Knowledge of the law as it applies to data rights

[dannyhi321]

Dear Seq users,

I am interested in peoples knowledge of the law in terms of rights to sequencing data generated on their/someone else's system(s). The question is this, if one party generates data on someone else's machine, who owns the data generated, if said data is generated without the owners knowledge or consent?:-

(1.) The machine owner
(2.) The person who ran the machine
(3.) Both
(4.) Don't Know

Thanks for your input.

Dan

[gabrieltw]

I think the data belongs to the person who owns the library that was ran on the machine.

Not the machine owner, not the person who operate the machine.

It's like musician owns their music, not the company that pressed CDs for them nor the people operate the machine that pressed those CDs ( Or in digital distribution format , the company hosting the music tracks do not owns the right to those data )

[gringer]

That depends on the service contract.

If there's no service contract, then I would apply a pessimistic view of "software as a service", and say that the data is owned by the person who controls access to the software, which would most likely be the machine owner.

[gabrieltw]

That depends on the service contract.

If there's no service contract, then I would apply a pessimistic view of "software as a service", and say that the data is owned by the person who controls access to the software, which would most likely be the machine owner.

Even a big company like 23andMe needs user consent to share data. All the sequencing are done on 23andMe's machine but they cannot use those data freely with consent of the users.

Same with all sequencing center, I do not believe they own and can freely use any data that they generated.

[dannyhi321]

Even a big company like 23andMe needs user consent to share data. All the sequencing are done on 23andMe's machine but they cannot use those data freely with consent of the users.

Same with all sequencing centre, I do not believe they own and can freely use any data that they generated.

But what about the consent of the sequencing center? - just as with the music example (more to come on that - strange coincidence !) - the resources where used with the owners consent - not so with this situation.

What then?

[gabrieltw]

But what about the consent of the sequencing center? - just as with the music example (more to come on that - strange coincidence !) - the resources where used with the owners consent - not so with this situation.

What then?

That has nothing to do with user data. Whatever happens between the sequencing center and the machines owners has nothing to do with the 3rd party data.

I am assuming this is related to your illumina machines. As far as I know, some other users went to this university and have their sample sequenced. The university offered the service, 3rd party used the service. Even if it's your machines, the 3rd party still owns the data since they created the sequencing library.

Let's take music as example again. If someone make a copy of mp3 on their machine, do they therefore owns those music legally ? If someone who works on hosting company make a copy ? Does he then own the right to those music ?

I am sure those 3rd party user paid the reagents and service fee to the lab which hosted your machines. If they got free sequencing ( AKA, you paid for their sequencing reagent fee, then there might be some ground on arguing. Although I think it would still be messy about the library in question which creates the data )

[gringer]

Even a big company like 23andMe needs user consent to share data. All the sequencing are done on 23andMe's machine but they cannot use those data freely with consent of the users.

It's not ethically appropriate for them to do that, and they're unlikely to get a publication out by using such data without consent, but I don't think there's a legal barrier to using data generated on their machines.

[Brian Bushnell]

It seems like if someone generates data on your machine without your consent, then nobody owns the data and it should be destroyed. There are different laws in different locations that may offer a specific answer, but those laws are generally written by people who do not understand computers or digital data.

[nucacidhunter]

Dear Seq users,

I am interested in peoples knowledge of the law in terms of rights to sequencing data generated on their/someone else's system(s). The question is this, if one party generates data on someone else's machine, who owns the data generated, if said data is generated without the owners knowledge or consent?:-

(1.) The machine owner
(2.) The person who ran the machine
(3.) Both
(4.) Don't Know

Thanks for your input.

Dan

I do not think any of the answers is correct. It all depends on the contract that machine owner had with the party that machine was installed in their location and had the right to operate it for service or for their own projects.

[dannyhi321]

It seems like if someone generates data on your machine without your consent, then nobody owns the data and it should be destroyed. There are different laws in different locations that may offer a specific answer, but those laws are generally written by people who do not understand computers or digital data.

Really ?:- that doesn’t sound very scientific to me. Not to mention immoral/illegal ! - or I might just not understand “digital” data!

You cannot obtain knowledge without integrity, all scientists know this.

[Brian Bushnell]

Really ?:- that doesn’t sound very scientific to me. Not to mention immoral/illegal ! - or I might just not understand “digital” data!

I think we might have some confusion here on the definition of "consent".

[dannyhi321]

I think we might have some confusion here on the definition of "consent".

consent:
kənˈsɛnt/Submit
noun
1.
permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.
"no change may be made without the consent of all the partners"
synonyms: agreement, assent, concurrence, accord;

This is not intended as an insult- merely a deduced response, so please don't use your moderator status to raise an "insult" question.

[dannyhi321]

It's not ethically appropriate for them to do that, and they're unlikely to get a publication out by using such data without consent, but I don't think there's a legal barrier to using data generated on their machines.

Pure academics/students, researchers should not be discouraged (or placed under any pressure- as your communication could be construed to imply) from contacting me - it is my mission, and my obligation as a scientist, to allow freedom of information in such situations. This needs to be corrected with my consent as choice is the essence of freedom. This is a moral obligation and code of conduct that Science itself was founded upon. Not to follow such a code is only to betray oneself, and ultimately end up on the wrong path.

Never bow to pressure not to do the right thing, this is a challenge in life we all must face and overcome.

God be with you.

Thanks,

Dan Densham

[email protected]