No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
THE NEW THINGS: PROPERTY RIGHTS IN DIGITAL FILES?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 April 2022
Abstract
This paper looks at the property status of digital files, such as electronic documents, under English law. We argue that, while mere information is rightly not considered property, digital files are not mere information. Instead, they are distinct virtual objects that exist at the logical – or software – layer of a computer system. Property law could recognise digital files as a new, third kind of thing, alongside things in possession and in action. Doing so might help resolve disputes over access to digital files, by providing proprietary remedies similar to those available for paper documents.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Authors, 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge
Footnotes
*
Researcher and PhD Candidate, Cloud Legal Project, Centre for Commercial Law Studies, Queen Mary University of London.
**
Professor of Privacy and Information Law and Project Leader, Cloud Legal Project, Centre for Commercial Law Studies, Queen Mary University of London, and Senior Counsel, Bristows LLP. The authors of this paper are members of the Cloud Legal Project and are grateful to Microsoft for the generous financial support that has made this project possible. The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their detailed feedback, as well as Tatiana Cutts, Joshua Fairfield, Sarah Green, Louise Gullifer, Ken Moon and Chris Reed for their comments, all of which helped us improve the paper. Responsibility for views expressed, however, remains with the authors.
References
1 Goode, R., Commercial Law in the Next Millennium (London 1998), 59Google Scholar.
2 Nokes v Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries Ltd. [1940] A.C. 1014, 1051.
3 Law Commission, “Digital Assets Call for Evidence” (2021) and “Digital Assets Interim Update” (2021), both available at https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/digital-assets/#digital-assets-call-for-evidence (last accessed 19 January 2022).
4 See e.g. Oxford v Moss [1979] 68 Cr. App. R. 183, 185–86.
5 Mummery, J., “Property in the Digital Age” in Barr, W., Modern Studies in Property Law, vol. 8 (Oxford 2015), 5Google Scholar.
6 Your Response Ltd. v Business Media [2014] EWCA Civ 281, [2015] Q.B. 41.
7 Mummery, “Property in the Digital Age”, 5. The non-proprietary status of confidential information is discussed further below.
8 See e.g. Paddy Ashdown, MP PC v Telegraph Group [2001] EWCA Civ 1142, 31–35.
9 Mummery, “Property in the Digital Age”, 10.
10 K. Gray, “Property in Thin Air” (1991) C.L.J. 252, 280–83.
11 Penner, J., “The ‘Bundle of Rights’ Picture of Property” (1996) 43 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. 711, 712–14Google Scholar.
12 Penner, J., The Idea of Property in Law (Oxford 2010), 71, 128Google Scholar.
13 Fairstar Heavy Transport v Adkins & Anor [2013] EWCA Civ 886, [2013] 2 C.L.C. 272, at [47].
14 Nat'l Provincial Bank Ltd. v Ainsworth [1965] A.C. 1175, 1247–48.
15 Gray, “Property in Thin Air”, 293; K. Gray and S. Gray, Elements of Land Law, 5th ed. (Oxford 2009), 97.
16 L. Bennett Moses, “The Applicability of Property Law in New Contexts: From Cells to Cyberspace” [2008] Syd. L.R. 648.
17 Mummery, “Property in the Digital Age”, 9.
18 Ibid.
19 Penner, Idea of Property in Law, 111–13.
20 Ibid.
21 Green, S. and Randall, J., The Tort of Conversion (Oxford 2009), 120–23Google Scholar; Law Commission, “Digital Assets Call for Evidence”, 9.
22 OBG v Allan [2007] UKHL 21, [2008] 1 A.C. 1, at [309].
23 Fairstar Heavy Transport v Adkins and Anor [2013] EWCA Civ 886, at [47].
24 Gray and Gray, Elements of Land Law, 98.
25 Don King Productions Inc. v Warren (No.1) [2000] Ch. 291.
26 Performing Right Society Ltd. v Rowland [1997] 3 All E.R. 336; In Re Landau [1998] Ch. 223.
27 The Insolvency Act 1986, s. 436.
28 Lord Strathcona Steamship Co. Ltd. v Dominion Coal Co. Ltd. [1926] A.C. 108, 124.
29 Linden Gardens v Lenesta [1994] 1 A.C. 85, at [16]. Lord Browne-Wilkinson considered that a contractual prohibition on assignment “renders the chose in action inalienable”. M. Bridge et al., The Law of Personal Property, 3rd ed. (London 2021), [8-029], [24-035].
