5 ms·

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.wikipedi

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.
- random42 15y ago
  Thanks, It was helpful information. As said before IANAL. That being said, I realize Dropbox(or Corporate entities in general) is not government and/or legal system and it is not required of them to follow laws, which are applicable for governments. However, Laws are legal representation of morals/ethics, which are applicable for every entity in the society, for its effective operation. While the law is codified as Presumption of Innocence, its underlying sentiment, from moral point-of-view, Judge/punish based on definitive actions not speculations, are applicable for all entities of the society.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - hugh3 15y ago
    * However, Laws are legal representation of morals/ethics, which are applicable for every entity in the society, for its effective operation. While the law is codified as Presumption of Innocence, its underlying sentiment, from moral point-of-view, Judge/punish based on definitive actions not speculations, are applicable for all entities of the society.* Not really. We give the government the obligation of proving things because we also give the government such extensive powers -- the government can lock you up or confiscate your property, so it damn well has an obligation to prove things before it does so. We private citizens, though, don't have such extensive powers over one another, so we're absolved of having to prove anything. The worst I can legally do to someone off my own bat is to refuse to deal with them, and that's not that big a problem. We don't have to prove anything in order to "punish" one another by refusing to deal with one another. If a dude comes into my bar looking drunk and rowdy then I can refuse him service; I don't have to prove that he's going to cause trouble, I can just kick him out on spec. If a guy asks a girl out, she doesn't have to prove that she'd have a lousy time in order to reject him. And if Dropbox suspects that you're gonna use their service for piracy then they're allowed to dump you as a client if they feel like it.
uxp 15y ago
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 refuse to give service to anyone they please, even for trivial matters like whether or not the patron/user is wearing clean socks.
- random42 15y ago
  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 evilish and not nice. I expect better from Dropbox, we all know and love.
  - jamesaguilar 15y ago
    Where suspicion approaches certainty, evil-ish approaches perfectly understandable and rational.
ghshephard 15y ago
I downvoted you because you are discussing DropBox as though it is a public utility that you have a right to, and some form of due process needs to take place. In my mind, you are completely and absolutely missing the point. DropBox is a private company, whose behavior should be viewed based on what their ToS are, and how they stick to them. They don't have to prove anything - if one is engaging in behavior, or taking action that jeopardizes Drop Box as a service, or as a company, something they have worked really, really hard for, their rational response is to shut down the person engaging in that behavior. What DropBox is saying is that regardless of whether you think they should become the next RapidShare, or BitTorrent - that's not a business they are interested in - regardless of whether you think you might have some excuse as to why your behavior hasn't proven to be illegal file sharing. These are not legal penalties. This is not about the Law. Drop Box is not the government. They do have the right to refuse service, and, in fact, to shut down uses of their service that they are not comfortable with. I think another reason why you are getting down voted is that a lot of the people on YC have worked really, really, really hard to build these types of services, and get frustrated when people fundamentally don't get it.
- gbog 15y ago
  I understand your point, and it certainly ok for DropBox to defend its ToS. But behind this story, seeing how fast they reacted to a single json hack in their model, it shows that DropBox is currently fighting a lot against a strong trend, and moreover against their own users, which is not a good sign for them. Fear is a bad advisor.
  - billybob 15y ago
    Not sure I agree. What indication do you have that this is a "strong trend" or that a significant number of users want this feature? Maybe they see that a small number of users would have a disproportionate impact on their service. Not supporting something that a small number of users want if it would make the service worse for other users is the sort of decision every web service makes every day. Why isn't this just another case of that?

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.

random42 15y ago
Thanks, It was helpful information. As said before IANAL. That being said, I realize Dropbox(or Corporate entities in general) is not government and/or legal system and it is not required of them to follow laws, which are applicable for governments. However, Laws are legal representation of morals/ethics, which are applicable for every entity in the society, for its effective operation. While the law is codified as Presumption of Innocence, its underlying sentiment, from moral point-of-view, Judge/punish based on definitive actions not speculations, are applicable for all entities of the society.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- hugh3 15y ago
  * However, Laws are legal representation of morals/ethics, which are applicable for every entity in the society, for its effective operation. While the law is codified as Presumption of Innocence, its underlying sentiment, from moral point-of-view, Judge/punish based on definitive actions not speculations, are applicable for all entities of the society.* Not really. We give the government the obligation of proving things because we also give the government such extensive powers -- the government can lock you up or confiscate your property, so it damn well has an obligation to prove things before it does so. We private citizens, though, don't have such extensive powers over one another, so we're absolved of having to prove anything. The worst I can legally do to someone off my own bat is to refuse to deal with them, and that's not that big a problem. We don't have to prove anything in order to "punish" one another by refusing to deal with one another. If a dude comes into my bar looking drunk and rowdy then I can refuse him service; I don't have to prove that he's going to cause trouble, I can just kick him out on spec. If a guy asks a girl out, she doesn't have to prove that she'd have a lousy time in order to reject him. And if Dropbox suspects that you're gonna use their service for piracy then they're allowed to dump you as a client if they feel like it.

uxp 15y ago

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 refuse to give service to anyone they please, even for trivial matters like whether or not the patron/user is wearing clean socks.

random42 15y ago
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 evilish and not nice. I expect better from Dropbox, we all know and love.
- jamesaguilar 15y ago
  Where suspicion approaches certainty, evil-ish approaches perfectly understandable and rational.

ghshephard 15y ago

I downvoted you because you are discussing DropBox as though it is a public utility that you have a right to, and some form of due process needs to take place. In my mind, you are completely and absolutely missing the point. DropBox is a private company, whose behavior should be viewed based on what their ToS are, and how they stick to them. They don't have to prove anything - if one is engaging in behavior, or taking action that jeopardizes Drop Box as a service, or as a company, something they have worked really, really hard for, their rational response is to shut down the person engaging in that behavior. What DropBox is saying is that regardless of whether you think they should become the next RapidShare, or BitTorrent - that's not a business they are interested in - regardless of whether you think you might have some excuse as to why your behavior hasn't proven to be illegal file sharing. These are not legal penalties. This is not about the Law. Drop Box is not the government. They do have the right to refuse service, and, in fact, to shut down uses of their service that they are not comfortable with. I think another reason why you are getting down voted is that a lot of the people on YC have worked really, really, really hard to build these types of services, and get frustrated when people fundamentally don't get it.

gbog 15y ago
I understand your point, and it certainly ok for DropBox to defend its ToS. But behind this story, seeing how fast they reacted to a single json hack in their model, it shows that DropBox is currently fighting a lot against a strong trend, and moreover against their own users, which is not a good sign for them. Fear is a bad advisor.
- billybob 15y ago
  Not sure I agree. What indication do you have that this is a "strong trend" or that a significant number of users want this feature? Maybe they see that a small number of users would have a disproportionate impact on their service. Not supporting something that a small number of users want if it would make the service worse for other users is the sort of decision every web service makes every day. Why isn't this just another case of that?