But the execution of that idea in the creation of Lightroom CC has been abysmally poor. If one believes in the safety and superiority of cloud data storage (and that is of course a rather large and tenuous if ), the idea behind the creation of Lightroom CC is arguably a very good one. But why should the user and copyright owner of the photos have to do that? If I rent parking space for my car in New York City, and decide to stop renting the space and remove my car, would one reasonably expect the owner of the parking space to warn me that they would then also destroy my car, and any other car that I have owned that had ever been parked in that space regardless of where I currently have the car parked, or that I still own the car? Should I be required to rent another parking space for my car, move and hide my car there, terminate my lease, get a restraining order from the owner of the parking space, and then when I feel safe that all ties to the parking space owner have been cut, I might then feel safe about bringing my car out of hiding?

As you have astutely observed in your answer, in order for the user and copyright holder of the photos to delete them from the Adobe Lightroom server, the user must invest in hard drive space physically separate from the computing equipment on which Lightroom CC is installed, move all of the original copies of the photos to be deleted from the Lightroom server over to that newly acquired storage space, and then delete the photos from the Lightroom server. In order to delete photos from the Lightroom server, one must delete them one at a time. Rather I was pointing out that in the response previously given in which the user was told that by deleting albums it would delete the photos within those albums was and remains an incorrect response.

My response was not that the delete dialogue was incorrect.

Assassin creed rebellion mod