Makes me glad my reader is not connected

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

... So in this case then it seems you agree to have Amazon generate commands in order to manage your Amazon related data....

I still don't really see how anyone can argue Amazon did something outside the TOS or illegal.
...

Geez, this can't be such a tricky concept.

What part of "MY FILES" is so difficult to grasp?!

Like, I download updates from Quickbooks, but they can't legally delete MY company files, just because I have chosen a different payroll provider, or refused to update to their latest version (yes, they can delete my backup on THEIR server.)

Or, Apple/AT&T can't delete MY personal contact files, just because I jailbroke my iPhone (yes, they can disable my ability to activate through THEIR servers.)

Or, my email provider cannot "synchronize" with my email client, and delete MY emails on MY computer, because I dumped them for another provider (yes, they can delete all messages on THEIR servers.)

Is this so difficult to understand? An orangutan can figure it out.

What are you, people? Corporate communists?!!

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

For example, let's say I am an employee of a company in good standing, and I am granted remote access to the company's servers via a VPN. While working, I delete several files. Is this now an illegal act? Should I have asked my boss prior to deleting the files? Does every different type of file action require explicit permission?

Nobody blamed Amazon from removing the file from their servers. They blame Amazon from removing the file from their kindles.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Or, let's say I'm the office IT person, and I see that a user has violated company policy by putting MP3's on a file server, and I delete the files. Is this also illegal? Would it be illegal if the user paid for the MP3 files, and as such is that user's private property?

The same as above. Again, servers, not clients.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Or, let's say you purchase an antivirus software program. You run it, it detects a number of viruses on your computer, and deletes them. Is this application performing an illegal action?

Actually, I'd de-install said antivirus software. And get one that will ask my permission before deleting that virus. I've had applications that were recognized as virii, but most certainly weren't. They just used some things that a virus uses too, to do their function.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Actually, they can, and it happens all the time. Heck, on Friday a technician uninstalled multiple applications, altered my system's registry, and deleted files during a remote support session, while I supervised him. Other times, I've supervised remote techs who installed software, and in the process made significant revisions to the system and deleted files.

You were there. You would have been able to stop him from deleting certain files so you could back them up on another medium. The fact remains that Amazon removed the file without notice. Had they issued a warning that the file would be deleted within 24 hours (or any other arbitrary number), I doubt that the community would have exploded over this.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Geez, this can't be such a tricky concept.

What part of "MY FILES" is so difficult to grasp?!

Like, I download updates from Quickbooks, but they can't legally delete MY company files, just because I have chosen a different payroll provider, or refused to update to their latest version (yes, they can delete my backup on THEIR server.)

Or, Apple/AT&T can't delete MY personal contact files, just because I jailbroke my iPhone (yes, they can disable my ability to activate through THEIR servers.)

Or, my email provider cannot "synchronize" with my email client, and delete MY emails on MY computer, because I dumped them for another provider (yes, they can delete all messages on THEIR servers.)

Is this so difficult to understand? An orangutan can figure it out.

What are you, people? Corporate communists?!!

Ok, obviously I am missing something.

From everything I've read in this thread and about the kindle in general, when you agree to the TOS agreement you are in effect asking Amazon to manage your Amazon related kindle data remotely via their servers. In effect you are asking them to update the firmware, delete old subscriptions, sync your different devices, keep copies of your annotations and bookmarks, and yes, whether you agree with it or not, delete books you no longer have any legal right to.

So again, explain how Amazon are doing something illegal or outside the TOS agreement rather than simply something you don't like?

As for your examples, I don't see any situation in which you have explicitly agreed to a service of data management by the company in question. For example, your email provider has an agreement with you to provide email services and to store your emails on its' server. It does not have an agreement to delete said emails and therefore it can not do so until the agreement is terminated and then it can delete them from its' servers. Same goes with all your other examples.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Argel]

I posted this a couple of days ago with the wrong URL (doh!) but I don't think anyone else has picked it up. It provides some really sane comments on the legal issues underlying the Kindle ownership model:

The Kindle's Orwellian Moment

(And thanks to Harry for gently pointing out the mistake)

[carld]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Geez, this can't be such a tricky concept.

What part of "MY FILES" is so difficult to grasp?!

Please stop pretending that people who don't agree with you are stupid. We get it, we disagree, we aren't raving idiots who don't understand what you're saying.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

Nobody blamed Amazon from removing the file from their servers. They blame Amazon from removing the file from their kindles.

You are taking my examples far too literally.

I'm attempting to illustrate that if I grant someone remote access to a system, do I need to explicitly grant them access to every single type of file operation? Do I need some kind of signed contract that outlines every single type of allowable file manipulation on a per-user basis?

If I delete a file that you paid for, regardless of where it is or how it got there, is that act in and of itself illegal?

Amazon already deletes files on your Kindle by automatically deleting older copies of newspapers and magazines by default. Is that process illegal?

If the person has been granted access and they delete a file, is that in and of itself an illegal act? And if so, which law are you applying? And how does it apply when the content itself actually violates copyright?

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

You are taking my examples far too literally.

I'm attempting to illustrate that if I grant someone remote access to a system, do I need to explicitly grant them access to every single type of file operation? Do I need some kind of signed contract that outlines every single type of allowable file manipulation on a per-user basis?

If I delete a file that you paid for, regardless of where it is or how it got there, is that act in and of itself illegal?

Amazon already deletes files on your Kindle by automatically deleting older copies of newspapers and magazines by default. Is that process illegal?

If the person has been granted access and they delete a file, is that in and of itself an illegal act? And if so, which law are you applying? And how does it apply when the content itself actually violates copyright?

