Slashdot Mirror
Cloudflare Is Liable For Pirate Sites and Has No Safe Harbor, Publisher Says (torrentfreak.com)
After dragging Cloudflare to court and accusing the web services company of various types of copyright and trademark infringement, noting that several customers used Cloudflare's servers to distribute pirated content, adult publisher ALS Scan told the California District Court this week that the company should be held liable for copyright infringements committed by its customers. According to TorrentFreak, "The company requests a partial summary judgement, claiming that the CDN provider assists pirates and doesn't qualify for safe harbor protection." From the report: "The evidence is undisputed," ALS writes. "Cloudflare materially assists website operators in reproduction, distribution and display of copyrighted works, including infringing copies of ALS works. Cloudflare also masks information about pirate sites and their hosts." ALS anticipates that Cloudflare may argue that the company or its clients are protected by the DMCA's safe harbor provision, but contests this claim. The publisher notes that none of the customers registered the required paperwork at the U.S. Copyright Office. "Cloudflare may say that the Cloudflare Customer Sites are themselves service providers entitled to DMCA protections, however, none have qualified for safe harbors by submitting the required notices to the U.S. Copyright Office. Cloudflare may say that the Cloudflare Customer Sites are themselves service providers entitled to DMCA protections, however, none have qualified for safe harbors by submitting the required notices to the U.S. Copyright Office."
Cloudflare itself has no safe harbor protection either, they argue, because it operates differently than a service provider as defined in the DMCA. It's a "smart system" which also modifies content, instead of a "dumb pipe," they claim. In addition, the CDN provider is accused of failing to implement a reasonable policy that will terminate repeat offenders. "Cloudflare has no available safe harbors. Even if any safe harbors apply, Cloudflare has lost such safe harbors for failure to adopt and reasonably implement a policy including termination of repeat infringers," ALS writes. ALS now asks the court to issue a partial summary judgment ruling that Cloudflare is liable for contributory copyright infringement. If this motion is granted, a trial would only be needed to establish the damages amount.
Cloudflare itself has no safe harbor protection either, they argue, because it operates differently than a service provider as defined in the DMCA. It's a "smart system" which also modifies content, instead of a "dumb pipe," they claim. In addition, the CDN provider is accused of failing to implement a reasonable policy that will terminate repeat offenders. "Cloudflare has no available safe harbors. Even if any safe harbors apply, Cloudflare has lost such safe harbors for failure to adopt and reasonably implement a policy including termination of repeat infringers," ALS writes. ALS now asks the court to issue a partial summary judgment ruling that Cloudflare is liable for contributory copyright infringement. If this motion is granted, a trial would only be needed to establish the damages amount.
"Publisher Says" ... nuff said
When court says it, or legislation saying it actually says it, then it starts to mean something.
Right now, its just horseshit. (Much like that Nunes memo.)
...doesn't make it so
What was the expression? A drowning man will clutch at a straw?
The editor of this submission needs to be sent immediately to the Copyright Office him/herself, because they infringed on their own content 3x in one paragraph!
Almighty Science! -smh :-(
Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
And, of course, "The evidence is undisputed". No need for a trial; just seize CF's bank accounts now...
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
... the offender.
The reasoning here would support my electric company's termination of service because I download copyrighted material.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Somehow I have a feeling that it actually is disputed. The disputing party? Cloudflare!
Someone should tell this lawyer asshat that words have meaning, and that using them incorrectly undisputedly makes him look stupid.
I volunteer to be on that jury, and demand they produce every bit of the evidence!
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Paid porn sites are still around?
Learn to love Alaska
If changing the content means taking on liability would that not imply that an ISP that modifies encrypted content is liable for infringement too?
---- aut viam inveniam aut faciam
Cloudflare is probably a massive NSA operation to track users across websites, including such things as intercepting their logins. It'll never be allowed to be taken down...
Iâ(TM)ll continue. The guy is guilty as hell. Not that it matters to PedoBear and his friends. And lets be honest, PedoBear is more amusing than most of the kind of comedy American politics has been creating recently.
Nutria pointed out:
And, of course, "The evidence is undisputed". No need for a trial; just seize CF's bank accounts now...
This.
If Cloudflare is doing anything other than pleading guilty, the "evidence" is, by definition in dispute.
