3 ms·

The judgment talks about Cloudflare's services in terms of caching, speed, security and so on, but seems to ignore the vital service that Cloudflare provide to

The judgment talks about Cloudflare's services in terms of caching, speed, security and so on, but seems to ignore the vital service that Cloudflare provide to shady sites - anonymity. This victory adds to the impression that Cloudflare is a safe front to present content that would be taken down if hosted directly. We understand that a "Front organization" for criminal activity isn't something to tolerate in bricks & mortar businesses - why is it allowed on the internet? So while I don't particularly care for the wrongs of copyright takedowns, Cloudflare (or other US-based edge networks) surely shouldn't become a bulletproof legal shield for any person or company who can hide their origin? (and Cloudflare still extend their services to the booter sites from whose illegal activities they've sold protection from! But that's not important right now...)

robertlagrant 5y ago
Don't forget the real front - the physical device and screen that are the real fronts involved. Everything else - internet, caching, web server technology, operating system for web server, etc, is just a middleman.
- mattbee 5y ago
  Haha exactly, you joke but... If you want a society where it's even possible to take down "low-hanging" content, and where physical enforcement of that takedown might span international boundaries, the legal goalposts sometimes need to move. And I feel like if we don't help move the technical and legal goalposts in a sympathetic manner - like recognising that a caching edge proxy is part of a site's hosting setup - we end up being part of the problem & pushing governments into more draconian solutions. (I'm not sure why the litigants in this case were targeting Cloudflare, but I assumed because they have no other idea who is hosting these infringing sites) So e.g. what does a legislature do if internet architecture has completely hardened towards privacy, such that edge proxies, whois, Facebook or whoever don't allow some visbility into the ultimate owner/publisher of a piece of content? They legislate what they can touch - the manufacture of the devices in our hands and on our laps, or the configuration of the access networks we all have to use.
  - account42 5y ago
    > So e.g. what does a legislature do if internet architecture has completely hardened towards privacy, such that edge proxies, whois, Facebook or whoever don't allow some visbility into the ultimate owner/publisher of a piece of content? Accept that restricting the flow of information is a stupid idea.
    - robertlagrant 5y ago
      It might be pretty sensible from the government's perspective, though. De jure freedom of speech, but de facto not.
uluyol 5y ago
According to the article, CF doesn't provide anonymity for websites that infringe copyright. > But here, the parties agree that Cloudflare informs complainants of the identity of the host in response to receiving a copyright complaint, in addition to forwarding the complaint along to the host provider.
- mattbee 5y ago
  That wasn't their first response - it had to go to court first! I used to run a hosting company in the UK, and we have a precedent from 1996? where once a hosting company is informed of a libellous statement served from its network, it can be held jointly liable for it as publisher. So it became quite common for UK hosting companies to take down sites on the slightest hint of a libel complaint. And I (irresponsbibly) used to enjoy fielding these complaints, filtering out the chancers who were never going to sue, and telling them to get lost, bccin'g the customer. Legal indemnity is a nice service and our customers appreciated it. eastdakota has done the same on a larger stage, and made more of cf's neutral, not-a-hosting-company, can't-catch-us attitude which plays well here. (and I'm not unsympathetic - except for the nazis and booters). But when cf are taking double-digit percentages of all internet traffic, they're can't & won't continue fielding every complaint in court.
rubyist5eva 5y ago
> The judgment talks about Cloudflare's services in terms of caching, speed, security and so on, but seems to ignore the vital service that Cloudflare provide to shady sites - anonymity. They aren’t really anonymous - CF knows who they are. > This victory adds to the impression that Cloudflare is a safe front to present content that would be taken down if hosted directly. Not really, in the article it says that CF will notify the hosting provider of the infringing material.

robertlagrant 5y ago

Don't forget the real front - the physical device and screen that are the real fronts involved. Everything else - internet, caching, web server technology, operating system for web server, etc, is just a middleman.

mattbee 5y ago
Haha exactly, you joke but... If you want a society where it's even possible to take down "low-hanging" content, and where physical enforcement of that takedown might span international boundaries, the legal goalposts sometimes need to move. And I feel like if we don't help move the technical and legal goalposts in a sympathetic manner - like recognising that a caching edge proxy is part of a site's hosting setup - we end up being part of the problem & pushing governments into more draconian solutions. (I'm not sure why the litigants in this case were targeting Cloudflare, but I assumed because they have no other idea who is hosting these infringing sites) So e.g. what does a legislature do if internet architecture has completely hardened towards privacy, such that edge proxies, whois, Facebook or whoever don't allow some visbility into the ultimate owner/publisher of a piece of content? They legislate what they can touch - the manufacture of the devices in our hands and on our laps, or the configuration of the access networks we all have to use.
- account42 5y ago
  > So e.g. what does a legislature do if internet architecture has completely hardened towards privacy, such that edge proxies, whois, Facebook or whoever don't allow some visbility into the ultimate owner/publisher of a piece of content? Accept that restricting the flow of information is a stupid idea.
  - robertlagrant 5y ago
    It might be pretty sensible from the government's perspective, though. De jure freedom of speech, but de facto not.

uluyol 5y ago

According to the article, CF doesn't provide anonymity for websites that infringe copyright. > But here, the parties agree that Cloudflare informs complainants of the identity of the host in response to receiving a copyright complaint, in addition to forwarding the complaint along to the host provider.

mattbee 5y ago
That wasn't their first response - it had to go to court first! I used to run a hosting company in the UK, and we have a precedent from 1996? where once a hosting company is informed of a libellous statement served from its network, it can be held jointly liable for it as publisher. So it became quite common for UK hosting companies to take down sites on the slightest hint of a libel complaint. And I (irresponsbibly) used to enjoy fielding these complaints, filtering out the chancers who were never going to sue, and telling them to get lost, bccin'g the customer. Legal indemnity is a nice service and our customers appreciated it. eastdakota has done the same on a larger stage, and made more of cf's neutral, not-a-hosting-company, can't-catch-us attitude which plays well here. (and I'm not unsympathetic - except for the nazis and booters). But when cf are taking double-digit percentages of all internet traffic, they're can't & won't continue fielding every complaint in court.

rubyist5eva 5y ago

> The judgment talks about Cloudflare's services in terms of caching, speed, security and so on, but seems to ignore the vital service that Cloudflare provide to shady sites - anonymity. They aren’t really anonymous - CF knows who they are. > This victory adds to the impression that Cloudflare is a safe front to present content that would be taken down if hosted directly. Not really, in the article it says that CF will notify the hosting provider of the infringing material.