10 ms·

Why does Google Drive perform such scans? Is it because you might share the files with someone that they have to consider anything put on Google drive as being

Why does Google Drive perform such scans? Is it because you might share the files with someone that they have to consider anything put on Google drive as being redistributed under copyright law, and thus subject to copyright restrictions? Or is the very act of putting something in cloud storage considered redistribution under copyright law, even if the file is never shared and you are the only user? A while ago, I backed up a bunch of my Mom's files from a failing computer of hers onto Google Drive. I didn't think anything of it at the time. If there are some copyrighted materials on there, is Google going to suddenly terminate my account after a retroactive scan? I think very hard about copyright and ensure that I uphold copyright in all my public works — for example, there are licensing details at the end of all my slide presentations for all images. Having to apply such a level of care to every action I perform on Google services is bonkers.

yellow_lead 5y ago
Pretty sure the problem is some users have Google Drive's with GBs/TBs of pirated movies, etc, that are shared massively. >Is it because you might share the files with someone that they have to consider anything put on Google drive as being redistributed under copyright law, and thus subject to copyright restrictions? Yes
- rectang 5y ago
  This seems like a fundamental design flaw for any cloud storage service which enables sharing. It would be a problem not only for Google, but for Dropbox, etc. There needs to be a sharp distinction between files for your own use and files that are shared with the world — as in a global setting for whole volumes to disable global sharing and thus avert the need for copyright scanning. If by making files easy to share at any moment, the service creates a need to perform continuous copyright scanning of all drive content and then to take punitive action when it is detected, then the service is really nothing like a private hard drive. The potential for catastrophic loss, not only of the drive contents but of everything you access through Google services, is much more terrifying than the possibility of corrupting a local drive and much harder to plan for.
  - gerikson 5y ago
    >Dropbox has adopted a policy of terminating the accounts of users who repeatedly infringe copyright or whose accounts are subject to multiple infringement allegations. If you repeatedly share files that infringe others’ copyrights, your account will be terminate https://help.dropbox.com/accounts-billing/security/copyright-policy https://help.dropbox.com/accounts-billing/security/copyright... > There needs to be a sharp distinction between files for your own use and files that are shared with the world Even simpler: do not upload copyrighted materials to Dropbox, Google Drive, etc. Use a local backup if needed, use sneakernet to transfer files.
    - polski-g 5y ago
      What if you are authorized to have said copyrighted works?
    - chordalkeyboard 5y ago
      > Even simpler: do not upload copyrighted materials to Dropbox, Google Drive, etc. it is absurd for copyright to prevent a legitimate user from storing media on a cloud filesystem.
    - djsweet 5y ago
      > Even simpler: do not upload copyrighted materials to Dropbox, Google Drive, etc. As the article illustrates, it’s not actually that simple. Cloud services that terminate accounts (and probably instantly delete everything, to comply with GDPR, CCPA, etc.) for perceived copyright infringements will always and necessarily suffer from a false positive rate. We’ll likely never truly learn what this false positive rate is, but that it will always exist is reason enough to give pause to the thought that services should “just terminate their account” if they think it’s infringing on intellectual property laws. The only good answer here is an unqualified “Use a local backup”. The terms of use for non-business cloud storage absolve the providers of all responsibility for data loss, even when they have incorrectly taken punitive action against you.
    - rectang 5y ago
      > Even simpler: do not upload copyrighted materials to Dropbox, Google Drive, etc. This is more difficult than you are making it sound. Considering the way most people use their computers, the only way to avoid copyright infringement entirely in your use of cloud storage is not to use cloud storage the way you use your local drive but instead to assess every last file that you upload as if you were publishing it on a public website. Sure, you can avoid uploading pirated movies (perhaps by never downloading any of them in the first place). But in fact, original works are typically copyrighted by default as soon as they are created, even if the copyright is not formally registered — and we depend on a patchwork quilt of implicit and explicit licenses for viewing and use of files on the internet. Have you ever saved a quote from somewhere? That was probably copyrighted; your use is probably legitimate, but a naive algorithm might not think so.
- hericium 5y ago
  > Pretty sure the problem is some users have Google Drive's with GBs/TBs of pirated movies, etc, that are shared massively. That's Google's doing and problem. It doesn't justify creeping around all users' files.
- prepend 5y ago
  How is this a problem though? So what if I pirated movies in my cloud storage? Should my HDD manufactures also scan for pirated movies? Should samsonite suitcases check for pirated physical dvds? Should my smarttv check for pirated movies? Google isn’t even responsible legally, they are choosing to do this.
  - monkeybutton 5y ago
    If copyright holders had their way, smart TVs would definitely block playing pirated media. To add to your list, why should HDMI care about encryption and stopping piracy?
  - mijoharas 5y ago
    From the comment that you are replying to: > That are shared massively If the drive is shared, then google is shipping the bits to whoever it is shared with, same as YouTube.
- blendergeek 5y ago
  Google is not liable for this use of Google Drive in any way. Under 17 U.S.C. §§ 512 (also known as the Safe Harbor provision) Google is not liable for what users of the service upload and share as long as Google complies with take-down requests from rights holders. This behavior from Google goes way beyond what is legally required. Under the laws, Google could also scan the content for "potentially libelous" material but this also would not be legally required. Google has no legal responsibility to scan your content for possibly infringing material.
  - rndgermandude 5y ago
