Research and development in private law

Research and development in private law

Rethinking the Foundations of Private Ownership in the Context of Digital Assets

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Mohsen Sadeghi 1
Amir Malekzadeh Qaleh 2
1 Associate Professor, Department of Private and Islamic Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2 Graduate with a Master's degree in Private Law from the University of Tehran
10.22034/jpl.2025.2070457.1237
Abstract
The term “Digital Age” in this study does not merely denote a historical period; rather, it refers to an era in which economic and legal structures have been fundamentally redefined on the basis of data, crypto-assets, and digital technologies. Within this context, although ownership of tangible property remains firmly established, the most significant theoretical developments and legal challenges are manifested in the realm of intangible and digital assets. Accordingly, this study examines the classical foundations of private ownership and reassesses them in light of the emerging phenomena of digital ownership. The right to property may be regarded as one of the most fundamental, yet simultaneously one of the most controversial, proprietary rights recognized in law a challenge that has acquired new dimensions in the Digital Age. Digitalization has not only transformed the fundamental principles governing numerous legal institutions but has also profoundly affected property rights,Keywords: Property rights, digital age, digital assets, theoretical foundations, policymaking, Iranian law giving rise to novel legal and policy questions. The emergence of new forms of property under the category of “digital assets”, together with the increased vulnerability of proprietary rights in the digital environment as compared with the physical world, justifies broader legislative protection for the holders of such rights. Nevertheless, this approach has been criticized on the ground that the underlying philosophy of the digital environment is to facilitate access to and public utilization of digital resources, and that expanding exclusive proprietary rights may undermine this fundamental objective. Given that this issue has received limited attention within Iranian legal scholarship, the present study seeks to answer the following research question: What is the most appropriate policy approach to property rights in the Digital Age? The principal hypothesis of this article is that the optimal approach lies in combining the recognition of property rights with the establishment of limitations and exceptions designed to protect users' interests an approach that has not been sufficiently reflected in certain domestic legislation. This research adopts a qualitative methodology based on a descriptive-analytical approach and is conducted through library-based research. The findings demonstrate that digital assets possess a hybrid legal nature, incorporating both the characteristics of tangible proprietary rights and elements of intellectual property rights. They further indicate that neither absolute protection of ownership nor its complete restriction has proven effective. Instead, the most appropriate policy consists of recognizing digital proprietary rights while simultaneously providing for general limitations and exceptions. Accordingly, it is proposed that the Iranian legislature enact a separate chapter entitled “Ownership and Digital Data” and revise the existing legal framework to expressly encompass cryptocurrencies, tokens, and smart contracts.
Keywords
Property Rights
Digital Age
Digital Assets
Theoretical Foundations
Policymaking
Iranian Law
Subjects
  1. Aghaei, M. (2020). Personal data as property: A legal approach in the digital age. Judiciary Research Institute Press. (in Persian)
  2. Emami, S. H. (1993). Civil law (Vol. 1). Eslamiyeh Publications. (in Persian)
  3. Eshraghi arani, M., & Ghorbannia, A. M. (2025). Feasibility of enforcement of restitution order regarding virtual currencies, a comparative study of Iranian and American law. Journal of Research and Development in Private Law. DOI: 10.22034/jpl.2025.721252 (in Persian)
  4. Jafari-Langeroudi, M. J. (2009). Terminology of law. Ganj-e Danesh. (in Persian)
  5. Jafari-Langeroudi, M. J. (2016). Terminology of law. Ganj-e Danesh. (in Persian)
  6. Habiba, S., & Nabavi, M. (2025). Protection of Intellectual Property Rights of Big Data. Journal of Research and Development in Public Law. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22034/jrpl.2025.721657 (in Persian)
  7. Hosseini, M. (2020). Intellectual property rights in the context of emerging technologies. Mizan Publishing. (in Persian)
  8. Khalili, M. (2021). Digital ownership law and emerging challenges. Mizan Publishing. (in Persian)
  9. Khalili, M. R. (2022). A comparative study of digital property and ownership in Iranian and French law. Journal of Technology Law Studies, 28–49. (in Persian)
  10. Dehghani, A. M. (2020). Legal challenges of data ownership in Iran. Quarterly Journal of Private Law Studies, 75–98. (in Persian)
  11. Rahimi, S. (2021). Intellectual property rights in cyberspace. Information Technology Law Quarterly, 2, 55–80. (in Persian)
  12. Zare, M. R. (2021). Validity of smart contracts in the Iranian legal system. Private Law Research Quarterly, 85–108. (in Persian)
  13. Safari, H. R. (2022). Ownership in the Metaverse: Challenges and opportunities. Modern Legal Research Journal, 105–125. (in Persian)
  14. Sharifi, E. (2022). Data law and ownership in the digital age. Allameh Tabataba’i University Press. (in Persian)
  15. Sharifi, M. (2022). Cryptocurrency ownership and its legal challenges. Modern Legal Research Quarterly, 41–89. (in Persian)
  16. Mousavi, R. (2022). A comparative study of the legal system of digital ownership in Iran and the European Union. Comparative Law Research Journal, 120–145. (in Persian)
  17. Mousavi, S. (2021). A comparative study of Iran’s e-commerce law and international regulations. Research Institute for Culture and Islamic Thought. (in Persian)
  18. Mousavi, F. (2023). Jurisprudential and legal analysis of ownership of crypto-assets. Journal of Jurisprudence and New Technology Law, 43–62. (in Persian)
  19. Katouzian, N. (2011). Civil law: Persons and property (21st ed.). Joint Stock Publishing Company. (in Persian)
  20. Katouzian, N. (2012). Civil law: Persons and property. Joint Stock Publishing Company. (in Persian)

