Dropbox disconnects Boxopus for unwanted features

http://blog.boxopus.com/index.php/2012/06/25/dropbox-disconnects-us

by Zirro • 14 years ago

106 73 14 years ago

blog.boxopus.com

warmwaffles• 14 years ago

Who saw this coming? Not I! /sarcasm

_b8r0• 14 years ago

While it's easy to jump to conclusions, it might be a good idea to have a think and maybe ask some questions first.

Dropbox provides a file sharing service, Boxopus uses this to provide torrent downloading services. Should Boxopus become popular, how will this impact Dropboxes cost base? Will people buy more dropbox space?

Are Dropbox possibly obliged to deactivate Boxopus due to onerous copyright rules? Is there anything in their underlying contractual arrangements with their suppliers for example that could result in the termination of dropbox's service, or are they just trying to cover their backsides?

I think this shows a good example of the increasingly common problem where startups tie themselves to a platform and suffer for it as well as benefit. They're looking for another storage provider, but who's to say this won't happen with a new provider too?

Eduard• 14 years ago

Dropbox "tied itself" to Amazon's S3 services. Imagine the situation that Amazon had stopped providing S3 API access to Dropbox once Dropbox took off.

pja• 14 years ago

Dropbox is big enough to procure their own storage by now I'd have thought.

legutierr• 14 years ago

One question that you are not asking is whether this decision was affected in any way by the Megaupload case.

If I were Dropbox, I would see arbitrary action by the US authorities as one of my greatest risks, and would do whatever it takes to stay in the good graces of the MPAA, given the apparent influence that they have over US law enforcement.

cabalamat• 14 years ago

I expect that's what's happened. Copyright maximialism succeeds, yet again, in killing creativity.

crisnoble• 14 years ago

If you want to help them pick a new storage provider, they have a survey: http://blog.boxopus.com/index.php/2012/06/27/help-us-select-...

wissler• 14 years ago

The original thread on this topic (that was evidently heavily flagged) is here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4161940

huhtenberg• 14 years ago

Well, duh.

vampirechicken2• 14 years ago

How is Boxopus better than just tellign your torrent client to download into your dropbox folder?

jonknee• 14 years ago

It would be handy if you wanted to download on a mobile device. Or if torrent traffic is penalized/banned.

andreasvc• 14 years ago

It doesn't use your bandwidth, but that of Boxopus.

fishbacon• 14 years ago

It still uses bandwidth to download to your local Dropbox.

joeblau• 14 years ago

I was actually going to work on a project that did something similar. Doing anything with large files while you're on a mobile device is difficult because of bandwidth, processing, and screen real estate.

If you could move or process large files though a third party without having to physically download the file to a temporary location, it would be awesome... but apparently Dropbox doesn't think so. I deemed my project DOA because I had a feeling that what happend to Boxopus would happen to me across multiple platforms that I wanted to integrate.

jmanamj• 14 years ago

I believe utorrent has a remote feature that can be accessed from mobile. Point your torrents to dropbox on your desk/laptop and access on the go. Unless your only computer is your phone this would work just as well...

shalmanese• 14 years ago

A lot of even fairly tech savvy people I know don't want to have to deal with torrent software and files and all that nonsense. This would have been perfect for them.

chrischen• 14 years ago

Like VPN services, their remote computer is downloading for you but instead of forwarding the traffic to your computer directly it forwards it to Dropbox, and then Dropbox puts it in your computer.

inoop• 14 years ago

I'm living in a service hotel in China. This means no torrents. I can VPN into my University back in Yerp, but they block torrent traffic as well (duh). Luckily there's still zbigz.com which offers pretty much the same service.

vampirechicken2• 14 years ago

Thank you folks.

petitmiam• 14 years ago

What makes Dropbox special that they chose it as the only cloud storage solution that Boxopus works with?

lmm• 14 years ago

The fact that it's the only cloud storage solution most people have heard of?

inopinatus• 14 years ago

It was an absurd pairing of two separate and dissimilar block-structured sync protocols and I am not at all surprised. This should've been disallowed on pure bandwidth efficiency grounds.

I'm sure the actual reason was "torrent user == pirate" and they just didn't want any juvenile connections, bad news in any language.

Everyone who read the original story saw this coming.

dekz• 14 years ago

I feel like this is the wrong choice for Dropbox. Wouldn't they still be under DMCA safe harbour just as if I uploaded copyrighted material myself? Or is any type of downloader to your Dropbox against the terms of service as an 'Unwanted feature'? Sure they reserve the right to who uses their service, but if they are DMCA compliant are they just losing potential revenue?

citricsquid• 14 years ago

I would guess[1] it's more about not painting a giant target on their back. Yes Dropbox can be used for pirated material, but they don't promote it and there are no features of Dropbox that enable it, however if this service exists and gets substantial traction people will start to associate Dropbox with piracy and when that happens Dropbox risk being targeted by groups like the MPAA.

