Amazon has revised its purchasing policies for Kindle e-books in the United States to specify that consumers are obtaining a license to the material, rather than actual ownership. The updated statement asserts: “By placing your order, you are acquiring a license to the content and consent to the Kindle Store Terms of Use.” This modification is directed toward U.S. customers; users from other countries still encounter the prior phrasing, yet the implication remains unchanged: You do not possess it; we are merely granting you permission to use it.
Commencing February 26, 2025, Amazon will eliminate the “Download & Transfer via USB” functionality for Kindle devices. Consequently, individuals will no longer be able to download Kindle books directly onto their computers for manual transfer, as access to purchased material will now rely entirely on Amazon’s cloud services. This alteration highlights a subtle reality regarding ownership and reinforces a straightforward truth: It ceases to be yours if another party can remove it.
This predicament extends beyond Amazon and encompasses all content and resources in our present digital age. Your cherished songs and albums on your streaming service cannot be retrieved without an internet connection. They restrict the number of devices from which you can listen and insert advertisements unless you pay a monthly subscription. The era of records, tapes, and CDs that allowed unrestricted listening, resale, or gifting to a friend is over.
What does it truly mean to possess something? Ownership is generally defined as the action or condition of having something. In this context, we clearly have the content, but it can be modified or taken away from us at any point. That does not constitute real ownership. Oxford defines ownership as “The exclusive right to use, possess, and dispose of property.” Hence, exclusivity is essential for ownership.
What of other intangible digital entities like currency or identity? You own your name or handle on social media or email. That represents you, it is your online identity, persona, and content you have created. You cannot have multiple individuals with the same name or handle, and that exclusivity is upheld by a password associated with the account; however, that account can be locked, restricted, or deleted at any moment based on decisions from Facebook or X. And what about the funds in your bank account? You claim possession of it, and you have legal rights to it, yet banks frequently freeze accounts, and authorities regularly seize money. That is not genuine ownership.
Hence, I ask once more: What does it mean to own something? Merely having possession is insufficient; possessing exclusivity or even legal rights does not suffice. To authentically own something, you alone must have the capacity to enforce that possession and exclusivity. In the physical realm, enforcement often relies on coercion and the threat or actual occurrence of violence. Such instances include eviction notices from law enforcement, armed security before a vault, or the reconfiguration of borders post-conflict. In the digital space, encryption fulfills this role and concurrently eliminates the need for violence by rendering force ineffective. It establishes ownership that cannot be overridden by coercion. No amount of physical strength can compromise robust cryptography. A government may seize a server, and a corporation may disable an account, but if data is encrypted and the key remains private, the information stays unreachable. The sole method of access to encrypted assets is through consent.
Encryption not only safeguards digital ownership; it also transforms the essence of power. It eliminates violence from the equation. That is why it is so revolutionary.
Digital signatures in encrypted systems demonstrate ownership and control in the digital landscape. PGP enables you to sign messages and files, confirming their origin and integrity. Nostr, a decentralized social media framework, operates on a similar principle. Your posts and identity are linked to your private key, not to a corporation capable of banning or deleting you. Bitcoin embodies this concept. Possessing your private keys ensures that only you can access and manage your assets. When you authorize a Bitcoin transaction, only you can retrieve and transfer your funds. No financial institution can freeze it, nor can any government seize it without your key. True ownership revolves around having the authority to enforce that ownership.
The Bitcoin maxim “Not your keys, not your coins” springs to mind. “Not your keys, not your coins” signifies that without control over your private keys for Bitcoin, you lack ownership. Holding Bitcoin on an exchange means the exchange retains the keys, not you. They may freeze your account, limit withdrawals, or even misplace your funds. Brokerage and retirement accounts containing Bitcoin ETFs can be frozen or confiscated just like any bank account. Authentic ownership involves possessing your keys, for only then do you exercise full control over your finances, identity, and assets.
The transition from physical to digital has facilitated access while obscuring ownership. Be it books, music, identity, or currency, merely having possession is an illusion of ownership. Companies can revoke access, authorities can seize funds, and platforms can wipe identities, but encryption alters that landscape. Ownership becomes enforceable, not by legal frameworks, a corporation, or an institution, but through mathematics. If you seek genuine digital ownership, the principle is clear: control your keys, or another party is the real owner.
This is a guest contribution by Will Jager. Views expressed are solely theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.
