Dropbox can decide what its servers/resources are used for, and allowing 'Dropship' to be used to transfer copyrighted files sounds like a problem they don't wa

Dropbox can decide what its servers/resources are used for, and allowing 'Dropship' to be used to transfer copyrighted files sounds like a problem they don't want - and neither would I, as a company owner. Legitimate users are not impacted at all from this recent change; people who were wanting to share copyrighted files to the masses are impacted but they aren't customers Dropbox would want in the first place. I think its disingenuous to say Dropbox shouldn't have tried to stop the project from being used; if I ran Dropbox and something came up that threatened my company and its customers I would try and stop it being used in an instant. The people Dropbox contacted voluntarily took down the project, so they must have agreed with Dropbox's logic in some form that yes perhaps the project would better off not be available. I'm not sure I like the title, "... attempts to kill open source project" as if to say open source is some how an endangered species and Dropbox is some horrible elephant killer? :) I suppose its disappointing to me when I read some comments that are immediately on the attack when it may not be warranted or fair, or put up arguments like 'torrents can be used to distribute linux ISOs' (not a real quote!) when everyone knows thats not what Dropship would be used for at all.