It's strange that the author ignores the most important point until the very end, then doesn't do anything with it:
In traditional property regimes only owners have the right to modify or control the use of the property. The right of modification is not transferred in rental, leasing, or licensing agreements.
Access does not trump possession. Access (or the control of it) is possession, with both physical and intellectual property. If everyone had unrestricted access to everything, ownership would have no meaning anymore. This is not a matter of "traditional copyright regimes", but the whole concept of ownership.
And of course herein lies the problem with not owning something: someone else can deny you access to it, either though intent (Microsoft shuts down their DRM servers) or negligence (the company that owns the goods goes out of business).
In traditional property regimes only owners have the right to modify or control the use of the property. The right of modification is not transferred in rental, leasing, or licensing agreements.
Access does not trump possession. Access (or the control of it) is possession, with both physical and intellectual property. If everyone had unrestricted access to everything, ownership would have no meaning anymore. This is not a matter of "traditional copyright regimes", but the whole concept of ownership.
And of course herein lies the problem with not owning something: someone else can deny you access to it, either though intent (Microsoft shuts down their DRM servers) or negligence (the company that owns the goods goes out of business).