Philosophical or Legal for the virtual - What is "Ownership"?

[Raithe]

Okay, I'm just looking into some quirky matters and the question was raised in what exactly "ownership" means when you don't have a physical item.

 

Mostly concerning data , but also other non-physical things.  So out of curiosity, just what does 'ownership' mean to the vast and lurid audience on these forums?

 

Edit:

 

One of the points raised in discussion is whether people truly mean 'ownership' or 'control'.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Raithe

[Nonek]

Chatting with one of our lawyers about this very matter a few weeks ago, the gentleman is a gamer and we were swapping recommendations, he said that currently the matter needs a few landmark cases to settle the matter. He also stated that EULA's weren't really worth the screens they're written on when challenging international law, which was news to me. I'm not sure how this stands beyond Blighty however, or whether the gent was correct.

[Tagaziel]

Okay, I'm just looking into some quirky matters and the question was raised in what exactly "ownership" means when you don't have a physical item.

 

Mostly concerning data , but also other non-physical things.  So out of curiosity, just what does 'ownership' mean to the vast and lurid audience on these forums?

 

Edit:

 

One of the points raised in discussion is whether people truly mean 'ownership' or 'control'.

Ownership is the right to do what you want with a given item, be it physical or not, and the legal obligation for others to respect your right. It's pretty simple. Control is a facet of ownership, but synonymous with it.

 

I find it funny that, in my experience, people who dispute the concept of intellectual property are often people who never created anything that would qualify as IP, they only consume it.

[Mor]

I find it funny that, in my experience, people who dispute the concept of intellectual property are often people who never created anything that would qualify as IP, they only consume it.

Very true. Those who don't get it might want to see the recent Simpsons episode and wait for the punch, it deals with a similar issue in a light hearted way.

[Oerwinde]

 

Topic reminded me of this

Edited January 10, 2014 by Oerwinde

[anubite]

I think I need a little more context.

 

Data on a disc is still data - it's physical. It's real. Data is not imaginary. It is not "virtual" despite the word being used to it. A machine has to imprint data on a disc - it is a real thing.

 

A "vritual thing" might be a sword you have in an RPG. That thing is a series of 0 and 1's on a disc somewhere, or in RAM. You may not own that physical disc the thing is stored on, but you "own" it because a program assigned a field to you that indicates you are its owner. In a sense, you "virtually own" the thing, because although the 0's and 1's do not belong to you, you have the permission to use that sword as you see fit.

 

I'm not a lawyer, but I think it really depends what're talking about here.

 

But maybe it doesn't.

 

If the sword is an item in an MMO, then you maybe should have rights to that sword if the game does out of business - you were "given" the sword by the game's code, like you might receive a gift from someone. I don't know how "gifts" work legally, but I think you have a right to it once it has been given to you. Someone cannot break into your house to "get back" your gift. Similarly, a company should not have the right to take away something you virtually own.

 

If the item in question is game code that was put on a disc, and you own the disc... is this any different from owning a book? You have a right to read that book whenever you wish; you bought it. It is a possession. The author of that book cannot come to your house and remove it from your possession. Those are the author's words in that book, but so what? It's your book.

 

EULAs in games have gone unchallenged in court, and while there is no court precedence to back them up or shrink their authority, I don't think there can be an official stance on the manner. It's all going to come down to perspective until a number of courts rule on what companies can and cannot do with their so-called IP.

Edited January 10, 2014 by anubite

[Wrath of Dagon]

Philosophically it's probably a pointless discussion, you may be living in a society where nothing is considered to be owned, who's to say they're wrong? Legally it's a different question. For example in US you legally have a copy right for 75 years, but after that you arbitrarily lose it (or would, if it wasn't for Mickey Mouse).

[Hurlshort]

It's funny that Micky Mouse himself is a creation that came out of a copyright dispute over Oswald the Lucky Rabbit.

[Monte Carlo]

Depends on your legal jurisdiction and, as Nonek says, stated cases in law.

 

Before you all chime in about the supra-national status of the Internet, I'd simply ask you to ponder the law in country 'A' and their relationship with country 'B' (assuming country 'B' is where the server is).

 

The case of people like Gary McKinnon illustrates how governments will seek to protect (quite properly) the integrity / ownership of their data.

 

Now, if we're talking about piracy, that's a whole other issue beaten to death on these forums. We have a generation now who expect content for free - which is fine but who, eventually is going to (be able or afford) create content for nothing?

[Mor]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4

 

Topic reminded me of this

I agree that copyright law has its negative side, and there is room for discussion if the benefits outweigh its consequences. But lets be honest, for the most part copyright talk has nothing todo with creativity or art, but is used as an excuse for people to get away without paying.. Edited January 11, 2014 by Mor

[Raithe]

Okay, then to add in to the question, what about Personal Data? Who has ownership of that? Do you cede your ownership the moment you put something up on Facebook or what're social media you happen to use?

 

Google with it's tracking of your searches, does that fall under personal data or something else?

 

When they flog that data off to advertisers, does that interfere with your rights and perceptions of ownership?

[Zoraptor]

You certainly lose certain rights when you put personal data on the web. Technically, you or I could (try to) assert copyright over our posts here and then demand royalties or their removal- except the terms of use waive those rights and simply writing on a public forum implies waiving of those rights anyway.

