When we say that we own something, most of us hardly ever stop to think about what the ownership of something that we mention means to someone.
A person may own a piece of land, house, shares in a company, or a quantity of gold. A business may own a trademark, while a musician may hold rights to receive royalties from a song. These are different forms of ownership, they all share something fundamental that is a recognised relationship between a person or an organisation and something of value.
Traditionally, we have relied on documents, records, institutions, and legal systems to establish and protect these interconnected relationships.
If you own a house, you do not need to physically stand on the property to demonstrate your ownership. Your rights are supported by jurisdictionally recognised legal records. If you own shares in a company, your dividends and rights are recorded through established systems. If you hold money in a bank account, you may need to rely on the bank's records and legal obligations to establish your entitlement. In other words, much of what we call ownership already depends on trusted information from another party.
As societies become increasingly digital, an important question emerges: Could technology improve the way that we record, verify, understand, and manage the rights associated with what we own? This question lies at the heart of digital ownership.
However, before we discuss the trending modern technologies, it is important to understand something more fundamental. “Ownership is not simply about possessing an object. It is about the rights that exist behind it.”
Ownership is more than possession
There is a significant difference between physically holding something and legally owning it.
Consider an individual who owns agricultural land in Sri Lanka but lives in another District or overseas. That person does not need to be physically present on the land to retain ownership. Their rights depend on the applicable law and recognised records in that region or country; hence, it is not based on their physical location.
Similarly, an investor who owns shares in a company does not physically possess part of the company's land, buildings, machinery, or equipment. Instead, the investor holds a legally recognised interest that carries particular rights. Those rights may include receiving dividends, voting on certain company matters, or even benefiting from changes in the company's value.
In another instance, a musician may own exclusive rights of a song without possessing a physical object. A business may hold a licence permitting it to use particular intellectual property (IP). A university graduate holds a qualification that can be verified by the institution that awarded it. These examples demonstrate that ownership, rights, and entitlements can take many various forms.
They also reveal an important distinction of what a person owns is not always the same as what a person can physically hold. This basic understanding distinction becomes particularly relevant as the digital technology develops new ways of recording and representing rights.
Before asking whether something can become digital, we should first ask what right actually exists, who holds it, and how it is recognised.
A digital record does not automatically mean ownership
Imagine that a digital platform displays a record stating that you hold an interest connected to a quantity of physical gold. The record may look sophisticated. It may use advanced technology and provide information that can be checked electronically.
But, does that automatically mean that you own the gold? Not necessarily.
The important technical verification questions remain surprisingly traditional. Does the gold actually exist? Where is it stored? Who is responsible for holding it? What exactly does your recorded interest entitle you to? Can you request the delivery of the gold, or do you only have a contractual right to receive its monetary value? What happens if the organisation holding the gold experiences financial difficulties?
These questions cannot be answered simply by pointing to a digital record. A digital representation may provide useful evidence or assist to administer an arrangement, but, the rights behind it must still be genuine, clearly defined, and legally enforceable. This is the reason why this principle deserves particular attention.
Technology can represent ownership, but, technology alone does not create the legal right behind it. The distinction matters because emerging technologies are sometimes presented as though they can independently guarantee ownership.
In reality, legal recognition, contracts, institutions, governance, and accountability of a jurisdiction remain essential. Digital systems should strengthen these foundations where appropriate, not attempt to replace or amend them.
Why does the way that we record ownership matter?
Throughout human history, societies have developed different methods of recording ownership and rights.
Land records facilitate in establishing interests in property. The company register records of its shareholders. Financial institutions maintain records of its customers' accounts. Universities issue qualifications, while IP systems recognise particular rights. Each of these systems serve different purposes, but, they share a common objective: which is providing reliable information that people and institutions can trust.
However, records are not always easy to access, verify, or exchange. Information may be held by different organisations, maintained in different formats, or require several administrative steps before it can be confirmed. In some circumstances, this can create delays, additional costs, uncertainty, or even openings for error.
Digital technology may help address particular problems: a trusted digital credential could allow an employer to verify a qualification more efficiently. A secure electronic record could improve the ability to trace a product through a supply chain. Better-connected information systems could potentially reduce unnecessary duplication.
Digitisation does not automatically make information accurate. If incorrect information is entered into a digital system, the technology may simply preserve or distribute that incorrect information more efficiently. This is why the quality of the underlying information, the authority of whoever provides it, and the safeguards surrounding the system are so important.
The objective should not be to create digital records simply because the technology exists, it should be to make reliable information more useful, accessible, and trustworthy.
What could this mean in everyday Sri Lankan life?
When we say “digital ownership”, one may associate it with financial assets, property, or investment markets. Its wider relevance becomes easier to understand when we look at ordinary situations.
Consider education, a Sri Lankan graduate applying for employment may need to demonstrate that a qualification is genuine. Depending on the circumstances, verification may require contacting an institution or using an established verification service.
A trusted digital credential could potentially make this process easier while preserving the issuing institution's authority. The qualification itself would not become more valuable simply because it was digitally recorded. The potential improvement would be in how its authenticity could be demonstrated to the verifying party, in this case the employer.
Agriculture offers another example. Sri Lanka produces internationally recognised agricultural products, which include tea and spices. For certain products, buyers may place importance on traceability, the origin, the quality, the handling, or compliance with particular standards.