The argument presented in this motion is pure handwaving. Any competent Federal judge is going to dismiss it out of hand, because no actual evidence is cited - only the claims presented in the argument itself.
Claims and evidence are two legally distinct things, AFAIK. <DISCLAIMER>I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.</DISCLAIMER>
And then, of course, there's this. (WARNING: extremely NSFW!)
I think ALS needs a new lawyer ...
Check out my novel.
"NONE OF YOU FUCKING FAGGOTS CAN LIST ONE SINGLE SPECIFIC THING WRONG WITH THE MEMO! "
I mean, its biased, and lacks information, and omits context. It's poorly researched, and poorly sourced. Its all of 4 pages; that's absurdly thin. Then on top of that, it comes to a conclusion that has no legal basis, not even the cherry picked facts in the memo support its conclusion.
That's not why the memo is a big deal. The memo is a big deal because it represents the whitehouse's willingness to undermine its own DoJ, National Security, Intelligence oversight bodies. It's a step down the path to violating the separation of powers.
Trump needs to leave the DoJ alone. If the Mueller investigation ever reaches charges, Trump can fight them vigorously within the courts -- but he can't make this go way by the firing judges and prosecutors.
Well... perhaps he can... but if he does we now live in a tin pot dictatorship. And that's kind of a big deal.
Actually the one thing the memo proves is that there is a actual conspiracy within the Republican party in congress and Trump to obstruct the independent investigation.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
No comrade. You are incorrect.
If the memo were actually true and correct and its conclusions were founded in law instead of wishy-thinking, then Trump should let Mueller along his merry way; and sleep easy, and then destroy the case in court -- assuming the DoJ ever decided to even lay charges.
There's no possible need to fire mueller, and violate the separation between the exective and justice departments. Fight it in court where it belongs.
The reason this whole episode is a big deal is precisely because the white house is seeking to undermine the autonomy of the justice department.
Trump isn't some poor sap whose going to get railroaded into a false confession and sent to federal prison for life. He's going to have the best representation possible; and then appeals forever, and due to the unique situation what with him being the president there's going to be enough for the supreme court to chew on to last decades. And he appointed the last supreme court justice himself. He'll die of old age long before its over.
Firing Mueller is a gross abuse and violation of the separation of powers. Even sensible republicans think interfering in the DoJ is crossing the line.
This case only has merit if net neutrality is not a thing.
If net neutrality is abolished, then every service provider is liable for anything that passes though their system.
Which do you choose?
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
They are a large part of what makes the net run as well as it does. Having responsibility of that much information is not feasible.
[($)]
The _eviodence_ need not be in dispute for a lawsuit or criminal prosecution to need to go to court. Whether an act is illegal can be in dispute. I'm particularly reminded of Edward Snowden, whose leaking of classified documents on NSA domestic spying is not in dispute. Whether he should be tried for treason, or given a Medal of Honor as a brave whistleblower is in dispute.
Was the Steele Dossier the basis for the FISA warrant (and much of the Russiagate investigation) or wasn't it? Lotsa table-pounders from both parties but this simple question is being avoided with a 20 foot pole.
Muller's investigation, like Ken Starr's before it, is a disgusting perversion of justice. Probable suspicion, initial investigation, probable cause, court proceedings is how this shit is supposed to work. None of the Russiagaters have come up with anything approaching probable suspicion, which means this is another open-ended writ of assistance where none of the indictments thus far have anything to do with Russiagate and Muller hasn't even bothered to examine the DNC servers.
Fuck off Yuri.
"If the memo were actually true and correct and its conclusions were founded in law instead of wishy-thinking...
I'm going to repeat the question I asked above to another of your comments: To what "conclusions" do you refer?
The memo doesn't draw any conclusions. It's just a list of facts. Conclusions are what happens when you put those facts together.
"There's no possible need to fire mueller..."
Huh? Trump has expressed no desire to fire Mueller. McCabe and Rosenstein, on the other hand, may be in trouble.
"... and violate the separation between the exective and justice departments.
Huh? The Justice Department is part of the Executive Branch. It isn't part of the Judiciary. Different things.
Looks like it's back to school for you.
Antique Geekmeister cautioned:,/p>
The _eviodence_ need not be in dispute for a lawsuit or criminal prosecution to need to go to court. Whether an act is illegal can be in dispute.
