is a social construct.

It’s more accurate to say data resists being controlled. But honestly, so do e.g. air and mineral rights and the “ownership” of catalytic converters in cars parked on the street.

▲

randallsquared 22 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

We've built a lot of layers of social machinery on top of it, but looking at the behavior of animals, ownership predates humanity, let alone social convention. Coming at it from that direction, something can be private property only if it is defensible in principle. Physical objects meet this bar, but concepts and types do not.

▲

JumpCrisscross 20 minutes ago | parent [-]

> something can be private property only if it is defensible in principle. Physical objects meet this bar, but concepts and types do not

Why not? I sing song. You sing song. I beat you with stick because that’s my song. You stop singing song.

▲

__MatrixMan__ 10 minutes ago | parent [-]

Well it really comes down to how good you are with that stick. You "can" stop me from singing your song... But can you? You don't even know where I am.

	▲	JumpCrisscross 6 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> You "can" stop me from singing your song... But can you? Yes. I kill you. Stealing was usually punishable by death in ancient cultures. > You don't even know where I am This isn’t a thing in early human societies. Like, yes, you could theoretically get away. Lots of thieves of physical property actually get away. That doesn’t make said property indefensible in principle.

▲

__MatrixMan__ an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes, but it is a social contract governing things that can't be easily copied.

We desperately need better social contracts which help us deal with data-about-me and data-i-created, but neither of those align very well with property.

▲

WarmWash an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I own paper money that is pretty easy to copy and worth far more than the paper it's on...

	▲	__MatrixMan__ 24 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Easier to copy than a bit?

▲

JumpCrisscross 44 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

> but it is a social contract governing things that can't be easily copied

I think it’s fair to argue this makes data something that should not be able to be owned. But saying it can’t be owned is plain wrong.

▲

__MatrixMan__ 25 minutes ago | parent [-]

You're right. We can implement social contracts however we please.

But regarding the particular implementation as codified in US law (and I think elsewhere also), property rights do not extend to data.

▲

JumpCrisscross 22 minutes ago | parent [-]

> regarding the particular implementation as codified in US law (and I think elsewhere also), property rights do not extend to data

Maybe not in general, though I’m curious for a source. Practically speaking, what separates data and information is a necessarily subjective exercise. And information absolutely can be property.

▲

__MatrixMan__ 4 minutes ago | parent [-]

What kind of source would satisfy you?

There are laws about what happens to me if I break into your house and steal your property. I can therefore find you case precedent indicating that a TV is property because people have been charged with violating those laws when they steal a TV.

But I can't present to you the absence of such a thing. We have trademark, copyright, and patent law, but as far as I'm aware there's no crosstalk with things that talk about property, things like armed robbery.

	▲	JumpCrisscross 2 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> What kind of source would satisfy you Any lawyer making this argument. > I can't present to you the absence of such a thing I’m asking why you’re saying data theft isn’t codified under U.S. law.