Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dropbox Attempts To Kill Open Source Project

razorfast.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 323 posts

Re: Dropbox Attempts To Kill Open Source Project

#91

Post by StrawberryFrog »

marshray wrote: post #64
arashf wrote: post #21

This is Arash from Dropbox. We removed the ability to share the project source code because it enables communications with our servers in a manner that is a violation of our Terms of Service. By our TOS, we reserve the right to terminate the account of users in this case. However, we chose to remove access to the file instead of terminating the account of the user. We recently built a tool that allows us to ban links…

We recently built a tool that allows us to ban links across the sytem (as of a few weeks ago) and I wasn't aware that the email auto-generated and sent a DMCA takedown email. This was a tool built for our support team and I'd never personally used it. Man you guys are dumb.

They could call it the "auto-perjury" system.

Re: Dropbox Attempts To Kill Open Source Project

#92

Post by joe_the_user »

tptacek wrote: post #83
joe_the_user wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Thus far, the only thing Dropbox is purported to have done here is to politely ask a developer to remove an application; then, presumably believing that the mirror posts were simple nerd-rage, and that the author of the application agreed with Dropbox, Dropbox's CTO filed takedowns at Github" It's the "write a sentence long enough you hope they won't reach the end" rhetorical strategy! Lawyer: "Your honor, the only…

I don't appreciate being told that I'm being deliberately disingenuous. I have no dog in this hunt. I've never spoken to any of the founders of Dropbox. Maybe you didn't mean to be this dramatic in your response? Or maybe I said something that specifically set you off, in which case, let me know so I can amend my comment.

Sorry, as written, your sentence seems fairly calculated to give the impression something minimal is happening when you clearly know something other than "a friendly discussion" is happening. My post above says why I believe this. Feel free to answer the specific problems I raise.

Re: Dropbox Attempts To Kill Open Source Project

#93

Post by driverdan »

sleazye wrote: post #39
arashf wrote: post #21

This is Arash from Dropbox. We removed the ability to share the project source code because it enables communications with our servers in a manner that is a violation of our Terms of Service. By our TOS, we reserve the right to terminate the account of users in this case. However, we chose to remove access to the file instead of terminating the account of the user. We recently built a tool that allows us to ban links…

To razorfast guy: Can you look at the SMTP headers of the DMCA takedown to see if they're coming from a desktop e-mail client or indeed some sort of auto-mailer? Might give a clue if the e-mail was indeed "auto-generated" or not

The takedown notification was sent through their support system. It appears to be auto-generated.

Re: Dropbox Attempts To Kill Open Source Project

#94

Post by Cushman »

arashf wrote: post #21

This is Arash from Dropbox. We removed the ability to share the project source code because it enables communications with our servers in a manner that is a violation of our Terms of Service. By our TOS, we reserve the right to terminate the account of users in this case. However, we chose to remove access to the file instead of terminating the account of the user. We recently built a tool that allows us to ban links…

I'm sure I'm not alone in not quite getting how mere possession of software which enables the violation of your TOS is itself a violation of your TOS. Can you clarify that?

Re: Dropbox Attempts To Kill Open Source Project

#95

Post by knowtheory »

tptacek wrote: post #85
anotherjesse wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Understandable except the assertion of filing a dmca because he thinks that the reposts of code are "geek rage". The DMCA provides that you may be liable for damages (including costs and attorneys fees) if you falsely claim that an item is infringing your copyrights. Using this powerful law as a scare tactic isn't acceptable. If you wish to claim that the code was infact infringing, then the conversation is different…

Are we arguing over whether filing DMCA takedowns on innocuous MIT-licensed code was a mistake? I'm sorry if I communicated that I didn't think it was a mistake. But it's my perception right now that even Dropbox thinks this was a mistake; the guy who wrote this blog post posted more mirrors of the code. Is Dropbox trying to get them taken down? People make mistakes. In the grand scheme of mistakes, this is an extrem…

I don't think that the unjustified and unilateral removal of code from someone else's access or threatening anyone with legal action is ever an acceptable mistake, let alone "trivial".

The law is not a toy, and it's not supposed to be wielded casually. The DCMA is certainly not treated with the respect it is supposed to afford citizens, and this is just another example of that.