30 Halsbury's Laws of England, vol. 13 (London 2017), [80], [100]–[101]; M. Smith and N. Leslie, The Law of Assignment, 3rd ed. (Oxford 2018), [24.01]–[24.04]; Bridge et al., Law of Personal Property, [24-021]; Penner, Idea of Property in Law, 116.
31 Bridge, M., Personal Property Law, 4th ed. (Oxford 2015), 26Google Scholar; Green and Randall, Tort of Conversion, 141–42.
32 Gray, “Property in Thin Air”, 268–70.
33 T. Cutts, “Crypto-property?, Response to Public Consultation by the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce” (2019) LSE Policy Briefing 36, 3, available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3406736 (last accessed 11 January 2022).
34 Fox, D., “Cryptocurrencies in the Common Law of Property” in Fox, D. and Green, S. (eds.), Cryptocurrencies in Public and Private Law (Oxford 2019), [6.22]Google Scholar.
35 P. Kohler and N. Palmer, “Information as Property” in N. Palmer and E. McKendrick, Interests in Goods, 2nd ed. (London 1998), 4.
36 Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd. [1968] F.S.R. 415 (Ch.).
37 The Trade Secrets (Enforcement, etc.) Regulations 2018.
38 T. Aplin, “Confidential Information as Property?” (2013) King's Law Journal 172 and cases cited therein, including Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 A.C. 46; Douglas v Hello! [2005] EWCA Civ 595, [2006] Q.B. 125; and Phillips v News Group Newspapers Ltd. [2012] UKSC 28, [2013] 1 A.C. 1. Cf. Veolia ES Nottinghamshire Limited v Nottinghamshire County Council [2010] EWCA Civ 1214, [2012] P.T.S.R. 185 and Coogan v News Group Newspapers Ltd. [2012] EWCA Civ 48, [2012] 2 W.L.R. 848.
39 Mummery, “Property in the Digital Age”, 11.
40 Fairstar Heavy Transport v Adkins and Anor [2013] EWCA Civ 886, at [47].
41 Your Response v Business Media [2014] EWCA Civ 281, at [42].
42 Daintith, J. and Wright, E., A Dictionary of Computing, 6th ed. (Oxford 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, under “file”.
43 This aphorism, common in statistics, is generally attributed to George Box.
44 Benkler, Y., “From Consumers to Users: Shifting the Deeper Structures of Regulation toward Sustainable Commons and User Access” (2000) 52 F.C.L.J. 561, 561–62Google Scholar.
45 Gleason, D. and Friedman, L., “Proposal for an Accessible Conception of Cyberspace” (2005) 3 J. Inf. Commun. Ethics Soc. 15Google Scholar.
46 Moon, K., “The Nature of Computer Programs: Tangible? Goods? Personal Property? Intellectual Property” (2009) 8 E.I.P.R. 2Google Scholar.
47 Huguenin-Love, J., “Song on Wire: A Technical Analysis of ReDigi and the Pre-owned Digital Media Marketplace” (2014) 4 J.I.P.E.L. 15Google Scholar. For more detail, see Bridge et al., Law of Personal Property, [8-006]–[8-010].
48 Daintith and Wright, Dictionary of Computing, under “file name”.
49 Gleason and Friedman, “Accessible Conception of Cyberspace”.
50 Strate, L., “The Varieties of Cyberspace: Problems in Definition and Delimitation” (1999) 63 Western Journal of Communication 396CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
51 Daintith and Wright, Dictionary of Computing, under “address, file management, location”; Bridge et al., Law of Personal Property, [8-012].
52 Daintith and Wright, Dictionary of Computing, under “access path”.
53 D. Harvey, “Case Note: Digital Property – Dixon v R” (2017) 31 N.Z.C.L.R. 206; Bridge et al., Law of Personal Property, [8-010].
