Live data from Hacker News

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

twitter.com

401–410 of 464 posts

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

#401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is a problem of its own, since they're effectively usernames. Secure usernames that have no corresponding password is already an oxymoron; that's what credit card numbers used to be, hence the introduction of the CVV, 3DSecure and so on; but at least a credit card can be blocked with relative ease. But SSNs are secure unchangeable usernames, which makes even less sense. Do any countries other than the US have s…

You can actually change your social security number in the circumstance of "victim of identity theft continues to be disadvantaged by using the original number": https://faq.ssa.gov/en-us/Topic/article/KA-02220 It's a huge pain, obviously. Especially when you get to all the systems which blindly assume it isn't possible. But you can do it. They ought to just open it up and let anyone who requests to change it once a…

Doesn't it reset your credit history? (Which you reluctantly want if you were the victim of identity theft, but not yearly)

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

#402

Disclosure: I work at Google, but not on the Google Drive team specifically. Sorry about the issue, folks! The Google Drive team is aware of it and is working on remediating it. And thank you all for the many test cases! :)

> The Google Drive team is aware of it and is working on remediating it.

So reviews of copyright infringement claims _can_ be requested, but only if they reach the front page of HN? That is not OK.

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

#403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without copyright you cannot write contracts about creative works, because there is no value to exchange. Creative works without legal protection are free and therefore cannot be investments or subscriptions. Just like I can’t get people to invest in or subscribe to the air in front of my house. I think you are headed down the wrong path here. You don’t need to eliminate intellectual property to preserve general purp…

> Without copyright you cannot write contracts about creative works, because there is no value to exchange. There is no value even with copyright. Its value is made up, created via artificial scarcity whose days became numbered the minute computers were invented. There's no point in perpetuating this system. The true value is the labor of creators. Data is abundant. Creators are rare. They need to somehow get paid fo…

> There is no value even with copyright. Its value is made up,

And I'm sure that's why Disney makes billions of dollars selling movie tickets every year, right? The moviegoers who drag themselves out of the house just can't be trusted to determine value?

Yeah, the value is determined by scarcity. That's the point of IP law. Otherwise the value would be zero, and these movies would not be made because they'd instantly get copied ad infinitum and anyone proposing to spend more than fun money on one would be shunned.

> The true value is the labor of creators.

No, and this sounds an awful lot like the Labor Theory of Value. The value of IP is what people are willing to pay for it, same as any other market good. Comic book franchises were basically worthless until Disney and WB blew them up, for example. It's rare for any media to succeed without marketing. Value requires far more than just creators and it's absurd to pretend otherwise.

> We can invest in the creator. Paying them up front like investments, or continuously every month like patronage.

There are far, far more creators than there could ever be works of great cultural significance, and the creators building valuable IP are compensated for it far more than they would under any other practical scheme.

> I'm not convinced the copyright industry will ever stop. The situation gets worse every year. How is this supposed to change with copyright holders still around? Their lobbying power is immense.

By passing laws. It's literally that simple. You can replace "copyright holders" with "oil barons" or "AT&T" and see how silly that sounds. Copyright, unfortunately, is at the very bottom of everyone's list of priorities, and for obvious reasons.

You ask "how is this supposed to change?" as if the situation is unbearable, but it's really not. A big reason for why nobody cares is that your average consumer now can consume pretty much everything more cheaply than ever before - fully legally. And so what if Google makes an obvious and stupid mistake with Google Drive every now and then? They'll generally fix it pretty quickly, and there are a million similarly-priced competitors that don't do this if you're not satisfied with the quality of the (free) service.

> When was the last time some work entered the public domain?

Given that copyright is automatic and requires no registration, there's a steady flow of works entering the public domain. OG Mickey Mouse lost copyright a few years ago, IIRC.

tl;dr there's a gigantic jump from "copyright protections are frequently onerous and stupid" to "we should abolish IP law." You are giving evidence for the first and acting like it justifies the second.

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

#404
post #122
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

Maybe it's because you have "one" in the file name: "zeronewline".

