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

271–280 of 323 posts

Re: Dropbox Attempts To Kill Open Source Project

#271

Post by tlrobinson »

shad0wfax wrote: post #263
random42 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dropb…

Furthermore, even if the file contains code that could be used to the violate the ToS, that doesn't mean the user actually has violated the ToS.

Re: Dropbox Attempts To Kill Open Source Project

#273

Post by tlrobinson »

power78 wrote: post #99
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.

For older clients they could require upload of the full file (same as if the file has never been uploaded). For new clients you could use the challenge/response scheme.

I believe they've already implemented the former. If the de-dup benefits were significant they could implement the latter.

Re: Dropbox Attempts To Kill Open Source Project

#274

Post by wladimir »

trotsky wrote: post #200
gergles wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't seem to be done, as I just used the code in question to get the example trailer and I did not have the file in advance.

This is one of the more interesting comments in this thread. Can anyone confirm it still works? EDIT: I get the following error: [xxx@xxx laanwj-dropship-464e1c4]$ ./dropship examples/sintel_trailer-1080p.mp4.json ('Oops, blocks are not known: %s', ['lykR7INbdxXNk04IpJUxTvO97GeETwAbobol2283eqY', 'ciZ4YYqkiA9VssSpfmcagRJaYMtD3wNqZ4NTeV9BvOc', '7qe_U9KLL8t1RRH3K01PdTxnEGCnm1nP8S30ZkXK0KI', 'cPJPJ_uch8hJFhKaEeXufETDZ-q6…

It calls your bluff now :)

Re: Dropbox Attempts To Kill Open Source Project

#275

Post by injekt »

Dubois wrote: post #98

It's a shame that Dropbox has resorted to attacking its users and threatening them with loss of data. Looks like it's time to clone Dropbox and offer some respectable service to users.

I can't see that they've done any of this. They've been pretty polite about the whole thing. At least that's what the article says. The fact they mention that their terms give them the right to deny users access to their service at any time doesn't mean they're threatening. It's just a reminder.

They're said the DMCA was a mistake and they hold their hands up to that. Aside from that, I can't see how they've done anything wrong. OK so asking the author to remove it from 3rd party sites is a bit cheeky, but that's all they did.. ask. I would have asked too, the author didn't have to. He clearly didn't want any trouble.

Imo Dropbox should have just fixed then, and sat there and laughed when people tried to use Dropship and it not work. It would have saved 'Dropbox attempts to kill open source project' and may have even caused for 'Dropbox fixes file hashing issue x days after open source project built to exploit it'. That way, both win. But that's just my 2 cents

Re: Dropbox Attempts To Kill Open Source Project

#276

Post by pbhjpbhj »

dhouston wrote: post #215
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…

we have a variety of easy-to-use sharing mechanisms (public links, shared folders, etc.) that people have been using for a long time for legitimate uses. 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.

>"to be clear, we _never issued_ any DMCA takedowns to anyone"

That's just disingenuous legalistic manoeuvring though isn't it. You claimed that you had issued a notice, to yourselves, and it was outside of the email recipients ability (without issuing an injunction - or whatever the process is in your jurisdiction) to confirm your claim. They took your word on it.

So fraud or a DMCA.

But no you say it was just "a mistake".

Forgive my cynicism but this is standard fare for the legal departments of big business, using the law to bully people who financially can't afford to protect themselves against false claims.

Re: Dropbox Attempts To Kill Open Source Project

#277

Post by pbhjpbhj »

tlrobinson wrote: post #270
SwellJoe wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Presumably if someone has reverse engineered Dropship¹ then we're not far off having an FOSS Dropbox-a-like to use it with? I'd have thought that is the problem Dropbox is most likely to be addressing?

Run your own organisation-wide Dropbox? Yes please.

Edit: ¹ I mean of course created Dropship by reverese engineering Dropbox's protocols.

Re: Dropbox Attempts To Kill Open Source Project

#278

Post by pbhjpbhj »

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.

Are those ToS legal?

Re: Dropbox Attempts To Kill Open Source Project

#279

Post by jamesaguilar »

random42 wrote: post #190
uxp wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumption of Innocence is only valid when being held or otherwise detained due to suspicion of guilt by the government, at least in the USA. Dropbox is a private service, and any notices stating that users cannot sync certain files when they use their product under penalty of removal of their account can be enforced, just like any brick and mortar store can enforce a "no shoes, no shirt, no service" policy and refu…

Sure, they have legal rights to do so. However, just because it is legal it does not make it fair (Ref - Sony vs. Geohotz). Punishing for the suspicion of crime, rather than actual crime, just because you are can get away with it, is evil ish and not nice. I expect better from Dropbox, we all know and love.

Where suspicion approaches certainty, evil-ish approaches perfectly understandable and rational.

Re: Dropbox Attempts To Kill Open Source Project

#280

Post by arethuza »

What a completely unedifying spectacle:

- Overblown "geek rage" over a non-existent DMCA takedown notice and bizarre "legal" arguments

- A company mishandling a security flaw by asking a developer to remove code that exposes the problem rather than simply fixing the problem and leaving the code in wild to demonstrate that the flaw doesn't exist anymore

I use DropBox, although I wouldn't say I depend on it. What this episode did make me appreciate is the degree to which DropBox is a closed product - there may be good commercial reasons for this but as a consumer I'd rather use a service that has at least an open and documented interface (even if the implementations are still proprietary).

Post reply on HN