People should probably do what they say they will do.
But to clarify, I’d suggest specifically discussing the case where a person claims IP, and you happen to have the information on your computer with no foul play involved (maybe let’s say they sold you their old computer but never wiped the drive)
You are actually conceding the case when you accept the lie that anyone can "own" information in the first place. If you admit that untruth, then your "innocent" computer user is guilty of possessing stolen merchandise.
Saying that you can enter an agreement to "own" information is like saying you can claim ownership and license away a cloud. It's not a matter of a gullible individual who "freely" accepts to enter such an agreement, because the initial claim affects the whole human species. And it must simply be rejected and ridiculed as the whacky, greedy idea it is.
I’d argue it’s not an agreement to “own” the information, rather to do or not do certain things in the future.
So in the example, there is obviously no agreement/obligation. And claiming IP doesn’t change that.
But are you nostr:npub1s277u5rww60te98w9umz6p7pjcxuus96cegdsf4y978qcqvu8jtq88dsym saying that one cannot choose to commit themselves to a future course of action?
I'm saying I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to show to those who would enter such an agreement - because they've been duped to believe the "licenser" is morally correct and backed by the right to private property. If they didn't buy the idea that the conman passing as a "seller" actually owns the thing "sold", why would they?
