Judge Orders Cloudflare To Turn Over Identifying Data In Copyright Case (techspot.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge Orders Cloudflare To Turn Over Identifying Data In Copyright Case (techspot.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Sunday September 23, 2018 @09:21AM from the de-anonymized dept.

Cal Jeffrey reporting for TechSpot: Back in May, several studios started targeting movie-pirating sites and services. Dallas Buyers Club, Cobbler Nevada, Bodyguard Productions, and several other copyright owners filed a lawsuit against ShowBox, a movie-streaming app for mobile devices. The companies tried pressuring CDN and DDoS protection provider Cloudflare into releasing information on the operators of some of these platforms. However, Cloudflare told them if they wanted such information they would have to get it the right way -- through legal action.

The plaintiffs did just that. A subpoena was issued in the case from a federal court in Hawaii. The documents were not made public, but TorrentFreak was able to obtain a portion of the subpoena from a source. The court order demands the details of the operators behind the Showboxbuzz website, Showbox.software, website Rawapk, Popcorn Time, and others. Cloudflare has not filed a motion to quash, so it appears likely that the company will hand over the requested data.

56 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Suspicious. by Gravis+Zero · 2018-09-23 09:39 · Score: 5, Interesting

It seems exceptionally suspicious that they chose to take legal action in Hawaii (halfway around the world) especially when their very names indicate their location on the US mainland. Seems like they may have found their eastern Texas of copyrights.
I'm not saying it's illegal but it's definitely not aboveboard.

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
1. Re:Suspicious. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-23 10:01 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  You have no idea what you're talking about lol. Of course it's completely legal and above-board, and can be appealed even if they do prevail. You're blathering without substantiation.
2. Re:Suspicious. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-23 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  It seems exceptionally suspicious that they chose to take legal action in Hawaii .
  -
  It's called "having a judge in your pocket".
3. Re:Suspicious. by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2018-09-23 10:28 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  It's suspicious that a judge received a request and issued a formal instruction for a CDN to disclose who is using its facilities to allegedly break the law, so that the rightsholders can take legal action against them? Really?
  There's plenty to question about the US legal system and how copyright matters are handled, but isn't this exactly how it's supposed to work?
  
  --
  If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
4. Re: Suspicious. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-23 10:34 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Why are they not using a court where they are based? What's the reason for using a court in Hawaii?
  It's like the patent trolls all filing suits in the East Texas court.
5. Re:Suspicious. by Aighearach · 2018-09-23 10:45 · Score: 2
  
  "Dallas Buyers Club" is the name of a movie. It is not a local business in Dallas.
6. Re: Suspicious. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-23 11:00 · Score: 0
  
  Yep. Because Cloudflare protects all the Internet sewers from law enforcement being able to just twist an arm.
7. Re:Suspicious. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-23 11:22 · Score: 0
  
  oops, looks like you're missing an entire sentence or two after your fifth word
  would you like help with that?
8. Re:Suspicious. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-23 11:47 · Score: 0
  
  Many movies are produced under a company that only exists for the purpose of the production of that one movie. Probably some sort of liability shield against any parent company should the movie be a bust.
9. Re:Suspicious. by vakuona · 2018-09-23 12:23 · Score: 1
  
  I am not a lawyer, but if I could guess, I reckon they filed it in Hawaii because:
  - It's being filed in a federal court, therefore the jurisdiction of the court is probably "all of the USA"
  - Likely Cloudflare has business in Hawaii, therefore they can be sued anywhere they do business.
  - Plaintiffs will then sue / file wherever they believe they are likely to get a favourable outcome. This part is basic strategy. Why would they file where they might not get a favourable outcome?
10. Re: Suspicious. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-23 12:57 · Score: 0
  
  Why are they not using a court where they are based?
  Why not? Why can't they use a court in Hawaii? Hawaii is part of the US and we're talking about the internet which is global.
11. Re:Suspicious. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-23 13:13 · Score: 0
  
  Nothing missing, the sentence will come after the show trial.
12. Re:Suspicious. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-23 14:31 · Score: 0
  
  You aren't adding anything to the conversation by basically ignoring what the parent said and then rephrasing it.
13. Re: Suspicious. by ixidor · 2018-09-23 14:41 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  because its pretty much guaranteed that the suing companies are in any way based out of HI. and cloudflare certainly is not . so then the question becomes what standing to they have to choose that specific location. if they had picked one of the states the suing companies are based out of, or one where cloudflare has an office it could still be argued over standing, and those would at least make sense. HI seems like it was chosen purely out of spite, or someone has a judge bought and paid for.
14. Re:Suspicious. by Gadget_Guy · 2018-09-23 16:06 · Score: 1
  
  You are right that they are not based in Dallas, but they are in the same state. Dallas Buyers Club, LLC was founded in 2012 and is based in The Woodlands, Texas. Their address is:
  2710 Buckthorne Place Suite 400 The Woodlands, TX 77380 United States
  Source: Bloomberg
  Here is a report of Dallas Buyers Club, LLC suing an Australian ISP about the film Dallas Buyers Club showing that they are linked.
15. Re:Suspicious. by AmiMoJo · 2018-09-24 01:07 · Score: 1
  
