[isomorphic]

Amazon is using language like "e-book(s) sold" when the reality is that they mean "e-book license(s) sold." The difference may be subtle, but if an e-book comes with DRM, the buyer certainly does not "own" it. Amazon even makes that point themselves, as they promote e-books as having "no secondary market."

This is an important point when you consider the vendor lock-in of the Kindle "ecosystem." Instead of "e-book," a better phrase might be "Kindle software."

Amazon should be careful of throwing stones about illegal collusion as they approach market domination. It will be very easy for them to make a mistake which runs afoul of anti-trust law.

[rahimnathwani]

DRM vs. no DRM

Sale vs. licence

These are two separate issues.

[isomorphic]

Theoretically yes, but technologically no. I can't "own" something with server-based DRM on it. DRM creates a right (or an ability) of revocation for the seller.

[rahimnathwani]

It's not DRM that prevents you from owning the book. It's the licence. The DRM just makes it easier for the licensor to enforce the terms of the licence.

I 'buy' DRM-free books from O'Reilly. The lack of DRM means that O'Reilly won't ever be able to remove my ability to read those books on a new device. However, I still don't own the books, and have no second-sale rights.

[mentat]

It's trivially easy to strip Kindle DRM. They provide added value with WhisperSync and notes syncing in general that dissuade this.

[idunno246]

And one of the reasons they list for the value being lower is it cant be resold (ie, it has drm)