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

281–290 of 323 posts

Re: Dropbox Attempts To Kill Open Source Project

#281

Post by SwellJoe »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #277
tlrobinson wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Presumably if someone has reverse engineered Dropship¹ then we're not far off having an FOSS Dropbox-a-like to use it with?

That's a pretty big stretch. You believe the client-side code to trigger download of a file that doesn't exist on the system is "not far off from having an FOSS Dropbox-a-like"? That's like finding a hub cap in the woods, and deciding you've almost got all the parts needed to construct a car.

I don't believe Dropbox is using any techniques that are secret; I believe anyone with the know-how, and time, and inclination, could use publicly available algorithms to replicate everything Dropbox has done. The "secret sauce" is not the protocol. There are a number of protocols for doing versioned filed storage (WebDAV, for instance) and a number of protocols for transferring only the parts of files which have changed (rsync, for instance). The hard part is in putting them all together, not in any magic to be found in a few lines of code.

I highly doubt this is all a conspiracy to prevent people from building a FOSS "Dropbox-a-like". People can already do that, without needing any Dropbox magic. Oddly enough, no one has. I reckon it's because it's really hard to put all those pieces together in a way that works easily for end users. Highly technical users have had these kinds of capabilities for years in the form of version control systems, rsync, etc. Open Source developers have solved the hard algorithmic problems already (and Dropbox is standing on their shoulders). What Dropbox did is make it accessible and usable by anyone.

Do people really need any explanation other than, "Somebody made a mistake and sent out the wrong email"? They don't strike me as being particularly evil guys when I've met some of them, and while they aren't bastions of Open Source generosity as far as I know, they also never seemed to be anti-Open Source, to me.

Re: Dropbox Attempts To Kill Open Source Project

#282

Post by thaumaturgy »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #276
dhouston wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't think cynicism is justifiable here. Let's use Occam's Razor:

1. Dropbox staff hand-crafted oddly-worded DMCA takedown notices and purposefully sent those to specific individuals after having already sent them polite requests to remove certain content;

2. Dropbox staff hand-crafted oddly-worded DMCA takedown notices at some point in the past as part of an automated system, which fired incorrectly when staff removed content.

To me, #2 makes a lot more sense, and is the simpler (and in this analysis, the more likely) case.

Re: Dropbox Attempts To Kill Open Source Project

#283

Post by nateberkopec »

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…

That was such a classy response. Well done Dropbox - I don't want you become rapidshare either.

Re: Dropbox Attempts To Kill Open Source Project

#284

Post by SwellJoe »

gommm wrote: post #244
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…

Yes, now that the bug is fixed I would have liked looking at the source code of Dropship just to see how it worked... So it's a pity that they asked people to take it down.

According to several other comments the source code is still quite widely available.

Re: Dropbox Attempts To Kill Open Source Project

#285

Post by wakeup »

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…

How about you kill yourself capitalist cunt?

Re: Dropbox Attempts To Kill Open Source Project

#286

Post by SwellJoe »

tlrobinson wrote: post #271
shad0wfax wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And Dropbox hasn't done anything to any users of the code, as far as I know. What do you think Dropbox is doing to people who poke at the code or use it?

Re: Dropbox Attempts To Kill Open Source Project

#287

Post by nl »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #276
dhouston wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No, if I understand Drew's statement correctly:

They have a system they use for IP enforcement that bans based on file hash. They used this system to ban the files.

A side effect of this system is that it sends a DMCA notice to anyone who has a copy of that file hash (because that has always been what it was used for before). I'm guessing inside the hash-ban tool there is a field "owner" or something, which they filled in as "Dropbox" and is used as the source of the DMCA notice.

I don't think there is any conspiracy here. Never ascribe to malice what can be ascribed to incompetence. I's pretty harsh to call Dropbox incompetence, but given how it would make sense for their system to work, I think a mistake is a fair description.

Re: Dropbox Attempts To Kill Open Source Project

#288

Post by bruceboughton »

power78 wrote: post #86
crocowhile wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you can just share a folder with someone or give them the public link - and both are even easier solutions.

Again, that requires you to: A) move the files to the public folder B) watch out for bandwidth limits on the public folder C) give your Dropbox account ID to everyone as it is tied directly to the URL With this method, you get anonymous file transfers without bandwidth limits

>> B) watch out for bandwidth limits on the public folder

Why would Dropbox want to let you circumvent bandwidth limits on your public folder?

Re: Dropbox Attempts To Kill Open Source Project

#289

Post by mborromeo »

If you spend so much time, passion and money building a product like Dropbox you will try to defend it from every kind of threat: today the "piracy" topic is a hot one, sounds like its worse than killing someone, and Dropbox is hit by this "piracy" threat. I fully understand and respect Dropbox founders positions, and the DMCA issue is clearly a bug in my opinion (i wouldn't automatically send those kind of communications upon a system-forced file deletion, however).
Post reply on HN