> Es liegt nahe, diesen Pflichtenkatalog – entsprechend der Argumentation des BGH bei den Hostprovidern (Onlineplattformen You-Tube und uploaded) auf die täters

> Es liegt nahe, diesen Pflichtenkatalog – entsprechend der Argumentation des BGH bei den Hostprovidern (Onlineplattformen You-Tube und uploaded) auf die täterschaftliche Haftung der Zugangsprovider zu übertragen. > It makes sense to transfer this catalog of obligations - in accordance with the BGH's argumentation - to the host providers (online platforms You-Tube and uploaded) to the criminal liability of the access providers. I'll admit to not being very competent in German law, but before just jumping to the conclusion that they can re-use existing national liability law, they mention that they were not bound by national but by EU law and that this particular liability "access provider liability" is not established or outlined at the EU level. Obviously that is grounds for appeal. A CDN more easily plays the analogue of the postal service distribution centers for the classic copyright infringement of burned CDs being resold illegally. They are practically equivalent to ISPs in this regard. Hardly a central role for the infringement. Contrast with YouTube, which would look more like a third party facility burning the CDs for the criminal enterprise: certainly central, it makes sense they ought to assess whether the customer owns the copyright. Not all of CloudFlare's customers will have any need of such an assessment, so it isn't central to their business. Obviously laws can distinguish analogues, so the analogy is mostly meaningless. But I think CloudFlare is solidly in the carrier class and shouldn't have liability. I do hope they appeal and win.