11 ms·

This really doesn't seem like Cloudflare's problem. Did banks sue the Ford dealer for selling big V8 getaway cars to bank robbers? Or the city for operating th

by ohazi 5y ago

This really doesn't seem like Cloudflare's problem. Did banks sue the Ford dealer for selling big V8 getaway cars to bank robbers? Or the city for operating the roads that they used to get away? Or the toll collector for letting the bank robbers cross a bridge after they paid the toll? No, because any of those things would have been ridiculous. At some point we as a society are going to have to get off this intellectual property high horse. Maybe we should stop trying to protect things that are easy to copy like website designs and wedding dresses. The enormous effort to try and protect these things damages society more than the benefit that even a successful outcome might have for a rights holder.

matheusmoreira 5y ago
> Maybe we should stop trying to protect things that are easy to copy like website designs and wedding dresses. Yeah. Copyright is nonsense in the 21st century where copying is trivial. It's holding us back.
- afiori 5y ago
  actually copyright only make sense if copying is easy, were copying hard then there would need no need for copyrights.
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    Has copying ever been this easy though? In centuries past, if you wanted to infringe copyright at the same scale we do today, you'd need expensive stuff like printing presses and a viable business model that pays for the costs of running an industrial copying process. That's what made copyright enforceable: you'd need to be a major industry player in order to infringe copyright and such centralized operations are easy targets for litigation. Now everyone's got computers that can make and distribute a virtually unbounded amount of copies of anything to anyone within the network and there's pretty much nothing people can do about that.
dymk 5y ago
A Ford dealership would be liable for selling counterfeit Fords, or at least would be responsible for helping track down where that counterfeit came from.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- 0des 5y ago
  dymk, while you prompted this post, this has nothing to do with you, so ear muff it for a sec if you don't mind. If I may briefly stand on my soapbox: I'm starting to think analogies never help prove a point. No matter how relevant or true they might be, someone will pull some comparison out of the analogy and use that to detract from the main point being compared and expect that comparison to be a valid rebuttal, often to great popular success. Anybody else notice this?
  - dymk 5y ago
    Absolutely. My post is really making a meta point about the analogies I see here. You can make an analogy that makes any point you want if you stretch it enough. Fight bad analogies with bad analogies. Show off how useless a tool they are.
  - chc 5y ago
    When used well, analogies aren't meant to prove a point, they're to illustrate a point. It is actually useful for two people to offer different analogies that they think are appropriate, because it helps to show their point of view. What is useless is treating an analogy as though it had the force of argument.
  - stavros 5y ago
    Yes, all the time. I don't know why people do this, it's as if they lose track of the conversation and think they're debating the analogy itself, rather than the thing the analogy is meant to illustrate. It's very frustrating when they make a counterpoint to the analogy that doesn't actually correspond back to the original point.
  - 5y ago
partiallypro 5y ago
> Maybe we should stop trying to protect things that are easy to copy like website designs and wedding dresses. Right, but the website is being used to scam customers and steal their information. So, that's not even the same thing. It's like Cloudflare protecting people that send out spam phishing emails that look like PayPal, etc. It's not just because the site was copied outright, though that's bad enough. It's about tricking customers entirely. It's literally fraud.
- dpifke 5y ago
  Crimes should be investigated by law enforcement, not Cloudflare. Cloudflare is not Batman. (Edit to add: yes, I'm aware law enforcement is often useless when it comes to cybercrime. But that's what we need to fix, rather than encouraging private companies to act as vigilantes.)
  - maxgashkov 5y ago
    It's one thing to expect companies to act on their own initiative, but to do nothing when the problem is proactively reported to them borders on negligence.
    - adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
      It's only negligence if they have an obligation to fix it.
    - scaryclam 5y ago
      It would also be negligent to deny service based on a reported problem without evidence that the harm is real and tangible. If CF start to do that, then this is where it starts to look a lot like the legal process, so why reinvent something that already exists?
  - partiallypro 5y ago
