When you posted the picture to myspace under the terms of their user agreement you granted them unlimited rights to redistribute that image to anyone in the world.
If you care about privacy don't post private stuff online.
Yup. That's your data now. And also mine (if I have a backup) and also myspace's.
The fact that makes it your data is that you physically can share it with someone else.
At least that's the value system I live by and I believe should be in place for all because it perfectly reflects the reality of what happens with ones and zeroes.
I'd say that it'd be your data but you might not be the copyright holder. But if the data is on a storage media that you own, I would consider it your data.
Lysenko as in the Soviet scientist? I don't really see what, if anything, a mistaken belief about evolution has to do with legal or moral definitions about ownership of data.
Saying "Lysenkoism is true" is factually wrong, but saying "physical possession is equivalent to ownership" is just a very fringe political opinion.
So I don't see how "the GDPR" can be wrong, unless you mean it in the sense of "the death penalty is (morally) wrong", which is just your opinion in that case.
My point is this: If your insurance provider, for example, obtains access to your medical records, and store them on their servers, does that make it "their data" to use as they please? This would imply that:
> But if the data is on a storage media that you own, I would consider it your data
Ah, I meant Lysenkoism being mandated and genetics being outlawed in the Soviet Union.
> but saying "physical possession is equivalent to ownership" is just a very fringe political opinion.
It is a fringe opinion in today's West, but only relatively recently: since the 1970s, one might argue. The fringe opinion, to be clear, is the older one implied to some degree by "possession is nine tenths of the law", and which views copyright and patent as an artificial grant from the State, useful, but not property in the same sense as a table or a knife is someone's property.
Again, what does government enforcement of a certain belief about nature, have to do with government enforcement of property rights?
Ownership of physical property is also an artificial grant from the state. (Or if you will, a recognition by the state of what people in general believe) Perhaps not a table or a knife, but a farm or a factory, have in many countries been suddenly disqualified as legitimate property of their (former) owner, as a result of e.g. a communist revolution. There's nothing more "natural" to owning a piece of land, than to owning a song.
I'm pretty sure physical possession was not generally considered equivalent to ownership before the 1970s, that's an absurd statement. Shareholders of the East India Company in the 1600s weren't in physical possession of the ships, yet they were considered owners. Even purely intellectual property, such as patents, have existed in laws since at least 1474. Albert Einstein famously worked in a patent office.
Property rights themselves are a codification of a belief about nature, from a natural law perspective. There are other conceptions of property, of course, but of the ones that are relatively common, I think the least useful is the one that views property as whatever government says property is. Most people--well, most USians--think property has (and rights have) a meaning more fundamental than whatever the State arbitrarily grants. We note that animals defend scarce territory, that toddlers are upset when something they have is taken from them, that we distinguish jealousy regarding something we have and want to keep versus covetousness of something another has and we want to obtain.
Obviously the idea of copyright and patent as property rights didn't spring fully formed in the 1970s, but the entertainment and software industries during the 1970s and 1980s really drove the idea that copyright infringement is exactly the same thing as theft of something that someone actually has. The idea of copyright and patent in most law, including the US Constitution, are held as special, limited-term grants, not property rights.
> I think the least useful is the one that views property as whatever government says property is.
That's not what I'm saying by a long shot either. And "intellectual property does not exist at all" is a far less useful view.
> We note that animals defend scarce territory, that toddlers are upset when something they have is taken from them, that we distinguish jealousy regarding something we have and want to keep versus covetousness of something another has and we want to obtain.
Well, do you not think this holds for ideas as well? Do you think nobody ever said "That guy stole my joke" before 1970?
Where did you find that picture? If the person printed it out and plastered it on a nearby signpost for everyone to see, I'd say it is no longer personal data.
reply