Umbra criptoactivelor. În Codul civil

Rezumat

The new digital economy often raises problems when it clashes with the legal traditionalism. It loos like the regulation is always lagging behind and the legal treatment of the new technologies is left to the contractual terms agreed by the parties. However, the legislator intervenes (some times in quite a brutal manner) especially in order to limit the contractual freedom by arguing that the new realities are able to cause harm to the unwary consumer. In addition, when the digital environment tries to compete with the signs of sovereignty (such as the currency), the state intervention is even harsher.
This paper tries to explain how the legal tradition could continue to be useful in explaining (post)modern phenomena. Classic legal institutions are flexible enough to accommodate these new realities. After (re)constructing the theory of intangible assets, the paper tests the usefulness of this blueprint in certain applications from recent case law.

„O suflare, care trece ca prin vine un fior”^[1]

„– Enigel, Enigel,

Ţi‑am adus dulceaţă, iacă.

(...)

– Rigă spân, (...)

Teamă mi‑e, te frângi curând,

Lasă. – Aşteaptă de te coace.

(...)

– Rigă Crypto, rigă Crypto,

(...)

Eu de umbră mult mă tem”^[2]

[1] Grigore Alexandrescu, Umbra lui Mircea. La Cozia.

[2] Ion Barbu, Riga Crypto şi Lapona Enigel.