    If someone is running a meth lab on the property only accessible by your private road, and you know about it...you're complicit in the crime. Also, because of Cloudflare's reverse proxy you can't see who their host is, and with private registration you can't see who is behind it all. You have to go through a huge legal obstacle course just to prevent your customers from being scammed when Cloudflare could literally just flip a switch. Google will remove scam ads from its platform, though it doesn't host the websites behind them...it's basically the same thing. It's a means of operating the scam.
pfundstein 5y ago
That's a flawed analogy, cloudflare here provides cover for these dodgy sites to hide behind. Cloudflare here is not only the V8 supercar but the getaway driver as well.
- noahtallen 5y ago
  So in that case, wouldn’t the right way to handle it be to get a warrant to have Cloudflare give you the identity so that they can be prosecuted under copyright law? And if there is no law being broken, Cloudflare doesn’t have a responsibility to do anything. You wouldn’t want a company to reveal your identity just because someone asked nicely. You’d want a judge to approve a warrant.
  - pfundstein 5y ago
    Yep, I would say so
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  The protection these dodgy sites enjoy also protect a lot of other sites that could be quickly removed with simply enough capital, even if the legal claims had absolutely no basis. Yes, it isn't optimal, but the advantages of hosters not carelessly taking down other sites makes hosting a few bad apples worth it.
eikenberry 5y ago
> Maybe we should stop trying to protect things that are easy to copy like website designs and wedding dresses. You get half your wish as wedding dresses aren't covered by any intellectual property laws except for big designer dresses which use Trademarks. Copying the dress design itself is expected and a regular part of the fashion industry.
themitigating 5y ago
I think the difference is that ford sells a car then someone robs a bank. With hosting it's a continuing relationship. Hard to work that into a car analogy but what if a rental car is returned obviously with bank robbers and they want another one telling you they are going to rob another bank
- johnsoft 5y ago
  Obviously nobody would confess a crime while returning a rental car. They'd return the car and leave. Then later the cops will stop by with a warrant and collect info/security footage. If a bank manager went down to Hertz by themselves and demanded someone's information, they obviously wouldn't get very far. There are established legal processes to follow. Just like the physical world, if you want to compel Cloudflare to identify one of their customers, you have to use the legal system.
tryauuum 5y ago
If you look at this thread, you will see many people coming up with different analogies, thinking about "what would Ford do" or "what if there is a meth lab". Simply because they saw your analogy and didn't like it I wish HN would introduce a "please no analogies that compare digital stuff with physical" rule because such things turn conversations into a mess
- cjfd 5y ago
  No, it sounds like a completely valid thing to make such analogies. Whether it is true is another thing, but it certainly is a point of view. This sounds a lot like 'I don't like your conclusion so I am going to attack the perfectly valid means by which you attained it'.
  - tryauuum 5y ago
    My point of view that an analogy cannot possibly be, in your words, "true". Don't you think any analogy is leaky and we shouldn't use them? Any point of view demonstrated with an analogy can be conveyed without it. And no, I attack this method not because I don't agree with the conclusion of comment I was replying to, it's because I hate analogies. How comparing cloudflare to ford and then saying "wouldn't that be ridiculous if Ford got sued if a criminal bought a car" can be accepted by anyone as a valid argument? Yes, it would be ridiculous but that's it
- nurgasemetey 5y ago
  On other side, judiciary system sometimes uses analogies. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree
- Chris2048 5y ago
  I wish there was such a rule for the courts too. No more "Intellectual Property" etc. Yet here we are.
A_non_e-moose 5y ago
I think this topic is not about physical VS virtual, but discrete VS continuous involvement of the manufacturer/provider. A car is manufactured and sold once to a customer, which then goes on a road rampage. (physical, discrete) A website is continuously served and maintained by a provider to a customer, which then uses it for shopping scams. (virtual, continuous) A spreadsheet serial key for an offline app is sold by the developer to a customer, which then uses it for embezzlement. (virtual, discrete) Some legal questions: Is the manufacturer/provider liable? Did they know the product/service was purchased with the intent to harm? At what point can the manufacturer/provider be considered an accomplice? The product was sold already, what can they do about it? The service is still being provided, should they stop it? I'm wondering how long until we see the physical, continuous scenario, exactly like the road rampage, but with a connected car. Should the manufacturer disconnect that car? Should they remotely disable it? Very complex legal and ethical questions ahead in our times.
- oauea 5y ago
  Not really. Much like a bridge operates autonomously, so does a server.