54 Green and Randall, Tort of Conversion, 123.
55 Ibid., at 120–23.
56 Dixon v R [2014] NZCA 329, at [31]–[32].
57 Dixon v R [2015] NZSC 147, at [25], [53]. Harvey has criticised this ruling, arguing that a digital file does not exist independently of the technological process that recreates it every time a user opens it on a screen. See Harvey, “Case Note: Digital Property – Dixon v R”, 207–08; Harvey, D., Collisions in the Digital Paradigm (Oxford 2017), 134–35Google Scholar. Similarly, Bridge and others criticise the ruling, arguing that the icon of a digital file is merely a metaphor for information stored on the physical carrier. See Bridge et al., Law of Personal Property, [8-017].
58 Henderson v Walker [2019] NZHC 2184, at [266], [270].
59 Bridge et al., Law of Personal Property, [8-011].
60 W.K. Hon, C. Millard and J. Singh, “Control, Security, and Risk in the Cloud” in C. Millard, Cloud Computing Law, 2nd ed. (Oxford 2021); Bridge et al., Law of Personal Property, [8-011].
61 G. Cantrell and J. Runs Through, “The Five Levels of Data Destruction” (2019) International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence 133, available at https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9071161 (last accessed 11 January 2022).
62 K.R. Choo, C. Esposito and A. Castiglione, “Evidence and Forensics in the Cloud” (2017) 4 IEEE Cloud Computing 14.
63 Cf. K. Low and D. Llewelyn, “Digital Files as Property in the New Zealand Supreme Court: Innovation or Confusion?” (2016) 132 L.Q.R. 396.
64 See e.g. Bridge et al., Law of Personal Property, [8-016] noting that a “transfer in the law of property … immediately deprives the transferor of the thing transferred rather than potentially doing so over time depending on whether new information is written over the ‘deleted’ file”.
65 Cf. ibid., at [8-012] noting that digital copying can cause degradation of quality in case of errors, especially when large quantities of data are copied at the same time.
66 This analysis becomes more complicated where digital files are stored in the cloud and the cloud service user interface permits multiple users to access and edit the file at the same time, as with Google Docs or Office 365.
67 J. Fairfield, “Virtual Property” (2005) 85 B.U.L. Rev. 1047.
68 See cases discussed below.
69 Cutts, “Crypto-property?”, 3; C. Zellweger-Gutknecht, “Developing the Right Regulatory Regime for Cryptocurrencies and Other Value Data” in Fox and Green, Cryptocurrencies in Public and Private Law, 59.
70 Ruscoe v Cryptopia Ltd. (in liq.) [2020] NZHC 728, at [127].
71 UK Jurisdiction Taskforce, “Legal Statement on Cryptoassets and Smart Contracts” (2019), 16–17, available at https://technation.io/lawtech-uk-resources/#cryptoassets (last accessed 11 January 2022).
72 Armstrong DLW GmbH v Winnington Networks Ltd. [2012] EWHC 10 (Ch), [2013] Ch. 156 discussed below.
73 Hanger Holdings v Perlake Corporation S.A. [2021] EWHC 81 (Ch), [2021] Bus. L.R. 544; OBG v Allan [2007] UKHL 21, at [101]. See further in the US and Canada: Kremen v Cohen, 337 f.3d 1024, 1036 (9th cir. 2003); Tucows.com Co. v Lojas Renner S.A., 2011 ONCA 548; Canivate Growing Systems Ltd. v Brazier, 2020 BCSC 232.
74 Cutts, “Crypto-property?”, 3.
75 See Judgment of 3 July 2012, UsedSoft v Oracle International Corp, C-128/11, EU:C:2012:407; Capitol Records, LLC v ReDigi Inc., No. 16-2321 (2d Cir. 2018); Judgment of 19 December 2019, Nederlands Uitgeversverbond, v Tom Kabinet Internet BV, C-263/18, EU:C:2019:1111, regarding second-hand sales of software licences, music and e-books, respectively.
76 Trade Secrets Regulations 2018, s. 14(1)(d).
77 Regulation (EU) No 2016/679 (OJ 2016 L 119 p.1), art. 15.
78 See e.g. Invista Textiles (UK) Ltd. v Botes [2019] EWHC 58 (Ch), [2019] I.R.L.R. 977, at [192], where “Company Property” was defined under contract to include all copies of documents however stored or made.
79 Bridge, Personal Property Law, 13; Halsbury's Laws of England, vol. 80, [806].
80 Halsbury's Laws of England, vol. 12 (London 2017), [1]; Smith and Leslie, Law of Assignment, [2.76].
81 Halsbury's Laws of England, vol. 12, [5]–[9]; Smith and Leslie, The Law of Assignment, [2.73].
82 Bridge et al., Law of Personal Property, [4-004]; Halsbury's Laws of England, vol. 80, [806]; UK Patents Act 1977, s. 30(1).
