I agree Facebook is playing word games, but I think that misses the larger point. That is, Facebook is not selling access to people's data as understood by the lay person.

The average person interprets "Facebook sells access to your data" as meaning that someone can pay Facebook to access your individual data. e.g. What sites did 3xblah, specifically, visit last week?

This isn't how Facebook's ecosystem works. Advertisers can only target users in large groups. And, there's no way for advertisers to query Facebook's servers for the personal data of a specific user.

If you explain exactly what Facebook is doing to the average person they simply don't care (even if you explain all the potential risks to their personal security).

(You are addressing the advertiser ecosystem while the focus here is the app ecosystem.)

The "word games" may not be aimed at the "average person". They might be intended to mislead those who have a concern with what Facebook might be doing. For example, it might be part of their job. The FTC is an obvious example, but there are many individuals and groups who are interested in Facebook's activities relating to privacy.

Incidentally, how do you know these things about the "average person"? Is there a citation to some studies you have read?

Accessing data and selling data are the same thing. For example; “I’m going to give you access to the answer for a math equation”. When you use your access to view the answer, you have the data and you don’t need access any more! “Ok great, 1+1 equals 2, you can take your calculator back now and I’ll call you up if I need access to it again”.

However, legally they are not the same thing.

That depends on the jurisdiction, doesn't it?

Is there a jurisdiction that treats ownership and permission to do something as the same thing?

You mean in the "possession is 9/10ths of the law" sense?

Isn't that a principle relating to proving ownership?

If yes, then no, that is not what I meant, although I think I see what you are getting at.

What I meant was, "Is there a jurisdiction where a company cannot license (permit) access to data contigent on prior assent to an agreement with conditions on use, duration of use, transfer, etc. such that the licensee does not get the same rights as the owner of the data?"

It's not a principle relating to proving ownership. You cannot own contraband, for instance.

"Is there a jurisdiction where a company cannot license (permit) access to data contigent on prior assent to an agreement with conditions on use, duration of use, transfer, etc. such that the licensee does not get the same rights as the owner of the data?"

I, uh...do you mean...nevermind, I can't figure it out. Can you rearrange the question into a less pseudolegal form?

"Is there a jurisdiction where there is no legal distinction between selling data (transferring ownership) and providing access to data for a fee (licensing)?"

I thought perhaps you had a jurisdiction in mind where there is no difference.

Needless to say, in the US and in many other countries where Facebook conducts business, there is a difference.

Users own the copyright to the stuff they share with Facebook ("users' data"). Facebook acknowledges this explicitly in its Terms.

Does FB have sufficient rights to "sell" copies of users' data? Unless the owners of the data give FB permission, FB cannot sell something FB does not own.