4 ms·

The belief that information and ideas should be "owned" as if they are physical property is insidious, was always going to lead to absurd lawsuits like this, an

The belief that information and ideas should be "owned" as if they are physical property is insidious, was always going to lead to absurd lawsuits like this, and will lead to worse in the future. Information is non-rivalrous. It cannot be "stolen" in the same way that, say, an apple can. If I take your apple, you no longer have it. If someone repeats your information, you haven't been deprived of it. These athletes are as free as ever to collect and share statistics about their performances, regardless of who else is also doing it. When you move through the world, you emit information, but that doesn't mean you "own" it.

renewiltord 6y ago
GDPR does not use ownership semantics. There are "data subjects", "processors", "controllers" and they each interact with "personal data" in some way. Then certain restrictions are enforced on processors and controllers with data subjects having certain rights recognized. The rights and restrictions differ from ownership semantics sufficiently that it's not useful to talk about as owning.
- csallen 6y ago
  Yes, this is why I'm careful to limit my criticism specifically to the belief that information can be "owned." That's subtly different from the belief that we can make contracts around information. But if you ask the average layperson or watch popular media about data, they speak and think in terms of ownership. That's the wrong model, and it leads to the wrong assumptions and conclusions. From what I understand, this wasn't always the case. The belief rose alongside the term "intellectual property" in recent decades, which was itself popularized by media companies who have the rights to lots of information, and who stand to gain financially the more we shift toward conceiving of these rights as permanent ownership.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Ah, I see. Okay, yeah, I think we're in agreement then. OP article is about GDPR-based suit.
6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
We live in a knowledge economy. If I spend $200M making a movie and you start showing it in your theaters without paying me, saying that you aren’t depriving me of my copy is irrelevant. The property you’re talking about is orthogonal to questions about who has the right to control what information.
- csallen 6y ago
  The economy we've created that transacts in information is the direct result of laws that support it. If, for example, anybody could copy your movie, then spending $200M to make it would be a very bad business decision, so people would prioritize other business models and endeavors. Hollywood would be weaker, and Broadway would be stronger. There'd be a much larger emphasis on live, interactive, and/or customizable entertainment experiences. I fail to see a problem here. "But that's not how it works today," isn't a problem imo. Let's say we made recipes broadly patentable. I'm sure that would change the restaurant industry into something unrecognizable over time. 100 years from now we'd see all sorts of massive businesses profiting in ways that are unimaginable today. Those businesses' existence wouldn't imply the laws were good. However I'm sure somebody might say, "But how is MegaPizzaWorld ever going to justify its $10 billion investment into monopolizing pizza if anybody can just copy it?"

renewiltord 6y ago

GDPR does not use ownership semantics. There are "data subjects", "processors", "controllers" and they each interact with "personal data" in some way. Then certain restrictions are enforced on processors and controllers with data subjects having certain rights recognized. The rights and restrictions differ from ownership semantics sufficiently that it's not useful to talk about as owning.

csallen 6y ago
Yes, this is why I'm careful to limit my criticism specifically to the belief that information can be "owned." That's subtly different from the belief that we can make contracts around information. But if you ask the average layperson or watch popular media about data, they speak and think in terms of ownership. That's the wrong model, and it leads to the wrong assumptions and conclusions. From what I understand, this wasn't always the case. The belief rose alongside the term "intellectual property" in recent decades, which was itself popularized by media companies who have the rights to lots of information, and who stand to gain financially the more we shift toward conceiving of these rights as permanent ownership.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Ah, I see. Okay, yeah, I think we're in agreement then. OP article is about GDPR-based suit.

6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago

We live in a knowledge economy. If I spend $200M making a movie and you start showing it in your theaters without paying me, saying that you aren’t depriving me of my copy is irrelevant. The property you’re talking about is orthogonal to questions about who has the right to control what information.

csallen 6y ago
The economy we've created that transacts in information is the direct result of laws that support it. If, for example, anybody could copy your movie, then spending $200M to make it would be a very bad business decision, so people would prioritize other business models and endeavors. Hollywood would be weaker, and Broadway would be stronger. There'd be a much larger emphasis on live, interactive, and/or customizable entertainment experiences. I fail to see a problem here. "But that's not how it works today," isn't a problem imo. Let's say we made recipes broadly patentable. I'm sure that would change the restaurant industry into something unrecognizable over time. 100 years from now we'd see all sorts of massive businesses profiting in ways that are unimaginable today. Those businesses' existence wouldn't imply the laws were good. However I'm sure somebody might say, "But how is MegaPizzaWorld ever going to justify its $10 billion investment into monopolizing pizza if anybody can just copy it?"