Digital Ownership

Digital items are immaterial, and this is easy to prove.  Cryptocurrencies are not physical currencies.  Digital films are not physical discs.  Downloadable video games are not physical discs or cartridges.  They are not tangible objects or environments comprised of matter that can at least hypothetically be grasped.  This does not mean that they cannot or do not exist, only that they have no physical substance as a car, a Blu-ray, a hardcover book, or physical furniture would have.  It is logically possible for items and environments to exist within a virtual landscape or space metaphysically separated from the natural world except for the fact that technology, constructed out of materials originating in the external world, is what brings the virtual universe into existence.  It is indeed possible for physical things to bring nonphysical things into existence, and the notion of electronic technology birthing a virtual plane of reality is a conceptual example of this.

Even cultures that are heavily structured around ownership of property can still have thriving sales of virtual objects, especially with the legions of microtransactions dominating more and more of the gaming industry.  Indeed, everything from video game DLCs to NFTs is rather popular today.  Less popular is how little out of all the things that can be digitally purchased is actually owned by the buyer, as opposed to just licensed, rented, or used.  Digital ownership is only present in a fairly limited subset of virtual purchases.  If a company revokes access to a live service or goes out of business or, in some cases, if a simple internet connection is lost, digital items or services can be forfeited.  There are some digital items that one can directly own or preserve, but they are very specific in nature.

With something like streaming for movies, television, music, and even gaming, the only thing a person owns is access to the content, and even that is temporary unless there are continued payments.  With a digital purchase of a film, say, from Amazon Prime, one might not have to pay continuously for membership to a streaming service, but the movie is not owned in the strictest sense just there was a purchase; it is licensed.  Aditionally, without some way to access the internet, even this access is beyond someone's reach unless they have a way to download the flim itself.  The only way to own something purchased digitally is to download it to a device's self-contained storage if that is an option, but when downloading almost any form of content besides images or music can require large amounts of storage space or might still be dependent on a subscription to a service, this is a very restrictive method of doing one's best to ensure one still has what was paid for if the company that sold it dissolves or withdraws the license.

Digital ownership is in many cases an illusion or irrelevant to what it actually happening with strictly online purchases and media consumption.  The irony of digital purchases of this kind, the kind where there is no actual ownership even after payment, thriving in a society like America where physical private property is such an established norm is immense, deep irony, but it is the reason why physical ownership will always be superior to digital licenses as far as media goes when it comes to obtaining property.  With some purchases, like NFTs, there is no physical version to buy.  With others, entertainment in particular, there is often a physical release to mirror the digital one, and for consumers that have the money and the space, the physical purchase is much better at ensuring true ownership.  Yes, the physical medium that allows one to view a movie or play a game could deteriorate, or the digital software accessed through it could still sometimes be intertwined with internet features that could perhaps be used to lock users out of at least some aspects of the content, but this is the closest thing to property that a person could have with regards to media.

The very nature of ownership is such that physical items can be owned but not digital ones--unless one is somehow able to transfer the digital item to a device which can store it in the event of a company closing down, technical difficulties that obstruct internet access, or even the petty whims of a corporate figure leading to anti-consumer policies.  Misleading or vague corporate terms of use and the allure of convenience for consumers or profits for businesses cannot make digital ownership anything but the ownership of contingent, temporary, or limited access to something that might be available to own and use in a sense far more removed from whether a company stays running or decides to not shut down access.  In a great many instances, digital media does not belong to the buyer, or it can be easily revoked or lost based upon circumstances beyond the consumer's control.  The situational convenience of digital media remains, and it is of course irrational only to assume things or believe that which is conceptually false, not to actually buy things in a digital format, but the foundational nature of digital ownership is not what consumers might wish it to be.