What you say is true. However, the points the quoted argument cites are not evidence. They're the plaintiff's lawyer's characterization of relationships between the defendant (Cloudflare) and third parties not named as co-dependents - a.k.a. "opinions" ...
Check out my novel.
This was inevitable, after Cloudflare removed their services from dailystormer. By demonstrating they discriminate on what content they protect, they assume a degree of responsibility for the benefits that content receives.
Actually, he never said that, on of his competitors said it about him.
Learn to love Alaska
I never heard about that. But then, I'm not the expert on the industry you are...
Learn to love Alaska
In addition, the CDN provider is accused of failing to implement a reasonable policy that will terminate repeat offenders.
This is about all they have to prove to a judge. DMCA safe-harbor or not, if you're not trying to put a stop to copyright infringement, you lose your protection and are liable.
The rest? Irrelevant.
Going after the infringers? Waste of time and money, they don't have typically have anything and plus it's more involved to prove some individual did something, especially if Cloudflare resists giving out information. The objective is to get a nice fat payday. The end-users don't yield fat paydays. Also, suing little Cindy cuz she uploaded Spongebob, yeah, that doesn't play out too great in the public eye. Going after some random download dump site? Only TorrentFreak bats an eyelash.
So, why did you fight so hard to hide it from us again?
Because the evidence to refute it is also classified and Trump won't allow that to be released. Declassifying one side of the argument is cheating.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
ALS Scan seems to have forgotten that Cs* like Cloudflare exist to reduce costs for publishers. Instead of CNN having to pay for the network traffic from their main server for every visitor to cnn.com, the site gets cached by Cs at strategic geographic locations around the world. Visitors can then get the content from their local cache, avoiding the extra bandwidth and expense of having to transmit that redundant data thousands or millions of times over the Internet backbone between the local cache and CNN's servers.
So any "victory" in court making life harder for Cs will just result in publishers's expenses going up. If they mange to force Cs to police the content they cache for copyright violations, the Cs will simply pass the cost of that policing back to them via higher prices. If they get the court to give them a monetary award from Cs, the Cs will just pass the cost of the award back to them via higher prices. If they manage to get Cs outlawed, their network and server costs will rise by more than they had been paying the Cs. Even if the Cs could enforce copyright at no extra cost, the price they'd charge publishers would still go up - if the Cs have to stop caching copyright-infringing sites, they have to amortize their expenses over fewer customers, meaning the price for their remaining customers goes up. In other words, there's no outcome here which results in true victory for the publishers. Cs were developed as a way to cut costs for publishers, so screwing around with them by definition increases the cost to publishers.
The whole thing reminds me of the newspapers suing Google to stop Google News from using snippets of their articles, who promptly fell off the web when they "won" and Google stopped using them as a source for Google News.
* Cs = CDNs. Apparently using "CDNs" six times in a slashdot post triggers the lameness filter.
The evidence is undisputed
Actually given the fact that they are in court, I think the only correct statement is that the evidence is being disputed RIGHT NOW.
The memo shows FBI used a partisan campaign document to get a warrant to spy on a rival campaign. And shows the FBI omitted crucial information from a FISA court. No spin can change those basic facts.
It's official, Memo states FISA warrant could have not been obtained without Steele Dossier. The memo asserts that former FBI official Andrew McCabe stated in closed-door testimony that without the anti-Trump dossier, the FBI would not have been able to secure surveillance warrants.
Can you in your wildest dreams imagine if the GOP had done that to Mrs. Clinton? Can you imagine the blood in the eyes of the media pooh-bahs if they found the GOP doing exactly what HRC and the media did?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
The Democratic National Committee paid a law firm who paid Fusion GPS who paid a foreign spy who paid Russians for a dossier used by FBI for FISA warrant to wiretap Trump.
Federal officials conspired to spy on a rival political campaign using information they had not verified from people they knew were untrustworthy. And these officials deliberately and repeatedly defrauded the judiciary by withholding key information.
The most messed up part is that the Congressional committee is in charge of oversight of these intelligence agencies, not the other way around. For Rosenstein to threaten the committee because they're doing their job of oversight is stunning. These agencies have gone rogue and seem to feel they are unaccountable to anyone.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
how much proof that cliton rigged the election in her favor do you SJW crybabies need?
The election went in her favor?
It lists facts of record, which by definition cannot be biased.
