[delinka]

If the user didn't use Spotify, then the interaction data wouldn't exist.

It takes two. Perhaps if these companies had taken that tact (mutual ownership), then there'd have been no need for a law to specifically allow users to get the data created with their own effort.

[dsp1234]

If I write down every song that I play through Spotify for a year. Does Spotify own that?

[ralusek]

No, but that's you writing down every song. The alternative is them saving one of their interactions to their server. These aren't remotely comparable...

[dsp1234]

Party A records every interaction with Party B. Party B records every interaction with Party A.

Who owns what Party A recorded, and who owns what Party B recorded?

[detaro]

That's why "ownership" is a bad model for this, and (to my knowledge) not really used in any privacy laws. They are not about who owns records, it's about who has which rights to them. Under GDPR, you do not own data about you a company has, but you have rights related to it.

[anonytrary]

Are you suggesting that the user should track their interactions themselves if they want to own a copy?

[fipple]

When Party A is a multibillion dollar corporation and Party B is an individual, the arguments can not be parallelized.

[kodablah]

What if party A is a small business and party B is a litigious user movement? We can substitute values for A and B all day. At what point can we parallelize the arguments? Modern laws aren't defining that line which, in some cases while trying to solve their immediate problems, have unintended effects on the non-targets.

[perpetualpatzer]

What makes them incomparable, in your view? The medium in which it's recorded? The ease with which it's recorded by Spotify? That the recording task is done in a different system than the client-server interaction? That Spotify has interactions with LOTS of people?

I get that they feel different, but every distinction I come up with feels like it either doesn't make sense applied uniformly. If I tracked songs in Excel, Spotify doesn't own that. If I automated tracking the songs I play, Spotify still doesn't own my recording. If I wrote down all my Spotify songs AND all my Skype messages AND all my texts, Spotify, Skype, and Verizon don't suddenly gain an ownership stake in what I've done.

[mmt]

> If I wrote down all my Spotify songs AND all my Skype messages AND all my texts, Spotify, Skype, and Verizon don't suddenly gain an ownership stake in what I've done.

Bringing up actual communication content is where you start to get onto shaky ground, though, especially considering, for example, the existence of "2 party consent" for recording of communications in some US jurisdictions.

Although I believe that context is entirely for criminal, not civil matters, my point is that there's already a precedent, and a long-standing one predating "data", for the idea that all parties being recorded do, automatically, have a legal ("ownership" may not be the best word, as pointed out upthread) stake in that recording, regardless of which party did the recording or holds the record.

I suspect you used Skype and Verizon, specifically, because, as mere carriers of the communication, they're not really parties to the content that they carry. That doesn't really compare, though, since we're not talking about taping the Spotify songs themselves, and the "ownership" situation there is relatively much clearer, if only because the songs existed previously and aren't being created by the interaction itself.