The big concept is that you should own your “copy” of a game. IE I own my car, I can drill a hole in it, I can paint it a different color. I may or may not have to follow certain rules of what modifications I do on it to drive it on streets which is pretty reasonable, but if I want to use it in my backyard I can.

Now yes that doesn’t mean if say 3D printers were able to perfectly fabricate something like a car, that I could say make a fully functioning form of the car with whatever patented designs etc… the car manufacturer has on it and sell or give them away in bulk.

I do suppose that’s the one area where digital and physical create some divide. IE digital by definition has to be duplicated to be modified. hell technically it’s duplicated just to be used (as even a physical disk is copied to system memory over the course of playing it).

IMO I feel like a pretty fair rules set could be drafted for digital property.

IE a pretty simple digital items bill of rights:

You have a right to use a digital item on any device you own capable of playing it.

You have a right to modify it in any way shape or form you are capable of doing.

Games that either require, or have a significant portion of their gameplay that depends on a remote server, should have a declared date of which the servers are promised to be online till at the time of purchase, if the servers shut down prior to that declared date you should be entitled to a refund. (IE as that date approaches developers can either move that date further forward, or their buyers can be aware that the EOL of the game is not far),

Modifying your games either to run on any other hardware etc… should be allowed, copying to multiple devices that you own should be allowed, however developers have a right to refuse to allow modified games to connect to their servers.

I think the key point is, it’s not hard to write a digital property ownership ruleset, that covers almost any thinkable case, and allows a reasonable form of “ownership” of a digital item.