  "Cobbler Nevada" is the name of the company making the copyright claim.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
16. Re:Suspicious. by nasch · 2018-09-24 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  - It's being filed in a federal court, therefore the jurisdiction of the court is probably "all of the USA"
  I had a hard time finding information on this, but I thought only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the whole country (other than some courts in specialized areas). I'm pretty sure the decisions of circuit courts are only binding within that circuit, which would seem to imply they can only hear cases that arise from within the circuit in some way. Anyone have more information?
17. Re: Suspicious. by AutodidactLabrat · 2018-09-24 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  Because it is required by the Constitution that any criminal charges shall be pursued in the district wherein the crime shall have been committed, that's why.
18. Re: Suspicious. by ole_timer · 2018-09-24 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  because the plaintiff or the defendant is located there...doh
  
  --
  nothing to see here - move along
19. Re: Suspicious. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-24 07:55 · Score: 0
  
  So they need to find a court that lives in the Internet?
20. Re: Suspicious. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-24 08:44 · Score: 0
  
  Because the lawyers on both sides get to expense a trip to Hawaii. Win-win!
21. Re: Suspicious. by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2018-09-24 18:40 · Score: 1
  
  Why are criminal charges relevant here?
  
  --
  If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
22. Re:Suspicious. by Aighearach · 2018-09-25 18:06 · Score: 1
  
  And yet, it is not a trade organization for cobblers in Nevada.
Yes-ish... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-23 09:44 · Score: 4, Informative

Generally speaking subpoenas are signed by attorneys licensed to practice before the court rather than by the judge as a practical matter, although there are some exceptions. Then if the subpoena is not legit the person or entity being asked to provide the information can fight it if it makes sense to do so. A judge likely hasn't looked at this yet and won't unless Cloudflare decides they want to fight it, since why would you get a judge involved if everyone agrees on what their legal obligations are with regard to disclosing the information about the customers?
Cloudflare doing it right by jaa101 · 2018-09-23 09:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

Cloudflare is doing the right thing. They are neither handing over customer data on the request of copyright holders nor wasting time trying to protect customers from the law. They've required a judge to decide on the need to disclose customer's identities, so their customers can hardly complain.
1. Re:Cloudflare doing it right by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-23 10:37 · Score: 0
  
  Wow a lot of apologizers suddenly showed up, and magically got modded up quickly.
2. Re:Cloudflare doing it right by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-23 14:34 · Score: 0
  
  Wow a lot of apologizers suddenly showed up, and magically got modded up quickly.
  Parent post @05:44PM, your post @06:37PM
  Yea wow, you sure did show up suddenly and start making stupid apologetic comments about your industry awfully quick.
  You're right too in that you somehow got modded up from -1 to 0
  When your entire industry is so corrupt, criminal minded, and despised for such behavior that "Hey guys, I found this unheard of before plan that just might work, let's actually follow the law and behave legally!" is such a surprising news worthy event - and you still don't understand why - perhaps you need to take a good long look at yourself in the mirror and try to figure out what went wrong in your life to get you to this point.
3. Re:Cloudflare doing it right by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-23 14:35 · Score: 0
  
  Apologizing for what?
4. Re: Cloudflare doing it right by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-23 18:38 · Score: 0
  
  The laws are wicked, the courts corrupt, justice an aberration. Attorney, indict thyself!
This is supposed to be how it works by dirk · 2018-09-23 09:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

I have no issue with this at all as this is exactly how it is supposed to work. They should go before a judge and prove they have enough evidence that supports their case that the judge feels ti is worth while to release the information. ISPs and other companies shouldn't release this information without a court order, but should comply with a court order if one is obtained.

--

"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
1. Re: This is supposed to be how it works by im_thatoneguy · 2018-09-23 09:58 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Yeah I think this is far from an abuse of the legal system. Someone has a complaint, they go to a judge and that judge allows them to subpoena relevant info to the case.
  As to copyright enforcement. I still think th only reason the holders lost public support is the absurd punishment. If people had been slapped with $40 fines like a parking ticket I think the legal and public opinion landscape would be radically different.
  âoeYou downloaded a Metallica album. That will be $52.â
  âoeDamn you got me. Here you go.â
  Instead when a single mother is on the hook for $10,000 to an industry based on spurious evidence... the moral reaction is to fight back.
  $10k+ fines are definitely warranted for developers profiting like Popcorn Time but there needs to be a proportional response for run of the mill infringement akin to taking your chances by not paying the meter while running in to a store.
2. Re:This is supposed to be how it works by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-23 10:16 · Score: 0
  
  Agreed, sudden outbreak of common sense.
3. Re:This is supposed to be how it works by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-23 10:16 · Score: 0
  
  Except that in the U.S. we have a Jury based judicial system;
  judges work for / support the prosecution by the use of force-of-law.
  Maybe it was different in the past, but warrants / subpoenas are reviewed by a jury,
  and executed by a judge. Ever hear of a Grand Jury? That's how it's supposed to work.
4. Re:This is supposed to be how it works by known_coward_69 · 2018-09-23 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  this isnt a trial yet, its collecting evidence
5. Re: This is supposed to be how it works by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-23 11:52 · Score: 0
  