by ohazi 5y ago

matheusmoreira 5y ago

> Maybe we should stop trying to protect things that are easy to copy like website designs and wedding dresses. Yeah. Copyright is nonsense in the 21st century where copying is trivial. It's holding us back.

afiori 5y ago
actually copyright only make sense if copying is easy, were copying hard then there would need no need for copyrights.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  Has copying ever been this easy though? In centuries past, if you wanted to infringe copyright at the same scale we do today, you'd need expensive stuff like printing presses and a viable business model that pays for the costs of running an industrial copying process. That's what made copyright enforceable: you'd need to be a major industry player in order to infringe copyright and such centralized operations are easy targets for litigation. Now everyone's got computers that can make and distribute a virtually unbounded amount of copies of anything to anyone within the network and there's pretty much nothing people can do about that.

dymk 5y ago

A Ford dealership would be liable for selling counterfeit Fords, or at least would be responsible for helping track down where that counterfeit came from.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
0des 5y ago
dymk, while you prompted this post, this has nothing to do with you, so ear muff it for a sec if you don't mind. If I may briefly stand on my soapbox: I'm starting to think analogies never help prove a point. No matter how relevant or true they might be, someone will pull some comparison out of the analogy and use that to detract from the main point being compared and expect that comparison to be a valid rebuttal, often to great popular success. Anybody else notice this?
- dymk 5y ago
  Absolutely. My post is really making a meta point about the analogies I see here. You can make an analogy that makes any point you want if you stretch it enough. Fight bad analogies with bad analogies. Show off how useless a tool they are.
- chc 5y ago
  When used well, analogies aren't meant to prove a point, they're to illustrate a point. It is actually useful for two people to offer different analogies that they think are appropriate, because it helps to show their point of view. What is useless is treating an analogy as though it had the force of argument.
- stavros 5y ago
  Yes, all the time. I don't know why people do this, it's as if they lose track of the conversation and think they're debating the analogy itself, rather than the thing the analogy is meant to illustrate. It's very frustrating when they make a counterpoint to the analogy that doesn't actually correspond back to the original point.
- 5y ago

partiallypro 5y ago

> Maybe we should stop trying to protect things that are easy to copy like website designs and wedding dresses. Right, but the website is being used to scam customers and steal their information. So, that's not even the same thing. It's like Cloudflare protecting people that send out spam phishing emails that look like PayPal, etc. It's not just because the site was copied outright, though that's bad enough. It's about tricking customers entirely. It's literally fraud.

dpifke 5y ago
Crimes should be investigated by law enforcement, not Cloudflare. Cloudflare is not Batman. (Edit to add: yes, I'm aware law enforcement is often useless when it comes to cybercrime. But that's what we need to fix, rather than encouraging private companies to act as vigilantes.)
- maxgashkov 5y ago
  It's one thing to expect companies to act on their own initiative, but to do nothing when the problem is proactively reported to them borders on negligence.
  - adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
    It's only negligence if they have an obligation to fix it.
  - scaryclam 5y ago
    It would also be negligent to deny service based on a reported problem without evidence that the harm is real and tangible. If CF start to do that, then this is where it starts to look a lot like the legal process, so why reinvent something that already exists?
- partiallypro 5y ago
  If someone is running a meth lab on the property only accessible by your private road, and you know about it...you're complicit in the crime. Also, because of Cloudflare's reverse proxy you can't see who their host is, and with private registration you can't see who is behind it all. You have to go through a huge legal obstacle course just to prevent your customers from being scammed when Cloudflare could literally just flip a switch. Google will remove scam ads from its platform, though it doesn't host the websites behind them...it's basically the same thing. It's a means of operating the scam.

