4 ms·

They lied to the judge: "[R]emoving material from a cache without removing it from the hosting server would not prevent the direct infringement from occurring,

They lied to the judge: "[R]emoving material from a cache without removing it from the hosting server would not prevent the direct infringement from occurring," Chhabria wrote. That's just patently untrue. A web site using Cloudflare's services isn't available to the Internet once Cloudflare stops providing services, until the site's hosting is meaningfully reconfigured. You can't say it's just caching, because you can't access the site in any reasonably normal way via any method other than going through Cloudflare. That's just plain old bullshit.

indymike 5y ago
Depends on configuration. Setting up a failover where if the CDN/ cache fails or is removed, the request is routed to a live server is more than possible.
sodality2 5y ago
> That's just patently untrue. Removing it from the cache does nothing except making Cloudflare drop it. If Cloudflare "removes material from their cache" it DOESN'T prevent any infringement, because the request will hit the main server (and possibly Cloudflare will cache it). If cloudflare kicks them off, that's different than just "removing material from the cache" which seems to be what the argument is.
- sodality2 5y ago
  > If cloudflare kicks them off, that's different than just "removing material from the cache" which seems to be what the argument is. Let me add onto this, even w/o Cloudflare, that STILL won't stop infringements, as other CDN's or even no CDN can be used. It just clears Cloudflare of guilt/responsibility they may have.
onion2k 5y ago
As I understand it Cloudflare is essentially a caching proxy. If the site isn't in the cache then Cloudflare fetches it and passes it on, and also saves it in the cache for the subsequent requests. Removing it from the cache will just make every request look like it's the first one.
_8j50 5y ago
Removal from cache means they act as a reverse proxy, it does not mean they take it down. But even if that was the case, who is to say the site isn't using their real IP as fallback in their DNS setup? Why does meaningful reconfiguration matter? Is thay effort enough to thwart hosting of infringing content? Are there no CDN providers outside of america?
- zozbot234 5y ago
  A site that's acting as a reverse proxy could block these requests altogether in addition to not caching them. If the browser receives a 451 error ("Unavailable for Legal Reasons") when requesting some offending image, there isn't a trivial mechanism to redirect that request to the "real site", at least not without forgoing Cloudflare services altogether.
  - _8j50 5y ago
    Yes but that is exactly CF's defense, they are only transporting it so just like an ISP they are not liable for blocking it. Every ISP can also block infringing content.
ericd 5y ago
Maybe you simply misunderstood the context and so their meaning? Sounds more likely than them committing perjury.
rsstack 5y ago
> Mon Cheri Bridals and Maggie Sottero Designs alleged that Cloudflare contributes to copyright infringement by providing performance-improvement services, including its content-distribution network and caching capabilities that improve the quality of webpages and make them load faster, Chhabria wrote. But the "plaintiffs have not presented evidence from which a jury could conclude that Cloudflare's performance-improvement services materially contribute to copyright infringement. The plaintiffs' only evidence of the effects of these services is promotional material from Cloudflare's website touting the benefits of its services. These general statements do not speak to the effects of Cloudflare on the direct infringement at issue here." > The plaintiffs did not prove that the faster website-load times enabled by Cloudflare "would be likely to lead to significantly more infringement." Additionally, Cloudflare removing infringing material from its cache would not prevent users from seeing the copyrighted images. "[R]emoving material from a cache without removing it from the hosting server would not prevent the direct infringement from occurring," Chhabria wrote. The claim was that the caching of the copyright infringing content is an issue. Cloudflare said "that can't be the issue". You took the last sentence of the second paragraph out of its context.

indymike 5y ago

Depends on configuration. Setting up a failover where if the CDN/ cache fails or is removed, the request is routed to a live server is more than possible.

sodality2 5y ago

> That's just patently untrue. Removing it from the cache does nothing except making Cloudflare drop it. If Cloudflare "removes material from their cache" it DOESN'T prevent any infringement, because the request will hit the main server (and possibly Cloudflare will cache it). If cloudflare kicks them off, that's different than just "removing material from the cache" which seems to be what the argument is.

sodality2 5y ago
> If cloudflare kicks them off, that's different than just "removing material from the cache" which seems to be what the argument is. Let me add onto this, even w/o Cloudflare, that STILL won't stop infringements, as other CDN's or even no CDN can be used. It just clears Cloudflare of guilt/responsibility they may have.

onion2k 5y ago

As I understand it Cloudflare is essentially a caching proxy. If the site isn't in the cache then Cloudflare fetches it and passes it on, and also saves it in the cache for the subsequent requests. Removing it from the cache will just make every request look like it's the first one.

_8j50 5y ago

Removal from cache means they act as a reverse proxy, it does not mean they take it down. But even if that was the case, who is to say the site isn't using their real IP as fallback in their DNS setup? Why does meaningful reconfiguration matter? Is thay effort enough to thwart hosting of infringing content? Are there no CDN providers outside of america?

zozbot234 5y ago
A site that's acting as a reverse proxy could block these requests altogether in addition to not caching them. If the browser receives a 451 error ("Unavailable for Legal Reasons") when requesting some offending image, there isn't a trivial mechanism to redirect that request to the "real site", at least not without forgoing Cloudflare services altogether.
- _8j50 5y ago
  Yes but that is exactly CF's defense, they are only transporting it so just like an ISP they are not liable for blocking it. Every ISP can also block infringing content.

ericd 5y ago

Maybe you simply misunderstood the context and so their meaning? Sounds more likely than them committing perjury.

rsstack 5y ago

> Mon Cheri Bridals and Maggie Sottero Designs alleged that Cloudflare contributes to copyright infringement by providing performance-improvement services, including its content-distribution network and caching capabilities that improve the quality of webpages and make them load faster, Chhabria wrote. But the "plaintiffs have not presented evidence from which a jury could conclude that Cloudflare's performance-improvement services materially contribute to copyright infringement. The plaintiffs' only evidence of the effects of these services is promotional material from Cloudflare's website touting the benefits of its services. These general statements do not speak to the effects of Cloudflare on the direct infringement at issue here." > The plaintiffs did not prove that the faster website-load times enabled by Cloudflare "would be likely to lead to significantly more infringement." Additionally, Cloudflare removing infringing material from its cache would not prevent users from seeing the copyrighted images. "[R]emoving material from a cache without removing it from the hosting server would not prevent the direct infringement from occurring," Chhabria wrote. The claim was that the caching of the copyright infringing content is an issue. Cloudflare said "that can't be the issue". You took the last sentence of the second paragraph out of its context.