11 ms·

> 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 i

> 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 takedown notice is a legal threat. Worse part is, its not even valid, IANAL, but do you own the copyright of the data or the copyright owner approached you to issue a DMCA takedown notice? > it auto-generated a DMCA takedown notice to the OP, which as many pointed out here was invalid and particularly inappropriate in this case, and was absolutely not what we intended to do. Please do not send legal notices, without lawyers reviewing them?

atacrawl 15y ago
Which is great, except you are punishing the crime, before it even occurred. This is pretty disingenuous. You really think their assumption that Dropship would quickly turn Dropbox into an illegal file sharing haven is an unrealistic grasping of straws?
- random42 15y ago
  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 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 proven otherwise. Legal penalties are applied for the cases depending upon what happens/happened, not what could happen. That being said, my understanding of law is deeply based on my country's law. The case might be different in the country dropbox is incorporated. EDIT - I got a lot of downvotes for this reply. Can someone (who intend to downvote this comment), please explain where I am missing the point and/or being wrong?
  - AndyKelley 15y ago
    The Internet IS being used for illegal file sharing. Should we take it down? No! Classic baby/bathwater.
    - happyfeet 15y ago
      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.
      - marshray 15y ago
        Your logic sounds consistent with plenty of established principles. But keep in mind the US part of the internet is by and large a collection of privately held entities. By your logic, it's completely reasonable for Sen. Lieberman's to place calls to Amazon to suggest websites and services they might want to review for ToS violations and take them down. It cuts both ways dude. One day Dropbox, your ISP, whoever could decide that they don't like something you wrote (in code or in opinion) and "happyfeet" is then in violation of their ToS. In fact, Dropbox is probably reading your comments in this thread right now. They might just decide your files are in need of review.
        jarin 15y ago
        There's a pretty easy solution if that happens. Host your files somewhere else. Your use of Dropbox (and their decision to allow you to use their service) is on a purely voluntary, at-will basis.
  - rprasad 15y ago
    That's not how the presumption of innocence works. I say that as someone who has practiced both civil and criminal law. Presumption of innocence only applies to crimes. Copyright violations are not crimes, they are civil torts. (Though some actions incident to copyright violations, i.e., circumventing DRM, can be crimes.) Can dropshiip be used for illegal fire sharing? YES, in fact, that was the suggested and intended use. Under American case law, which governs Dropbox, that alone is enough to constitute a DMCA violation (see, e.g. Napster, Kazaa, and succeeding cases). Dropbox took dropship down to prevent future legal issues. Since it's their service, they don't have to wait until they occur actual legal liability to act.
nokcha 15y ago
>DMCA takedown notice is a legal threat. I think Drew was mistaken when he called it a "takedown notice". That term has a specific meaning, and judging from the linked article, what DropBox actually sent to the OP was not a takedown notice. Instead, it was just a message saying that DropBox had received such a notice from a third party and consequently disabled access to the allegedly infringing file.
- dhouston 15y ago
  correct -- fixed this distinction in my reply, thanks
SwellJoe 15y ago
> 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 service as it is intended.
- random42 15y ago
  Yeah, I agree to enforcing the violation of ToS. I was writing for the DMCA take down notice for the possibility of illegal file sharing via dropship. (as mentioned by arash/drew in comments.) I am actually curious to know what ToS were violated (based on which Dropbox decided to take the action), except that I have not read about the real reason on either the Original Article or the discussion on HN. Can Drew/Arash clarify what Terms were being violated actually by dropship?
  - res0nat0r 15y ago
    > Can Drew/Arash clarify what Terms were being violated actually by dropship? http://www.dropbox.com/dmca#terms http://www.dropbox.com/dmca#terms Access, tamper with, or use non-public areas of the Site (including but not limited to user folders not designated as 'public' or that you have not been given permission to access), Dropbox's computer systems, or the technical delivery systems of Dropbox's providers; Attempt to access or search the Site, Content, Files or Services with any engine, software, tool, agent, device or mechanism other than the software and/or search agents provided by Dropbox or other generally available third-party web browsers (such as Microsoft Internet Explorer or Mozilla Firefox), including but not limited to browser automation tools;
    - argos 15y ago
      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.
dhouston 15y ago
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.
- random42 15y ago
  > to be clear, we _never issued_ any DMCA takedowns to anyone Thanks. Already updated in the comment.
- pbhjpbhj 15y ago
  >"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.
  - thaumaturgy 15y ago
    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.
    - Goronmon 15y ago
      To be clear, Dropbox isn't wording any takedown notices. These are just automated e-mails saying that content is being removed because Dropbox itself received a takedown notice from a third-party and that they are complying.

