There is a distinction in law that has been around for centuries, that is the distinction between physical possession and legal ownership. Any combination exists:
-the same person having physical possession and ownership (example: eating a snack you bought)
-a person neither possessing nor owning some object X (example: guy watches a bike zipping past)
-a person being the owner of something without possessing it (examples: absentee landlords, you owning a bike that just got stolen)
-a person possessing something without owning it (me riding your bike)
Being physically near to some objects seems to imply at least some sort of power over it, absentee owners rule through others, and these may have their own interests. The absentee others getting informed about what's going on and sending the police or private goons requires some time. Isn't this time gap an advantage for the underdog? But the discrepancy between these concepts has become smaller with cameras and sensors and networks for remote control everywhere.
Ownership is the right to restrict access, that it appears as a right to use something is just the consequence of that (you don't restrict access for yourself). That this isn't play with words but how it really is can be shown:
-not everything you legally consume has to be owned by you (like the air you breathe)
-you can restrict access to what you own without need to make a case that you need it for your personal usage (owning ten houses)
-you can even restrict access when others using it logically cannot interfere with your own usage (copyright and patents)
The technological developments that we see in capitalism are not the result of some autonomous tree of technology that just grows the way it does independent of whatever the social system is. Software as a service is such a big thing because the ruling class wants it to be. Modern park benches with three armrests are deliberately designed that way to prevent that homeless people sleep on them. What can you do as an individual or member of the small group in the here and now? Not much. If you program as a hobby, you can put your code under a license that allows modification (I recommend GPL3). Recently I've been thinking about locked boxes, locked doors, and whatever else can have a lock. The way a lock works is that the person with the key is a monopolist. The key gives you access. (But remember, kids: Strictly speaking, the key doesn't give you access, the lock restricts access for the rest of the world and the key negates the effect of the lock). It is also possible to have several copies of the same key, then people who have absolute trust in each other regarding how they use the locked up thing(s) can share, like siblings sharing a flat. But what to do when you have just some level of trust in a group? So I've been thinking about things like a big chest that can only be opened by simultaneously pushing two buttons that have too much distance between them for a single person and a safe with five locks that can be opened with three keys.
In socialism, individual ownership will be replaced with rights to access. That means forbidding others to use something will need justification in terms of how them using it would strongly interfere with your own usage. It means no individual will own ten houses. Nobody will own patents or copyrights, though some notion of rewarding some of the activities that today are covered by that will remain: You might get a prize, but not a monopoly that only expires after decades.