Look at Megaupload, they were supposedly complying with the law.

[1] Pure speculation

tptacek• 14 years ago

I know you know this, but for the benefit of the thread:

Megaupload is commonly understood to have been "complying with the law" based on a misapprehension of what the law actually is.

The misapprehension is that "compliance" with US copyright law means "honoring takedown notices".

The reality of US copyright law is that there are two sides to compliance: first, takedown notices need to be honored, and second, the service can't operate with foreknowledge of infringing use.

You can execute takedown notices within milliseconds of their arrival, but if an opposing lawyer or prosecutor can demonstrate that you repeatedly (a) came into knowledge that your service was used for piracy and (b) took no action, you effectively forfeit the service provider "safe harbor".

It was discovered by prosecutors that Megaupload not only knew about infringing content on their own site (trading links among staff for particular films, for instance), but also ran a promotional/affiliate program that rewarded uploaders for pushing popular copyrighted material to the site.

jarcoal2• 14 years ago

Busy week for API drama. I'm going to have to side with Dropbox on this one. This tool was quite obviously going to be harnessed for piracy.

jQueryIsAwesome2• 14 years ago

And code editors are quite obviously going to be used to create spyware, virus and Trojans. What is exactly your point?

billpatrianakos2• 14 years ago

The difference is that no one will stop you from creating and distributing your own code editor even if you advertise that it's meant for malicious or illegal development. But don't expect the same privilege when you base your app off of someone else's API which you get to use for free by the way. Everyone knows when you use an API you're a house guest, paying no rent and you can be asked to leave at any time.

Smudge• 14 years ago

The internet is harnessed for piracy. I guess we'd better turn it off then.

billpatrianakos2• 14 years ago

You can't sue the Internet though. This line of argument begins with entitlement. Dropbox is a company with an ass to protect. Anyone using any service's API is never entitled to any guarantees regardless of whether they comply with their TOS or not. The purpose of an API is to simultaneously add value for users and widen use of the produc (both of those fall technically under the banner of "to help the company providing the API make boat loads of money).

The other part of people's defense of Boxupus is this whole idea that just because it could be used to violate copyright doesn't mean it will. Anyone who honestly, deep down, truly believes this and isn't just towing the Pirate Party Line needs to wake up. The majority of people downloading from torrents are downloading copyrighted material which is not legal, like it or not, the legalities of copyright law are irrelevant here. While I'm sure you can pop in and say "but I was using it for legit use case x, y, and z", most people were using it for downloading music and movies. Where's my proof? Fuck my proof. Where's your proof (I'm using the royal "your" here, not aimed at the op here) that it was being used so innocently? It really makes me upset that I just know someone will try to call me out for not having evidence on that one point despite the fact that we all know what was up just like we all knew what was up with MegaUpload. Demanding my evidence on that one point is the last defense of a person who's just grasping at straws, defending some pro-piracy ideology. But piracy isnt even the issue nor is it relevant!

Dropbox is a company here to make money. Just mentioning torrents puts people in a frenzy. So they're protecting themselves from liability by making sure their product is not associated in any way with torrents. It doesn't matter whether they have a legit purpose or not. It's a case of perception trumping all else and you have to remember that even beyond legal issues, Dropbox has a brand to protect. The perception of Dropbox is that of an exceptionally wholesome file storage/sharing service. Why would they even risk being seen as even the teensiest bit shady?

jarcoal2• 14 years ago

Harnessed was a bad word choice, I meant that it was going to be used 99% of the time for piracy.

KaoruAoiShiho• 14 years ago

The solution is simple. Build a 2 tier app? One innocuous app (SendToDropbox) that moves files into dropbox. Second app (TorrentIntoSendToDropbox) that saves torrents into the first app.

eli• 14 years ago

The legal system is surprisingly humorless when it comes to "hacks" like that.

aptwebapps• 14 years ago

The tax system, on the other hand ...

crazygringo• 14 years ago

It bothers me that companies are allowed to make discriminatory decisions like this, when providing public-facing services.

If your TOS states that Dropbox can't be used for files above a particular size, or can only be used by individuals and not corporations, or something like that, then fine.

But companies that discriminate based on the purpose of usage -- this seems fundamentally wrong. MasterCard blocking WikiLeaks payments, Dropbox blocking torrents, PayPal banning a VPN provider... Private companies have no business deciding what is "acceptable" in this manner. If it's illegal for them to provide services, then obviously they can't, but if it isn't, then they should continue to provide services.

