Does Kindle spell the end of intellectual freedom?

In a recent Christian Science Monitor editorial, librarian Emily Walsch writes:
... Kindle is on fire in the marketplace. Who could resist reading "what you want, when you want it?" Access to more than 240,000 books is just seconds away. And its "revolutionary electronic-paper display ... looks and reads like real paper."
But it comes with restrictions: You can't resell or share your books – because you don't own them. You can download only from Amazon's store, making it difficult to read anything that is not routed through Amazon first. You're not buying a book; you're buying access to a book. No, it's not like borrowing a book from a library, because there is no public investment. It's like taking an interest-only mortgage out on intellectual property.
and adds
Digital rights management (DRM), which Kindle uses to lock in its library, raises critical questions about the nature of property and identity in digital culture.
Some questions come to mind.
- As long as both print and Kindle versions of a book are available, how does Kindle's DRM limit impinge on my rights? Kindle is offering a convenient format, not sole access to sets of information.
- How is what we are now experiencing with e-books with competing file formats any different from the VHS/Beta or BlueRay/HDTV battles in video? Why were we not worreid about the end of intellectual freedom then - only mad about the inconvenience?
- Why is "renting" a book from Amazon any more dangerous than renting a movie through Netflix or from BlockBuster. Is this a new species of format bigotry?
- Are we moving to culture that leases rather than owns - property, ideas, values? Is change so rapid that we refuse to invest in something (and be stuck with it) that may be obsolete tomorrow? Is this a good survival strategy - or the end of civilization as we know it? (The science fiction novel Futureland by Walter Mosely describes what a rental culture might look like - along with postliteracy.)
- How can both anti and pro censorship groups hate the same device?
- How much are librarians like Ms Walsch writing out of fear of an unknown future for their institutions (and jobs) rather than concern about censorship? What happens when it is more economical to buy or rent each patron a digitial copy of something than it is to buy a physical copy, catalog it, shelve it, manage it, loan it, and eventually discard it? I've written before that I don't yet know the function of libraries when digital text become so inexpensive, useful and convenient that the old purpose of the library fades away. It is scary, but I don't think setting up hollow men is the best response by our profession.
I am not sure Walsch makes her case that ...
Access equals control. In this case, it is control over what is read and what is not; what is referenced and what is overlooked; what is retained and what is deleted; what is and what seems to be.
Is a culture that "leases" its books rather than "own" its books at greater risk of censorship? Perhaps one day when there are no alternatives. But I am not losing much sleep over the issue tonight.
(OK, Stephen, Peter and Tom - get ready to write..)