    I would think that all these "copyright" scans Google performs are not performed against a list of known-infringing files that Google researchers compiled themselves by monitoring pirate websites. Instead the known-infringing list would be compiled from previous takedown requests. And one of these takedown requests either explicitly or implicitly (e.g. by listing a "folder") contained a .DS_Store file that looked like many other .DS_Store files because the user had not modified the folder (display) attributes on their mac, which was then added to the known-infringing list, and which then created this mess. But it's valid to question whether Google has to scan all files for known-infringing files in the first place. That's really where it gets tricky, legally. On the surface, they absolutely do NOT have to perform such scans under the DMCA. But then there are provisions in 17 US § 512 (aka the DMCA law) that state for example: "A service provider shall not be liable [...], if the service provider (i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing; (ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or (iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;" This is very vague. It wouldn't be hard to imagine that some lawyers could show up claiming that because Google received a valid takedown notification for a specific file known to be a "pirate" release of some movie, that Google should have known or at least "been aware of facts or circumstances" that all copies of the same file in whatever user accounts are infringing (which might not be the case thanks to fair use, but lawyers and most juries would not care). If they could furthermore demonstrate that Google does already have knowledge required to locate each and every copy of a file in Google Drive accounts easily (e.g. find out through discovery that Google Drive "deduplicates" storage), then it would be game over with most juries and Google's safe harbor in the case gets denied and they are found liable. And that's only the US (DMCA) aspect of it. The German Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, highest court of ordinary justice) for example has found in the past[0] that service providers can be liable if they have been previously informed about copyright infringement and did not take "reasonable" steps to prevent further infringement, and that these "reasonable" steps may specifically include checking new uploads and existing files against a list of known-infringing files (or hashes thereof). Yeah, it sucks that Google and other service providers scan files that way, even if these files are never shared, and it sucks even more when somebody makes a mistake and puts a benign files on the known-infringing list (which is something Google should then correct, apologize for and reset any account flag/reinstate any banned accounts that got in the crossfire due to Google's mistake), but I can also appreciate that law makers and courts around the world have put Google into a situation where Google defacto (if not dejure) has to perform such scans to avoid liability. [0] In a case involving where Atari sued then-filehoster rapidshare over "Alone in the Dark", in 2012.
- jfoster 5y ago
  Google built the product without fully considering that problem, and now regular users are paying the price. In any case, it shouldn't be difficult for the product to make a distinction between files openly available and files being used privately within the drive on accounts that should look very legitimate to Google. The copyright filter would make a bit more sense on openly accessible files. Even then, why is Google going so far beyond what's legally required of them?
ahelwer 5y ago
Okay, easy fix. Check the files for copyright if you create a sharing link for them.
- rectang 5y ago
  > Okay, easy fix. Assessing copyright implications is not "easy". It's a lot of difficult work that involves specialized expertise, judgment calls, and risk assessment. There are complex areas and shades of grey: derivative works, fair use, copyrighted but licensed materials, etc. The main thing you are trying to avoid is causing harm at a level where an infringement claim is justified. There are a lot of uses which might look like infringement to an algorithm but which are completely legitimate. > Check the files for copyright if you create a sharing link for them. I just ran through everything on my Google Drive. Thank goodness I don't use it for much, though I do pay for extra storage. I don't have anything shared with the world, and only have a few files shared with a handful of family members. But will this protect me? What is Google's policy with regards to scanning — do they scan only shared files, or do they scan the full drive because content might become shared?
- beowulfey 5y ago
  I honestly wonder if that is what is happening. This article wasn’t able to replicate, but perhaps making a public link to the file containing .DS_store would do it
  - GeekyBear 5y ago
    We already know that Google is scanning all of the files in your account looking for kiddie porn, and has been for the past decade. >a man [was] arrested on child pornography charges, after Google tipped off authorities about illegal images found in the Houston suspect's Gmail account https://techcrunch.com/2014/08/06/why-the-gmail-scan-that-led-to-a-mans-arrest-for-child-porn-was-not-a-privacy-violation/ https://techcrunch.com/2014/08/06/why-the-gmail-scan-that-le...
- Xylakant 5y ago
  I license a photo for my website, upload to google cloud and create a sharing link to share with my web designer and the contractor responsible for the website. Did I just infringe copyright?
dathinab 5y ago
Bonkers and potentially useless, Google does automated scans, they don't care if something is properly attributed, falls under free use or you having bought an license. They also are not really known to care about fixing false bans to individuals, sometimes they do, other times you are screwed. They also might lock you out of all your google services, email, storage, domains, apps you bought, videos you bought on YT etc. Which tbh. is the most bonkers thing and should not be legal.
jmrm 5y ago
> Why does Google Drive perform such scans? A lot of warez and piracy websites used Drive to share that content, but this kind of filter can be easily avoided by saving the files as an encrypted zip, rar, or 7z file with a password. In my opinion, using this kind of filters to all the files you upload is pretty useless. The download traffic of a file or an account gives more information about some files used publicly than any other metric.
GeekyBear 5y ago
>Is it because you might share the files with someone that they have to consider anything put on Google drive as being redistributed under copyright law, and thus subject to copyright restrictions? That is a civil matter that falls upon the copyright holder, not Google. Google is no more guilty than the makers of VCRs were when you recorded something without permission.

