The Illusion of Ownership: What Truly Belongs to 'Me'?

We believe we ‘own’ many things, from coffee mugs to digital data, but when we delve into the essence, the meaning of ownership becomes a complex maze.

• The philosophical origins and debates of private ownership
• How ownership differs among physical, digital, and data assets
• The shift from ‘ownership’ to ‘access’ in modern society and its implications

The Beginning of the Sense of ‘Mine’

On my desk sits my most cherished coffee mug, which gives me the pure joy of ownership. Its hefty handle, the texture that fits perfectly in my hand. This is ‘mine.’ Whether I drink coffee, water, or use it as a pencil holder is entirely my choice. Philosophers like Hegel said such possessions are manifestations of my spirit and personality in reality. This mug is not just a simple object but a part of me, imbued with my tastes and lifestyle.

But what if I want to throw this mug against the wall and shatter it? Is that also my freedom? What if this mug is actually a game item I bought for 500,000 won? What if the copyright of the beautiful painting on the mug belongs to a famous artist? The simple and intense feeling of ‘mine’ instantly turns into a maze of complex questions.

Today, let’s explore this maze together. Starting from a coffee mug, to fenced land, invisible ideas and digital data, and even ourselves. What exactly can we truly call ‘mine,’ and to what extent? At the end of this journey, we might reconsider the true meaning of ownership.

The Birth of Private Ownership: Locke vs Rousseau

The concept of ‘private ownership’ we take for granted did not fall from the sky. It is more like an invention born from fierce ideological clashes in human history. At the center are two great thinkers, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke.

Rousseau: The First Fence is the Seed of Inequality

One day, a man appeared, fenced off a patch of land, and declared, “This is my land!” And people were naive enough to believe him. Rousseau, the 18th-century French philosopher, lamented that this man was the true founder of civil society and the originator of all human crimes, wars, murders, and misery.

In his “Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men,” he argued that this first fence drove humanity from a natural state of equality into endless conflicts and inequalities over ownership. For Rousseau, ‘ownership’ was not a natural right but an artificial agreement dividing society—a kind of original sin. He believed all land ultimately belonged to the community, and individuals only had the right to occupy as much as needed for survival and what they personally worked on.

Locke: Labor Creates Ownership

But before Rousseau, English philosopher John Locke told a very different story. For him, ownership was not theft but the result of creation. God originally gave the world to all humanity in common, but the ‘labor’ an individual applies with their own body belongs entirely to that individual.

Therefore, if I go to the forest, sweat to pick apples, and cultivate wilderness into a field, the apples and the field mixed with my ‘labor’ are no longer common property but part of me—my exclusive ownership.

This ‘labor theory of property’ had tremendous impact. It sanctified individual effort and elevated private property as a natural right, an inalienable human right that neither state nor king could arbitrarily infringe upon. This idea greatly influenced the American and French revolutions and became a powerful engine driving today’s capitalist society.

The Unfinished Debate: Proudhon and Marx’s Critique

Of course, Locke’s claim was not universally welcomed. French anarchist thinker Proudhon argued that labor might justify rights over ‘products,’ but not over ‘land itself,’ which is created by no one’s labor. To him, “Property is theft.”

Furthermore, Karl Marx analyzed that in capitalist society, the concept of ownership through labor becomes a fiction, and workers suffer alienation from the products they create.

Thus, the concept of ‘mine’ has been a subject of fierce debate since its birth. It is not a law of nature but a historical decision of humanity choosing Locke’s promise over Rousseau’s warning.

Limits of Physical Ownership: Why You Can’t Fully Control Your Own Home

Now, imagine you are a faithful heir of Locke, working hard to own your home. Your name is clearly on the title deed, and legally it is fully yours. You are the king of this house. Or are you?

One night, if you suddenly start playing drums until dawn, your neighbors will lose sleep, staring wide-eyed. Can you extend your house from the third to the fifth floor without permission? Probably not; soon the city office will order demolition. The ‘absolute’ ownership we believe in is actually a contract full of countless ‘invisible clauses.’

