3 ms·

The files are not removed or blocked, they just can't be shared publicly: > When it’s restricted, you may see a flag next to the filename, you won’t be able t

The files are not removed or blocked, they just can't be shared publicly: > When it’s restricted, you may see a flag next to the filename, you won’t be able to share it, and your file will no longer be publicly accessible So it's probably a combination of things, including piracy. They're not forbidding people from storing or retrieving the files, just not allowing anyone to publicly host whatever they want on Google's servers. Seems reasonable.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
quitit 5y ago
I think the opposition is by those which long for the simpler, lawless period of the internet - a time where Google seemed to always be on the side of the user, even overlooking the naughty things the users would get up to. This change for those folk could feel as some kind of betrayal, like Google is complying to "the man", instead of shielding them from the realities. Of course this point of view is silly - Google have done very well to make users the product. A win:win scenario for those which couldn't afford the pay-for equivalents, but their ceaseless ability to kill useful services proved that they were never benevolent, nor a charity. The internet has grown up, and so has the ability to scan masses of data for liabilities - Google's change here is not controversial or unexpected, and realistically if people have a problem with the many problems with US copyright laws they need to pick up their pens, change who they vote for and vote with their wallet. As for the implementation I think it's pretty fair - they aren't stopping the user from their 'backups', they're just preventing their hardware and bandwidth being used as a piracy BBS.
- bayindirh 5y ago
  I'm using internet since the simpler, lawless period. Yes, I miss the excitement of a new Netscape Navigator release, or using some new tool, and just being able to explore anything and everything. OTOH, I welcome this change. Instead of losing my access or getting a strike on my account, I'd rather have my file merely flagged and stopped being shared (not that I share a lot). I think service providers should be more transparent about problems they see with the users' accounts, so users can take appropriate actions. Of course there can be other mechanisms to prevent abuse, or lawful intercept (which is another can of worms that I want to leave it at the top shelf for now). So, I've read a Google blog without bad feelings for once. That's good.
numpad0 5y ago
Someone was theorizing that this allows Google to not outright suspend accounts for copyright violations. Previous implementations was that you and your businesses will be digitally dead across Googlescape. That was more controversial than this would be.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

quitit 5y ago

I think the opposition is by those which long for the simpler, lawless period of the internet - a time where Google seemed to always be on the side of the user, even overlooking the naughty things the users would get up to. This change for those folk could feel as some kind of betrayal, like Google is complying to "the man", instead of shielding them from the realities. Of course this point of view is silly - Google have done very well to make users the product. A win:win scenario for those which couldn't afford the pay-for equivalents, but their ceaseless ability to kill useful services proved that they were never benevolent, nor a charity. The internet has grown up, and so has the ability to scan masses of data for liabilities - Google's change here is not controversial or unexpected, and realistically if people have a problem with the many problems with US copyright laws they need to pick up their pens, change who they vote for and vote with their wallet. As for the implementation I think it's pretty fair - they aren't stopping the user from their 'backups', they're just preventing their hardware and bandwidth being used as a piracy BBS.

bayindirh 5y ago
I'm using internet since the simpler, lawless period. Yes, I miss the excitement of a new Netscape Navigator release, or using some new tool, and just being able to explore anything and everything. OTOH, I welcome this change. Instead of losing my access or getting a strike on my account, I'd rather have my file merely flagged and stopped being shared (not that I share a lot). I think service providers should be more transparent about problems they see with the users' accounts, so users can take appropriate actions. Of course there can be other mechanisms to prevent abuse, or lawful intercept (which is another can of worms that I want to leave it at the top shelf for now). So, I've read a Google blog without bad feelings for once. That's good.

numpad0 5y ago

Someone was theorizing that this allows Google to not outright suspend accounts for copyright violations. Previous implementations was that you and your businesses will be digitally dead across Googlescape. That was more controversial than this would be.