yellow_lead 5y ago

Pretty sure the problem is some users have Google Drive's with GBs/TBs of pirated movies, etc, that are shared massively. >Is it because you might share the files with someone that they have to consider anything put on Google drive as being redistributed under copyright law, and thus subject to copyright restrictions? Yes

rectang 5y ago
This seems like a fundamental design flaw for any cloud storage service which enables sharing. It would be a problem not only for Google, but for Dropbox, etc. There needs to be a sharp distinction between files for your own use and files that are shared with the world — as in a global setting for whole volumes to disable global sharing and thus avert the need for copyright scanning. If by making files easy to share at any moment, the service creates a need to perform continuous copyright scanning of all drive content and then to take punitive action when it is detected, then the service is really nothing like a private hard drive. The potential for catastrophic loss, not only of the drive contents but of everything you access through Google services, is much more terrifying than the possibility of corrupting a local drive and much harder to plan for.
- gerikson 5y ago
  >Dropbox has adopted a policy of terminating the accounts of users who repeatedly infringe copyright or whose accounts are subject to multiple infringement allegations. If you repeatedly share files that infringe others’ copyrights, your account will be terminate https://help.dropbox.com/accounts-billing/security/copyright-policy https://help.dropbox.com/accounts-billing/security/copyright... > There needs to be a sharp distinction between files for your own use and files that are shared with the world Even simpler: do not upload copyrighted materials to Dropbox, Google Drive, etc. Use a local backup if needed, use sneakernet to transfer files.
  - polski-g 5y ago
    What if you are authorized to have said copyrighted works?
  - chordalkeyboard 5y ago
    > Even simpler: do not upload copyrighted materials to Dropbox, Google Drive, etc. it is absurd for copyright to prevent a legitimate user from storing media on a cloud filesystem.
  - djsweet 5y ago
    > Even simpler: do not upload copyrighted materials to Dropbox, Google Drive, etc. As the article illustrates, it’s not actually that simple. Cloud services that terminate accounts (and probably instantly delete everything, to comply with GDPR, CCPA, etc.) for perceived copyright infringements will always and necessarily suffer from a false positive rate. We’ll likely never truly learn what this false positive rate is, but that it will always exist is reason enough to give pause to the thought that services should “just terminate their account” if they think it’s infringing on intellectual property laws. The only good answer here is an unqualified “Use a local backup”. The terms of use for non-business cloud storage absolve the providers of all responsibility for data loss, even when they have incorrectly taken punitive action against you.
  - rectang 5y ago
    > Even simpler: do not upload copyrighted materials to Dropbox, Google Drive, etc. This is more difficult than you are making it sound. Considering the way most people use their computers, the only way to avoid copyright infringement entirely in your use of cloud storage is not to use cloud storage the way you use your local drive but instead to assess every last file that you upload as if you were publishing it on a public website. Sure, you can avoid uploading pirated movies (perhaps by never downloading any of them in the first place). But in fact, original works are typically copyrighted by default as soon as they are created, even if the copyright is not formally registered — and we depend on a patchwork quilt of implicit and explicit licenses for viewing and use of files on the internet. Have you ever saved a quote from somewhere? That was probably copyrighted; your use is probably legitimate, but a naive algorithm might not think so.
hericium 5y ago
> Pretty sure the problem is some users have Google Drive's with GBs/TBs of pirated movies, etc, that are shared massively. That's Google's doing and problem. It doesn't justify creeping around all users' files.
prepend 5y ago
How is this a problem though? So what if I pirated movies in my cloud storage? Should my HDD manufactures also scan for pirated movies? Should samsonite suitcases check for pirated physical dvds? Should my smarttv check for pirated movies? Google isn’t even responsible legally, they are choosing to do this.
- monkeybutton 5y ago
