> Why should software vendors gain legal control over our data, simply because we use their software?

Well, probably because their EULA says so. Hence my question: "can we have a rule".

Saying "a rule" sounds like powerlessly wishing a problem gets fixed. The term makes sense for the OP about a detail in the context of a larger process, but you're talking about a more general topic that needs a wider legal-philosophical push with how metastasized copyright and adhesion contracts have become.

My question was rhetorical - asking what is right, not what legal mechanisms are being abused to create the current state.

> Saying "a rule" sounds like powerlessly wishing a problem gets fixed.

Isn't that mostly the case when we post about some (perceived) injustice on HN?

Take for instance the patent system. Every now and then people come up with ideas for what the system should really be like, but nobody ever provides any hints for actually getting these ideas implemented, and almost always the forces that keep the current system in place are totally ignored.

> Isn't that mostly the case when we post about some (perceived) injustice on HN?

Talking generally about "what ought" seems distinct from powerlessness. At the very least it delegitimizes the current status quo, even if only in a subculture. For instance, all of the HN (and wider tech) discussion of the NSA has done nothing to actually get those criminals any closer to prison. But designers of new protocols start with a background of making them surveillance-resistant rather than surveillance-supporting.

I apologize for starting my original comment somewhat aggressively - I wanted to draw attention to your idea behind the phrasing, with constructive criticism addressing why (hopefully) yours was downvoted, but edited it to be (too) simpler.