211–220 of 323 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> trying to force people to take it down seems incredibly foolish As does the fake DMCA takedown. If Arash Ferdowsi wants people to think he's dishonest, he's going the right way about it.
There was no DMCA takedown notice.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2482803
(admittedly, several hours after you posted)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"We have received a notification under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) from Dropbox that the following material is claimed to be infringing." Doesn't this seem to imply that Dropbox is the owner of the code and is both the DCMA submitter as well as the company executing upon it? An automated system would still require a company name that is requesting the DCMA to be entered, or your automated system is…
Sounds like the DMCA request was an accident. Maybe it's a form with a field "Company who requested file be removed: ". But it's amusing nonetheless. Are there other incidents of a company serving itself DMCA requests?
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…
Arash, you're confusing the software and its potential uses as if they were the same thing, which is standard DMCA brain damage. It's the FUTURE communication with the servers that COULD violate the terms via such communications, IF it actually happens because of an unknown person (possibly not the hoster) using the software at some (unspecified) later time. If that TOS-violating communication actually HAPPENS then you can gleefully shutter HIS account. You don't get to ban the software itself, if the hoster has permission (via MIT license) to host the file. Illegal sharing of copyrighted files is what's prohibited, and that is what the "automatic DMCA takedown" suggests---to wit, that your banning-files-by-hash system is designed to take down copyrighted files in response to DMCA takedown notices. If it was meant to ban files you don't like, you would have had a clue that it would send an erroneous DMCA message about the file.
So it's obvious you just wanted to ban the file. Can you really cite the TOS language that says hosting software that COULD be used for TOS-violating communications with Dropbox, is also a violation of the TOS?
I also think it would be interesting for readers of this forum to see whether or not you've already quietly changed your TOS to cover this case (or will soon do so.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Go back and reread the article. The recipient of the supposed takedown notice is listed as being... dropbox.
That's interesting: how could Dropbox be the recipient if their system is automated as stated by the founders?
(The dropbox guy already has said he used an internal tool developed to remove files, without realizing that it would send this DMCA notice notice.)
drew from dropbox here. i hope you guys can give us the benefit of the doubt: when something pops up that encourages people to turn dropbox into the next rapidshare or equivalent (the title on HN was suggesting it could be the successor to torrents), you can imagine how that could ruin the service for everyone -- illegal file sharing has never been permitted and we take great pains to keep it off of dropbox. the inte…
> illegal file sharing has never been permitted and we take great pains to keep it off of dropbox. Which is great, except you are punishing the crime, before it even occurred. Remember use of torrents are not illegal per se, sharing files which you do not copyright of, and piracy is. > there were no legal threats or any other shenanigans to the author or people hosting. (EDIT - No applicable. Read Drew's edit.) DMCA…
to be clear, we _never issued_ any DMCA takedowns to anyone -- the OP incorrectly received a bizarrely-worded email from us saying we had received a takedown notice from ourselves (no such notice ever existed) for which we've apologized.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your comment does appear disingenuous, though I'm sure that's not deliberate. Neither false DMCA notifications nor github takedown requests are legitimate responses to "simple nerd-rage" when it's about MIT-licensed code. I'm sure you understand this and you say as much elsewhere in your comment; but your sentence appears to trivialize these actions by including them after a soothing "the only thing... purported to h…
> Your comment does appear disingenuous, although I'm sure that's not deliberate. Neither false DMCA notifications nor github takedown requests are legitimate responses to "simple nerd-rage" when it's about MIT-licensed code. I don't think anything like that has really happened. There was no DMCA takedown notice, only the (false) message that Dropbox had received a notification from itself, issued when they blocked p…
To be sure, it could be a misunderstanding, a technical glitch, or an attempt at trolling. The Dropbox folks aren't getting my benefit of the doubt on this, though. Their actions, even the ones that aren't disputed, have been unbecoming. Banning the code distribution on Dropbox was a particularly ham-fisted move. It does nothing to curb its spread, because Dropbox is not a web-forum with easy discovery. If I put this file on my public Dropbox folder, the only way others will know to look there is when I advertise this elsewhere, not on Dropbox; but if I'm motivated enough to do that, surely it's no trouble for me to just host it elsewhere.
So the ban only hurts their image more. What if I write a text file with the description of their client-server protocol and put that on Dropbox, are they going to ban that file, too? When you willingly put yourself on a slippery slope, be ready to find yourself sliding.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I personally feel that Dropbox removing files from someone's account is completely wrong, regardless of your ToS. Your service is there to backup files. When you delete references to files from someone else's accounts, you're violating the trust that people put in your service.
We didn't remove the file - we simply banned public access to it.
1. The system for banning files would not send out copyright infringement notices automatically. It would be set up for banning things like source code that could be used to violate the TOS.
2. Someone on the support team you claim the system was designed for, would have done the ban, instead of you having to come in and implement "higher-level business logic" by using the ban system for something besides copyright violations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Asking people to remove stuff from HN? That's utter bullshit, and if true, I'm basically done with Dropbox. Asking people not to talk about something (with access to your service as the gun to their heads) is not something I will tolerate in someone I do business with. I don't actually use Dropbox for anything, though, so perhaps my thoughts don't matter.
You're done using something you don't use because they _asked_ someone to do something (rather than taking the industry standard approach of getting lawyers involved)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As mentioned before, IANAL, and I do not have deep/any knowledge of the laws Dropbox is incorporated in. However, "Presumption of Innocence" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence ) aka "Innocent until proven guilty" is one of the universally applied (if not, also accepted), legal concept. Can dropship be used for illegal file sharing? Yes. Is dropship being used for illegal file sharing? No, until p…
That's not how the presumption of innocence works. I say that as someone who has practiced both civil and criminal law. Presumption of innocence only applies to crimes. Copyright violations are not crimes, they are civil torts. (Though some actions incident to copyright violations, i.e., circumventing DRM, can be crimes.) Can dropshiip be used for illegal fire sharing? YES, in fact, that was the suggested and intende…
That being said, I realize Dropbox(or Corporate entities in general) is not government and/or legal system and it is not required of them to follow laws, which are applicable for governments.
However, Laws are legal representation of morals/ethics, which are applicable for every entity in the society, for its effective operation.
While the law is codified as Presumption of Innocence, its underlying sentiment, from moral point-of-view, Judge/punish based on definitive actions not speculations, are applicable for all entities of the society.