> That's why I'm calling such business models "abusive". You're intentionally ignoring your users' rights or you're intentionally neglecting to consider their rights.
GDPR is not just about preventing abusive behavior, though. If I sell someone my data, arguably the buyer should become its owner in full extent - GDPR makes that impossible even if both parties are fully informed and willing.
What does it even mean to be "owner" of personal data? "Ownership" is a term that's intentionally not used in privacy law, since it doesn't matter all that much.
Yeah, that's exactly the problem - the clash of privacy and ownership laws that are basically contradicting each other at the moment; data can be owned, but not really, but really...!?!?
For other types of data, copyright breaks that model too, and other immaterial and material possessions come with various legal restrictions too. Ownership hasn't universally meant "can do what I like with it" for a long time, so maybe thinking purely about ownership isn't a very useful model if you want to know what you can do.
Copyright doesn't break anything, it extends the ownership framework. I don't agree with it, but it's clear enough. GDPR and other privacy laws introduce a completely new contradicting concept.
GDPR is not just about preventing abusive behavior, though. If I sell someone my data, arguably the buyer should become its owner in full extent - GDPR makes that impossible even if both parties are fully informed and willing.