Article 211 of the Korean Civil Code states, “The owner has the right to use, profit from, and dispose of the property within the limits of the law.” This clearly shows ownership is not an unlimited right.

Also, the Civil Code’s ‘neighbor relations’ principle requires adjacent property owners to slightly compromise their ownership rights for harmonious coexistence. Noise from your home disturbing neighbors or using part of your land for adjacent construction are examples.

In the end, even the most certain possession, ‘my house,’ is not entirely at my disposal. Ownership is not absolute sovereign power but a ‘social right’ accompanied by promises and responsibilities as a community member. Absolute ownership is a myth that does not exist in reality.

Ownership of Intangible Assets: Ideas and Digital Items

Now, let’s leave the tangible world and talk about humanity’s attempt to own ghosts like melodies in our minds or sudden ideas.

Crowning Ideas: Copyright and Patent Rights

To protect invisible creations, humanity invented the clever system of ‘intellectual property rights.’

• Copyright: Protects the original ‘expression’ of creative works. It arises automatically when a work is expressed, like sentences in a novel or a song’s melody, focusing on protecting the creator’s personality and mental effort.
• Patent: Protects new ‘technical inventions’ never before seen. In exchange for publicly disclosing the invention, the government grants exclusive business rights for a limited period (usually 20 years).

Intellectual property rights crown intangible assets with a ‘temporary monopoly’ but this crown is not eternal and comes with many restrictions and conditions.

The Digital Sword Dilemma: Ownership or License?

The legendary sword ‘Frostbane’ earned after months of effort and 500,000 won in an online game feels truly ‘mine.’ But if the game company shuts down the service or suspends your account for violating terms, ‘Frostbane’ vanishes into digital dust.

Legally, users do not ‘own’ game items but acquire a ‘license’ to use specific data. The fundamental ownership remains with the game company.

Interestingly, if someone fraudulently steals this item, they can be criminally charged with fraud. Courts recognize that while the item is not a ‘thing’ under civil law, it clearly has ‘property value.’

Here lies a striking contradiction: the law says, “You do not own it,” yet also acknowledges, “But it has value that must be protected.” This imperfection in game item ownership sparked the desire for ‘true digital ownership,’ leading to the emergence of NFTs as a technical solution.

Table 1: Spectrum of the Sense of ‘Mine’

The Emergence of New Ownership: What Does NFT Prove?

On the fragile foundation of digital ‘ownership,’ NFT (Non-Fungible Token) emerged as a bold solution.

NFT is like a ‘one-of-a-kind digital certificate of authenticity’ or a ‘digital title deed.’ It permanently records on the blockchain, a public ledger no one can forge, that “This official link pointing to this digital file is owned by OOO.”

The Crucial Separation of Ownership and Copyright

The key point is that NFT buyers do not purchase the image file itself. They certainly do not buy the ‘copyright’ to reproduce or commercially use the image. Copyright remains with the original creator.

What buyers own is the ‘token containing an exclusive link’ pointing to the image. They can resell this NFT (token) but cannot print the image on T-shirts for sale (except in rare cases like BAYC where commercial rights are granted by contract).

Ultimately, NFTs are an attempt to technically implement the concepts of ‘original’ and ‘ownership’ in a digital world where infinite copies are possible. Buyers purchase the right to say, ‘I am the official owner of this image,’ a kind of socially agreed status.

Data Ownership in the 21st Century: Who Owns the New Oil?

So far, we talked about things we buy, but there is an even more valuable asset we unconsciously share daily: your ‘data.’

When Your Life Becomes Their Asset

Every action this morning—liking a post on social media, searching for lunch menus, watching YouTube videos—is recorded on servers of giant tech companies. This data is the 21st-century oil, the core raw material driving the AI era, generating trillions in value for companies. Our lives themselves have become their most important asset.

Have you ever seriously considered the meaning of the ‘consent’ button you click every day?

Ownership or Self-Determination?

So, who owns this data? Most laws currently do not recognize traditional ‘ownership’ over data. Instead, they grant ‘personal information self-determination rights,’ allowing individuals to control who collects and uses their data and for what purposes.

