7 ms·

On the one hand, this was predictable. On the other, it is unethical by Dropbox. What they said was telling: “It’s come to our attention that latest Boxopus fe

by wissler 14y ago

On the one hand, this was predictable. On the other, it is unethical by Dropbox. What they said was telling: “It’s come to our attention that latest Boxopus features could be perceived as encouraging users to violate copyright using Dropbox.” "Could be perceived"? An apple "could be perceived" as a hand grenade by a sufficiently insane person. Only a blatantly corrupt legal environment would use "could be perceived" as a standard for punishing someone. Of course, that's the kind of legal environment we live in. Should Dropbox take the risk? As an industry leader who is greatly benefiting from "The System", it is their duty to take the proper moral stand. Otherwise they are clearly just part of the problem.

AYBABTME 14y ago
Maybe Dropbox is not interested in being part of the "P2P against RIAA" fight.
dave_sullivan 14y ago
I don't know that the apple analogy holds up. Yes, an apple could be perceived as a hand grenade by a crazy person, but a sane person could see how boxopus will likely be used for piracy. And maybe that's just fine, but it's kind of drop box's house, their rules. It's like if you own a building and your new tenant, a computer repair store, decides to pivot to being a medical marijuana dispensary. Hey, it's legal-ish, but you can't really fault the landlord for kicking them out. Plus, once you take 400 million, you're part of the system and you don't need to make yourself a bigger target than you already are.
- wissler 14y ago
  "but a sane person could see how boxopus will likely be used for piracy." And a sane person could see how a butter knife could be used for murder.
  - richbradshaw 14y ago
    To be fair, Dropbox doesn't allow upload of any type of knife.
    - Retric 14y ago
      To be pedantic, Dropbox doesn't allow upload of any type of physical knife.
  - tspiteri 14y ago
    The most common use of a butter knife is not murder.
    - drivebyacct2 14y ago
      My most common use of torrents is not piracy.
      - gyardley 14y ago
        Well, sure, but 'my' != 'the'.
        nodrama 14y ago
        each person should be judged individually. When you punish the whole group... that's just communism.
      - dr42 14y ago
        a minority view, I am sure.
      - metafour 14y ago
        This is what I was wondering about on a greater scale. Do you happen to have a link to recent statistics that show this is the case for torrent traffic in general?
        jlmendezbonini 14y ago
        I found two studies from 2010: one by a Princeton student[1] and one by the University of Ballarat (Australia) [2]. Both of then found that the vast majority of bittorrent traffic, not surprisingly, is illegal and both were heavily critiziced. I quote: "...89.9 per cent of them were illegal and, of the remainder, 8.2 per cent was porn."[2] "Overall, about one percent of the total files were categorized as "likely noninfringing."[1] [1] http://arstechnica.com/business/2010/01/bittorrent-census-about-99-of-files-copyright-infringing/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2010/01/bittorrent-census-ab... [2] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/07/only-03-of-files-on-bit-torrent-confirmed-to-be-legal/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/07/only-03-of-files-...
res0nat0r 14y ago
> it is their duty to take the proper moral stand. Otherwise they are clearly just part of the problem. They are taking a moral stand. Their stance is they don't want to get involved with software which they believe is primarily going to be use for piracy. Their company, their decision.
- wissler 14y ago
  Their behavior is unprincipled with respect to their customers. It is immoral. "Their company, their decision" is not a moral argument.
  - rprasad 14y ago
    Gonzo Producer: Hey pizza guy, I want to use your pizza store to film a porno. It's completly legal! Pizza Guy: No, I have legitimate customers here! You'll drive family customers away! Gonzo Producer: You're behaving immorally! It's not illegal for me to film a porno, so you're morally bound to let me film in your restaurant, even if it will cause substantial economic damage to your business! You're oppressing my freedom of speech! Forgive my language, but do you see how stupid your argument is?
    - wissler 14y ago
      Your argument is nonsense. You presume that the torrent feature implies something unsavory, akin to porn, when it's merely a means of copying from point A to point B efficiently. "Forgive my language, but do you see how stupid your argument is?" Actually you're embarrassing yourself, compounding your first foolish remark with this escalation.
      - res0nat0r 14y ago
        > You presume that the torrent feature implies something unsavory The beauty of this is that it is well within Dropbox's rights to determine what they deem savory and unsavory for their business, not you...
rprasad 14y ago
Dropbox is taking a moral stand. They are taking a stand against piracy. They choose not to be part of the problem. Sure, Boxopus could be used for legal purposes, just as bittorrent could be used for legal purposes. But everyone on HN knows that the vast majority of bittorrent use is not for legal purposes. Visit any major torrent site. Look at the first 1000 torrents. Count the number of legal torrents. Checking the PirateBay, KickAssTorrents, and Demonoid, I count about 16 legitimate uses of bittorrent. The remaining 984 torents are ebooks, movies, software or games.
- wissler 14y ago
  These rich corporations are de facto stewards of our political system. (That may not be the ideal way the political system should work, but that's how it does work, and the well-connected, well-funded fully exploit it). And the problem here isn't piracy. It's freedom of speech and property rights. Might someone misuse their property? Sure. But that's no grounds for stifling them. Dropbox is behaving in an immoral fashion. (For contrast, look at what Twitter's very morally upstanding behavior on a number of issues over the past few years).
  - rprasad 14y ago
    Dropbox is behaving morally. They are choosing not to allow a product/service that they know will be overwhelmingly used for copyright violations. This is not theft, but it does cause meaningful and measurable economic harm to the owners and producers. Before you spout off about media company oppression, remember that the people most affected by piracy are the crews that work behind the scenes to make the movies and tv shows. The crews are the first people fired if movies and tv shows can't cover their budget. Furthermore, freedom of speech is protection from government censorship of speech. Private persons do not have to let you say anything on their property. Private persons do not have to let you use their property. Dropbox is a private company. It does not have to let other people use its API, website, service, facilities, or employees. If you want to use Boxopus some much, create your own Dropbox, from scratch. Then you can do whatever you want with it.
    - 14y ago
inopinatus 14y ago
Actually, no, I disagree, it is not the duty of a short-term technology industry leader to be an instrument of social change. They can do that if they want to, but there's no categorical imperative. One might even cite Facebook as the counterexample, an organisation whose leader is explicitly and openly part of a systemic shift in expectations of privacy.