Reliable digital records could potentially help producers and other participants demonstrate information about a product's journey. However, a digital record would not independently prove that every claim was true. Reliable verification and responsible participants would still be necessary.
IP provides another example: a Sri Lankan musician, writer, artist, or designer may create work that generates commercial value over many years. The creator's rights may include copyright, licensing arrangements, or royalty entitlements.
Digital infrastructure could potentially help record and administer aspects of those rights, particularly where multiple organisations or commercial relationships are involved. Yet, the same fundamental questions remain: Who owns the work? What rights have been granted? How are those rights protected?
These examples show why digital ownership should not be limited to one industry. Its relevance could extend across education, agriculture, business, creative industries, financial interests, and other areas where recognised rights and trusted records matter.
The difference between ownership and access
Another important distinction in the digital world is the difference between owning something and having permission to use it.
Consider the digital services that people use every day. A person may purchase access to a digital product, subscribe to an online service, or receive permission to use a particular software.
But, does that person actually own the underlying product?
The answer depends on the arrangement. In many situations, what appears to be a purchase may legally be a licence or a right of access subject to certain conditions. The provider may retain the ownership of the underlying IP, while the customer receives permission to use it. This is not necessarily a problem. Licensing and subscription arrangements can provide useful services and legitimate commercial benefits.
The key point is that consumers should understand the difference. Paying for something does not always mean acquiring unrestricted ownership.
The same principle applies to digitally represented assets and interests. A digital record might represent the ownership of an underlying asset, a contractual claim, a right to receive income, a licence, or another form of entitlement. These are not interchangeable.
Before participating in any arrangement, people should understand exactly what rights they receive. As digital services become more deeply integrated into everyday life, the distinction between ownership, access, and permission will become increasingly important.
Can technology make ownership more accessible?
One of the possibilities being explored internationally is whether digital technology could support new ways for people to participate in certain assets or economic activities. For example, some investments traditionally require substantial capital. Under appropriately designed legal and commercial arrangements, smaller interests in certain assets may be made available to participants.
This is sometimes discussed in connection with fractional ownership or tokenisation.
However, the ability to participate with a smaller amount of money does not automatically make an investment suitable or safe: a person investing Rs. 50,000 deserves the same clarity about their rights and risks as someone investing Rs. five million.
What exactly is being purchased? Is it the ownership of an asset, an interest in a company, or a contractual entitlement? Who manages the underlying asset? What fees apply? Can the interest be transferred or sold? What happens if the arrangement fails? These are questions that must be answered before the technology becomes relevant.
Accessibility is valuable only when accompanied by transparency, appropriate protections, and genuine understanding. Otherwise, technology could make participation easier without making it safer. That is not the outcome that responsible innovation should seek.
Trust must come before the technology
There is a tendency to associate advanced technology with greater security or reliability. A sophisticated system is not necessarily a trustworthy one. Trust depends on several factors.
People need confidence that their rights are legally recognised. They need reliable methods of establishing identity, protecting personal information, and verifying relevant records. They also need to identify who operates a system, who is accountable for mistakes, and how disputes can be resolved.
Several types of rights require different protections. A university qualification is different from a property investment. A music royalty is not the same as an interest in physical gold. We should not assume that one technological model will be suitable for every situation.
Importantly, existing institutions will continue to play essential roles. Lawyers, regulators, financial professionals, universities, businesses, and other responsible organisations provide forms of expertise and accountability that technology alone cannot replace. The challenge is to understand where new systems could work alongside established structures to improve outcomes.
Trust should not be something that we ask people to provide after introducing the technology. It should be something that we build into the system from the beginning.
Why understanding matters for SL?
As Sri Lanka continues developing its digital economy, there will be opportunities to examine how the technology can improve services, information systems, and commercial activity. Technological progress should not be measured simply by how many new platforms or applications are introduced. It should also be measured by whether people understand and benefit from them.
This is particularly important when discussing ownership because the subject involves rights, assets, businesses, and potentially people's savings. Unfamiliar terminology can create unnecessary fear. Equally, exaggerated promises can encourage people to participate in arrangements that they do not properly understand.
Education helps address both problems. People should be able to distinguish between an asset and a right connected to that asset, between ownership and access, and between a digital record and the legal entitlement that it represents.
Professionals and institutions also need opportunities to develop their understanding as technologies and commercial arrangements evolve.
Sri Lanka does not need to adopt every international development or replace systems that already function effectively. It can examine new approaches, understand their benefits and limitations, and determine where they may be appropriate within its own circumstances.
The objective should be informed participation, not adoption for its own sake.
The question that comes before everything else
The future of digital ownership will involve many subjects worth examining, including tokenisation, digital identity, IP, real-world value, emerging technologies, and the legal recognition of digitally represented rights. Each deserves careful consideration. But, they all lead back to a fundamental question. Before discussing how the technology might represent, transfer, or manage something, we need to understand what is actually being owned. Who holds the right? What does that right permit? Who recognises it? How is it protected? And what happens when something goes wrong?
Only then can we meaningfully assess whether a new technological approach offers an improvement. The future of ownership is not simply about converting physical things into digital records. It is about exploring whether the relationship between people, rights, value, and trust can be made clearer and stronger.
Technology should remain the enabler, not the purpose.
And perhaps the most important question in an increasingly digital world remains one that every person should be able to answer: What exactly do I own?
The writer is a digital ownership strategist with experience across technology, education, and business
----------------
The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication