Ownership of a digital age
Amazon has updated its purchase conditions for Kindle e-books in the USA to clarify that customers acquire a license for the content and not for ownership. The new explanation is: “By placing your order, buy a license for the content and agree to the terms of use for Kindle -Store.“This update is specific to US customers. International users continue to see the previous wording, but the message is the same: they do not own them. We just let them use it.
From February 26, 2025, Amazon will “set”Download & Transfer via USBFeature for Kindle devices. This means that users can no longer download Kindle books for manual transmission directly to their computers, since access to purchased content now depends entirely on the Cloud infrastructure from Amazon. This change indicates a subtle truth about ownership and reinforces a simple fact: it is not with you if someone else can take it away.
This is not just an Amazon problem, but also applies to all content and materials in our current digital era. Your favorite songs and albums in your streaming app cannot be accessed without an internet connection. They limit the number of devices from which you can listen and add ads unless you pay you a monthly fee. Gone are the days of records, ligaments and CDs that have freedom to listen to how they want, resell or even pass on to a friend.
What does it mean to own something? The property is usually understood as an action or condition to own something. In this case, we clearly have the content, but it can be changed at any time or taken away from us. This is not a real property. Oxford States must be used as “the exclusive right, owned and disposed of it from ownership”. Exclusivity is therefore required.
What about other intangible digital objects such as money or identity? They have their names or social media or e -mails. This is you, it is your online similarity, your person and your content you created. You cannot have two people with the same name or handle, and this exclusivity is enforced by a password in the account by the decisions of Facebook or X at any time, but this account can be blocked, banned or deleted. What about this money in your bank account? They own it and they have legal rights to it, but banks freeze accounts and the governments constantly capture funds. This is not a real property.
So I ask again: what does it mean to own something? It is not enough to own it; Exclusivity or even legal rights are not sufficient. To really own something, you have to be able to enforce this property and exclusivity. In the physical world, enforcement is largely due to coercion and the threat or the actual use of violence. The clearing of the sheriff department, the armed guards in front of a vault, the realignment of the borders after a war. In the digital domain, the encryption fulfills this purpose and at the same time eliminates the need for violence by ineffective. It creates owners who cannot be overridden by violence. Not a lot of physical strength can break strong cryptography. A government can confiscate a server and an company can close an account, but if the data is encrypted and the key is private, the information is not accessible. The only way to access encrypted assets is approval.
The encryption not only protects digital property. It changes the nature of power. It removes violence from the equation. That’s why it’s so annoying.
Digital obligation in encrypted systems is how you prove owners and control in the digital world. With PGP you can sign messages and files and prove that they come from them and have not been changed. Nostr, a decentralized social media protocol, works the same way. Your contributions and your identity are bound by your private key, not to a company that you can forbid or extinguish them. Bitcoin illustrates this principle. If you control your private keys, you can only access and manage your means. If you sign a Bitcoin transaction, you can only access and move your money. No bank can freeze it, no government can take it without its key. With real property, it is about having the authority to enforce this property.
The Bitcoin axiom “not your keys, not your coins” falls in my mind. “Not your keys, not your coins” means that you do not own it if you do not control the private keys to your Bitcoin. If you stick to Bitcoin in an exchange, the exchange contains the keys, not you. You can freeze your account, limit the lifts or even lose your money. Brokerage accounts and pension accounts with Bitcoin ETFs can be frozen or confiscated as with any bank account. Real property means keeping your keys because you only have full control over your money, your identity and property.
The shift from physically to digital has made access easier, but property cloudy. Whether books, music, identity or money, only have property is an illusion of property. Companies can revoke access, governments can confiscate funds and platforms can delete identities, but encryption changes. The property is enforceable, not by laws, a company or an institution, but through mathematics. If you want real digital property, the rule is simple: control your keys or someone else is the real owner.
This is a guest contribution by Will Jager. The expressions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect the BTC INC or Bitcoin magazine.
