4 ms·
Cloudflare Liable for Failing to Terminate Repeat Infringers
- johnklos 5y agoIt's good to see action being taken against these horribly dishonest people. Cloudflare doesn't "host" because they want to define hosting as running the actual server that hosts web content? Sorry. DNS is hosting. Providing upstream is hosting. You can't facilitate criminals, then say you're not responsible for the harm you've helped facilitate.
- btown 5y agoNot a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but not only is the title on HN editorialized from the original article's "Copyright Holders Hold Cloudflare Liable for Failing to Terminate Repeat Infringers," I'm not sure if the original article's title is accurate. The word "hold" and using the word "liable" as an adjective both imply that the court has made some sort of decision, which does not appear to be the case: > With the motion for summary judgment, the copyright holders ask the court to rule that, because it failed to act, Cloudflare indeed is liable for the repeat infringements of its customers. If that is the case, the only remaining issue will be the scale of the damages claim. > Cloudflare will likely disagree with these allegations but, at the time of writing, it has yet to respond in court. Previously, Cloudflare scrutinized the practices of the wedding dress manufacturers’ DMCA takedown partner, while describing the notices as invalid. It's still very interesting that the case has proceeded this far, but other than denying Cloudflare's motion to dismiss, it seems that no action has been taken by the court thus far on this specific case. 2018's https://torrentfreak.com/cloudflares-cache-can-substantially-assist-copyright-infringers-court-rules-180314/ https://torrentfreak.com/cloudflares-cache-can-substantially... describes an actual ruling in this space, for those interested.