Can I keep my collection of movies on OnDrive

[Pawelk198604]

I wonder if you can keep there my videos, I will not be responsible for copyright infringement?, I do not I share my files with others, I believe in honesty, although some consider me a loser.

Theoretically, the Polish law allows for the sharing of copyright material (with the exception of computer programs) with family members or with friends in which it is in close social intimacy (sounds a little too rainbow, when translated by google translator into English:D ) it is a human whom you know personally, best friends, fiancee, fellow students.

Recently I made available by Ondrive my colleague from college, lecture notes, but but I have to copyright them :-)

OnDrive is so Cool

Edited June 22, 2014 by Pawelk198604

[Cmdr. Arn1e]

There are lots and lots of 'Cloud' type services about, but there have been online storage websites for years and years... DropBox is very popular, others seem to have fallen out of favour in recent years due to advertising and security breaches... Curse is one example, and why it was such a contentious decision by the dev team!

[phoenix_ca]

Uhhh...Science Labs? For this?

Anyway, what matters is where the file is stored. If you're talking about OneDrive, I'd bet the files if you're a Polish user are stored somewhere in France, Germany, or the UK, but you'd have the ask Microsoft. They might even limit their storage to the USA, in which case it's US law that applies, to the service. So, if a Polish user used a US-located service to host files for sharing with other Polish people, even if Polish law allowed for it, the content owner could us US law to demand that Microsoft remove the files. Similarly, if the user was in the USA, but the storage was in Poland, the content owner could sue the user, but might have trouble attacking the storage service.

Copyright is a complete and total mess since the invention of the internet.

[Pawelk198604]

Uhhh...Science Labs? For this?

Anyway, what matters is where the file is stored. If you're talking about OneDrive, I'd bet the files if you're a Polish user are stored somewhere in France, Germany, or the UK, but you'd have the ask Microsoft. They might even limit their storage to the USA, in which case it's US law that applies, to the service. So, if a Polish user used a US-located service to host files for sharing with other Polish people, even if Polish law allowed for it, the content owner could us US law to demand that Microsoft remove the files. Similarly, if the user was in the USA, but the storage was in Poland, the content owner could sue the user, but might have trouble attacking the storage service.

Copyright is a complete and total mess since the invention of the internet.

It is in the U.S. there is almost no such thing as "fair use"

The Polish "Law on Copyright and Related Rights" section which is dedicated to "fair use".

I learn this law on Copyright at the University of the previous semester, although I do not know why, as part of my studies in library science. I've heard that students from the faculty of law, I have to learn every type of Polish laws and some international acts on memory, and even the rights of the Roman Empire, which is a bit strange.

While learning how to use the Act, 53 pages of legal gibberish was not too difficult. It regretted that I not signed up to study law, lawyers in Poland earn an obscene amount of money. I could learn better in high school, I had more points in graduation:(

[phoenix_ca]

Well as I said, Polish law might not be applicable at all.

And yes, there is fair use in USA copyright law; in fact it's quite lax when it comes to fair use. Direct sharing though, not so much.

[Pawelk198604]

Well as I said, Polish law might not be applicable at all.

And yes, there is fair use in USA copyright law; in fact it's quite lax when it comes to fair use. Direct sharing though, not so much.

And I wonder why our Polish law is so lenient when it comes to file sharing of music, movies, books, even if the legality of their origin can be questioned, but is so severe in relation to computer games and software, sharing the latter is in Polish law explicitly prohibited.

[phoenix_ca]

It's not uncommon for legislation to be an utter mess like that. No one can be an expert in every facet of a modern nation-state's laws. Lawyers divide themselves into general categories like constitutional, corporate, criminal, civil, family, tax, or even municipal law (and there are plenty more categories) for a reason. Legislators are in an even worse position because they need to be at least somewhat familiar with all of it, so they're bound to make errors like that by passing amendments that create very different and even illogical differing applications of the same general law.

...

Everything about modern life is chaotic. O.O

[cantab]

Microsoft have been known to disable accounts because they objected to the files being stored on their SkyDrive (now OneDrive) service, even though those files were not shared with others in any way.

