The concept of ownership seems very ill-defined to me.
Take the example of a tree cut by a lumberjack. A lumberjack fells a tree in the woods. He is now responsible for this tree. In some sense, it can be said he owns the tree. The lumberjack also has a boss however (I'm not exactly well-versed in the lumber industry but stick with me) who in a way owns the lumberjack by virtue of him being in his employ. The lumberjack can be said to own the lumber he has felled but his boss can be said to own him, so therefore his ownership of this lumber is an amorphous and ultimately illusory relationship superseded by his own ownership. The distinction of owned and owner is a futile one if you add enough scope I feel. Then as well the lumberjack loads his lumber onto a truck for it to be driven and delivered to a paying customer or to someone who will sell this lumber. The truck driver is now responsible for the lumber yet no transaction has taken place between him and the lumberjack for the transfer of ownership of the lumber to be deemed legitimate in a capitalist framework. The lumber is eventually turned into a table sold to a family who pay a couple hundred dollars for it in order to become the owner of this lumber.
Now, the issue I have with the concept of ownership is that there is no clear definition of what constitutes a transfer of ownership, let alone what qualifies as a legitimate claim to owning any given material good. The transfer of goods or capital is not the sole method for the transfer of ownership as we have the lumberjack becoming the owner of the lumber through the mere act of felling the tree, or a thief having stolen something can be said to now own it (though this is deemed as an illegitimate ownership relation by many due to the illegality of it afaik), or even items being given away for free give a claim to ownership. So clearly ownership isn' transferred only when capital is and any given act can create an ownership bond. The transfer from something being a natural resource to a material good is also loosely defined. Despite all the transfer of goods that has occurred with the lumber, it can be argued that the lumber still essentially belongs to "Mother Nature".
Apologies for the roughly written nature of parts of the above. I'm not well-versed in structuring my writing in an academic style and I realise much of what I've written may come off as rambling. The question of defining ownership in philosophical terms and investigating the concept itself may seem pedantic but I do believe it is important because of how integral it is to the concept of capitalism and how we all live our day-to-day lives. Any literature on this topic would be appreciated. To summarise, my question is this: how do we define the concept of ownership, how does this relate to the transfer of ownership, how does ownership relate to our capitalist societal structures, and is the concept of ownership ultimately necessary? (I don't expect anyone to answer all these questions btw, I'm just curious for everyone's 2 cents and trying to stimulate discussion on a subject I find interesting.)