Honestly, is this any different from a company ninety years ago denying service to non-whites because it "could be perceived as encouraging the races to intermarry?"

There's a reason we have anti-discrimination laws for races, gender, orientation and religion. Why don't we have them for "purpose of use of services"?

glesica• 14 years ago

Because it's a slippery slope from there to eliminating property rights entirely. If you require companies to declare all instances under which they will terminate service they'll just amend their ToS or add insanely broad clauses that let them disconnect anyone at any time.

This is the fundamental problem with SaaS and web APIs more generally (a SaaS application is just a web API for humans in some sense): you don't control it.

It isn't installed on your hard drive. If the vendor says "you can't use this any more" you can't give them the middle finger and keep using your copy while you find a good lawyer. You're done. That's it.

Does that mean I think everyone should stop using SaaS and APIs? Absolutely not. I would cry if I had to give up Google Docs, Gmail, etc. But I'm not under any illusions about who is in charge, and I make decisions accordingly.

pflats• 14 years ago

First, let's just ignore the straw man of:

>Honestly, is this any different from a company ninety years ago denying service to non-whites because it "could be perceived as encouraging the races to intermarry?"

I think we can both agree that it's a hyperbolic statement. Moving beyond that, as a company, I should have every right to decide who can and cannot use my service. Just because I provide a public-facing API doesn't mean I have to allow you do to what you want with it. You're building off of my brand and my infrastructure. If I don't want Initech Inc. to be associated with file sharing, fire arms, or even the Irish, that's entirely within my rights. I'd be far more aghast if companies were forced to take any comers.

On this specific issue, scan the headlines:

"Pirate’s dream come true: Boxopus pushes torrents to your Dropbox account" "Boxopus Is A Pirate Friend, Drops Torrents Directly Into Dropbox‎" "New App Makes Pirating Movies A One-Click Process"

The articles also point out that Boxopus was quickly integrated with a number of torrent sites that host bootleg downloads.

The absolute last thing Dropbox wants to be associated with is piracy. The company is in much more danger of going out of business due to piracy issues than to any competitor.

nessus424• 14 years ago

> If I don't want Initech Inc. to be associated with file sharing, fire arms, or even the Irish, that's entirely within my rights. I'd be far more aghast if companies were forced to take any comers.

I'm rather aghast that any companies think this way. You might as well say that it is well within Google's right to shut down my Google Docs account because they don't want to be associated with the bad poetry I write using it.

One problem with this attitude is that it doesn't lead to a smoothly functioning economy. If I have to worry that any online service might chose to shut down my access for any arbitrary reason, then I am strongly disincentived from using online services. The strength of any economy is in no small part due to the ease and fluidity with which trusted transactions can take place. Remove the forces that allow us to trust the transactions, and the economy will falter.

The only reason that people are mostly willing to overlook this issue is because service providers exercise their putative right to deny service for arbitrary reasons rarely. But if you as a service provider exercise this putative right more liberally, then you are damaging the entire economic system (albeit only to some small degree for an isolated provider).

The only silver lining in all this free market rhetoric is that hopefully the free market will step in and put you out of business. Unfortunately, however, this often takes a lot longer than it should once network effects have engaged.

P.S. What's with this trend of downvoting people just because someone doesn't happen to agree with what someone else has to say. This is rather rude, if you ask me.

nl3• 14 years ago

If I don't want Initech Inc. to be associated with file sharing, fire arms, or even the Irish, that's entirely within my rights

Regarding the Irish part, I don't think that is within your rights.

In the US Title II of the Civil Rights act Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce;[1]

In other countries article 7 of the UN Declaration on Human Rights (All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.)[2] may outlaw that kind of discrimination (depending on your countries international treaty obligations and local laws)

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Title_...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_...

the_bear• 14 years ago

I completely agree that companies shouldn't do this, but I don't think that most people on HackerNews do. A while back a co-worker of mine wrote a blog post about how a patent troll signed up for our service, and we decided to let them use it even though we really didn't want to. That seems like the same story with the opposite outcome.

Nearly all of the comments on HackerNews said that the decision showed a lack of conviction and that we should have denied service to the patent troll. I don't think that's appropriate for all the reasons you listed, but it would seem that we're in the minority.