With any online storage service, the provider has the right to take down your files for any or no reason, whether or not you're a paying customer. Keep that in mind.

[Pawelk198604]

Microsoft have been known to disable accounts because they objected to the files being stored on their SkyDrive (now OneDrive) service, even though those files were not shared with others in any way.

With any online storage service, the provider has the right to take down your files for any or no reason, whether or not you're a paying customer. Keep that in mind.

disable? I hope they don't that to me, i hope that find something unsuitable to them thy tell me, and i remove it myself, because i'm not want to infringe anyone copyright, just want use cloud service that they provide my to, only for my personal use, not to break any laws.

I have 30 gb on Ondrive 20 gb for office 7 GB standard storage + 3 GB for photo and 1 GB for inviting friends. I want to make good use of that storage to make some room on my physical drives.

Maybe i should pack some of my file ((mostly audiobooks and music (legally bought at store)) in winrar and password-protect them so anybody except my or my family cannot use it.

[Aghanim]

The question is: Do you have enough upload speed to upload all of your movies collections to the cloud?

[phoenix_ca]

disable? I hope they don't that to me, i hope that find something unsuitable to them thy tell me, and i remove it myself, because i'm not want to infringe anyone copyright, just want use cloud service that they provide my to, only for my personal use, not to break any laws.

I have 30 gb on Ondrive 20 gb for office 7 GB standard storage + 3 GB for photo and 1 GB for inviting friends. I want to make good use of that storage to make some room on my physical drives.

Maybe i should pack some of my file ((mostly audiobooks and music (legally bought at store)) in winrar and password-protect them so anybody except my or my family cannot use it.

The penalties for a storage provider knowingly enabling copyright violations are huge in the USA. Easily in the millions of dollars. It's far, far safer for the provider to simply close the account than it is to risk a lawsuit. Even the legal fees wouldn't compare to the tiny cost of cutting-off a single user, or even thousands of users, at a service that charges something around $60/month; and most charge way less than that.

This is partly why companies like Google keep pretty strict hands-off policies when it comes to what users are doing with their services. If they violate the EULA or ToS they can point to that and say to the authorities "See? We didn't want them to do this anyway. We'll close that account right-quick!" whenever they're told to do so. Otherwise, they really don't want to know exactly what you're doing, because knowing makes them liable.

[Nibb31]

Never trust 3rd party cloud services.

It's better to invest in your own NAS (with mirrored RAID drives) with ownCloud on it. You have your own private cloud service, with no NSA backdoor, no dependency on Microsoft or Google, and only limited by the storage capacity of your own drives.

Edited June 23, 2014 by Nibb31

[Red Iron Crown]

Never trust 3rd party cloud services.

It's better to invest in your own NAS (with mirrored RAID drives) with ownCloud on it. You have your own private cloud service, with no NSA backdoor, no dependency on Microsoft or Google, and only limited by the storage capacity of your own drives.

While I agree with this in principle, in practice it's not as simple. The third party services have more bandwidth and a more reliable connection than my home ISP can provide, and have excellent integration into mobile apps (one of the reasons I use cloud services in the first place). They also have a more robust high availability data store than a home user is likely to be able to set up themselves.

[phoenix_ca]

https://www.spacemonkey.com/

Best of both worlds. (The best part probably being the distributed nature of the storage, meaning no possibility of all your data suddenly being inaccessible or lost because a data centre gets flooded, loses power, or is otherwise damaged.)

Edited June 23, 2014 by phoenix_ca

[cantab]

I think it's right to not trust cloud services. However that doesn't mean you can't make good use of them.

Don't trust them to not read your stuff and use it, even in ways that are unlawful. They may use it for their own business or advertising, they may pass it on to your competitors, and they will almost certainly allow the government they operate under to read it at will. And even if they are upstanding, they could still get hacked. If you don't want your stuff read like this, encrypt your data before it leaves your machine, and be sure that encryption is strong.

Don't trust them to not take your stuff offline, either accidentally or deliberately. Ergo, if you have files you care about losing, do not store the only copy on a cloud service. Cloud storage is good for backing files up and synchronising them between devices, where you keep the primary copy on your local hard drive. It is risky for archiving, when you move the files somewhere else to free up space on your main storage, or for keeping the primary copy of your file (for example using Office Web Apps or Google Docs without auto-syncing them to your PC).

