5 ms·

Apparently a copyright holding company (“LSG - Wahrnehmung von Leistungsschutzrechten GesmbH”) managed to convince a court to block IP addresses. Something whic

Apparently a copyright holding company (“LSG - Wahrnehmung von Leistungsschutzrechten GesmbH”) managed to convince a court to block IP addresses. Something which in this form wasn’t done before. However since those are Cloudflare addresses there is a ton of collateral damage.

johnklos 4y ago
Which is exactly what Cloudflare wants and has planned all along.
- sp332 4y ago
  It's pretty much how any CDN would work?
- explaingarlic 4y ago
  So what that Cloudflare hides behind the fact that it serves a large chunk of the internet? It's a strategic fact that they use to their advantage, not their ultimate evil goal to make your life worse eventually. I think we're quite spoiled with how much we benefit from their economy of scale.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    It's not hiding behind that fact. It just is a fact.
    - explaingarlic 4y ago
      I'm directly replying to: Which is exactly what Cloudflare wants and has planned all along. The idea that it's all planned and was a strategic bid to get into a stable business position and so on...
      - johnklos 4y ago
        They've planned all along to mix bad hosting with good hosting to make any attempts to block them, legal or personal, cause plenty of collateral damage.
        _flux 4y ago
        So to avoid this, how should they have done things differently?
        bayindirh 4y ago
        Maybe they should have confined "bad" hosting to some IPs and disseminated this to countries directly? P.S.: I'm not serious, of course.
        CrazyStat 4y ago
        RFC 3514 would be helpful here.
        bayindirh 4y ago
        Ah, yes. That’s a much more elegant way.
        dogecoinbase 4y ago
        This is literally the business model. The owner of an IP address is responsible for the content delivered from that IP address. Cloudflare would like to have it both ways -- they get to multiplex sites behind their network infrastructure and accept money for the service, but not be responsible for the content that they deliver, because it originally came from somewhere else.
        robertlagrant 4y ago
        In case the use of "literally" wasn't enough of a clue, this is incorrect. For the same reason that the DNS service, the ISP, or the internet itself are not responsible for the content.
  - xfitm3 4y ago
    Safe harbor provisions are for this exact scenario, we must depend on that not corp scale to maintain reasonable governing. Safe harbor has come under attack lately, unfairly so IMO.
    - zaroth 4y ago
      The safe harbor has to do with moderation policy. The historical purpose of safe harbor was to allow AOL to have a walled garden without become responsible for all the illegal content that snuck past. IANAL, but DMCA safe harbor doesn’t really apply to a companies like CloudFlare, nor is it needed, because they are not moderating UGC on a publishing platform, they are a routing optimization utility.
      - cyrix281 4y ago
        Not sure where you saw that the DMCA safe harbor provisions apply to moderation policy; It has everything to do with Copyright and removal of copyrighted material; nothing to do with moderation of UGC. It is directly in the name "Digital Millenium Copyright Act". Content moderation is covered by the CDA section 230; completely separate from the DMCA And it 100% should apply to Cloudflare as well; if they're caching copyrighted material they need to respond to takedown requests or lose that safe harbor protection. Just as it applies to Google for indexing alleged copyright material; if you've ever seen that "links removed due to DMCA takedown notices" in search results, even when they are not hosting said content. IANAL also, and I don't know how much DMCA stuff is handled cross borders (I do believe some DMCA provisions are applicable thru trade treaties and the like, but not sure); and I do think DMCA takedowns are rife with abuse; but content moderation really has nothing to do with it..
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
xbar 4y ago
auf Wiedersehen Österreich
hsbauauvhabzb 4y ago
Does the order force blocking of the IP bound to a DNS address? Could piracy sites change DNS A records to arbitrary IP addresses to deny service to other sites?
- the_mitsuhiko 4y ago
  Unclear. I was unable to find the court order so I’m not sure where it’s coming from.
  - riedel 4y ago
    Seems that they just wanted to block some piracy sites like newalbumreleases.net if you compare the dates and check the IPs behind those domains. Wonder however if this actually enforced because I think there is no IP block and no reports from Austria about collateral damage (or am I wrong and Austria cannot complain because they are cut of from the internet) Edit: btw, the domains added with date August 29 are already blocked in Germany and some other EU countries for a while: https://onlinefilter.info/cuii-dns-sperre/newalbumreleasesnet-net-dns-sperre-infos-details https://onlinefilter.info/cuii-dns-sperre/newalbumreleasesne... .
    - riedel 4y ago
      The strange thing is that this order is still not published (and has a date of tomorrow): https://www.rtr.at/TKP/aktuelles/entscheidungen/Uebersichtseite.de.html?l=de&q=&t=field%3DTKK%3Bcategory%3Drechtsaufsicht https://www.rtr.at/TKP/aktuelles/entscheidungen/Uebersichtse...
    - jonasdoesthings 4y ago
      > I think there is no IP block and no reports from Austria about collateral damage There is definitely a good amount of collateral damage, not all ISPs rolled out the block already, but some did. I myself noticed a lot of sites stopped working or fail to load scripts/external resources. On reddit r/austria there are also multiple complaints. Most normal users probably just suspect their router/pc acting up. It took me a day too to get to the gist of this issue with sites not loading without tor.