atacrawl 15y ago

Which is great, except you are punishing the crime, before it even occurred. This is pretty disingenuous. You really think their assumption that Dropship would quickly turn Dropbox into an illegal file sharing haven is an unrealistic grasping of straws?

random42 15y ago
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 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 proven otherwise. Legal penalties are applied for the cases depending upon what happens/happened, not what could happen. That being said, my understanding of law is deeply based on my country's law. The case might be different in the country dropbox is incorporated. EDIT - I got a lot of downvotes for this reply. Can someone (who intend to downvote this comment), please explain where I am missing the point and/or being wrong?
- AndyKelley 15y ago
  The Internet IS being used for illegal file sharing. Should we take it down? No! Classic baby/bathwater.
  - happyfeet 15y ago
    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.
    - marshray 15y ago
      Your logic sounds consistent with plenty of established principles. But keep in mind the US part of the internet is by and large a collection of privately held entities. By your logic, it's completely reasonable for Sen. Lieberman's to place calls to Amazon to suggest websites and services they might want to review for ToS violations and take them down. It cuts both ways dude. One day Dropbox, your ISP, whoever could decide that they don't like something you wrote (in code or in opinion) and "happyfeet" is then in violation of their ToS. In fact, Dropbox is probably reading your comments in this thread right now. They might just decide your files are in need of review.
      - jarin 15y ago
        There's a pretty easy solution if that happens. Host your files somewhere else. Your use of Dropbox (and their decision to allow you to use their service) is on a purely voluntary, at-will basis.
- rprasad 15y ago
  That's not how the presumption of innocence works. I say that as someone who has practiced both civil and criminal law. Presumption of innocence only applies to crimes. Copyright violations are not crimes, they are civil torts. (Though some actions incident to copyright violations, i.e., circumventing DRM, can be crimes.) Can dropshiip be used for illegal fire sharing? YES, in fact, that was the suggested and intended use. Under American case law, which governs Dropbox, that alone is enough to constitute a DMCA violation (see, e.g. Napster, Kazaa, and succeeding cases). Dropbox took dropship down to prevent future legal issues. Since it's their service, they don't have to wait until they occur actual legal liability to act.

nokcha 15y ago

>DMCA takedown notice is a legal threat. I think Drew was mistaken when he called it a "takedown notice". That term has a specific meaning, and judging from the linked article, what DropBox actually sent to the OP was not a takedown notice. Instead, it was just a message saying that DropBox had received such a notice from a third party and consequently disabled access to the allegedly infringing file.

dhouston 15y ago
correct -- fixed this distinction in my reply, thanks

SwellJoe 15y ago

> 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 service as it is intended.

random42 15y ago
Yeah, I agree to enforcing the violation of ToS. I was writing for the DMCA take down notice for the possibility of illegal file sharing via dropship. (as mentioned by arash/drew in comments.) I am actually curious to know what ToS were violated (based on which Dropbox decided to take the action), except that I have not read about the real reason on either the Original Article or the discussion on HN. Can Drew/Arash clarify what Terms were being violated actually by dropship?
- res0nat0r 15y ago
  > Can Drew/Arash clarify what Terms were being violated actually by dropship? http://www.dropbox.com/dmca#terms http://www.dropbox.com/dmca#terms Access, tamper with, or use non-public areas of the Site (including but not limited to user folders not designated as 'public' or that you have not been given permission to access), Dropbox's computer systems, or the technical delivery systems of Dropbox's providers; Attempt to access or search the Site, Content, Files or Services with any engine, software, tool, agent, device or mechanism other than the software and/or search agents provided by Dropbox or other generally available third-party web browsers (such as Microsoft Internet Explorer or Mozilla Firefox), including but not limited to browser automation tools;
  - argos 15y ago
    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.

dhouston 15y ago

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.

random42 15y ago
> to be clear, we _never issued_ any DMCA takedowns to anyone Thanks. Already updated in the comment.
pbhjpbhj 15y ago
>"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.
- thaumaturgy 15y ago
  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.
  - Goronmon 15y ago
    To be clear, Dropbox isn't wording any takedown notices. These are just automated e-mails saying that content is being removed because Dropbox itself received a takedown notice from a third-party and that they are complying.