[JumpCrisscross]

> 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]

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]

> 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__]

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.

[pocksuppet]

And this is the premise on which Anna's Archive operates.

The operator isn't even called Anna, just in case that wasn't already obvious to literally everyone.

[JumpCrisscross]

> 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.

[TFNA]

The countries that still employ the death penalty highly overlap with countries that disrespect intellectual property, to the point of bootleg media being openly sold in the market, a thriving local torrent scene, etc. Appealing to ancient blood codes doesn’t bolster your case as much as you think.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

>> You don't even know where I am

> This isn’t a thing in early human societies.

Sure it is. I hear you sing your song. I travel. I sing your song to other people while you're not around to hear it. You don't even know where I am.

(Of course, there was never any "theft", as it were. I even paid to go to your concert!)

[margalabargala]

There's multiple types of ownership.

There's legal title. And then there's possession.

AA clearly possesses this data. It's not incorrect for them to refer to it as "their" data, until and unless it is removed from their possession.

[JumpCrisscross]

> It's not incorrect for them to refer to it as "their" data

Totally agree.

[sublinear]

You don't distinguish between the data and the data source.

Plenty of data becomes stale almost immediately. Plenty of data sources can be owned, but they also tend to be people.

[__MatrixMan__]

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]

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

[__MatrixMan__]

Easier to copy than a bit?

[WarmWash]

Trivially more difficult, kids in middle school were doing it so that bar isn't that high.

[JumpCrisscross]

> 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__]

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]

> 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__]

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]

> 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. (It isn’t comprehensively, at least at the federal level. But it’s surprising to claim it doesn’t exist at all.)