On the flipside, your own NAS is only a resilient backup if you can put it in a different building. If it's in the same house as your main PC a disaster like a fire can take them both out. And the aftermath of such a disaster is when you'll most need things like saved passwords or electronic copies of important documents.

Edited June 23, 2014 by cantab

[phoenix_ca]

Did you look at the Space Monkey link, cantab? I don't think you looked at the Space Monkey link.

[Javster]

I think if you don't make the link public, you'll be fine.

[cantab]

Did you look at the Space Monkey link, cantab? I don't think you looked at the Space Monkey link.

Yes, I did look at the link. I pretty quickly recognised it as a hardware appliance doing distributed storage, an approach tried by Wuala several years ago and later abandoned by them. Edited June 23, 2014 by cantab
Remove abrasiveness

[Red Iron Crown]

Yes, I did look at the link, and don't particularly appreciate your accusations otherwise. I pretty quickly recognised it as a hardware appliance doing distributed storage, an approach tried by Wuala several years ago and later abandoned by them.

There are liability issues with that sort of thing. The device stores some other users' data on it, making you liable for the content if searched. So if someone stores illegal content, whether pirated material or child ****ography, you're on the hook.

[phoenix_ca]

There are liability issues with that sort of thing. The device stores some other users' data on it, making you liable for the content if searched. So if someone stores illegal content, whether pirated material or child ****ography, you're on the hook.

The encryption, on top of the splitting of data into blocks like the BitTorrent protocol does, makes it very unlikely that any court of law could actually pin the liability for the entire piece of content someone uploads on any one other user.

On top of that, this is very clearly and effectively dealt with in Space Monkey's ToS:

5. User Content

5.1. Limited License Grant to Space Monkey. You grant us a limited right to the User Content associated with your account and you permit us and the third parties that provide services to us, to each process, store, encrypt, transfer, share, publish, and otherwise use User Content solely for operating the Service. This limited license includes the right to make one or more backup copies of each file associated with your account, in whole or in smaller pieces, and to transfer that file (or each piece of a file) to any location for storage on one or more of our Devices, to other systems that we operate, or to a third party that may process or store User Content for us. You grant us and each third party we work with the right to transfer your data to any location, including outside of the jurisdiction where you reside.

5.2. Sharing of User Content. We may offer features that enable you to make User Content available to others (whether publicly or to a specified group). We do not have the ability to control what any third party may do with User Content and we are not responsible for those actions. Once User Content has been shared, those with access to it may be able to reshare, publish, re-use, modify, or otherwise exploit User Content, so please carefully consider what you choose to share before you share it. While our Service may include sharing features, we may place limits on the volume and speed at which materials are available, we may temporarily disable or limit sharing in order to protect the health of the Service, and in many cases the availability of your User Content will depend on the speed and capacity of the Internet connection that is connected to the Device associated with your account.

5.3. User Content Representations and Warranties. You are solely responsible for User Content associated with your account and the consequences of uploading, posting, or sharing that User Content. By uploading, posting, or sharing User Content, you affirm, represent, and warrant that:

• you are the creator and owner of, or have the necessary licenses, rights, consents, and permissions to use and to authorize Space Monkey and others, as described in this Section 5, to exercise the rights and permissions granted by you in this Section 5; and

• your User Content, and the use thereof as contemplated herein, does not and will not: (a) infringe, violate, or misappropriate any third-party right, including any copyright, trademark, patent, trade secret, moral right, privacy right, right of publicity, or any other intellectual property or proprietary right; or ( slander, defame, or libel any third-party.

5.4. User Content Disclaimer. We are under no obligation to edit or control User Content that you or other users post or publish, and will not be in any way responsible or liable for User Content. Space Monkey may, however, at any time and without prior notice, screen, remove, edit, or block any User Content that in our sole judgment violates these Terms or is otherwise objectionable. You understand that when using the Service you may be exposed to User Content from a variety of sources and acknowledge that User Content may be inaccurate, offensive, indecent or objectionable. You agree to waive, and hereby do waive, any legal or equitable rights or remedies you have or may have against Space Monkey with respect to User Content. We expressly disclaim any and all liability in connection with User Content. If notified by a user or content owner that User Content allegedly does not conform to these Terms, we may investigate the allegation and determine in our sole discretion whether to remove the User Content, which we reserve the right to do at any time and without notice.