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

#405
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's the 21st century and copyright is absolute nonsense. This is an awful, terrible take. We know that intellectual property is much more artificial than pretty much every other type of property right, but we still want governments to enforce copyright and other IP law because it's a good way to make sure that people have a financial incentive to be creative or do R&D. Copyright needs reform (and many types of DRM…

Since you work in copyright, you've probably also seen firsthand how overzealous copyright enforcement can destroy businesses that produce excellent content. Frankly, your bias shows and you might have a case of EverythingLooksLikeANailitis. The copyright industry may be "protecting" jobs in some ways, but it's also destroying jobs in others. It's halting progress in so many cases. You also need to look at who, in pr…

> Frankly, your bias shows and you might have a case of EverythingLooksLikeANailitis. The copyright industry may be "protecting" jobs in some ways, but it's also destroying jobs in others. It's halting progress in so many cases.

No, I have a case of "I'veSeenWhatHappensWhenCopyrightIsIgnoreditis." A blind man could see that copyright needs serious reforms, but it's absurd to pretend like other systems produce the diversity and scale of works that the current one does.

> You also need to look at who, in practice, is protected by copyright.

Believe it or not, I do every day.

It's crazy that your solution to "small creators get ripped off" is "make ripping them off legal." The actual solution is to reduce the cost of enforcing copyright - right now it takes a court case, which obviously is a nonstarter for anyone who isn't making bank off of their copyright.

> A world without copyright is a different one. IP lawyers and copyright enforcers might be out of a job, but it doesn't mean it'd be one without music or art.

As long as there are humans, there'll be art and music. What there won't be are people who make a living off of it, and we'll rewind to like 300 years ago when the only people who could afford to create art were born rich or willing to find a rich person who'd individually sponsor them. When people have more time to spend on art, they produce better art. I really hope that isn't controversial.

> We'd find a different way to make it work, hopefully a way that doesn't drive the next Aaron Swartz to suicide.

I'd really rather we didn't use a deeply individual instance of suicide as a political talking point. It's kind of tasteless and you can find plenty of examples of suicide for virtually any problem.

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

#406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Relevant Onion article here: https://www.theonion.com/microsoft-patents-ones-zeroes-18195...

Why is satire so much better at predicting our dumb reality than sci-fi? This is definitely the darkest timeline.

Because rational people like to think people are rational. Rational people then go on and write their great sci fi works.

People writing satire know people are irrational. Otherwise they wouldn't be writing satire, would they?

To quote George Carlin: Take an average idiot on the street, then realize half of people are dumber than them.

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

#407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It matters for counter notice that they didn't issue a DMCA notice, you can always sue them of course, but since the first action is not under framework of DMCA, you cannot issue a counter notice to what is not a DMCA notice. The lawsuit is not strong either because their ToS says they can delete your all your data for any and no reason at all.

What Google calls the action is a non-issue. "Wrongful assertion of a copyright violation" is illegal and actionable. It's hard to win on that, but it's been done.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Summit_Entertainment_...

It is hard to say who will win in any case, but yes as you say and is known it would hard to win on those(or other) grounds which is why the case is weak.

Also to note Google/Youtube did not get sued in the case you cited. It was only the company which claimed infringement that got sued and lost.

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

#408

The fact that Google is scanning your files for "copyright infringement" is bad enough. They have no way of knowing that you don't legitimately own something. Then pair that with this example and if that isn't enough of a deal breaker for using Google drive I don't know what is.

I had no idea that Drive isn't just a disk drive in the cloud. I've always treated it as such. Do they all do this? OneDrive, Drop, etc.?

I believe this is only for accounts with sharing on. Otherwise, there is no infringement

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

#409
post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the scale at which Google operates, even if they fixed it within a minute it probably takes some time to test and roll these things out. Sometimes I wonder if people think that infrastructure for billions of people is some sort of magic where you push the fix button and magically everything's solved across the globe.

I remember interviewing at Amazon (this was 2009) and being told that any engineer could deploy to the main site at any time. The thought terrified me.

[deleted]

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

#410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A product manager with an MBA will argue this affects only a handful of customers, mostly non-paying, so fixing it should sit at the end of the backlog.

Is that wrong? How many outraged people here are going to stop using paid-for Google products because of this? (people who didn't stop using paid-for Google products for all the times this kind of thing happened before). It's approximately none, isn't it?

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN