[somrand0]

indeed, the first step (IMO) towards revising the notion is to recognize that physical (material, tangible) assets inherently work differently than digital assets.

As I understand so far the main reason to seek a revision of the concept of ownership is exactly due to the existence (enabled by internet technology) of digital assets.

copy-pasting is HOW computers work. copy-pasting does not do well in society ruled by the exclusivity-mindset inherent to marketplaces (and their societies) of tangible assets

[claytongulick]

I'm not exactly an IP hawk, from from it.

I agree with you that digital "asset" ownership is new, unexplored territory for humans.

We've never been able to separate the content from the distribution medium before now, and we're struggling to recreate a model we're familiar with (physical media) by imposing absurdities like DRM.

NFTs are also an absurd way of trying to solve the same problem.

The issue we wrestle with is mistaking "ownership" with a access.

I can own a physical book, but I do not own the content of the book, I've paid for access to that content and the book is the medium.

Digital assets are the same, I don't own them, they are a form of access to content that someone else owns, and has granted me an either implicit or explicit license to use.

I think this is the concept of ownership that needs to be revised.

Rather than a mp3 being treated, and thought of, like a book - it should be thought of more as a movie ticket. Something that grants me access to content within the limits defined by the content owner.

[sukofthrottle]

but this essentially restricts the spread of the 'digital boon' (referring the the new possibilities afforded by this new technologies)

I'm trying to point out that this distinction (ownership as distinct from access) leads towards a capture of the digital advantage by people with better leverage.

moreover, I disagree that if I own a book I do not own the contents of it. the mindset that I don't seems too close to saying that I can know things (well understood learned concepts) but still somehow not own them.

This in my view is like a 'hook' which pulls towards the reality that somebody else owns the contents of my own mind, hence that I do not own that part of myself. I hope you see where I'm going with this and why I find your posture troubling.

It's only a few short (conceptual) steps from doing away with individual freedom for the sake of what?