Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cloudflare: We Can't Shut Down Pirate Sites (torrentfreak.com)

Posted by msmash on from the how-internet-works dept.

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.

20 of 140 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Kill ugly Cloudflare traffic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Set your default gateway to 127.0.0.1, this is a free service that blocks all attacks from CDN providers.

  2. Passing the buck? by Ragnarok89 · · Score: 2

    I think CloudFlare's comments are accurate, but I'm no expert.

    1. Re:Passing the buck? by mi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think CloudFlare's comments are accurate, but I'm no expert.

      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.
    2. Re:Passing the buck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

    3. Re:Passing the buck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Former 8 year ISP employee:

      Yes, after they've been informed of it. That's the entire point of the safe harbor laws. You don't have to be proactive; you *do* have to respond once you've been notified that there's a problem -- or facilitate the challenging of the notice -- otherwise you're aiding and abetting.

      In this case, CloudFlare is full of shit. "They're just a customer of ours!" is no excuse whatsoever. By accepting money in exchange for their HTTP proxying services, they're in a commercial transaction and are profiting from the endeavor. If they continue to use this line of defense, I hope they get sued.

    4. Re:Passing the buck? by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Passing the buck? by sjames · · Score: 3, Informative

      They are not a publisher nor do they host content. The DMCA is properly sent to the actual hosting provider or the publisher.

    6. Re:Passing the buck? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.
    7. Re:Passing the buck? by wbr1 · · Score: 2
      Hate to play devils advocate here as I hate the current state of IP. However in your analogy, CloudFlare is not providing electricity or clearing snow. They are the company providing you with more cows and the equipment to milk them. They are, for better or worse, more materially related to your illegal business.

      Now, should unpasteurized milk (copied media) be legal or less restricted? Probably so.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    8. Re:Passing the buck? by vux984 · · Score: 2

      Grow-ops have the power cut all the time.

      Are you absolutely sure? Can you find a cite for that?

      I know unusual power consumption is actively used to *identify* grow ups, but I don't think the power company is ever obligated to cut power. I mean... why bother? Once they know where they are they just go collect the plants.

      From what I can tell grow ops losing power is usually initiated by the utility itself because the grow up was actually stealing the electricity (ie not paying for it) and the only reason the courts get involved with that is because some utilities are so regulated that they need permission to cut off the power even when it is being stolen -- because it could lead to a resident freezing in the winter for example.

    9. Re:Passing the buck? by vux984 · · Score: 2

      They are, for better or worse, more materially related to your illegal business.

      And that's i guess where you are trying to 'draw the line' between peripherally or incidentally related and 'materially' related. But i don't think it's a very clear line -- perhaps snowclearing my driveway is on one side and fedex actually carrying packages for me is on the other?

      But without both, my milk isn't going anywhere; so who's to say that the snow clearing isn't material?

      As for the vendor selling me cows and milking isn't that like arguing the gun store is somehow responsible for what people do with them?

    10. Re:Passing the buck? by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      Of course according to your bullshit logic cloudflare is a fluffy bunny charity and provides it services at a loss. No, they charge for it and they charge more for the service they provide than what it costs them. People use cloud flare to avoid setting up their own 'secure' services, the ability to distribute without disruption, due to local conditions and very local conditions (inside the building). All they do is relocate bandwidth problems away from local services and distribute those loads securely across a broader network and they do it at a profit. The original distributor can do it all themselves and at about the same price, because discount achieved for backbone bandwidth are gobbled up in their profit margins.

      For cloudflare to function at the best possible performance level it can not have choke points and the information must simply flow straight through and any attempt to monitor, record, filter, censor, will cripple their function and all their customers will go elsewhere or go back to doing it direct. As always pigopolists lie like there is no tomorrow and pay lobbyists to pay off politicians so those politicians will parrot the lies.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    11. Re:Passing the buck? by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  3. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm getting sick & tired of this new mindset that everything in the world is less important than US corporate copyright.

  4. Re: Kill ugly Cloudflare traffic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  5. Admission by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Damn! They just admitted that they are irrelevant.

  6. Re:Well, I'd avoid that paticular legal team. by ewhac · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Continuing to do business with with sites accused of infringing copyright?

    FTFY. Accusation is not proof, particularly when said accusation comes from actors not noted for their ethics.

    --
    Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
  7. Re: Kill ugly Cloudflare traffic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    It can't. OP is either a troll or doesn't know the difference between a hosting provider and a CDN.

  8. Re:Technically neither can ICANN or a domain provi by tepples · · Score: 2

    the rightful owners, who legally have the right to decide who they sell to in the first place

    I don't understand how refusing to sell at any price (e.g. Song of the South) fulfills copyright's purpose: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".

  9. Real CDNs have "Terms Of Serivce" by MinusOne · · Score: 2

    If they were a real CDN, customers publishing copyrighted content would violate the TOS and they would be turned off. The fact that they can't be bothered is a sign that they are willing to deal with anyone with a few bucks. If they do have terms that would allow them to turn off customers like this and they don't enforce them it is even worse.