As a result of technological progress, established traditional legal concepts require constant refi nement to permit their optimal regulation. For example, virtual (digital) “things” — or tokens (NFTs) — are subject to disputes concerning whether it is preferable to rely on a traditional legal institution (e.g., property and intellectual property) or create a completely new regime “from scratch”. Using historical and comparative legal methods based on doctrinal sources, the present work explores the concepts of thing and property in the common law of nation states. The closest functional analogues in the civil law systems the res (“thing”) and in rem (“right”) are compared. Common law in rem rights are established to have emerged in the Middle Ages in form of the feudal system of different statuses with respect to land (estates). Later, under the infl uence of Wesley Hohfeld’s research on legal opposites and correlatives, this system was substantially modernized through the deconstruction of property into a “bundle of rights”. An analysis of a published translation of Joshua Fairfi eld’s article convincingly demonstrates that cryptocurrency, just as any token, is indistinguishable in its principal aspects from a “thing” in the civil-law sense. A similar conclusion is reached in the context of Russian law: the main criteria of “thingness” — materiality and the possibility of being the object of exclusive possession — are equally fulfi lled when it comes to tokens, land plots or chairs in one’s apartment. Accordingly, intuitive notions about things as products having real nature are obviously outdated and should be replaced with a jurisprudential understanding of the “thing” as a result of social interaction, rather than having a certain nature in and of itself. The important functions of materiality consist in a reduction of information costs for participants in legal relations due to the natural formation of intuitive expectations, as well as prejudices about the scope and characteristics of these rights.

Property law in the twentieth century moved from the law of things to the law of rights in things. This was a process of fragmentation: Under Hohfeldian property, we conceive of property as a bundle of sticks, and those sticks can be moved to different holders; the right to possess can be separated from the record ownership right, for example. The downside of Hohfeld’s model is that physical objects — things — become informationally complicated. Thing-ness constrains the extravagances of Hohfeldian property: although we can split off the right to possess from the right to exclude, use, destroy, copy, manage, repair, and so on, there is a gravitational pull to tie these sticks back into a useful bundle centered on the asset, the thing. Correspondingly, there has been an “informational turn” to property law, looking at the ways in which property law serves to limit property forms to reduce search costs, and to identify and celebrate the informational characteristics of thing-ness. The question of thing-ness came to a head in the context of digital and smart assets with the formation of non-fungible tokens. NFTs were attempts to generate and sell “things” a conceptually coherent something that can contain a loose bundle of rights. The project was an attempt to re-create thingness by an amalgam of cryptography, game theory, and intellectual property. This essay discusses thing-ness in the context of digital assets, how simulated thing-ness differs from physical thing-ness, and the problems that arise from attempts to reify digital assets.

Until recently, intellectual creativity was considered as an exclusively human phenomenon and intellectual property legislation was built on the basis of motivating and enhancing human inventiveness. This self-evident assumption is being challenged due to the development of artificial intelligence technologies in the recent decades. In this article author analyzes some aspects of intellectual property law development, including the possibility of recognizing an artificial intelligence as a creator of intellectual activity results. The author examines the legal status of artificial intelligence under Armenian law and foreign intellectual property legislation, analyzes existing approaches to the legal regime and intellectual property ownership of objects created with the help of artificial intelligence. The paper aims to determine the proper right holder to content generated by artificial intelligence and formulate some policy prospects of artificial intelligence regulation. The methodological basis of the research includes general scientific and special legal methods. The author places particular emphasis on the dogmatic (doctrinal) research methods, which made it possible to analyze existing approaches to protection of intellectual property rights. The research is also based on the comparative legal method and analytical legal method of commenting current law of Armenia and foreign countries. The results of the study allow author to substantiate that the actual right holder to the content produced by the neural network is the programmer of the underlying algorithm system. The author concludes that the construction of a solid legislative system should be carried out taking into account the specifics of the areas of application of artificial intelligence, ensuring a balance between the interests of individuals, society and the state related to the development of innovative technology.

Today, the necessary grounds for considering the prospect of deep integration of metaverse technology in the life of society already exist. Modern scientific studies indicate that many legal institutions will be transformed along with the development of metaverses. Hence, there is a need to study the development of theoretical and practical issues regarding the convergence of law and metaverses. The author attempts to generalize some problems pertaining to the legal regulation of public relations in metaverse conditions and offers scientifically grounded options for their possible solution. The dominant method used in this study is legal modelling, which makes it possible to form a general concept of the future synergy of law and metaverses. The author also employed scientific research methods, including legal prediction, comparative-legal, formal-legal, and others. The study made it possible to draw the following conclusions: (1) Today, the possibility of developing uniform international regulation pertaining to metaverses is still unlikely. Countries need to develop their own metaverses, which simplifies the development of corresponding legislation. (2) Creating metaverses in Russia will ensure the country’s international leadership in the digital economy. A regulatory sandbox mechanism can be used to shape legislation on metaverses. (3) Based on the specifics of the Russian legal system, the author has identified certain areas where legislation can be transformed to apply to metaverses. The results of the study will contribute to the development of Russian legal thought on metaverses.

The rapid progress of technology and increasing globalization have led to various outcomes in the financial market. This commentary delves into an effort to incorporate digital financial instruments into Russia’s legal framework, with particular focus on the digital ruble. The potential introduction of this digital asset aims to address contemporary economic challenges by restructuring the Russian financial system. The commentary focuses on the legal features and business implications associated with the introduction of the digital ruble, placing it within the broader context of digital assets and their potential impact on the Russian economy. In their methodology, the authors rely on a formal legal, technologically efficient, and systemic approach. The commentary outlines the constraints on possible transformations dictated by the regulatory framework accompanying the introduction of the digital ruble and influenced by the economic nature of digital currency. The article concludes that, while digital financial assets could become a vital part of economic transactions, their introduction should be approached with great caution, and under vigilant oversight of the Bank of Russia. The anticipated integration of the digital ruble is expected to positively affect the market but taking a balanced approach considering the legal, economic, and technological risks for businesses is crucial. Through an examination of the foundations of emerging legal regulation of digital financial assets and their economic characteristics, the authors have devised a ‘digitalization matrix’ — a comprehensive management model for integrating digital technologies into both the commercial and public sectors. The model proposes taking a matrix-based approach to managing digitalization processes, while underscoring the significance of pursuing a thorough and scientifically grounded strategy for implementing digital currencies.