Debts, Money, Intellectual Property, Data and the Concept of Dematerialised Property

• Author: Andreas Rahmatian
• Position: Professor of Commercial Law at the School of Law of the University of Glasgow, UK
• Pages: 186-199

2020

Andreas Rahmatian

186

2

Debts, Money, Intellectual Property, Data and

the Concept of Dematerialised Property

by Andreas Rahmatian*

© 2020 Andreas Rahmatian

Everybody may disseminate this ar ticle by electronic m eans and make it available for downloa d under the terms and

conditions of the Digital P eer Publishing Licence (DPPL). A copy of the license text may be obta ined at http://nbn-resolving.

de/urn:nbn:de:0009-dppl-v3-en8.

Recommended citation: Andre as Rahmatian, Debts, Money, Intell ectual Propert y, Data and the Concept of Dematerialis ed

Property, 11 (2020) JIPIT EC 186 para 1.

Keywords: dematerialised property; money creation; intellectual property theory; data ownership

While data ownership can theoretically be accommo-

dated fairly easily within the framework of demateri-

alised property, there are several reasons, both the-

oretical and from a legal policy perspective, which

make the introduction of data ownership modelled

upon conventional (intellectual) property rights prob-

lematic.

Abstract: Debts, (electronic) money, intellec-

tual property, and, in principle, data and digitised ob-

jects (if ownership rights are to be recognised for

these), can be conceptualised as versions of the gen-

eral principle of dematerialised property. This article

discusses first the concept of dematerialised prop-

erty and its application to debts, money and intel-

lectual property. Then it deals with the idea of own-

ership of data within traditional property concepts.

A. Introduction

1

The modern economy relies more and more on

intangible assets, whether nancial assets (ultimately

a form of debt, particularly in its most signicant

version: money), or intellectual property and data,

while the production and sale of physical goods and

assets becomes less important. Some commentators

seem to suggest that the law of property struggles

when it tries to keep up with these developments. In

fact, an underlying concept of modern property law

systems appears well-equipped to meet these new

challenges, and although lawyers hardly address

this concept specically, it is in reality impliedly

accepted: the concept of dematerialised property.

This concept will be discussed in the following

article, with some of its most important practical

applications: debts, money, intellectual property,

and, at least potentially, data and digitised objects.

2

First, one has to explain how the term ‘property’

is used and understood in the following discussion.

The English word ‘property’, also in its technical-

legal meaning, is ambiguous,1 and at the start of

the discussion it is necessary to dene the term

‘property’ as follows: ‘property’ means (a) assets

or wherewithal or ‘patrimonium’ of a person, (b)

property right, (c) property object or ‘thing’ or res

(the latter term will be used in the following), and,

nally, (d) ‘ownership’, although this meaning is

imprecise and should better be avoided.2

* Professor of Commercial Law at the School of Law of the

University of Glasgow, UK.

1 See also Lutz-Christian Wolff, ‘The relationship between

contract law and property law’, (2020) 49(1) Common Law

World Review, 34-36.

2 Andreas Rahmatian, Lord Kames. Legal and Social Theorist

(Edinburgh University Press, 2015) 221-224.