The Post-Mortem Disposition of Digital Assets: Special Reference to its Regulation in Latin America

Authors

  • Jorge Luis Ordelin Font IMED Passo Fundo (Brasil) https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8778-882X

    Doctor en Ciencias Jurídicas por el Tribunal Nacional Permanente de Grados Científicos de la República de Cuba. Investigador posdoctoral del Programa Nacional De Posdoctorado PNPD/ CAPES, Programa de Posgraduación Stricto Sensu en Derecho de la Facultad Meridional IMED, Passo Fundo, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil.

  • Salete Oro Boff IMED Passo Fundo (Brasil) https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7159-1878

    Posdoctorada en Derecho en la Universidad Federal de Santa Catarina. Doctora en Derecho UMISINOS. Profesora del Programa de Posgraduación en Derecho, Maestría, IMED. Profesora de IESA y UFFS, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18800/derechopucp.201902.002

Keywords:

Digital assets, Post-mortem disposition, Personal data, Digital inheritance

Abstract

At present, digital goods are part of the patrimony of people, however, not all legal systems have regulated what will be the fate of these after the death of their owner. The objective of this article is to establish the need for legal regulation of the disposition mortis causa of digital goods, based on the importance of such regulation in the relationships of users and service providers. To provide greater legal protection for digital goods, postmortem regulation is necessary, considering the different types of digital goods, its transmission and disposition after the death of its owner, as well as the obligations of the service providers in the fulfillment of these and their registry effectiveness. This regulation is essential in the current Latin American context.
American context. the current Latin
American context.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Published

2019-11-29

How to Cite

Ordelin Font, J. L., & Boff, S. O. (2019). The Post-Mortem Disposition of Digital Assets: Special Reference to its Regulation in Latin America. Derecho PUCP, (83), 29–60. https://doi.org/10.18800/derechopucp.201902.002