You can bias facts. You just omit the ones that aren't in your favor. Whether it is or isn't biased can't be known by the American public, and that's still a concern.
They started off scanning other peoples work without permission. Now they shoot their own porn but they've moved on to fucking over hard working affiliates who send their customers.
There's zero chance that Snowden will get a Medal of Honor.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Hear that whooshing noise? It's sarcasm zooming over your head.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Hear that whooshing noise? It's sarcasm zooming over your head.
No whooshing noise. Pro tip: Read the context, not every reply on Slashdot is disagreeing with you, and your sarcasm was not only noted but built upon.
In case it's not obvious: This post is a negative reply to your silly whooshing comment.
According to then head of the DNC, Hillary rigged the primary to become the Democrat candidate for president. Easier to rig a primary that is built around super delegates than the national election which has the electoral college firewall.
your sarcasm was not only noted but built upon.
If your statement Actually given the fact that they are in court, I think the only correct statement is that the evidence is being disputed RIGHT NOW was designed to build upon my sarcasm, then it did so horribly.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
That's a decision, that's something a judge does based on an interpretation of evidence. Saying that evidence is undisputed means that no parties dispute the evidence, it doesn't mean that they all agree on how to interpret that evidence.
So they say, "The evidence is undisputed, [and therefore] conclusion conclusion conclusion."
"1) .. It lists facts of record, which by definition cannot be biased."
This is just naive. There are lots of ways to create bias even in a list of facts.
"5) ... it has no conclusions."
The following are not facts, these are conclusions.
Our findings, which are detailed below, 1) raise concerns with the legitimacy and legality of certain DOJ and FBI interactions with the Foreign IntelligenceSurveillance Court (FISC), and 2) represent a troubling breakdown of legal processes established to protect the American people from abuses related to the FISA process.
"7) Remember, this memo did not originate with Trump. It was brought to him by members of Congress."
Yes, and what is the significance of that?
As for the rest...start here... this is pretty well written.
https://www.politico.com/magaz...
The holder is in no way liable for content UNLESS it is brought to his attention in a legal complaint.
Publishers, QUIT FUCKING WHINING and do your damned job.
A BOT can find this stuff you know!!
That's just Chaika Veselnitskaya, its a science experiment I'm working on.
Firing Mueller is a gross abuse and violation of the separation of powers. Even sensible republicans think interfering in the DoJ is crossing the line.
Firing Mueller would be a severe political mistake, but it would not be a violation of the separation of powers. The DoJ is within the executive branch, not the judicial branch, so Trump has the authority to fire Mueller. If Mueller were under the judicial branch, Trump wouldn't be able to touch him (e.g. Trump cannot fire judges). So, that said, I believe that the one thing Trump could do to end his presidency would be to fire Mueller. If he rides it out, he'll probably make it through letting his lackeys take the fall.
538 has given some good history and analysis of special counsels: https://fivethirtyeight.com/fe...
An important detail of civil suits that you might want to be aware of is that everything is divided into two categories, "facts" and "law," and all the claimed facts have to be either agreed to or disputed.
So it is literally up to the other side if something is disputed. They're saying that the other side didn't dispute the facts, leaving those facts undisputed.
It is not a matter of opinion, nor is it the type of situation you imply.
The facts are not in dispute, the case rests on matters of law rather than a dispute over the facts. Trials are where Juries decide what the facts were; Judges can't do that. Judges rule on matters of law. So that's why it is normal and proper therefor to ask that the judge issue a Summary Judgement. That is actually what the judge is required to do when there is no dispute of fact.
The motion for partial summary judgement will be granted, but the ruling doesn't matter. That's because this case covers some new ground on a matter of national importance that will come up again and again, and in the US legal system the judges at this level do not set precedent. So there is little/no chance that whatever the judge rules will fit whatever balanced test the appeals courts eventually come up with to split the hairs on a service provider that alters content rather than providing mere internet access.
This doesn't mean that somebody is ignoring process and blah blah about seizing bank accounts. First the partial summary judgment will happen. A damages trial will be held to establish the facts of how much harm was done. And then an appeals court will rule one way or the other. Notice at this point, we've had basically three stages complete, but we still have no idea what the outcome is, and no bank accounts are going to be seized. Then an additional appeal will finally be at a high enough level where they have some chance of having the last say, and they decide what they want the precedent to be. And then the case gets sent back down to the original judge, where they either re-do the damages (up or down depending on who won which appeals) or maybe even totally start over using the newly-minted precedents from the appeals courts.
