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

261–270 of 323 posts

Re: Dropbox Attempts To Kill Open Source Project

#261

Post by shad0wfax »

wewyor wrote: post #161
kragen wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strike 1 was when they got caught lying about whether their employees could decrypt your files or not.

I suppose so, I always took that statement to be that employees didn't have easy access to your files (such as without decrypting from the servers). It should have been obvious to anyone else remotely familiar with security that dropbox had/has access to your files from the simple fact that you could reset your password, as well as the web interface.

wewyar, like kragen & iamjustlooking pointed out I considered that whole episode as strike1. I agree I am being extremely critical and have to agree in spirit that this is their real goof up. Poor security is not a reason to abandon the ship if they show an intent to fix it ASAP. What I felt a bit let down by this whole take down thing was, their initial approach was to surpress the hackers rather than fix their problem. I see in another post they seem to addressed it the loophole (?), which is the way to go. Embrace ppl tinkering this way but make your platform robust.

Re: Dropbox Attempts To Kill Open Source Project

#262

Post by random42 »

shad0wfax wrote: post #259
argos wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, but that has nothing to do with having the code, as I said in a port below... using it would be a violation, but why block open source code.

Even I am struggling to understand how exactly did this violate ToS? Was it "illegal code/file"? No! It was a file to a s/w that had the potential to be used maliciously, but the file uploaded itself wasn't, but hadn't really manifested in that form (yet). I feel asking the dev to take down the Github project is ok, but blocking/restricting access to the file itself, until proven malicious was a bad idea. And if that…

To my understanding (after several downvotes, and few uncalled-for language), it is simple.

1. Dropship violated Dropbox ToS, by reverse-engineering Dropbox proprietary code.

Thats all.

Nothing to do with DMCA notice, which was sent by accident.

Re: Dropbox Attempts To Kill Open Source Project

#263

Post by shad0wfax »

random42 wrote: post #262
shad0wfax wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even I am struggling to understand how exactly did this violate ToS? Was it "illegal code/file"? No! It was a file to a s/w that had the potential to be used maliciously, but the file uploaded itself wasn't, but hadn't really manifested in that form (yet). I feel asking the dev to take down the Github project is ok, but blocking/restricting access to the file itself, until proven malicious was a bad idea. And if that…

To my understanding (after several downvotes, and few uncalled-for language), it is simple. 1. Dropship violated Dropbox ToS, by reverse-engineering Dropbox proprietary code. Thats all. Nothing to do with DMCA notice, which was sent by accident.

Agree the Dropship s/w itself was in some violation of the ToS, but was the file that was uploaded to the public dropbox share in violation? What I am trying to separate here is, how could Dropbox the company "determine" the uploaded file indeed was the Dropship s/w? [I know in this case it was obvious as the dev had probably linked to it]. I am trying to pose a question to a different level, where how can/will dropbox scrutinize each uploaded file in this manner without actually receiving a DMCA from a third person?

Re: Dropbox Attempts To Kill Open Source Project

#264

Post by blasdel »

allending wrote: post #236
dhouston wrote: post #106

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…

DMCA notices are no joke, especially for the receiver. Your 'automated' system should probably be either: a) manual b) have a big ass 'THIS F-ING SENDS A DMCA NOTICE' warning before you disable a file.

Yes, in an ideal world their system would only ever store and forward a received DMCA notice.

But here in the real world Dropbox doesn't really give a shit whether they actually got a real DMCA notice from Sony regarding the presence of "Spiderman.3.DVDRip.avi" in a particular 13-year-old's public folder — since none of those accounts are paid, they're just saving themselves money, and noone would discover it normally or have a reason to be pissed off at them. They can't even get in trouble for perjury since they were never sending DMCA notices to users, but rather telling users that Dropbox had received a notice.

Re: Dropbox Attempts To Kill Open Source Project

#265

Post by happyfeet »

AndyKelley wrote: post #205
random42 wrote: post #163

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…

The Internet IS being used for illegal file sharing. Should we take it down? No! Classic baby/bathwater.

I think the comparisons are not correct. Dropbox is a privately held entity and the founders have every right to enforce the ToS and to compare that against Internet itself is not right.

Re: Dropbox Attempts To Kill Open Source Project

#266

Post by bdesimone »

starwed wrote: post #171
StrawberryFrog wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The form letter the OP got wasn't a DMCA takedown notice. The letter stated that a takedown notice had been received. That was untrue (the file was being removed for a different reason) but since no takedown notice was sent it certainly isn't perjury. (Man, this thread is full of disinfo.)

Wait... what? How is that any better?

Re: Dropbox Attempts To Kill Open Source Project

#267

Post by random42 »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #234
random42 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks, It was helpful information. As said before IANAL. 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 P…

"Thanks, It was helpful information. As said before IANAL." Not only are you not a lawyer, but you are also struggling with some basic concepts regarding the implementation of laws. Laws, implemented as statutes, have no association with, or bearing on, morals which are purely a cultural phenomena. I understand that you disagree with how Dropbox went about protecting themselves from civil liability, however the viola…

> I understand that you disagree with how Dropbox went about protecting themselves from civil liability.

I absolutely do not disagree with how Dropbox went about protecting themselves. What I disagree with is, trying to claim a tool or technology can be anti-law, rather than its usage.

All pieces of technology, from Atom energy to Internet, can be used for both wonderfully good or evil. What I am trying to say is, Laws are (should be) applied how a technology is used, not what technology is used.

That being said, I am not trying to defend or endorse dropship's reverse-engineering of Dropbox's proprietary code, and hence infringing the ToS. It certainly looks illegal.

> however the violated no laws by their actions.

Never disagreed.

Re: Dropbox Attempts To Kill Open Source Project

#268

Post by blasdel »

dhouston wrote: post #179
tptacek wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fee…

We didn't file a takedown to github -- the author voluntarily took the code down

Someone complained that their fork on Github had been summarily deleted: http://razorfast.com/2011/04/25/dropbox-attempts-to-kill-ope...

Re: Dropbox Attempts To Kill Open Source Project

#269

Post by bdesimone »

dhouston wrote: post #106

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…

I sympathize. But could you please explain how that email was "auto-generated"? I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, I love what dropbox does, I understand the need to protect yourself from people looking to abuse the service, but... come on... was it really autogenerated? I think that is the part that has everyone scratching their heads.

Re: Dropbox Attempts To Kill Open Source Project

#270

Post by tlrobinson »

SwellJoe wrote: post #155
random42 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Which is great, except you are punishing the crime, before it even occurred. No, they aren't. They're enforcing the terms of use that Dropbox users agreed to when signing up. I don't think asking folks to take stuff down was the correct solution...I think fixing the bug was the right solution, which they've also done. But, I don't see how Dropbox is "punishing" anyone, when they're just asking people to use the ser…

It's clearly a violation of ToS to use Dropship, however, it's less clear whether it's a violation to store code that has the potential to violate the ToS.
Post reply on HN