This shifts liability for the content onto the user, just like any other storage service does, and protects the users storing other people's data in much the same way. If it were proven that illegal or unlicensed or what-have-you data were on their service, then it would be up to SM to remove it to comply with law enforcement, and they have very explicit clauses in the ToS allowing just that.

Space Monkey and its users would only be liable for a bad user using the service for illicit purposes if they were informed of the criminal activity and didn't act; that would make them an accessory. But in past, legal precedent (at least in Canada and the USA) has followed the path of blaming the user who uploaded the content, not the company providing the service to share that content. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't have things like YouTube, or even this forum, because the onus of policing everyone's uploads for any possible infringement on copyright or and data that could be criminal would be far too immense for the service to continue. YouTube has already fought and largely won (well, sorta) this battle in US courts. They aren't liable for people uploading content that infringes on copyright, as long as they act quickly when informed of the infringement, and the same goes for criminal activity. They would only be liable if they are informed of the infringement or criminal content and didn't act to remove it from their service within a reasonable time frame.

As far as law enforcement goes from a practical standpoint though, it's very unlikely for any law enforcement agency to just stumble upon someone's Space Monkey data and go "Oh my, that's child ****ography!" It's not like anyone can just poke their head in and look at people's data; the entire system, like most secure data systems, is designed to prevent just that. No corporation in the USA would put-up with that kind of fishing without a warrant, and if the data is encrypted with a key that only the user has anyway, those law enforcement officers will be SOL, warrant or no. Not that that's a good thing; it's just one of the prices paid for a free society.

Edited June 23, 2014 by phoenix_ca

[vger]

While I agree with this in principle, in practice it's not as simple. The third party services have more bandwidth and a more reliable connection than my home ISP can provide, and have excellent integration into mobile apps (one of the reasons I use cloud services in the first place). They also have a more robust high availability data store than a home user is likely to be able to set up themselves.

Depends on how fast you need your data though. As long as you don't want to stream your video content, it still works fine.

You could pretty easily set your computer up for P2P sharing, and just don't hand out the torrent for your file archive to anyone. You can also password protect it.

Never trust 3rd party cloud services.

It's better to invest in your own NAS (with mirrored RAID drives) with ownCloud on it. You have your own private cloud service, with no NSA backdoor, no dependency on Microsoft or Google, and only limited by the storage capacity of your own drives.

No such thing as "no NSA backdoor." You're still using an ISP to connect to the internet, which means anyone with access can peek into your datastream if they want.

All of this said, I don't trust cloud services AT ALL. It amazes me that so many people are storing their sensitive data on some random remote service that could instantly get shutdown the way Megaupload(I 'think' that's what it was called) did.

Edited June 23, 2014 by vger

[Red Iron Crown]

The encryption, on top of the splitting of data into blocks like the BitTorrent protocol does, makes it very unlikely that any court of law could actually pin the liability for the entire piece of content someone uploads on any one other user.

On top of that, this is very clearly and effectively dealt with in Space Monkey's ToS:

Terms of Service is a private contract between two parties, it only affects civil liabilities and has no effect on criminal law or prosecution. Those terms are quite clearly about absolving the company of any responsibility for the civil liabilities of hosted content, they say precisely nothing about protecting individual users from criminal prosecution.

This shifts liability for the content onto the user, just like any other storage service does, and protects the users storing other people's data in much the same way. If it were proven that illegal or unlicensed or what-have-you data were on their service, then it would be up to SM to remove it to comply with law enforcement, and they have very explicit clauses in the ToS allowing just that.

