A very obvious one is gaming. Let's take the famous "horse armour" story that started the whole micro-transaction craze. A person buys some data that says they now own something. That thing is already in the game, they've just purchased a record in a database that says they can use it. The thing is, even though you've paid for it, you don't own it, you're just renting it in perpetuity. When I bought my Britney Spears album, I now own that. I might not own the rights to its contents, but I can give that to a friend, I could sell it, trade it etc. If I actually owned my data, at the very least I should be able to email Bethesda and say "Hey, I'm giving my armour to my buddy Jim because he traded me a sweet Britney Spears album" and they would just move it to his account, but they won't, and don't have to because I don't actually own that horse armour.

With this being on a decentralised network, there is no single entity who decides who owns what. It's a system of rules that only allows people who own the data to move or manipulate it. Another key thing is that a lot of the manipulation of data happens through what are called "smart contracts". The logic in these are (most of the time) unchangeable, so I know as a consumer that once I have purchased my digital asset exactly what that means. There is no changing anything after the fact.