  If copyright holders had their way, smart TVs would definitely block playing pirated media. To add to your list, why should HDMI care about encryption and stopping piracy?
- mijoharas 5y ago
  From the comment that you are replying to: > That are shared massively If the drive is shared, then google is shipping the bits to whoever it is shared with, same as YouTube.
blendergeek 5y ago
Google is not liable for this use of Google Drive in any way. Under 17 U.S.C. §§ 512 (also known as the Safe Harbor provision) Google is not liable for what users of the service upload and share as long as Google complies with take-down requests from rights holders. This behavior from Google goes way beyond what is legally required. Under the laws, Google could also scan the content for "potentially libelous" material but this also would not be legally required. Google has no legal responsibility to scan your content for possibly infringing material.
- rndgermandude 5y ago
  I would think that all these "copyright" scans Google performs are not performed against a list of known-infringing files that Google researchers compiled themselves by monitoring pirate websites. Instead the known-infringing list would be compiled from previous takedown requests. And one of these takedown requests either explicitly or implicitly (e.g. by listing a "folder") contained a .DS_Store file that looked like many other .DS_Store files because the user had not modified the folder (display) attributes on their mac, which was then added to the known-infringing list, and which then created this mess. But it's valid to question whether Google has to scan all files for known-infringing files in the first place. That's really where it gets tricky, legally. On the surface, they absolutely do NOT have to perform such scans under the DMCA. But then there are provisions in 17 US § 512 (aka the DMCA law) that state for example: "A service provider shall not be liable [...], if the service provider (i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing; (ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or (iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;" This is very vague. It wouldn't be hard to imagine that some lawyers could show up claiming that because Google received a valid takedown notification for a specific file known to be a "pirate" release of some movie, that Google should have known or at least "been aware of facts or circumstances" that all copies of the same file in whatever user accounts are infringing (which might not be the case thanks to fair use, but lawyers and most juries would not care). If they could furthermore demonstrate that Google does already have knowledge required to locate each and every copy of a file in Google Drive accounts easily (e.g. find out through discovery that Google Drive "deduplicates" storage), then it would be game over with most juries and Google's safe harbor in the case gets denied and they are found liable. And that's only the US (DMCA) aspect of it. The German Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, highest court of ordinary justice) for example has found in the past[0] that service providers can be liable if they have been previously informed about copyright infringement and did not take "reasonable" steps to prevent further infringement, and that these "reasonable" steps may specifically include checking new uploads and existing files against a list of known-infringing files (or hashes thereof). Yeah, it sucks that Google and other service providers scan files that way, even if these files are never shared, and it sucks even more when somebody makes a mistake and puts a benign files on the known-infringing list (which is something Google should then correct, apologize for and reset any account flag/reinstate any banned accounts that got in the crossfire due to Google's mistake), but I can also appreciate that law makers and courts around the world have put Google into a situation where Google defacto (if not dejure) has to perform such scans to avoid liability. [0] In a case involving where Atari sued then-filehoster rapidshare over "Alone in the Dark", in 2012.
jfoster 5y ago
Google built the product without fully considering that problem, and now regular users are paying the price. In any case, it shouldn't be difficult for the product to make a distinction between files openly available and files being used privately within the drive on accounts that should look very legitimate to Google. The copyright filter would make a bit more sense on openly accessible files. Even then, why is Google going so far beyond what's legally required of them?