It's the fact that removing something, without user's consent, that is bugging people. If you that that subscription to a newspaper/magazine, it probably says that it will delete the older copies at some point. So, you're forewarned that those copies will be gone once that point has come to pass. (and you say "by default", which mean you can turn it off)

I'm no lawyer, so I've no idea whether it's legal or not, but I do know that it would have been part of good manners to tell that you will be deleting that file/those type of files. And apparently Amazon didn't have those manners when they deleted 1984.

As I said before:

The fact remains that Amazon removed the file without notice. Had they issued a warning that the file would be deleted within 24 hours (or any other arbitrary number), I doubt that the community would have exploded over this.

[jenieliser]

I've been following this thread and reading everyones opinions and views. I can sort of see both sides...right or wrong? legal? morally devious? etc.... Regardless of what opinion anyone has, the fact remains that amazon has gotten tons of publicity for this and not for the better. I would venture to say their sales go down at least a small percentage, because the average person probably wont sit down to figure out if amazon was justified in doing this. For the most part, one would see a big headline that Amazon took back a ton of ebooks they sold. So why would they become a new kindle owner?

Someone earlier asked if Sony owners weren't sure they're devices were being monitored. Key difference in Sony and Kindle (in my opinion)-with the Sony Reader I have gotten tons of books from various places, only 2 have I actually bought through the sony ebook store. Kindle- (pls correct if I'm wrong) for the most part you have to purchase ebooks from Amazon, unless you want to do some converting. (Like i said, correct me if I'm wrong)
So, being a Sony Reader owner, No, I'm not worried one bit about Sony. I have too many other sources for my ebooks to be stuck with their sony store.

[Teddman]

Indeed. Whispernet has just gone from a plus to a minus in terms of public perception. Huge blow to the Kindle, they'll be damage controlling this for years.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by jenieliser

I've been following this thread and reading everyones opinions and views. I can sort of see both sides...right or wrong? legal? morally devious? etc.... Regardless of what opinion anyone has, the fact remains that amazon has gotten tons of publicity for this and not for the better. I would venture to say their sales go down at least a small percentage, because the average person probably wont sit down to figure out if amazon was justified in doing this. For the most part, one would see a big headline that Amazon took back a ton of ebooks they sold. So why would they become a new kindle owner?

Someone earlier asked if Sony owners weren't sure they're devices were being monitored. Key difference in Sony and Kindle (in my opinion)-with the Sony Reader I have gotten tons of books from various places, only 2 have I actually bought through the sony ebook store. Kindle- (pls correct if I'm wrong) for the most part you have to purchase ebooks from Amazon, unless you want to do some converting. (Like i said, correct me if I'm wrong)
So, being a Sony Reader owner, No, I'm not worried one bit about Sony. I have too many other sources for my ebooks to be stuck with their sony store.

Personally, I am in fact worried that the Sony EBook Library (or whatever it's called) software phones home and reports, whether in a personally identifying manner or only statistically, about the contents of my device and my usage habits. Particularly since I use the device for both personal documents (i.e.: family and business emails and such), and materials of which even news ought not yet become publicly available (i.e.: author's manuscript for books I may or may not decide to publish eventually).

As a result (paired with the recognition that the software is just as clumsy for ebook management as calibre, just differently so) I very purposefully do not use it.

- Ahi

[carld]

Originally Posted by Teddman

Indeed. Whispernet has just gone from a plus to a minus in terms of public perception. Huge blow to the Kindle, they'll be damage controlling this for years.

To me it's been a massive overreaction fueled by people looking for any reason to take a shot at Amazon. Not that Amazon hasn't don't things wrong in the past, and probably will in the future, but all this drama over a minor incident is just nutty.

Carl

[slayda]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

...


The file should never have been sold to you in the first place, ergo its legal status is at best questionable. At this time, no legitimate e-books were deleted remotely by Amazon. And while I agree that the "stolen property" concept is not a good fit, the fact remains that you did not have a legal right to the files.

...

Whether or not the file you have is illegal, Amazon has not been granted authority to act a police, judge/jury, and/or executioner. And this is how they acted.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

It's the fact that removing something, without user's consent, that is bugging people...

Yep, I'm well aware of that, and have repeatedly said that I understand the concerns (even though I don't share them). I'm specifically debating the legality with a few other posters.

Originally Posted by Teddman

Huge blow to the Kindle, they'll be damage controlling this for years.

Yeah, I doubt it. The High Velocity News Crew is already onto the next thing ("zomg Barnes and Noble is the new Kindle killer!"). People have almost completely forgotten the Sony rootkit scandal, MSN Music turning off its DRM servers, and probably a few other dustups I've forgotten about.

This may be an important issue, but I'd be mildly surprised if the media was still talking about it at the end of the month, let alone the end of the year.

[Teddman]

It depends on how much the competition exploits this snafu. If I were Astak, Plastic Logic and Sony, I'd be touting a hands-off approach where the manufacturer has no ability to modify the book contents of the readers.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Teddman

It depends on how much the competition exploits this snafu. If I were Astak, Plastic Logic and Sony, I'd be touting a hands-off approach where the manufacturer has no ability to modify the book contents of the readers.

Sure, Astak already has on this board.

But they also can't tout a bookstore that lets anyone publish an e-book in 5 minutes or less; syncing books, notes, last page read across multiple devices; buying books directly from the device; automatic hands-free backups of purchased e-books, and so forth.

Besides, specifically targeting the Kindle makes those other devices look like also-ran's. How many "iPod Killers" wound up deserving the title?

P.S. sweet avatar :P