  It is an abuse of the legal system because they get to choose where to file. You can get everything signed by a judge if you choose the right judge.
6. Re: This is supposed to be how it works by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-23 13:59 · Score: 0
  
  Its also pissing people off that these companies can play fast and loose with your private information, "get hacked" and cop a fine worth less than $0.10 per person.
7. Re: This is supposed to be how it works by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-23 17:09 · Score: 1
  
  Dude the request was made on behalf of a guy living in HI. He is listed on the court documents as the chief partitioner meaning he has some type of a stake in the court filings.
8. Re: This is supposed to be how it works by astrofurter · 2018-09-23 18:40 · Score: 2
  
  "in the U.S. we have a Jury based judicial system"
  Whoa-ho-ho hahahahahahahahahahahaha wee-hee hahahahahahahahahahahaha! Oh, that's rich! Tell me another one, Ernie, tell me another one!
9. Re:This is supposed to be how it works by houghi · 2018-09-23 21:06 · Score: 1
  
  Sure itr is. When you look at the fact that a man that bites a dog is news, the news story here is atht it happened as it should. The fact that that is news is scary.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
10. Re: This is supposed to be how it works by AmiMoJo · 2018-09-24 01:10 · Score: 1
  
  Why use a court of Hawaii though? That sounds like abuse, selecting a venue presumably because it is favourable to the claimant.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
11. Re: This is supposed to be how it works by im_thatoneguy · 2018-09-24 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  How dare Hawaiians file in Hawaii! Don't they know how inconvenient it is to fight a case in their state? /s
True, but copyright's supposed to be by rsilvergun · 2018-09-23 10:26 · Score: 1

28 years. Yeah, yeah, I know, go get the law changed if I don't like it. That'd be great if I wasn't going up against multi-billion dollar corporations and a heavily rigged system of democracy...

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1. Re:True, but copyright's supposed to be by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-23 13:59 · Score: 0
  
  28 years. Yeah, yeah, I know, go get the law changed if I don't like it. That'd be great if I wasn't going up against multi-billion dollar corporations and a heavily rigged system of democracy...
  Start a campaign to change the law and get people onside.
  or
  Restrict yourself to content that gives you the rights (Creative Commons for example) and support creators that support you.
  or
  Pirate content but don't whine about the penalties if you get caught.
2. Re:True, but copyright's supposed to be by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-23 17:16 · Score: 0
  
  Or destroy the CxO's, Board members, and controlling shareholders of major movie/music studios and distributors with #metoo accusations, old writings/postings from a decade or more ago showing they're racist/homophobic/transphobic/whatever by today's standards, etc etc etc.
  This is a war. The weapons are there. Your move.
3. Re: True, but copyright's supposed to be by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-24 00:20 · Score: 0
  
  Those "weapons" are useless against those who control both the media and the politicians.
4. Re:True, but copyright's supposed to be by nasch · 2018-09-24 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  It used to be 28 years (sort of). What it's supposed to be is a matter of opinion. I would say 28 years is too long.
5. Re: True, but copyright's supposed to be by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-24 10:47 · Score: 0
  
  They don't control the angry mobs, not any longer, they've grown beyond their control.The atmosphere for the appearance and upsurge in political power of such mobs was their creation to begin with pushing identity/group politics and hierarchical victimhood. It would be karmic in the extreme for the social weapon they created to be their own doom rather than their political/ideological enemies.
GRAVIS MORON THE PLAINTIFF SUING IS HAWAIIAN by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-23 11:02 · Score: 1

SOTA is the plaintiff's name, he lives in Hawaii and the suit was filed on his behalf.
Alternatives by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-23 11:04 · Score: 0

So now that they are going to comply when told to by the court ( not that i'm blaming them... ) what alternatives are there to remain anonymous but still have a decent CDN to the outside world ( since things like TOR and I2P wont scale )?
1. Re: Alternatives by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-23 18:08 · Score: 0
  
  None. The internet is lost. Get over it.
2. Re:Alternatives by Bert64 · 2018-09-23 23:07 · Score: 1
  
  Host in a country which doesn't care about these things, and then sign up to cloudflare from there...
  They may be required to disclose who signed up and the address of the master site, but if all that points to a far away country which doesn't have copyright laws then the information won't do them any good.
  
  --
  http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Ahh, Venice PI LLC by viperidaenz · 2018-09-23 11:17 · Score: 5, Interesting

The company that sued a dead man who suffered from dementia for apparently torrenting their movie.
https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
Why Hawaii? So people WANT to visit the court by Anonymous Coward · 2018-09-23 12:26 · Score: 1

Why Hawaii? So people WANT to visit the court and work on the case!
That's also why the annual CFD conference is in Hawaii.
I'm not really interested in attending conferences in Chicago, Atlanta, Boston, LA, Dallas, Vegas, Seattle .... but Hawaii? I'm there!