Passage A
Traditional property law has long protected consumer sovereignty by granting purchasers absolute title over acquired items. Although digital goods such as electronic books and software differ physically from tangible goods, the principle of ownership must remain invariant. When consumers purchase digital content, they reasonably expect the right to resell, lend, and modify their copies without ongoing vendor surveillance or arbitrary revocation. Applying classical property rights to digital assets prevents corporate overreach and preserves personal autonomy.
Passage B
Treating digital files as traditional physical property fundamentally misunderstands the economics of digital information. Unlike physical goods, digital assets are non-rivalrous and infinitely replicable at near-zero marginal cost. Applying rigid property rules threatens innovation and ignores that modern software requires ongoing updates, security patches, and platform maintenance by developers. Digital markets are therefore best governed through flexible licensing agreements that balance user access with necessary creator control.
Based on the passages above, match each conceptual stance or analytical claim with its corresponding textual foundation.
- The primary justification for extending classical property protections to digital goodsProtecting consumer autonomy and preventing unilateral vendor revocation
- The primary economic rationale for rejecting traditional ownership models in favor of licensingThe non-rivalrous nature and near-zero duplication cost of digital assets
- A descriptive point of factual agreement acknowledged by both authorsDigital products possess distinct physical characteristics compared to tangible items