 

For things like Facebook or Google there should be an acceptance that they are 'free', but need to make money somehow (facebook_piggies.jpg). They're voluntary services which people willingly give a lot of information, if their Terms of Use allow for sharing of information with 3rd parties or select partners then they will, that isn't significantly different from "uncheck this box if you don't want..." fields in just about any commercial sign up process, or loyalty cards for a supermarket or other retailer. In both cases they tend towards shifting the goalposts to disadvantage you.

 

Personally, I get around Googleist monitoring by having a dynamic IP, Noscript/ adblock and cookies allowed on a case by case basis. But then, I'm special and know that those lovely Doubleclick ad banners report straight back to the mothership...

[Mor]

I am not certain that the term of use thingy you mentioned is strictly true. I can't recall the exact details, but I recently read about similar case where news outlet was sued after it lifted a photographers photo posted on twitter. Their defense was that posting on public site means your stuff is up for grabs. They lost.

Edited January 11, 2014 by Mor

[Zoraptor]

That isn't a terms of use issue. Sites in general do not grant unconnected 3rd parties any rights only themselves, which they may in some cases on sell; and that they effectively have to do to function. Twitter doesn't waive its customers' copy rights wholesale (as I understand it anything which does is on very sketchy legal ground), only in a limited way.

[Mor]

Makes sense.

Edited January 12, 2014 by Mor

[Hurlshort]

 

Topic reminded me of this

 

The idea that we would be better off with hundreds of Darth Vader spin offs by people that did not come up with the character is ridiculous.  

 

That whole video is like a protest against originality.  

[Oerwinde]

 

 

 

Topic reminded me of this

The idea that we would be better off with hundreds of Darth Vader spin offs by people that did not come up with the character is ridiculous.

 

That whole video is like a protest against originality.

Its not like the guy who came up with the character did such an awesome job with his Vader spinoff. If just one of those hundred was bonkers good, then yeah, we'd be better off.

[Hurlshort]

 

Its not like the guy who came up with the character did such an awesome job with his Vader spinoff. If just one of those hundred was bonkers good, then yeah, we'd be better off.

 

 

You really think we'd be better off with 99 crappy versions of Darth Vader being released?  It would just become white noise eventually, I doubt we'd even notice if a good version came out.

 

Isn't it better that people have to create their own content?  If you are creative, why do you need to use Darth Vader to distinguish yourself?  And if you do manage to create a popular character, do you really want every Tom, ****, and Harry swooping in to use that character in their projects?

[Oerwinde]

 

 

Its not like the guy who came up with the character did such an awesome job with his Vader spinoff. If just one of those hundred was bonkers good, then yeah, we'd be better off.

 

 

You really think we'd be better off with 99 crappy versions of Darth Vader being released?  It would just become white noise eventually, I doubt we'd even notice if a good version came out.

 

Isn't it better that people have to create their own content?  If you are creative, why do you need to use Darth Vader to distinguish yourself?  And if you do manage to create a popular character, do you really want every Tom, ****, and Harry swooping in to use that character in their projects?

 

 

Well the way I see it if I create a popular character, I don't give a rats ass what people do with it after I'm dead. I don't see any reason copyright should remain after everyone the author knew is dead. If the author has 3 or 4 decades to reap the rewards of his creation, I don't see why some college kid shouldn't be able to try to publish something in that world without getting his ass sued. Lucas actually isn't really a great example here though, what with the Expanded Universe and not going out and trying to shut down fan-films and such, except now that Disney owns the rights, everything I've heard is they are quashing the whole EU and only properly licensed movie tie-ins are going to be allowed.

[Hurlshort]

As you said, there are plenty of cases where the creator of an IP actually allows other to work within that IP.  But if that college kid is actually creative, why does he need to use someone else's world?

 

It just seems like this is a great way to make it even more rare to see original content in the media.  

[Walsingham]

I've been thinking about it and suggest ownership is a triumvirate. You own something if it is:

 

1. Utilisable - you have the ability to use it and get benefit from it

2. Control - you have the ability to govern its behaviour

3. Secure - you have the means, via personal power or the law to prevent some other party from overmastering your quality in the first two

 

There are examples of getting two out of three. But these aren't really ownership, IMO. Essentially, 'owning' a cat is a case of lacking one or more of these qualities at any given moment in time.

[Orogun01]

As you said, there are plenty of cases where the creator of an IP actually allows other to work within that IP.  But if that college kid is actually creative, why does he need to use someone else's world?

 

It just seems like this is a great way to make it even more rare to see original content in the media.  

A common misconception about creativity is that it happens ex nihilo, that kid may just be a writer that wants to work on a Star War story or that has a Star Wars story and wouldn't like to jump trough a series of legal hoops and make a Promethean effort to reach George Lucas.

 

OTOH, these spinoffs are already happening in the form of fanfiction, copyright is just there to make sure that no one else but Lucas makes money. This situation is otherwise known as the central argument of Das Kapital.

[Zoraptor]

Lucas is not a good target anyway, he's actually been very good at letting people use his stuff on a not-for-profit basis, in contrast a lot of owners will try and block anything unauthorised whether it be fan fic or even just using the name or pictures on a website.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Bethesda threatening Mojang with a law suit over the use of the word "scrolls" in a game title comes to mind.

[Oerwinde]

I think that's more trademark than copyright, which is a whole other monstrosity.