83 Colonial Bank v Whinney (1885) 30 Ch. D. 261, 11 (dissenting). On appeal Colonial Bank v Whinney (1886) 11 App. Cas. 426.
84 Allgemeine Versicherungs-Gesellschaft Helvetia v Administrator of German Property [1931] 1 K.B. 672, 704.
85 Your Response v Business Media [2014] EWCA Civ 281, at [13], [26].
86 Ibid., at [22], [23].
87 Armstrong v Winnington Networks [2012] EWHC 10 (Ch), at [41].
88 Ibid., at [51].
89 Figuring out which transistors hold which bits would be complicated, because storage of bits is managed at the logical layer, by file management software.
90 Huguenin-Love, “Song on Wire”, 21.
91 Moon, “Nature of Computer Programs”, 5.
92 See Fairfield, “Virtual Property”, 1076–78 for a separate argument in favour of recognizing property rights in digital objects at the logical layer, based on economic efficiency.
93 W.K. Hon, C. Millard and J. Singh, “Cloud Technologies and Services” in Millard, Cloud Computing Law, 11.
94 Green and Randall, Tort of Conversion, 109–11, 120–23. Cf. Bridge et al., Law of Personal Property, [8-013] and [8-015] arguing that this account of control over a digital file fails to distinguish the metaphor of a file from the fact of its storage on a physical carrier.
95 Your Response v Business Media [2014] EWCA Civ 281, at [27].
96 Law Commission, “Digital Assets Call for Evidence”, 7.
97 Armstrong v Winnington Networks [2012] EWHC 10 (Ch), at [42], [50].
98 Ibid., at [40], [49], [50], [55], [61].
99 Ibid., at [61], [88], [94], [287]. The case has been criticised for applying a proprietary remedy where a claim of unjust enrichment was more appropriate, see Mitchell, C., Mitchell, P. and Watterson, S., Goff & Jones: The Law of Unjust Enrichment, 9th ed. (London 2016), [8.12]–[8.26]Google Scholar.
100 UK Jurisdiction Taskforce, “Legal Statement”, 15.
101 Ibid., at 18, 22. Cf. Bridge et al., Law of Personal Property, [8-049] arguing that the Legal Statement should be read as expressing a preference for recognising cryptocurrencies as falling within a broad definition of things in action.
102 AA v Persons Unknown [2019] EWHC 3556, [2020] 4 W.L.R. 35, at [58], [59], [63].
103 Ibid., at [39], [55].
104 Ibid., at [58], [59].
105 Ibid.
106 Law Commission, “Digital Assets Call for Evidence”, 7.
107 K. Moon, “Is Software Goods, or Even Property? A Recommendation for Sui Generis Categories” (2018) Society for Computers and Law Magazine, available at https://www.scl.org/articles/10240-is-software-goods-or-even-property-a-recommendation-for-sui-generis-categories (last accessed 11 January 2022).
108 Cf. K. Low, “Quoines in Cryptopia: When (If Ever) Are Cryptoasset Exchanges Trustees?” (2020) C.P.L. 1.
109 See discussion below.
110 Cutts, “Crypto-property?”, 4.
111 Bennett Moses, “Applicability of Property Law in New Contexts”, 654.
112 Fairfield, “Virtual Property”, 1065–67.
113 Bridge, Personal Property Law, 87–90; Lawson, F.H., Remedies of English Law, 2nd ed. (Oxford 1980), 124Google Scholar; OBG v Allan [2007] UKHL 21, at [21], [95], [99], [100]; Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977, ss. 3, 14.
114 Armstrong v Winnington Networks [2012] EWHC 10 (Ch), at [85]; Fox, “Cryptocurrencies in the Common Law of Property”, [6.103].
115 Your Response v Business Media [2014] EWCA Civ 281, at [23].
116 Ibid., at [32]–[34], [36].
117 K. Low, “The Perils of Misusing Property Concepts in Contractual Analysis” (2014) 130 L.Q.R. 547, 552. See also Bridge et al., Law of Personal Property, [8-014].