But this is far from ‘ownership’ that lets you actively manage or sell your data as an asset. Because of this gap, most economic value of data belongs to the platform companies that collect and analyze it.

Can Memories Be Inherited? The Tragedy of Digital Legacy

This issue painfully appears in ‘digital legacy.’ After the Cheonan sinking incident, families requested access to the deceased soldiers’ Cyworld mini-homepages but were denied citing the deceased’s privacy (e.g., friend-only settings).

The right to protect the deceased’s privacy clashed directly with the survivors’ desire to ‘own’ their memories. Whose is the digital legacy containing our lives and memories? Society has yet to provide a clear answer.

From ‘Ownership’ to ‘Access’: The Pros and Cons of the Subscription Economy

Perhaps you are already living beyond the era of ownership. We no longer ‘own’ CD albums or cars but ‘access’ Spotify or Kakao Taxi. As economist Jeremy Rifkin predicted, we live in the ‘Age of Access.’

From Ownership to Access, Sharing to Subscription

The ‘Age of Access’ means that the right to access and use when needed is more important than permanent ownership. This gave rise to the Sharing Economy and Subscription Economy.

• Sharing Economy: Models like Airbnb and Uber share idle resources already produced.
• Subscription Economy: Models like Netflix and MS Office charge monthly fees for ongoing services and experiences.

Consumers are freed from the burden of owning and managing products and can focus on desired experiences conveniently.

Liberation or New Servitude?

Does this change free us from the burden of ownership? For me, I once took great joy in lining hundreds of CDs on shelves, but now I enjoy all music with a single Spotify playlist. Yet behind this convenience lies the fact that my music preference data is fully handed over to companies, and if I stop paying the monthly fee, everything disappears.

This is more than a shift in consumption; it resets our fundamental relationship with assets. Philosopher Byung-Chul Han points out that while we believe we freely use platforms, we may actually be ‘masters and slaves’ moving within invisible rules.

When ownership concentrates in a few platform companies and most have only ‘access rights,’ can we truly say we are freer?

Wisdom Beyond Ownership: The Message of Chief Seattle

So far, we followed Western civilization’s story trying to define ‘mine.’ But there is a voice that sees the world in a completely different way.

In 1854, Chief Seattle of the Suquamish tribe reportedly gave a speech questioning the very concept of ‘ownership’ in response to the U.S. government’s land purchase demands.

The Land Does Not Belong to Humans; Humans Belong to the Land

Chief Seattle said:

“How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land? … We do not own the freshness of the air or the sparkling water, so how can we sell them to you? … We are part of the land, and the land is part of us.”

For him, land, sky, rivers, and animals were not ‘assets’ to own but ‘family’ and ‘kin.’ While white settlers saw land as an enemy to conquer, indigenous people saw it as a ‘mother’ who gave birth and nurtured them.

The core of this worldview is not ‘ownership’ but ‘stewardship.’ They were not owners but caretakers responsible for preserving the land’s health for future generations. If Western ownership is based on ‘exclusion,’ Chief Seattle’s worldview is based on ‘connection.’ Selling land would be like selling one’s mother—an unimaginable act.

Conclusion: So, What Truly Belongs to Us?

Our journey from a coffee mug showed that ‘ownership’ is a complex entity constantly changing with time and technology.

Three Key Takeaways

1. Ownership is not absolute: Physical ownership is a ‘conditional right’ constrained by laws and society; digital ownership is conditioned by technology and contracts.
2. From ‘ownership’ to ‘access’: The era of ownership is fading, replaced by subscription economies that create new power dynamics.
3. True ownership lies within: Not external objects, but the ‘experiences’ and ‘memories’ inside us that no one can take away are truly ours.

Psychoanalyst Erich Fromm divided life modes into ‘having mode’ and ‘being mode.’ A life focused on having is always anxious, but true joy is found in a life deeply existing as oneself.

Now, look again at the coffee mug on your desk. Is it just an object, or a precious symbol of experience? The only thing we can truly own is our life itself, the deeper ‘being’ of ourselves.