Note: I agree with you that companies should not be allowed by their users to get away with this, I don't agree there should be a law prohibiting it.

firefoxman1• 14 years ago

A storeowner has the right to kick you out of his store any time he sees fit. It's his business. Don't like it? Go somewhere else or go build your own. www.dropbox.com and all their servers are Dropbox inc's "store". They can kick anyone out because it's their territory. It's as simple as that.

fijal• 14 years ago

Not sure how this is in states but in europe they don't. It's illegal not to sell you stuff, if it's public, unless there are certain requirements met that are clearly stated in the law. Those are along the lines of "alcohol to drunk people" etc.

nl3• 14 years ago

Honestly, is this any different from a company ninety years ago denying service to non-whites because it "could be perceived as encouraging the races to intermarry?

Yes it different, in degree, effect and legal status.

Not only that, it is extremely offensive to compare a company stopping another company using their service to download files with an evil social institution closely related to the lynching of people affected by it.

J3L24042• 14 years ago

Has no one on the site tried to run a business?

jQueryIsAwesome2• 14 years ago

I think this is a sign of weakness from Dropbox; for example, big strong players like Google don't just erase all the links to ThePirateBay.se just because some big record label says so; they wait until they are actually forced to do so with a legal petition (e.g. DMCA)

st3fan• 14 years ago

The lesson here is to never let your core business depend on another company's core business. You just don't want that kind of dependency.

wavephorm• 14 years ago

This kind of reinforces my belief that Dropbox is merely a segway toward a more private, decentralized (self-hosted), cloud-based filesystem.

How is Dropbox ever going to stay relevant in the future if they go around telling people what they can and can't store in their directories?

edanm• 14 years ago

Simple - no one cares (for values of "no one" equal to 99% of the population).

jsilence• 14 years ago

This shows the difference between an API and a protocol.

You are at the sole discretion of the company whose API you are using.

Different cloud storage provider, different API. I wish they all started using the remoteStorage protocol. http://www.w3.org/community/unhosted/wiki/RemoteStorage

n9com• 14 years ago

Surprise, Surprise... did you really not see this coming? Don't rely on 3rd party APIs!

chris_wot• 14 years ago

Perhaps Dropbox should block itself, given that it can also encourage copyright violations. Time to setup OwnCloud!

gubatron• 14 years ago

I don't understand the need for this company in the first place, (Anonymity when pirating?)

If you wanted to store BitTorrent downloads in Dropbox, all you gotta do is tell your torrent client to use your local dropbox folder as a save location...

tomc1985• 14 years ago

We're making mountains out of molehills. Don't build your shit on a platform you could reasonably expect to be taken away from you. Company management often sees piracy (and sex) as a plague that can erode customer and investor support in their business.

* * *

Once upon a time there were three little pigs. One pig built a house of straw while the second pig built his house with sticks. They built their houses very quickly and then sang and danced all day because they were lazy. The third little pig worked hard all day and built his house with bricks.

A big bad wolf saw the two little pigs while they danced and played and thought, “What juicy tender meals they will make!” He chased the two pigs and they ran and hid in their houses. The big bad wolf went to the first house and huffed and puffed and blew the house down in minutes. The frightened little pig ran to the second pig’s house that was made of sticks. The big bad wolf now came to this house and huffed and puffed and blew the house down in hardly any time. Now, the two little pigs were terrified and ran to the third pig’s house that was made of bricks.

The big bad wolf tried to huff and puff and blow the house down, but he could not. He kept trying for hours but the house was very strong and the little pigs were safe inside. He tried to enter through the chimney but the third little pig boiled a big pot of water and kept it below the chimney. The wolf fell into it and died.

The two little pigs now felt sorry for having been so lazy. They too built their houses with bricks and lived happily ever after.

andyjohnson0• 14 years ago

As so many people have pointed out over the last few years, building your product on top of someone else's product is a bad idea unless you have a legally-binding agreement in-place. And having an api key isn't a substitute for such an agreement.

If this principle had a name (ie "<someone's> law") then maybe people would pay more attention.

(And OT: I read "boxopus" as "box o' pus", which makes me think perhaps its a poor name)

executive2• 14 years ago

im not sure why anyone would want to build an app on a platform that lets you log in to any users account without a password... maybe something low risk like hosting torrent downloads

shasty• 14 years ago

Dont build anything of value on someone elses API. THey will kill you.

J3L24042• 14 years ago

It's pretty appalling that people believe Dropbox has an obligation to bear all the burden so some "startup" can make a quick buck off of copyrighted material. Where are the thought leaders on this? Sitting around with eyepatches over their mouths?

MalphasWats2• 14 years ago

I'm genuinely curious, as I've never actually used it[1], but if someone waved a magic wand, and ALL illegal music, movies and books vanished from bittorrent networks, what would be left?

[1]blizzard uses it for WoW updates, but I don't think that really counts.

Dropbox disconnects Boxopus for unwanted features

Related Stories