Megaupload Implications are plain scary for Cloud Storage
alexblom.com
alexblom.com
Likewise, the US DOJ makes a distinction between uploader-pays and downloader-pays business models, so we must also.
The authority given to courts and federal authorities to behave as they are for suspected copyright infringement is extremely abnormal and cause for great consternation as to the direction of our legal system.
Let's not forget Dropbox is just a replica of local storage. That's the whole model. It's more meaningful to discuss whether or not this could happen to S3. I don't see anyone legitimately worried about that, because it's quite obviously a very legitimate business with tens of thousands of legitimate customers (just like Dropbox). Articles like these portend to get you thinking about the broader implications of a takedown, but in truth they cloud clear thinking with what are essentially scare tactics.
Well, every Dropbox account has a `Public` folder with direct HTTP access.
It gets scary when the operators of the "replica" has the ability to delete files from your local storage as well. Amazon did this with Kindle & 1984, which caused a sizable controversy at the time. Next thing you know, somebody sends a DMCA notice to Dropbox, they delete your remote copy, and your local Dropbox folder is automatically updated to reflect the change. Whoa, no thanks.
Dropbox is also an apt comparison because part of the MegaUpload indictment has to do with their deduplication system. Dropbox is also very good at deduplication, which means that a single court order can cause all copies of an offending file to be remotely deleted from everyone's Dropbox folder.
If mozy was taken down do you think that it's possible they would wipe the drives of all users? I don't.
Amazon also quite clearly keeps hashes of all keys in S3, which Dropbox rides on. Would you expect the government to be able to issue hash based takedowns to amazon across all buckets?
I was under the impression that Dropbox, while having the ability to decrypt your files, encrypts them before they hit S3. If so, a hash-based takedown sent to Amazon would at best be able to take down a single encrypted instance of a piece of data.
So I suspect what happens is that everybodies bittorrented dvd rip of Avatar on dropbox is deduped and stored once on S3, admittedly encrypted, but all with Dropboxes encryption key and all with the same hash pointing at the same single encrypted instance of the file.
This makes things extra problematic because completely unrelated files might share chunks. Standard file formats may lead to duplicate headers. Or consider a political science textbook that contains a complete copy of the US Constitution, and a file that contains just the US Constitution. One is perfectly legal to distribute freely, the other may not be, but both might share some common blocks, and a federal judge with a shoot-first mentality might craft an order requiring the deletion of those common blocks.
I'm honestly curious -- what is the likelihood that you estimate your files being deleted from dropbox? It was always very clear to me that M.U. was shady, and I feel probably deserving of shutdown. Given a 5 year timelines, what is the probability that you guess dropbox suffers a similar fate (total annihilation, server seizure, etc.)?
Now, whether they will only delete your online copy, or whether they will let the deletion propagate to your local copy, is totally up to Dropbox. I don't agree with @hemancuso's claim that your local copy will be safe, because there's no guarantee whatsoever. A court order might even specially say that Dropbox should delete local copies too (if possible).
I am concerned about the abuses of power under these recent events. However, i still don't see a likely problem for legitimate use (with dropbox), outside of an outlier.
The rhetoric on both sides of the argument has me a bit concerned.
Other people might not be as lucky. People in some countries could store and share files that are completely legal to distribute where they live, but still protected in the U.S. For example, copyright expires 50 years after death in Canada, compared to 70 years in the U.S. If an American company issues a blanket takedown notice and Dropbox obliges, Canucks may be adversely affected. Besides, humans make mistakes. What if somebody pastes the wrong hash into their takedown notice and Dropbox staff forgets to check it?
So even people who never violate any copyright might have philosophical objections to unilateral takedowns like this. It is important to avoid alarmism and hyperbole, but that doesn't mean that there's nothing to worry about.
Off topic, the spirit of the internet never ceases to amaze me. We're on ostensibly a business focused board, and you make a compelling argument defending the protection of potential competitors. (I.e., your customers/clients will receive a tangible benefit due to your awareness of these issues, and non-reliance on less capable competition.) Yet, you seem interested in the overall good, rather than looking to exploit your advantage commercially.
Quoting:
In any case, the term shall be governed by the legislation of the
country where protection is claimedThis would be vastly more damaging in the context of Dropbox, not less.
It has nothing to do with the Internet. In the context of file-systems, the word "remove" actually means to "unlink". Doesn't this technicality invalidate the indictment?
So if you wanted to start a website like this and maximise your business and legality - the simple answer is to just let people use it for piracy and pretend you dont know it is happening? This seems slightly silly to me..
Edit: Youtube, as a counter example, (I think) makes everything public by default, but they enforce the DMCA pretty heavily.
a kneejerk reaction inspired by his fear of a legal precedent where a "physical file must be deleted where one of many users with ‘links’ engages in illegal activity"