Philosopher: Legal theorists often posit that the core of any property right is the inherent authority to exclude others from its use. This traditional exclusionary framework is profoundly ill-suited to govern the ownership of digital assets. The moral justification for exclusionary rights has historically rested upon the necessity of preventing the depletion of rivalrous goods, which are items whose utilization by one individual diminishes their availability for others. Digital assets, however, are fundamentally non-rivalrous, as an infinite number of individuals can simultaneously interact with a digital good without degrading its utility. The primary material condition that renders exclusivity morally imperative is entirely absent in the digital domain.
Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the philosopher's argument?
- The traditional conception of property rights based on exclusivity is inappropriate for regulating digital assets.Answer
- BThe primary material condition that justifies the moral necessity of exclusionary rights does not exist for digital goods.
- CThe fundamental essence of a property right is generally understood by legal theorists to be the authority to exclude others from utilizing it.
- DDue to their non-rivalrous nature, digital assets can be used by an infinite number of people concurrently without any loss of utility.
- ELegal theorists must abandon traditional property laws and devise a completely novel legal system to govern intellectual and digital property.