Slashdot Mirror
Cloudflare: We Can't Shut Down Pirate Sites (torrentfreak.com)
CloudFlare has said it cannot shut down piracy websites. The CloudFlare's response comes two months after adult entertainment outfit ALS Scan filed a complaint at a California federal court two months ago in which the company accused the CDN service of various counts of copyright and trademark infringement. From a TorrentFreak report:"CloudFlare is not the operator of the allegedly infringing sites but is merely one of the many intermediaries across the internet that provide automated CDN services, which result in the websites in question loading a bit faster than they would if they did not utilize CDN services." If Cloudflare terminated the accounts of allegedly infringing websites, the sites themselves would still continue to exist. It would just require a simple DNS reconfiguration to continue their operation. "Indeed, there are no measures of any kind that CloudFlare could take to prevent this alleged infringement, because the termination of CloudFlare's CDN services would have no impact on the existence and ability of these allegedly infringing websites to continue to operate," Cloudflare writes. As such, the company argues that it's not "materially contributing" to any of the alleged copyright infringements.
I'm getting sick & tired of this new mindset that everything in the world is less important than US corporate copyright.
I'll play an expert. CloudFlare are lying. Though it is correct, that "a simple DNS reconfiguration" would allow the pirates to continue to exist, their bandwidth requirements will go much higher and they would not be able to do as much damage to the intellectual property owners.
Think, for example, of banks blocking money-laundering — it does not stop whatever activity generates the criminals' profits. But it makes the criminals' lives (much) harder.
The reaction and attitudes of Slashdot and other crowds will, once again, boil down to those towards the original activity. People frowning on copyright infringement will denounce CloudFlare. Others will celebrate the pirates getting off for a while longer.
But technically CloudFlare's arguments are bullshit — and they know it.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Can you explain how you are attacked by CF ip addresses? I'm a CF customer but can't see how CF could attack you.
Damn! They just admitted that they are irrelevant.
FTFY. Accusation is not proof, particularly when said accusation comes from actors not noted for their ethics.
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
So you are suggesting that CDN services should shoulder the burden of investigating what their clients are using their services for?
Do you think ISPs should need to do the same?
Where do you draw the line, if I'm *suspected* of running, oh i dunno... an illegal unpasteurized milk business from my home, should the telephone company be obligated to cancel my service? Should the power company be obligated to turn off the power? Should the snow clearing company be obligated not to clear my driveway?
While they cannot "keep the sites offline"; pulling their service will, at least for the short term block a venue for accessing those sites.
Yes, and the power company, telephone company, and snow plow all pulling their services will all make it more difficult for my 'customers' to access my illegal services. That doesn't make them contributors to it.
If knowingly extending CDN services to any of these websites, CloudFlare can legitimately said to be aiding and abetting the distribution of their content by those websites.
And if you tell my snowplow guy you suspect I'm delivering illegal milk (remember I haven't even been charged yet, nevermind convicted... you could be a busybody for all he knows), but he's now aiding and abetting the distribution of illegal milk by clearing my driveway? Really? That's how you think the world should be?
I think CDNs should be treated as neutral in this. If a court asks them (via subpoena) for a the contact / billing information for the allegedly infringing site then they would have to turn it over. But I don't thin the CDN is aiding and abetting the illegal activity any more than the telco is for running the wires, or the power company is for providing the electricity.
Of course they're lying. Quote
he termination of CloudFlare's CDN services would have no impact on the existence and ability of these allegedly infringing websites to continue to operate
If it would make now impact, why are they in business? Kind of hard to get people to buy a service that doesn't do anything.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Actually, the DMCA simply limits the amount of time a cache of content identified to be infringing may be held (that is, says they cannot become a de-facto host of the material). It defines the notification to be served when the host of the data takes it down. CloudFlare and other CDNs expire cache well wityhin that time.
In other words, the claimant must notify the HOST who then must take the data down. Any CDN must then let the cache expire.
So it's fairly exllicit who must be notified and who must do the take-down and it's not CloudFlare.