[npteljes]

>Does this mean people can own the patterns of vibration in air? It's completely nonsensical.

If you argue similarly, then the whole juridical system is nonsensical, because everything is just particles and waves, and different configurations thereof - not to mention the many protected things that are acts, which are neither particles nor waves, and are completely made up.

I'd say it's desirable to regulate something like this, however nonsensical-seeming, so that we can at least somewhat protect the individuals, and the general well-being of society.

[carmackfan]

That wasn't my point. We can own physical items, land etc. Because it's a scarce resource. If me "owning" something doesn't prevent you from also "owning" it, the concept of ownership of that item is absurd.

[npteljes]

My voice is even more scarce, there is only one of them in the whole world! I think. Also, we can both own the same land.

I do understand rivalry in economics, but that's not the issue here. The issue is the need to protect individuals from abuse, part of which is the one's right to their own likeness. This likeness is not free for the taking. Now, we can call this owning the likeness, or we can call it something else, but having something, that is not free for taking, sounds an awful lot like owning something.