I more or less agree, but I do still disagree on a kind of edge-case: you don't have EXCLUSIVE access (ownership) to that data in principle. If someone else happened to generate the same information in their head, by chance, they'd also "own" the exact same bits of information at the same time - meaning you "both own it", which breaks the definition. This is different than theft: when someone steals from you, the singular exclusive access is transferred from you to them. You can steal property, but you can only copy information.

Information is just a pattern of bits. In practice, it might be infeasible to arrive at the same pattern of bits as someone else, but in principle it's possible. Does it make sense for "ownership feasibility" to be a function of the level of complexity of your randomness algorithm..? At which point along the spectrum does it go from "ownable" to "basically free for everyone"? And isn't this dependent upon the level of information technology available at any given moment?

And if you've ever "leaked" those bits, now they are infinitely copyable, and no longer ownable with exclude access. What kind of property can _sometimes_ be ownable but has a one-way ticket to "free for everyone forever" built into it...?