Re:Google Drive users stung by macOS '.DS_Store' copyright i...
by GeekyBear on Sunday February 20, 2022 @05:57PM
(#30410073)
Napster was designed explicitly to enable copyright infringement.
Cloud storage is not.
A more valid comparison would have to involve the Supreme Court's ruling on VCRs, which could possibly be used for copyright infringement, but had substantial uses that were perfectly legal.
>The Court's 5–4 ruling to reverse the Ninth Circuit in favor of Sony hinged on the possibility that the technology in question had significant non-infringing uses, and that the plaintiffs were unable to prove otherwise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Unive...
That may or may not be correct in the USA, but the world has many jurisdictions with varying laws on copyright infringement, and cloud storage providers may be liable for copyright infringement claims.
Even limiting this to the USA, we had
- Metallica vs Napster (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallica_v._Napster,_Inc.)
- A&M Records vs Napster (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%26M_Records,_Inc._v._Napster....)
Napster lost both cases.
So, if you run a cloud provider who permits file sharing, it seems there’s a decent change you’re liable for copyright infringement by your customers.
Also, https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/cloud-computing-a-brief-ov... says:
Therefore, Canadian copyright law is currently unclear on whether cloud storage providers may be shielded from liability for copyright infringement
⇒ If I were to run a cloud provider who permits file sharing, I think my legal team would strongly advise to scan files _shared_with_others_ for copyright infringement.
(In the ‘.DS_Store’ case, Google’s system seems to have some embarrassing false positives, but that’s a different issue)