Quote:
Originally Posted by Solicitous
Dude, he's actually right, this is the relevant paragraph. Basically it is giving examples of the content of data being sent back to Amazon, but is not limited to those listed. In short Amazon can collect any data from your Kindle that they see fit. Got a law document on there and am making notes in relation to a case?...they can take that.
The bit I especially like in the document is;
You breach the terms and conditions of sale if you open it up and replace your own damn battery. Amazon are well within their rights to suspend your service if you do not use Amazon to replace your battery, even for an out of warranty unit.
|
d00d; this is
THE paragraph that needs to be paid attention to;
[I
]Information Received. The Device Software will provide Amazon with data about your Device and its interaction with the Service (such as available memory, up-time, log files and signal strength) and information related to the content on your Device and your use of it (such as automatic bookmarking of the last page read and content deletions from the Device). Annotations, bookmarks, notes, highlights, or similar markings you make in your Device are backed up through the Service. Information we receive is subject to the Amazon.com Privacy Notice.[/I]
they are
NOT reading everyone's Kindles! basically what they can do is send a sort of digital handshake to items obtained from Amazon. other than that they have
ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE!!! what it is!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by DawnFalcon
I am not implying, I am stating. Because it is plain English, and it is perfectly plain. I'm sorry, but your invocation of the insanity defence really isn't helping my case that you're simply demanding everyone view this your way.
And yes, I'm sure your brave tinfoil brigade which you are leading so valiently is claiming that. Once more, I have never claimed so - I have repeatedly stated otherwise. What I am saying, once again, in the futile hope that you will read this time rather than dismissing anything I type as contrary to your ideology, is that it is permitted by the agreement, rather than that Amazon are currently doing any such thing or have plans thereunto.
However, this doesn't excuse the overly broad policy, which should be corrected to make it plain the limits Amazon will restrict themselves to. That would, as this thread shows, gain them customers.
|
I forgot this the idiot that renames himself whenever he has an argument with someone. he's what makes pig wrasslin' so attractive. carry on with your tin foil
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC333
Interesting point. Some copyright holders would probably be pleased if they did. I wonder how it stands up though?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is that Amazon/Kindle are booksellers rather than publishers. Middle-men in other words. If I was running Amazon, these would be two of my objectives:
1) Maximise the sales of books. I’d certainly try to do this by trying to match my pitches to the reader’s likely preferences.
2) Minimise any problems with the publishers and authors who supply the content.
With regard to the second point, I really wouldn’t want to waste a lot of time and resources on acting as unpaid policeman or nanny for all the other parties. However, I would want to protect myself from allegations by my suppliers that I’d failed to take reasonable steps to shield their property from theft. I’d be especially cautious about being left open to charges that I had facilitated rip offs - even unintentionally.
A case recent went through the Australian courts in which a group of very powerful movie interests sued a local ISP for failing to stop some of their subscribers from using the Internet to illegally download copies of movies. They weren’t accusing them of providing the software or sites - just of failing to prevent that kind of traffic via their network. A big demand.
So I still can’t really see anything in this but Amazon attempting to steer a prudent line between their suppliers and their customers. I don’t imagine that they would themselves want to get involved with deciding what content was ‘illegal’ and deleting it, and would probably resist pressure from publishers to actively behave as their police force.
However, my guess is that they would want to keep firm control over how many devices you can download your book to. If they didn’t then you could simply get all your mates to hook up to your account and download dozens of copies onto multiple devices (I currently have 3 devices authorised - none of which are an actual Kindle - they are 2 PCs and an iTouch ). So ‘electronic surveillance’ of the books you got from them seems inevitable (and reasonable enough). My understanding is that the publishers themselves set down how many devices they allow you to ‘authorise’ and may limit how many times you can freely re-download before it cuts out (at which point you can give a reason and apply for it to be extended). I don’t know if this is up-to-date or if it varies much between publishers and selling sites.
Would they really want to open such a controversial can of worms by wiping stuff? I doubt it. I don’t imagine they’d really want to get involved in policing anything other than the e-books they had already sold to us.
That’s my guess anyway.  |
unless someone can make a case that Amazon helped steal content through their negligence, this just isn't going to be an issue. they can't read through all of our Kindles. among other things, Hollywood is using them extensively for scripts. Amazon wouldn't be allowed to get into them. I've loaded sensitive work related PDFs on them. damn straight the Army would have had my ass by now if they thought they were being looked at