ahelwer 5y ago

Okay, easy fix. Check the files for copyright if you create a sharing link for them.

rectang 5y ago
> Okay, easy fix. Assessing copyright implications is not "easy". It's a lot of difficult work that involves specialized expertise, judgment calls, and risk assessment. There are complex areas and shades of grey: derivative works, fair use, copyrighted but licensed materials, etc. The main thing you are trying to avoid is causing harm at a level where an infringement claim is justified. There are a lot of uses which might look like infringement to an algorithm but which are completely legitimate. > Check the files for copyright if you create a sharing link for them. I just ran through everything on my Google Drive. Thank goodness I don't use it for much, though I do pay for extra storage. I don't have anything shared with the world, and only have a few files shared with a handful of family members. But will this protect me? What is Google's policy with regards to scanning — do they scan only shared files, or do they scan the full drive because content might become shared?
beowulfey 5y ago
I honestly wonder if that is what is happening. This article wasn’t able to replicate, but perhaps making a public link to the file containing .DS_store would do it
- GeekyBear 5y ago
  We already know that Google is scanning all of the files in your account looking for kiddie porn, and has been for the past decade. >a man [was] arrested on child pornography charges, after Google tipped off authorities about illegal images found in the Houston suspect's Gmail account https://techcrunch.com/2014/08/06/why-the-gmail-scan-that-led-to-a-mans-arrest-for-child-porn-was-not-a-privacy-violation/ https://techcrunch.com/2014/08/06/why-the-gmail-scan-that-le...
Xylakant 5y ago
I license a photo for my website, upload to google cloud and create a sharing link to share with my web designer and the contractor responsible for the website. Did I just infringe copyright?

dathinab 5y ago

Bonkers and potentially useless, Google does automated scans, they don't care if something is properly attributed, falls under free use or you having bought an license. They also are not really known to care about fixing false bans to individuals, sometimes they do, other times you are screwed. They also might lock you out of all your google services, email, storage, domains, apps you bought, videos you bought on YT etc. Which tbh. is the most bonkers thing and should not be legal.

jmrm 5y ago

> Why does Google Drive perform such scans? A lot of warez and piracy websites used Drive to share that content, but this kind of filter can be easily avoided by saving the files as an encrypted zip, rar, or 7z file with a password. In my opinion, using this kind of filters to all the files you upload is pretty useless. The download traffic of a file or an account gives more information about some files used publicly than any other metric.

GeekyBear 5y ago

>Is it because you might share the files with someone that they have to consider anything put on Google drive as being redistributed under copyright law, and thus subject to copyright restrictions? That is a civil matter that falls upon the copyright holder, not Google. Google is no more guilty than the makers of VCRs were when you recorded something without permission.