[random42]

To my understanding (after several downvotes, and few uncalled-for language), it is simple.

1. Dropship violated Dropbox ToS, by reverse-engineering Dropbox proprietary code.

Thats all.

Nothing to do with DMCA notice, which was sent by accident.

[shad0wfax]

Agree the Dropship s/w itself was in some violation of the ToS, but was the file that was uploaded to the public dropbox share in violation? What I am trying to separate here is, how could Dropbox the company "determine" the uploaded file indeed was the Dropship s/w? [I know in this case it was obvious as the dev had probably linked to it]. I am trying to pose a question to a different level, where how can/will dropbox scrutinize each uploaded file in this manner without actually receiving a DMCA from a third person?

[tlrobinson]

Furthermore, even if the file contains code that could be used to the violate the ToS, that doesn't mean the user actually has violated the ToS.

[SwellJoe]

And Dropbox hasn't done anything to any users of the code, as far as I know. What do you think Dropbox is doing to people who poke at the code or use it?

[tlrobinson]

Arash's comment on the article:

"This is Arash from Dropbox. We removed the project source code from the user’s Dropbox because it enables communications with our servers in a manner that is a violation of our Terms of Service. By our TOS, we reserve the right to terminate the account of users in this case. However, we chose to remove access to the file instead of terminating the account of the user."

I'm questioning whether possessing the file without using it against Dropbox is actually a TOS violation.

[SwellJoe]

Hmmm...so, yeah, that's problematic.

They definitely should have just fixed the bug. Deleting peoples files feels kinda nasty.

[pbhjpbhj]

Are those ToS legal?