Dropbox Attempts To Kill Open Source Project 250
Meskarune writes "Dropbox is trying to kill the Dropship project, a useful program that allows users to import files into their accounts using hashes and bypassing the need to make files public. Dropbox sent out fake DMCA requests to all parties involved, and is banning and censoring the program."
Maybe a BIT sensationalistic... (Score:5, Informative)
Okay, according to the update at the bottom of the link (I know, I RTFA, weird, eh?),
Update: I want clear up a few things. As far as I’m aware all of the Dropship repositories and archives that were taken down was done so voluntarily. Dropbox never made threats, legal or otherwise. It appears the DMCA notice was automatically sent to me when the file was banned from public sharing. There was no real DMCA takedown issued. It was an edge case bug in their file removal system.
Apparently, Dropbox is asking nicely, but when they flagged the file it triggered an accidental DMCA notice, for which they seem to be apologizing.
Re:Is that fraud? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, intentionality would seem to be missing. As I quoted in a comment below, the update at the bottom of the article now reads as follows:
Update: I want clear up a few things. As far as I’m aware all of the Dropship repositories and archives that were taken down was done so voluntarily. Dropbox never made threats, legal or otherwise. It appears the DMCA notice was automatically sent to me when the file was banned from public sharing. There was no real DMCA takedown issued. It was an edge case bug in their file removal system.
Re:Is that fraud? (Score:5, Informative)
Except if you read the article, only one "fake" DCMA notice was sent out, and it appears to have been a legitimate accident. While the author of the article is not exactly happy with Dropbox's response to this matter he is not nearly as down on it as the summary suggests, and Dropbox's behavior was no near as flagrant as the summary suggests. This is not "nothing", but it's not anywhere near the level of "awful" suggested in the summary. Whole situation is somewhere between "tempest in teapot" and "very mildly concerning".
where's the firehose (Score:5, Informative)
Vote this article down - it's misleading flamebait in the extreme. In particular, it fails to mention that the software was designed to facilitate anonymous filesharing, which would most certainly be used for copyright infringement and illegal purposes. And, the whole thing goes against Dropbox's TOS, even if it isn't used for dubious file sharing purposes.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Encryption? (Score:5, Informative)
If they used real encryption they would have to host files over and over again. Encryption breaks file deduping. No way is dropbox going to do something like that, there is no advantage in it for them.
Re:Fake DMCA request (Score:5, Informative)
Sending a fake DMCA takedown is illegal, yes, but an e-mail that says "we deleted your file due to DMCA takedown notice we received" isn't a DMCA takedown notice. And apparently that e-mail just went out automatically any time they banned a file from someone's account. Apparently it never occurred to whoever designed their system that a file might be removed for anything other than copyright violation... or maybe the admin just didn't select the correct reason when he banned it.
Re:Is that fraud? (Score:2, Informative)
Except if you read the article, only one "fake" DCMA notice was sent out
It wasn't even a DMCA notice. It was an erroneous letter from provider to customer informing customer that the provider received a DMCA notice, when the provider had not (the provider was exercising their privilege of removing the file).
Re:Encryption? (Score:5, Informative)
It's already been shown [tirania.org] that Dropbox's claims about security are mostly bogus. If Dropbox can Hand Over Your Files to the Feds If Asked [pcworld.com] then the encryption method they use to store files on their servers is meaningless since they have the private keys anyway.
Re:Is that fraud? (Score:5, Informative)
Use SpiderOak instead - zero prior knowledge encryption so no one but the password holder can see the files. (My relation to SO is as a non-paying customer).
Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
The DMCA confusion is because they stopped a file from being shared on their own service, which generated a silly mail that a DMCA request had been received from themselves and hence a file was taken down. The blogger confused this with a DMCA request (and corrected it afterwards, but it seems slashdot missed this).
So can we cut it with the flamebait title?