Space Monkey and its users would only be liable for a bad user using the service for illicit purposes if they were informed of the criminal activity and didn't act; that would make them an accessory. But in past, legal precedent (at least in Canada and the USA) has followed the path of blaming the user who uploaded the content, not the company providing the service to share that content. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't have things like YouTube, or even this forum, because the onus of policing everyone's uploads for any possible infringement on copyright or and data that could be criminal would be far too immense for the service to continue. YouTube has already fought and largely won (well, sorta) this battle in US courts. They aren't liable for people uploading content that infringes on copyright, as long as they act quickly when informed of the infringement, and the same goes for criminal activity. They would only be liable if they are informed of the infringement or criminal content and didn't act to remove it from their service within a reasonable time frame.

As far as law enforcement goes from a practical standpoint though, it's very unlikely for any law enforcement agency to just stumble upon someone's Space Monkey data and go "Oh my, that's child ****ography!" It's not like anyone can just poke their head in and look at people's data; the entire system, like most secure data systems, is designed to prevent just that. No corporation in the USA would put-up with that kind of fishing without a warrant, and if the data is encrypted with a key that only the user has anyway, those law enforcement officers will be SOL, warrant or no. Not that that's a good thing; it's just one of the prices paid for a free society.

No offense, but I find your belief that no corporation would support fishing expeditions a bit naive, it goes on all the time and has been documented in the Snowden leaks. And encryption is not as foolproof as you make out, though the theoretical basis is sound, the implementation is never perfect (see HeartBleed and other similar bugs before it).

Space Monkey seems to be like Tor with the difference that you must buy their hardware to use the service. Tor, of course, being the storage system of choice for illegal content.

Rather than the best of both worlds, Space Monkey seems to be the worst of both worlds: You have to buy and maintain hardware like you are running your own cloud, and you have the lack of control that comes with third party involvement.

[phoenix_ca]

Terms of Service is a private contract between two parties, it only affects civil liabilities and has no effect on criminal law or prosecution. Those terms are quite clearly about absolving the company of any responsibility for the civil liabilities of hosted content, they say precisely nothing about protecting individual users from criminal prosecution.

While you're right, you're wrong about the legal precedent that's been already set by cases like Viacom vs YouTube. DMCA Safe Harbours were tested and came through. Not that I like the DMCA but in this case it worked.

No offense, but I find your belief that no corporation would support fishing expeditions a bit naive, it goes on all the time and has been documented in the Snowden leaks.

Allowing anyone, even law enforcement, to just peruse people's data at will is bad business practice in societies like the USA, Canada, the EU, and so on. There's a difference between a company opening its doors for law enforcement and security services to do what they please, and secret court warrants (or particular pieces of legislation) that require it of them lest they face very severe consequences for noncompliance. That data that got turned over was all done legally, believe it or not.

And encryption is not as foolproof as you make out, though the theoretical basis is sound, the implementation is never perfect (see HeartBleed and other similar bugs before it).

No, encryption is not foolproof. Any encryption can be broken, given enough computing power and time, which is the real issue. If the encryption being used by a normal user is robust enough that it would require someone to dedicate a purpose-built supercomputer running ASIC cards designed for the sole purpose of cracking that encryption scheme years to do so (and it's actually pretty easy to get to that point), you're probably safe. Furthermore, Heartbleed has nothing to do with encryption. It is a problem caused by an error in implementation. The encryption itself is secure, as long as you don't break it by using it incorrectly; this is explained very clearly.

Space Monkey seems to be like Tor with the difference that you must buy their hardware to use the service. Tor, of course, being the storage system of choice for illegal content.

Tor is an anonymisation service, not a storage service. SpaceMonkey also has nothing to do with anonymity and makes absolutely no claims that it does. So...why are you trying to draw a parallel between the two at all? They're nothing alike.

Rather than the best of both worlds, Space Monkey seems to be the worst of both worlds: You have to buy and maintain hardware like you are running your own cloud, and you have the lack of control that comes with third party involvement.

There is no maintenance. If it breaks they send you a new one. It's not like you need to set-up your own NAS, and considering the cost, it's dirt cheap compared to the price of paying for your own internet-accessible storage in another city (the only way to get real backup security is not to just store data off-site, but in an entirely different geographical location).

If supposed "lack of control" is something you're willing to pay extra for, fine, but it's not a solution that everyone can afford. Not by a long shot.

Edited June 24, 2014 by phoenix_ca