2 ms·
> 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 o
by JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
> 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__ 6mo agoYou'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 6mo ago> 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__ 6mo agoWhat 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 6mo ago> 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.)