Global Journal of Human-Social Science, A: Arts and Humanities, Volume 22 Issue 4

the possibility of violation of third party rights, which must be safeguarded. In this sense, one should be very careful with regard to non-economic digital content - so much so that the German paradigm case and the Spanish law deal only with personal data contained in digital platforms - since assets that are strictly property in nature may, in principle, be considered part of the digital inheritance. Therefore, personal rights, as a rule, cannot be subject to transferability, except in exceptional cases in which there is the express will of the deceased user and it does not affect the rights of third parties. Also in relation to property, it is important to note the need for the holder to have a property right and not only a right of an obligatory nature over the digital content in order to be able to talk about transmissibility, which is the case of a license of use, as usually happens in cases of acquisition of music, books and videos (Kindle, Amazon, etc.) which, in principle, are not transmissible. This point also deserves further reflection, but there is no space to be worked on in this essay. This is also the case with some assets, such as virtual currencies (cryptocurrencies), which are requiring more specific solutions due to the great difficulty of global definition of their legal nature. Cryptocurrencies were the subject of sentence 326, 2019, of the Spanish Court, from which a relevant analysis about the impossibility of considering cryptocurrency as money can be extracted, given its peculiarities. It can be observed, from the sentence, that virtual currency is an immaterial asset, of consideration or exchange, and cannot be legally treated as money, for lack of legal provision and because it is not a material object, but rather a unit defined by means of technology and cryptography, whose value is determined by each unit of account or variation in supply and demand transactions, performed on specific trading platforms. That is, cryptocurrency would be, at most, financial assets, subject to transactions on a global scale, generated by algorithms, with enormous volatility and without any kind of state control. (LONGHI; FALEIROS JUNIOR 2019). This makes it extremely difficult to assign a specific value, since virtual currencies have no fixed nominal value, just like money, imposing huge challenges for the State to contain and discipline the risks involved in this type of market, even if the validation model through blockchain proposes to ensure greater protection to these virtual operations. It can be seen, therefore, that even purely economic digital assets may challenge the latency of specific state regulation regarding the causa mortis transmissibility, due to their intrinsic peculiarities. The subject will certainly still be the subject of much debate and controversy, and should be treated with the care it deserves. VI. C onclusion From all of the above, we conclude that it is urgent to apply an adequate legal treatment to digital assets after the death of their owner. The existing regulations on the subject in other countries are still very timid and divergent, as can be observed, but a trend towards the transferability of these assets is emerging, especially those resulting from an express provision left by the owner. In the USA, the disposition of last wills regarding digital assets is strongly encouraged, and there are attempts to standardize it, in order to cover any type of digital asset. Spain, in turn, has also legislated for the digital will as a way to dispose of digital assets, but it has been restricted to data contained in social accounts, just like the German leading case. In this sense, the absence of legal provision or the insufficient legal provision forces the application of the established norms of civil law and, especially, of succession law, which may even be able to solve such issues, but leave room for diverging interpretations. The specific discipline of post-mortem dispositions of digital assets appears, then, as the path to be followed, in order to standardize and regulate the specificities that the matter requires, mainly due to the distinctions between digital assets of personal or patrimonial nature, taking into consideration digital assets in a broad sense and not only the assets contained in social networks. The different treatment of content depending on its nature (whether property, mixed or personal) is one of the most important aspects for a more coherent direction of the matter. In this sense, not only because of the law currently in force, but also because of the need to preserve the most personal rights and all its implications, the digital assets of a strictly personal nature should not be subject to transferability, unless as a result of the will manifested by the holder during his or her lifetime and insofar as it does not violate the rights of third parties. The legal provision of other simpler causa mortis disposition instruments in digital format also deserves regulation, preferably with express provision about its priority over the terms of use and services, or its compatibility and maximum use of the deceased user's will, when not conflicting. Issues such as the legitimacy of management of these assets and digital accounts should also deserve special attention from the legislator. As for hybrid digital assets, such as some profiles on social networks, the analysis must be made on a case-by-case basis, verifying the preponderance of the interests at stake: whether economic or existential. Patrimonial assets, on the other hand, can be the object of transmission according to the general rules of succession law, in case there is no testamentary © 2022 Global Journals Volume XXII Issue IV Version I 21 ( ) Global Journal of Human Social Science - Year 2022 A 9 Succession of Digital Rights in Brazil: In Search of Appropriate Legal Treatment