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

Google Drive flags file only containing “1” for copyright infringement

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 464 posts

Re: Google Drive flags file only containing “1” for copyright infringement

#231

Post by blibble »

tyingq wrote: post #122
tyingq wrote: post #15

I'm curious if it was related to the file name. I created a few 1-byte files with just "1" in them, with different names, including "output04.txt". No problems so far. Also uploaded variations with "\n" and "\r\n" after the "1". And enabled sharing to anyone with the link. No issues so far. Google drive does support metadata like a description and comments. I wonder if someone posted some copyrighted text in a commen…

Update: It has now flagged the file with "0\n" in it. So it's official, Both 0 and 1 are copyrighted :) https://imgur.com/a/xMgh6Xn

I hope you did that from a burner account!

Re: Google Drive flags file only containing “1” for copyright infringement

#233

Post by radicaldreamer »

reincarnate0x14 wrote: post #229
tyingq wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't try that. I marked them public because I assumed that's what triggers the scan.

AFAIK the copyright scan only happens on files shared from certain types of Drive accounts, the assumption presumably being that while Google doesn't know or care if you have rights to possess data, they can be reasonably sure you wouldn't be using Drive links as the means of distributing many well-known files (video, music, software, mostly) if you had rights to do so. How far Artificial Stupidity runs into the weed…

What is the best in class cloud drive software which doesn't do this? I feel like Dropbox is a bit more selective, but without going into the Megas of the world, there doesn't seem to be a good file share with solid end-user desktop sync.

Re: Google Drive flags file only containing “1” for copyright infringement

#234

Post by withinboredom »

vidarh wrote: post #224
withinboredom wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have an email from myself to myself sent in 2007 in GMail. I can't open the attachment because "it is malicious." It doesn't, just a schematic, but there's no way to tell GMail to let me download it anyway.

Have you tried downloading it via IMAP?

No actually. That’s a good idea!

Re: Google Drive flags file only containing “1” for copyright infringement

#235

Post by reincarnate0x14 »

radicaldreamer wrote: post #233
reincarnate0x14 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK the copyright scan only happens on files shared from certain types of Drive accounts, the assumption presumably being that while Google doesn't know or care if you have rights to possess data, they can be reasonably sure you wouldn't be using Drive links as the means of distributing many well-known files (video, music, software, mostly) if you had rights to do so. How far Artificial Stupidity runs into the weed…

What is the best in class cloud drive software which doesn't do this? I feel like Dropbox is a bit more selective, but without going into the Megas of the world, there doesn't seem to be a good file share with solid end-user desktop sync.

Maybe B2? It's not something I have to looked into extensively. My needs for sharing data from GDrive are limited and if there is data I don't feel like google automation getting at I have it encrypted via rclone mounts.

Re: Google Drive flags file only containing “1” for copyright infringement

#236

Post by vidarh »

iameli wrote: post #75

All software has bugs; I'm not mad at all that this silly test case was flagged incorrectly. The truly infuriating part is "A review cannot be requested for this restriction." Translation: "We have no idea if you actually own this content or not, but it would be _way too expensive_ for us to find out for sure! So you're out of luck, but don't worry — it's all worth it so we can make sure children can't stream Marvel…

A legal requirement to provide an appeals process for automated decisions would be a good step.

Many places have restrictions like that for limited things like loan decisions, but it's about time to start forcing companies to provide a manual appeals process for other types of decisions that can significantly affect people.

Re: Google Drive flags file only containing “1” for copyright infringement

#237

Post by foxfluff »

easrng wrote: post #222
foxfluff wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also larger than that; I believe one of the biggest threats to freedom today is complexity. That's why people are so bitter at Mozilla for example, and perhaps to a lesser degree systemd. But it applies to a lot of stuff, for example everyone who complains about GPU drivers on Linux (or "Linux is not there yet" in general) complains because they feel powerless to fix the issues. I'm glad AMD is doing their part…

Google blocking browsers is understandable, they're trying to stop apps from implementing Sign In with Google in a webview because that's a security issue. (Apps could steal passwords or non-oauth session information) Some actual browsers (mostly built around those same webview tools) got caught up in the blocks too. If they were blocking everything except Chrome, that'd be a different story, but they're not.

My take on this is that you always have plausible deniability when you deny freedoms "for security." I don't like it.

Blocking everything except Chrome would immediately raise way too many eyebrows, but allowing the few big (non-) competitors while making life hard for any potential rising stars has value if you want to maintain the status quo (near monopoly on browser market).

In any case, I don't really even care about Google's motivations here. I have a problem with the fact that they can do this at all. Open technology should not enable overriding user control and arbitrarily blocking clients based on prejudice.

Re: Google Drive flags file only containing “1” for copyright infringement

#238

Post by meshaneian »

tyingq wrote: post #122
tyingq wrote: post #15

I'm curious if it was related to the file name. I created a few 1-byte files with just "1" in them, with different names, including "output04.txt". No problems so far. Also uploaded variations with "\n" and "\r\n" after the "1". And enabled sharing to anyone with the link. No issues so far. Google drive does support metadata like a description and comments. I wonder if someone posted some copyrighted text in a commen…

Update: It has now flagged the file with "0\n" in it. So it's official, Both 0 and 1 are copyrighted :) https://imgur.com/a/xMgh6Xn

I believe 0 and 1 belong in the public domain, at least under US copyright law - there appears to be a significant amount of prior art.

Re: Google Drive flags file only containing “1” for copyright infringement

#239

Post by avisser »

tyingq wrote: post #15

I'm curious if it was related to the file name. I created a few 1-byte files with just "1" in them, with different names, including "output04.txt". No problems so far. Also uploaded variations with "\n" and "\r\n" after the "1". And enabled sharing to anyone with the link. No issues so far. Google drive does support metadata like a description and comments. I wonder if someone posted some copyrighted text in a commen…

I wonder if this is an incredible hash collision. hash("1") == hash(disney_movie.mp4)

Re: Google Drive flags file only containing “1” for copyright infringement

#240

Post by tyingq »

CJefferson wrote: post #228
tyingq wrote: post #15

I'm curious if it was related to the file name. I created a few 1-byte files with just "1" in them, with different names, including "output04.txt". No problems so far. Also uploaded variations with "\n" and "\r\n" after the "1". And enabled sharing to anyone with the link. No issues so far. Google drive does support metadata like a description and comments. I wonder if someone posted some copyrighted text in a commen…

Turns out Google also hates 500, 174, 833, 285 and 302 (from generating files from -1000 to 1000).

That's interesting. 500 and 302 popped into my head as common HTTP status codes. The others don't seem notable to me.
Post reply on HN