johnklos 4y ago

Which is exactly what Cloudflare wants and has planned all along.

sp332 4y ago
It's pretty much how any CDN would work?
explaingarlic 4y ago
So what that Cloudflare hides behind the fact that it serves a large chunk of the internet? It's a strategic fact that they use to their advantage, not their ultimate evil goal to make your life worse eventually. I think we're quite spoiled with how much we benefit from their economy of scale.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  It's not hiding behind that fact. It just is a fact.
  - explaingarlic 4y ago
    I'm directly replying to: Which is exactly what Cloudflare wants and has planned all along. The idea that it's all planned and was a strategic bid to get into a stable business position and so on...
    - johnklos 4y ago
      They've planned all along to mix bad hosting with good hosting to make any attempts to block them, legal or personal, cause plenty of collateral damage.
      - _flux 4y ago
        So to avoid this, how should they have done things differently?
        bayindirh 4y ago
        Maybe they should have confined "bad" hosting to some IPs and disseminated this to countries directly? P.S.: I'm not serious, of course.
        CrazyStat 4y ago
        RFC 3514 would be helpful here.
        bayindirh 4y ago
        Ah, yes. That’s a much more elegant way.
        dogecoinbase 4y ago
        This is literally the business model. The owner of an IP address is responsible for the content delivered from that IP address. Cloudflare would like to have it both ways -- they get to multiplex sites behind their network infrastructure and accept money for the service, but not be responsible for the content that they deliver, because it originally came from somewhere else.
        robertlagrant 4y ago
        In case the use of "literally" wasn't enough of a clue, this is incorrect. For the same reason that the DNS service, the ISP, or the internet itself are not responsible for the content.
- xfitm3 4y ago
  Safe harbor provisions are for this exact scenario, we must depend on that not corp scale to maintain reasonable governing. Safe harbor has come under attack lately, unfairly so IMO.
  - zaroth 4y ago
    The safe harbor has to do with moderation policy. The historical purpose of safe harbor was to allow AOL to have a walled garden without become responsible for all the illegal content that snuck past. IANAL, but DMCA safe harbor doesn’t really apply to a companies like CloudFlare, nor is it needed, because they are not moderating UGC on a publishing platform, they are a routing optimization utility.
    - cyrix281 4y ago
      Not sure where you saw that the DMCA safe harbor provisions apply to moderation policy; It has everything to do with Copyright and removal of copyrighted material; nothing to do with moderation of UGC. It is directly in the name "Digital Millenium Copyright Act". Content moderation is covered by the CDA section 230; completely separate from the DMCA And it 100% should apply to Cloudflare as well; if they're caching copyrighted material they need to respond to takedown requests or lose that safe harbor protection. Just as it applies to Google for indexing alleged copyright material; if you've ever seen that "links removed due to DMCA takedown notices" in search results, even when they are not hosting said content. IANAL also, and I don't know how much DMCA stuff is handled cross borders (I do believe some DMCA provisions are applicable thru trade treaties and the like, but not sure); and I do think DMCA takedowns are rife with abuse; but content moderation really has nothing to do with it..
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

xbar 4y ago

auf Wiedersehen Österreich

hsbauauvhabzb 4y ago

Does the order force blocking of the IP bound to a DNS address? Could piracy sites change DNS A records to arbitrary IP addresses to deny service to other sites?

the_mitsuhiko 4y ago
Unclear. I was unable to find the court order so I’m not sure where it’s coming from.
- riedel 4y ago
  Seems that they just wanted to block some piracy sites like newalbumreleases.net if you compare the dates and check the IPs behind those domains. Wonder however if this actually enforced because I think there is no IP block and no reports from Austria about collateral damage (or am I wrong and Austria cannot complain because they are cut of from the internet) Edit: btw, the domains added with date August 29 are already blocked in Germany and some other EU countries for a while: https://onlinefilter.info/cuii-dns-sperre/newalbumreleasesnet-net-dns-sperre-infos-details https://onlinefilter.info/cuii-dns-sperre/newalbumreleasesne... .
  - riedel 4y ago
    The strange thing is that this order is still not published (and has a date of tomorrow): https://www.rtr.at/TKP/aktuelles/entscheidungen/Uebersichtseite.de.html?l=de&q=&t=field%3DTKK%3Bcategory%3Drechtsaufsicht https://www.rtr.at/TKP/aktuelles/entscheidungen/Uebersichtse...
  - jonasdoesthings 4y ago
    > I think there is no IP block and no reports from Austria about collateral damage There is definitely a good amount of collateral damage, not all ISPs rolled out the block already, but some did. I myself noticed a lot of sites stopped working or fail to load scripts/external resources. On reddit r/austria there are also multiple complaints. Most normal users probably just suspect their router/pc acting up. It took me a day too to get to the gist of this issue with sites not loading without tor.