118 Fairstar Heavy Transport v Adkins & Anor [2013] EWCA Civ 886, at [21]–[27].
119 Ibid., at [46]–[57].
120 See further J.D. Michels and C. Millard, “Digital Assets in Clouds” in Millard, Cloud Computing Law.
121 Hon et al., “Cloud Technologies and Services”. For example, if the provider of a layered SaaS service becomes insolvent, a SaaS customer would not be able to rely on contractual rights to seek the return of its files from the underlying IaaS-provider, since there is (typically) no direct contractual relationship between SaaS customer and IaaS-provider.
122 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, ss. 27(2), 99.
123 Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997, r. 23.
124 Directive No 96/9/EC (OJ 1996 L 77 p. 20), art. 7(2).
125 Thyroff v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 864 N.E.2d 1272, 1273 (N.Y. 2007).
126 Ibid.
127 Henderson v Walker [2019] NZHC 2184.
128 Ibid., at [263]–[267]. Bridge and others criticise this ruling for failing to recognise the technical differences between the transfer and destruction of tangible objects on the one hand, and transfer and deletion of digital files on the other. See Bridge et al., Law of Personal Property, [8-018].
129 Henderson v Walker [2019] NZHC 2184, at [267], [268]. In this case, the action in conversion failed on the facts, since the liquidator had not deleted the files from the laptop, nor refused the director access to the files stored on the laptop. Ibid., at [274]–[276].
130 Ibid., at [270].
131 Bridge et al., Law of Personal Property, [8-013]. See also S. Geiregat, “Digital Exhaustion of Copyright after CJEU Judgment in Ranks and Vasil¸evičs” (2017) C.L.S.R. 33, 534.
132 Although the server might still be fully functional, it could be argued that in obtaining unlawful access to B's server and deleting the file, Charles has reduced the server's usefulness to Bill, thereby damaging his property.
133 For a similar argument, see Fairfield, “Virtual Property”, 1081.
134 Admittedly, Alice might have alternative legal remedies against Charles, such as in tort law, as well as against D, such as a request to access personal data under data protection law or an order for delivery up of an infringing copy under copyright law. As discussed above, such alternative remedies would apply only in certain cases, such as when the file contains a protected work and Alice holds the relevant copyright. In any event, in our view, the availability of alternative remedies in some cases does not justify restricting the analysis under property law to the physical layer only.
135 OBG v Allan [2007] UKHL 21, at [107].
136 Ibid., at [95] citing Fowler v Hollins (1871–72) L.R. 7 Q.B. 616, 639.
137 Cutts, “Crypto-property?”, 4.
138 Tettenborn, A., “Liability for Interfering with Intangibles” (2006) 122 L.Q.R. 31, 33Google Scholar.
139 Cutts, “Crypto-property?”, 4.
140 See also Bridge et al., Law of Personal Property, [8-015].
141 Palmer, N., Palmer on Bailment, 3rd ed. (London 2009)Google Scholar, [6-004]–[6-022]; Chitty on Contracts, 34th ed., vol. 2 (London, 2021), [35-036]. Cf. Bridge et al., Law of Personal Property, [12-013].
142 Cutts, “Crypto-property?”, 4.
143 Cf. Bridge et al., Law of Personal Property, [8-015] arguing that this would undermine B's property rights in the USB stick.
144 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s. 11.
145 See M. Schellekens, “What Holds Off-line, Also Holds On-line?” in B.J. Koops et al., Starting Points for ICT Regulation, Deconstructing Prevalent Policy One-Liners, vol. 9 (The Hague 2006).
146 C. Reed, “Online and Offline Equivalence: Aspiration and Achievement” (2010) 18 I.J.L.I.T 248.
147 OBG v Allan [2007] UKHL 21, at [317].
148 See e.g. G. Vos, “Cryptoassets as Property: How Can English Law Boost the Confidence of Would-be Parties to Smart Legal Contracts?” (2019) Joint Northern Chancery Bar Association and University of Liverpool Lecture, available at https://www.judiciary.uk/announcements/speech-by-sir-geoffrey-vos-chancellor-of-the-high-court-cryptoassets-as-property/ (last accessed 12 January 2022).
149 See e.g. K. Low, “Bitcoins as Property: Welcome Clarity?” (2020) 136 L.Q.R. 345.
150 See e.g. Financial Markets Law Committee, “Issues of Legal Uncertainty Arising in the Context of Virtual Currencies” (2016), 8, available at http://fmlc.org/report-virtual-currencies-18-july-2016/ (last accessed 12 January 2022).
