## 2 Critical Literature Review
### Maritime Data Ownership and Trading
[PERSON] discussed some of the main structural modifications affecting modern law because of cognitive capitalism and digital platforms (particularly the IoT and cloud computing), then unused about a new conceptual meaning for the logic of appropriation and the law of common property [26]. The scope of the analysis was limited to non-personal data. [PERSON] et al. (2020) discussed possible data architectures for marine spatial \"open\" data infrastructures (MSDIs), examined the maturity of their possible open data platforms, and compared the most prominent MDSI models for their applicability in three marine information domains (environment and protection, safety, and spatial planning) [27]. [PERSON] et al. used a literature review (keywords: \"ecosystem\" and \"biological ecosystem\") to develop a theoretical foundation for digital ecosystems [28]. They argued that the emerging trend in such ecosystems' transformations toward expanding the collaboration of economic agents is reasonable, and digitalization helps replace competition with collaboration. Distinguishing between digital data (raw data) and digital technologies (including software platforms and hardware solutions), [PERSON] et al. defined _open data_ as publicly available, and machine-readable, nonchargeable data (information content) [29]. They ar gued that port digitalization (which we might logically extend to MASS data) is unlikely to ever be fully open, owing to privacy, security, and ownership concerns. [PERSON] discussed the nature and justification of introducing data producers' rights into intellectual property rights (IPR) [30]. The European Commission might introduce an IPR for data producers to boost the European data economy, treating data as created property. [PERSON] argued that such a measure was unlikely to achieve the desired results. [PERSON] discussed general intellectual property and contractual issues for publicly available research data, focusing on legal rights, ownership, and sharing data for downstream use, although without diving too deeply into privacy and national security laws [31]. In one example of this kind of publicly available data, [PERSON] et al. described the dataset containing four categories of ship information collected through the Automatic Identification System (AIS): navigation data, vessel-oriented data, geographic data, and environmental data [32]. They proposed using the dataset for easy integration with relational databases, relying on the open-source relational database system, PostgreSQL, and the geospatial extension, PostGIS. However, they did not discuss matters of data ownership or security. [PERSON] et al. identified four conceptual dimensions of calls for data ownership in general, arguing that the dimensions help systematize and compare different positions within the pluralism of data ownership claims [33]. They introduced, described, and defended the constructive, interpretative proposal that data ownership claims could be understood as calls for the redistribution of material resources and the sociocultural recognition of data subjects. [PERSON] noted that, in the United States, ownership of the research data in administrative and clinical databases is a matter of state law, and most states have not clearly defined data ownership [34]. She pointed out that existing regulations lack the tools to resolve the complex dilemma between individuals' protections (and wishes) and broader public interests. [PERSON] and [PERSON] stated that the global community urgently needs precise and clear rules defining the ownership of data and expressing the attendant rights to license, transfer, use, modify, and destroy digital information assets [35]. In response, the current study proposes a new approach for regulating data as an entirely new class of property.