by wissler 14y ago

AYBABTME 14y ago

Maybe Dropbox is not interested in being part of the "P2P against RIAA" fight.

dave_sullivan 14y ago

I don't know that the apple analogy holds up. Yes, an apple could be perceived as a hand grenade by a crazy person, but a sane person could see how boxopus will likely be used for piracy. And maybe that's just fine, but it's kind of drop box's house, their rules. It's like if you own a building and your new tenant, a computer repair store, decides to pivot to being a medical marijuana dispensary. Hey, it's legal-ish, but you can't really fault the landlord for kicking them out. Plus, once you take 400 million, you're part of the system and you don't need to make yourself a bigger target than you already are.

wissler 14y ago
"but a sane person could see how boxopus will likely be used for piracy." And a sane person could see how a butter knife could be used for murder.
- richbradshaw 14y ago
  To be fair, Dropbox doesn't allow upload of any type of knife.
  - Retric 14y ago
    To be pedantic, Dropbox doesn't allow upload of any type of physical knife.
- tspiteri 14y ago
  The most common use of a butter knife is not murder.
  - drivebyacct2 14y ago
    My most common use of torrents is not piracy.
    - gyardley 14y ago
      Well, sure, but 'my' != 'the'.
      - nodrama 14y ago
        each person should be judged individually. When you punish the whole group... that's just communism.
    - dr42 14y ago
      a minority view, I am sure.
    - metafour 14y ago
      This is what I was wondering about on a greater scale. Do you happen to have a link to recent statistics that show this is the case for torrent traffic in general?
      - jlmendezbonini 14y ago
        I found two studies from 2010: one by a Princeton student[1] and one by the University of Ballarat (Australia) [2]. Both of then found that the vast majority of bittorrent traffic, not surprisingly, is illegal and both were heavily critiziced. I quote: "...89.9 per cent of them were illegal and, of the remainder, 8.2 per cent was porn."[2] "Overall, about one percent of the total files were categorized as "likely noninfringing."[1] [1] http://arstechnica.com/business/2010/01/bittorrent-census-about-99-of-files-copyright-infringing/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2010/01/bittorrent-census-ab... [2] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/07/only-03-of-files-on-bit-torrent-confirmed-to-be-legal/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/07/only-03-of-files-...

