eBooks are licensed. You cannot sell them, or lend them unless the right to lend is granted in the licensing agreement. I like the eBook format, but ownership is superior to licensing. Far superior.
Yes, because it doesn't even make sense. This is why I simply don't understand this conversation. There's nothing for me to resell, because we're discussing a virtual good. Implicit in the resale of an item is that I can no longer possess that item.
Talking about reselling eBooks makes almost as much sense as talking about reselling the sandwich I just ate for dinner. The only mechanism for creating personal value has been irrevocably consumed.
The points of ownership, right to resale, and lending are important ones. They represent a fundamental divide between two entirely different technologies used for the same purpose. At a very basic level comparing eBooks to print books makes almost no sense. As soon as we can dispense with the comparison we can start thinking about each system according to the value it creates.
From what I gather, the point is exactly that: That one should be aware that there are more differences than eBooks being electronic versions of books.
I think the controversial points come from people having different use-cases. I wouldn't want to not have control over my books about Hebrew numerology that took me a while to track down. I wouldn't worry nearly as much about a book about a programming language. For some books, real possession is part of the value. For others, everywhere-accessibility is worth more.
Edit: Fixed "about" -> "over";
This sort of thing is why I'm still not so comfortable with cloud media services in general. If you want a good example, look at the tracks that randomly get disabled on Spotify (sometimes when bands reform, sometimes, like Hotel California, apparently randomly).
You have no ownership rights when licensing, renting, etc.