<rant>
So let's see here...
They wanna license books, not sell them. this way, they an attempt to restrict the licensee's rights with respect on how to use and dispose of this. (Never mind that the USSC, in a more enlightened time 100 years ago[!] explicitly ruled that illegal).
Let's explore that a bit.
For the conspiracy theorists among us, one could easily see that this would have the effect of slowly but inexorably restricting books to the wealthier segment of the population (you know, those who could afford the "licensing fees" associated with "mantaining books in one's possession" (note I didn't say "own books"). As this progressed, it would further polarize our populace into those with knowledge and access to information (the one-percenters), and those without (everybody else).
Further solidifying the hold on power by this country's landed gentry.
But of course, this would be an "unforseen side effect". The "market" will have decided this outcome; there would never have been any overt manipulation of this, would there?!?
Thomas Jefferson was right, he just got the interval wrong (20 years is too frequent, 200 years might just be too long...)
[/rant]
jb4
"About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. "
-- Edsger W.Dijkstra (1930 - 2002)
(I wish more managers knew that...)