151 In Elena Vorotyntseva v Money-4 Ltd. [2018] EWHC 2596 (Ch), the High Court issued a proprietary injunction preventing the removal of certain cryptocurrency holdings. The defendant had not disputed the property status of cryptocurrency and the court did not further discuss this issue. In Ion Science Ltd. v Persons Unknown and others (unreported), 21 December 2020 (Commercial Court), the High Court also applied a proprietary injunction to bitcoin. Butcher J. accepted that bitcoin were property, without determining the type of property involved. For cases from the Supreme Court of British Columbia, see Copytrack Pte Ltd. v Wall [2018] BCSC 1709 and Shair.Com Global Digital Services Ltd. v Arnold [2018] BCSC 1512. In both cases, the court applied proprietary remedies of preservation and recovery to cryptocurrencies, without explicit discussion of property rights.
152 Law Commission, “Digital Assets Interim Update”, 4.
153 Fetch.ai Ltd. and Anor v Persons Unknown Category A and others [2021] EWHC 2254 (Comm), at [9]. Pelling Q.C. did not address the question of how to categorise cryptocurrencies in detail, nor refer to AA v Persons Unknown [2019] EWHC 3556, [2020] 4 W.L.R. 35.
154 Ruscoe v Cryptopia Ltd. (in liq.) [2020] NZHC 728 at [55]–[69]. See New Zealand Companies Act, s. 2.
155 Ibid., at [102]–[121].
156 Ibid., at [124].
157 B2C2 Ltd. v Quoine Pte Ltd. [2019] 4 SLR 17, at [142]. The Judge accepted that “there may be some academic debate as to the precise nature of the property right”.
158 Quoine Pte Ltd. v B2C2 Ltd. [2020] SGCA(I) 02, at [144].
159 See Halsbury's Laws of England, vol. 13, [1].
160 L. Chambers and C. Buckingham, “Intangible Property and Proprietary Restitution in the High Court” [2013] L.M.C.L.Q. 296, 299, 304.
161 Low and Llewelyn, “Digital Files as Property”, 397.
162 Low, K. and Lin, J., “Carbon Credits as EU Like It: Property, Immunity, TragiCO2medy?” (2015) 27 J.E.L. 402Google Scholar.
163 Low, “Quoines in Cryptopia”, 80.
164 Low and Llewelyn, “Digital Files as Property”, 397.
165 Low, K. and Teo, E., “Bitcoins and Other Cryptocurrencies as Property?” (2017) 9 L. Innov. Technol. 236, 252–53Google Scholar; Low, “Quoines in Cryptopia”, 70–81; Bridge et al., Law of Personal Property, [8-049].
166 Cf. Low and Teo, “Bitcoins and Other Cryptocurrencies as Property?”, 252 arguing that a registry entry is not a thing at all, but only a record of an ideational thing.
167 M. Solinas, “Bitcoiners in Wonderland” [2019] L.M.C.L.Q. 433, 439.
168 See e.g. T. Cutts and D. Goldstone, “Bitcoin Ownership and its Impact on Fungibility”, available a thttps://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-ownership-impact-fungibility/ (last accessed 16 April 2021).
169 See also Allen, J.G., “Property in Digital Coins” (2019) 8(1) E.P.L.J., 64, 97–100Google Scholar.
170 Theft Act 1968, s. 4(1).
171 Attorney General of Hong Kong v Nai-Keung [1987] 1 W.L.R. 1339. The wording of the 1970 Hong Kong Theft Ordinance is identical to the English Theft Act 1968.
172 See Law of 9 July 2013 Amending Article 67 of the Commercial Code (Lux.).
173 Erp, S. van, “Ownership of Data: The Numerus Clauses of Legal Objects” (2017) 6 Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference Journal 235, 253–54Google Scholar.
174 Michels and Millard, “Digital Assets in Clouds”; J.D. Michels, S. Hartung and C. Millard, “Digital Assets: A Call to Action” (2021), available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3925439 (last accessed 12 January 2022).
175 Your Response v Business Media [2014] EWCA Civ 281, at [39].
176 OBG v Allan [2007] UKHL 21, at [305].