It's unlikely we'll ever see eye to eye on this topic, we clearly have very different views. I don't agree with most of the assertions you make. You seem to cl

It's unlikely we'll ever see eye to eye on this topic, we clearly have very different views. I don't agree with most of the assertions you make. You seem to claim that book burning is a goal of the kindle, but I don't think you can really substantiate the claim. As far as I can tell the goal of publishers is simply to have control over the digital content. Remote deletions are a side effect. I also don't agree with you that capability is the only thing that matters. By analogy: a knife can be used to make a sandwich, and it can be used to to repeatedly stab people in the face. The knife affords stabbing (which is arguably far worse than remote ebook deletion or modification), but I think knives are still generally a positive thing in society. Most things in life aren't forces for pure good or pure evil, so for me (and for most people) it's a matter of finding the right balance. Right now, every inalienable, natural, human right you have can be violated by random strangers, the government and yes, even by companies. This is pretty much a fact of life, and I think that taking an absolutist position about this isn't helpful. If DRM is a net benefit to you, then yay DRM. If not, then use alternatives. In the grand scheme of things, I think it's a bit of a non-issue. Yes, I admit universal DRM (for the broadest sense of universal) would be pretty awful. But it takes slippery slope logic to say that a bit of DRM here and there will lead to totalitarian DRM in the future.