"Me" and My Marketing Data

With regard to our contemporary time: in light of the egregious liberties that certain industry-standard companies with an unchecked near-monopoly on software, artistic copyright is indeed, something that needs to be defended anew. Consider this: your habits, your tendencies, your very thoughts: available technology has theoretically predicted your very thoughts through the use of your data. The way you will pour your coffee, which of your cups you may use in your kitchen, and even the very likelihood you will put on your favorite pair of slightly-worn-but-comfortable-undergarments. It seems unlikely, but truly pause to consider what of your data is available to people with means unimaginably attainable to you. Specifically, people with the means to request that a country dismantle and rebuild a bridge in Europe because it pleases them to drive their yacht through that channel as a flex. At which point can and does an artist have the right to assert their claims to their own work? I assert that by my very existence, everything I say, do, and have predicted about me in any way is my personal intellectual property. To the undiscerning person, this seems ridiculous; to an attorney and anyone attempting to monetize me without giving me my proper credit and cut, I am an unmitigated pain. Without the historical habitual habits of me and my life, there would be no "marketing" profile for someone to leverage. I commend the brilliant psychologists and advertising professionals that crafted a means and method by way of which to influence a person, and ultimately, a population with an accuracy so intense, it disturbs the very people who wield such force to the point of paranoia that they refuse to have smart-home devices in their own dwellings. Pause and consider how often you see an advertisement; on your walk, in your postage, even as you browse the internet you pay for from the comfort of your present dwelling. Entertain the scenario that someone calls a relative to discuss clown horns for a bicycle. The presently expected result in my social circles is to assume that now their advertisements would reflect clown horns as well as that of their relative's advertisements. An opportunity has been presented to purchase such an item, but where exactly could someone have, at such a fast-paced turnaround, figured out how to leverage that instantaneously? At what point can we as individuals assert our rights and declare, "this is my identity and tendency, and I must be compensated for it." Kudos to the attorneys who brilliantly locked people out of their own money for basically living their lives and having it used against them. As artists are scrambling to protect their works from being scrubbed by the internet, what of sculptural performance artists? Our habits, the meaning behind the messages of our actions, subconscious or deliberate, who owns them? Are they indeed ours? Do such things belong, for a religious person, a right of religious property? Would a secular person be due compensation for recognizing their own ownership of such activities? Truly fascinating philosophical questions worthy of entertaining. We live in quite the fascinating time, and I am thrilled to get to watch like a fly on the wall how laws may change in our time.