> 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__ 24 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 21 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__ 3 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.