res0nat0r 14y ago

> it is their duty to take the proper moral stand. Otherwise they are clearly just part of the problem. They are taking a moral stand. Their stance is they don't want to get involved with software which they believe is primarily going to be use for piracy. Their company, their decision.

wissler 14y ago
Their behavior is unprincipled with respect to their customers. It is immoral. "Their company, their decision" is not a moral argument.
- rprasad 14y ago
  Gonzo Producer: Hey pizza guy, I want to use your pizza store to film a porno. It's completly legal! Pizza Guy: No, I have legitimate customers here! You'll drive family customers away! Gonzo Producer: You're behaving immorally! It's not illegal for me to film a porno, so you're morally bound to let me film in your restaurant, even if it will cause substantial economic damage to your business! You're oppressing my freedom of speech! Forgive my language, but do you see how stupid your argument is?
  - wissler 14y ago
    Your argument is nonsense. You presume that the torrent feature implies something unsavory, akin to porn, when it's merely a means of copying from point A to point B efficiently. "Forgive my language, but do you see how stupid your argument is?" Actually you're embarrassing yourself, compounding your first foolish remark with this escalation.
    - res0nat0r 14y ago
      > You presume that the torrent feature implies something unsavory The beauty of this is that it is well within Dropbox's rights to determine what they deem savory and unsavory for their business, not you...

rprasad 14y ago

Dropbox is taking a moral stand. They are taking a stand against piracy. They choose not to be part of the problem. Sure, Boxopus could be used for legal purposes, just as bittorrent could be used for legal purposes. But everyone on HN knows that the vast majority of bittorrent use is not for legal purposes. Visit any major torrent site. Look at the first 1000 torrents. Count the number of legal torrents. Checking the PirateBay, KickAssTorrents, and Demonoid, I count about 16 legitimate uses of bittorrent. The remaining 984 torents are ebooks, movies, software or games.

wissler 14y ago
These rich corporations are de facto stewards of our political system. (That may not be the ideal way the political system should work, but that's how it does work, and the well-connected, well-funded fully exploit it). And the problem here isn't piracy. It's freedom of speech and property rights. Might someone misuse their property? Sure. But that's no grounds for stifling them. Dropbox is behaving in an immoral fashion. (For contrast, look at what Twitter's very morally upstanding behavior on a number of issues over the past few years).
- rprasad 14y ago
  Dropbox is behaving morally. They are choosing not to allow a product/service that they know will be overwhelmingly used for copyright violations. This is not theft, but it does cause meaningful and measurable economic harm to the owners and producers. Before you spout off about media company oppression, remember that the people most affected by piracy are the crews that work behind the scenes to make the movies and tv shows. The crews are the first people fired if movies and tv shows can't cover their budget. Furthermore, freedom of speech is protection from government censorship of speech. Private persons do not have to let you say anything on their property. Private persons do not have to let you use their property. Dropbox is a private company. It does not have to let other people use its API, website, service, facilities, or employees. If you want to use Boxopus some much, create your own Dropbox, from scratch. Then you can do whatever you want with it.
  - 14y ago

inopinatus 14y ago

Actually, no, I disagree, it is not the duty of a short-term technology industry leader to be an instrument of social change. They can do that if they want to, but there's no categorical imperative. One might even cite Facebook as the counterexample, an organisation whose leader is explicitly and openly part of a systemic shift in expectations of privacy.