pfundstein 5y ago

That's a flawed analogy, cloudflare here provides cover for these dodgy sites to hide behind. Cloudflare here is not only the V8 supercar but the getaway driver as well.

noahtallen 5y ago
So in that case, wouldn’t the right way to handle it be to get a warrant to have Cloudflare give you the identity so that they can be prosecuted under copyright law? And if there is no law being broken, Cloudflare doesn’t have a responsibility to do anything. You wouldn’t want a company to reveal your identity just because someone asked nicely. You’d want a judge to approve a warrant.
- pfundstein 5y ago
  Yep, I would say so
raxxorrax 5y ago
The protection these dodgy sites enjoy also protect a lot of other sites that could be quickly removed with simply enough capital, even if the legal claims had absolutely no basis. Yes, it isn't optimal, but the advantages of hosters not carelessly taking down other sites makes hosting a few bad apples worth it.

eikenberry 5y ago

> Maybe we should stop trying to protect things that are easy to copy like website designs and wedding dresses. You get half your wish as wedding dresses aren't covered by any intellectual property laws except for big designer dresses which use Trademarks. Copying the dress design itself is expected and a regular part of the fashion industry.

themitigating 5y ago

I think the difference is that ford sells a car then someone robs a bank. With hosting it's a continuing relationship. Hard to work that into a car analogy but what if a rental car is returned obviously with bank robbers and they want another one telling you they are going to rob another bank

johnsoft 5y ago
Obviously nobody would confess a crime while returning a rental car. They'd return the car and leave. Then later the cops will stop by with a warrant and collect info/security footage. If a bank manager went down to Hertz by themselves and demanded someone's information, they obviously wouldn't get very far. There are established legal processes to follow. Just like the physical world, if you want to compel Cloudflare to identify one of their customers, you have to use the legal system.

tryauuum 5y ago

If you look at this thread, you will see many people coming up with different analogies, thinking about "what would Ford do" or "what if there is a meth lab". Simply because they saw your analogy and didn't like it I wish HN would introduce a "please no analogies that compare digital stuff with physical" rule because such things turn conversations into a mess

cjfd 5y ago
No, it sounds like a completely valid thing to make such analogies. Whether it is true is another thing, but it certainly is a point of view. This sounds a lot like 'I don't like your conclusion so I am going to attack the perfectly valid means by which you attained it'.
- tryauuum 5y ago
  My point of view that an analogy cannot possibly be, in your words, "true". Don't you think any analogy is leaky and we shouldn't use them? Any point of view demonstrated with an analogy can be conveyed without it. And no, I attack this method not because I don't agree with the conclusion of comment I was replying to, it's because I hate analogies. How comparing cloudflare to ford and then saying "wouldn't that be ridiculous if Ford got sued if a criminal bought a car" can be accepted by anyone as a valid argument? Yes, it would be ridiculous but that's it
nurgasemetey 5y ago
On other side, judiciary system sometimes uses analogies. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree
Chris2048 5y ago
I wish there was such a rule for the courts too. No more "Intellectual Property" etc. Yet here we are.

A_non_e-moose 5y ago

I think this topic is not about physical VS virtual, but discrete VS continuous involvement of the manufacturer/provider. A car is manufactured and sold once to a customer, which then goes on a road rampage. (physical, discrete) A website is continuously served and maintained by a provider to a customer, which then uses it for shopping scams. (virtual, continuous) A spreadsheet serial key for an offline app is sold by the developer to a customer, which then uses it for embezzlement. (virtual, discrete) Some legal questions: Is the manufacturer/provider liable? Did they know the product/service was purchased with the intent to harm? At what point can the manufacturer/provider be considered an accomplice? The product was sold already, what can they do about it? The service is still being provided, should they stop it? I'm wondering how long until we see the physical, continuous scenario, exactly like the road rampage, but with a connected car. Should the manufacturer disconnect that car? Should they remotely disable it? Very complex legal and ethical questions ahead in our times.

oauea 5y ago
Not really. Much like a bridge operates autonomously, so does a server.