Re: Dropbox Attempts To Kill Open Source Project

#96

Post by tptacek »

joe_the_user wrote: post #92
tptacek wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't appreciate being told that I'm being deliberately disingenuous. I have no dog in this hunt. I've never spoken to any of the founders of Dropbox. Maybe you didn't mean to be this dramatic in your response? Or maybe I said something that specifically set you off, in which case, let me know so I can amend my comment.

Sorry, as written, your sentence seems fairly calculated to give the impression something minimal is happening when you clearly know something other than "a friendly discussion" is happening. My post above says why I believe this. Feel free to answer the specific problems I raise.

No, I think something minimal is probably going on here. My spidey sense tells me Dropbox is not the evil empire trying to suppress freedom of expression among coders. I can imagine that were I in Arash's shoes, I too would be very worried about impending Rapidsharization of my service.

That doesn't mean Dropbox handled this flawlessly. They appear not to have. It does, however, imply:

* The nerds angry about the request to take down the code are not in fact creating a PR nightmare for Dropbox, because they are helping to spread the word that Dropbox is hostile to this use case.

* That Dropbox is probably not going to switch into kamikaze legal mode to keep people from talking about their protocols or building tools, because it was the particular use case fostered by this tool that set them off.

You are free to disagree. I promise not to caricature you as a supervillain for having done so.

Re: Dropbox Attempts To Kill Open Source Project

#97

Post by sorbus »

ceejayoz wrote: post #66
superuser2 wrote: post #32

However justified you think piracy is, resisting efforts to turn a product you created for legitimate personal file sharing into a better BitTorrent is a valid business decision. That's a really incendiary headline. Yes, they tried to kill an open source product, whose purpose was to facillitate illegal file sharing over DropBox . The PR fallout from this among the tech community is probably nowhere near the fallout…

> Yes, they tried to kill an open source product, whose purpose was to facillitate illegal file sharing over DropBox. Where are you getting that information? My understanding it that its purpose was explicitly to facilitate legal file sharing over DropBox - Linux ISOs, for example.

Linux ISOs are always the example people come up with when they're defending protocols and methods which are primarily used for illegal purposes.

The original post for DropShip gave, as an example, the trailer for a movie. Not the movie itself, but the trailer. That's the equivalent of saying "I've developed this great way to share files, such as videos, but am not going to explicitly say that it could be used for piracy even though everyone knows that that's the only thing it will be used for."

Re: Dropbox Attempts To Kill Open Source Project

#99

Post by power78 »

shasta wrote: post #56

Dropbox has a simple technical recourse to prevent de-duplication from being used for file sharing - issue a random challenge (a slightly more sophisticated version of "ok, what is the 100th word in the file?") before acknowledging a collision as a true duplicate. Edit: Thinking about this a bit more, the primary expense of this scheme would probably be accessing the file to verify the challenge results. Here's a que…

Considering Dropbox doesn't do automatic upgrades (at least on a Mac it doesn't), you can always stay at an older version of the client where this new protocol isn't supported and thus Dropship still is valid. I doubt that Dropbox would ever ban previous versions of their client purely for this purpose.

Re: Dropbox Attempts To Kill Open Source Project

#100

Post by tptacek »

knowtheory wrote: post #95
tptacek wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we arguing over whether filing DMCA takedowns on innocuous MIT-licensed code was a mistake? I'm sorry if I communicated that I didn't think it was a mistake. But it's my perception right now that even Dropbox thinks this was a mistake; the guy who wrote this blog post posted more mirrors of the code. Is Dropbox trying to get them taken down? People make mistakes. In the grand scheme of mistakes, this is an extrem…

I don't think that the unjustified and unilateral removal of code from someone else's access or threatening anyone with legal action is ever an acceptable mistake, let alone "trivial". The law is not a toy, and it's not supposed to be wielded casually. The DCMA is certainly not treated with the respect it is supposed to afford citizens, and this is just another example of that.

We disagree. The mechanism for getting Github to take down code is the DMCA request; it's what you use when someone at Github is hosting code that they didn't own that you'd like removed and you feel you have some grounds to have removed.

It was a mistake for them to use a DMCA request here, because the code was MIT-licensed and thus even the author can no longer ask for it to be taken down. But nobody paid legal fees here, nobody was sued, and the code is back online, so, no, I am not amenable to the idea that Dropbox is being abusive.

Continuing to file DMCA requests would be abusive.

Post reply on HN