You have to know what the steps are to know if they're being followed or not. ;)
The problem is that neither one of you comprehend the difference between disputing evidence and disputing the law, and so your attempts at "sarcasm" are destined to be mere pedestrian ignorance.
if the parties were reversed, the GOP would be crying fowl right now too.
The GOP cries fowl every day, just turn on cable TV or AM radio and its all, "quack quack quack HONK quack quack!"
You have to get lucky just to get a "Gobble gobble" or a "cluckcluck" out of them, but they do still do a lot of Cockadoodledo on the side.
The year is 2018.
Claiming not to masturbate just means you're at increased risk for prostate cancer, it doesn't imply Virtue.
I do, in fact, know the difference. Does TFA mention whether or not CF disputes the evidence, or are you assuming that they don't?
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Cloudflare should just stop providing service for this publisher in particular and accidentally states that they did.
So do you or do you not know anything about an injured ALS model? I use milk, but I know nothing about the industry. I made no claims of chastity, just lack of knowledge of the industry.
Learn to love Alaska
HE UNEQUIVOCALLY CORRECTED THEM, REPEATEDLY, "IF TRUMP FIRES MUELLER IT'S ENTIRELY CONSTITUTIONAL WITH ZERO POSSIBLE LEGITIMATE LEGAL CHARGES. YOU CANNOT PROSECUTE A PRESIDENT UNDER ANY THEORY FOR EXERCISING HIS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER, AND HE'S THE HEAD OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH--THERE IS NOTHING ANYONE COULD DO ABOUT IT. AND EVERYONE ACTUALLY KNOWS THIS."
Therein lies the problem. The reason this becomes a crisis isn't because firing Mueller isn't legal, or isn't constitutional; its simpler than that.
Firing the person investigating you, as a means to undermine the investigation is morally problematic. It is the equivalent of acting to place yourself above the law, beyond the reach of justice.
The president is a lot of things, but he is not above the law. Just because he CAN doesn't mean it's ok if he DOES, or that there will not be consequences. Letting the investigation complete is the sensible thing to do. Exercising his authority to fire the special counsel investigating him raises a serious question -- should the president actually be allowed to do that?
The constitutional crisis is not that the president has broken the law, or exceeded his authority, its that he has laid bare a gap in the checks and balances that keep the government 'for the people'.
Why do people keep saying this as if its supposed to mean something. Sounds like cops who, after questionably targeting someone, bring up a completely irrelevant arrest record from years past as if it justifies the current actions. Was a dossier bought and paid for by one political candidate used to get a warrant to investigate someone on the opposing team, or wasn't it? Simple enough question.
Or just read the part you yourself quoted, but bolding the part you skipped over:
You were there? Cool, then you can give us the transcripts.
About all I can say is that this comment is bizarre.
The following are not facts, these are conclusions.
No, they're not. If we assume for the sake of argument that the rest of the memo is accurate, then these are facts too, not conclusions.
Yes, and what is the significance of that?
The person to whom I was replying implied that Trump wrote the memo.
As for the rest...start here... this is pretty well written.
No, it isn't. It even begins with a misleading omission. The October 21 FISA application was not the first. They had tried to get a warrant prior to that, but the application was rejected for lack of evidence. That's why they had to produce the bogus "dossier" to bolster their "evidence".
It is a memo, a collection of *assertions* that cannot be corroborated by the writer, or anyone else. Those are quite distinct from facts.
No, that is not correct. Most of what is in the memo are established facts already known to the public.
The only part that wasn't already established public knowledge was corroborated by testimony under oath, by McCabe and others.
Jane Q. Public is purposefully gaslighting slashot commentary boards in order to paint the Nunes Memo has a collection of facts as opposed to what they really are, uncorroborated claims.
Utter nonsense.
Jane Q. Public is doing this because Putin is paying her.
Hahahahahahahahahaha!
"her"? No. Please don't let Jane make all women look bad. Jane is actually a man posing as a woman on the internet.
Nonsense. I'm not "posing as a woman". There is a reason for the pseudonym, but I don't care to explain it to you.
Great. Call all Janes "it" if you want.
This is the stupidest thing I've read this month.