21.  Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. University of Minnesota Press.

22.  Beale, H. G. (Ed.). (2019). Chitty on Contracts (33rd ed.). Sweet & Maxwell.

23.  Benkler, Y. (2006). The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. Yale University Press.

24.  De Filippi, P., & Wright, A. (2022). Blockchain and the Law: The Rule of Code (2nd ed.). Harvard University Press.

25.  Desai, D. R., & Riedl, M. (2024). Between copyright and computer science: The law and ethics of generative AI. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.14653

26.  DLA Piper. (2022). Exploring the metaverse: What laws will apply? DLA Piper Insights. https://www.dlapiper.com/enOM/insights/publications/2022/02/exploring-the-metaverse

27.  Eisenmann, T. (2013). Platform Markets and Two-Sided Network Effects. Management Science, 59(1), 24–39.

28.  European Commission. (2020). Consumer Protection in the Digital Age.

29.  Fairfield, J. A. T. (2015). Virtual Property. Boston University Law Review, 85, 1047–1102.

30.  Fisher, E. (2023). Law, Technology and the Digital Constitution. Oxford University Press.

31.  Floridi, L. (2022). The Ethics of the Digital. Oxford University Press.

32.  Gautam, M. (2022). Ownership in the Metaverse: Legal Reality of Virtual Property Rights. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 36(1), 101–130.

33.  Harvard Law Review. (2021). Digital Assets: The Case for Legal Protection.

34.  Kowalski, M., & Nowak, A. (2023). The Transformation of Legal Knowledge in the Age of Digital Reason. Law and Philosophy, 42(3), 451–475.

35.  Linyi, X., & Li, Z. (2025). Enhancing systematic interoperability: Convergences and mismatches between Web 3.0 and the EU Data Act. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.07356

36.  MIT Press. Capitalism.

37.  Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.

38.  OECD. (2019). The Importance of Intellectual Property Protection in Digital Markets.

39.  Purtova, N. (2021). Data as the New Source of Power: Property, Control, and Regulation. Yale Journal of Law & Technology, 23(2), 301–356.

40.  Riabchenko, A., & Onyshchenko, O. (2025). Digital Sovereignty and Transnational Legal Order. European Review of Private Law, 33(1), 87–110.

41.  Rosen, M. (2021). NFTs and Copyright: Who Really Owns What in the Metaverse? Stanford Technology Law Review, 24(2), 151–179.

42.  Samuelson, P., & Scotchmer, S. (2002). The Law and Economics of Intellectual Property in the Digital Age. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(2), 157–182.

43.  Schwab, K., & Malleret, T. (2021). The Great Reset. World Economic Forum.

44.  Sims, A. (2023). Jurisdiction and Legal Risks in the Metaverse. Journal of Digital Law & Policy, 9(2), 65–89.

45.  Sprankling, J. G. (2014). Understanding Property Law (3rd ed.). Carolina Academic Press.

46.  Walch, A. (2023). Algorithmic Authority and the Future of Legal Trust. Stanford Technology Law Review, 26(2), 215–260.

47.  WIPO. (2019). Intellectual Property and Innovation in the Digital Age.

48.  WIPO. (2021). The Impact of Blockchain on Intellectual Property.

49.  World Bank. (2018). Intellectual Property Rights and Economic Development.

50.  Wyczik, J. (2024). Ownership in the 21st century: Property law of digital assets. Information & Communications Technology Law, 33(2), 145–167.

51.  Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. PublicAffairs.

Send comment about this article
Enter Name.
Enter a valid email address.
Enter a vaid affiliation.
Enter comments (At leaset 10 words)
CAPTCHA Image
Enter Security Code Correctly.