4 ms·

> Private third parties are an inappropriate place to enforce the law. If you have a dispute with someone, you sue them, not their hosting provider. Sure. Howe

> Private third parties are an inappropriate place to enforce the law. If you have a dispute with someone, you sue them, not their hosting provider. Sure. However, Cloudflare hide and protect the "them". The information in WHOIS, in the DNS SOA record, in the network hosting the content, in the servers hosting the DNS, in the registrar's abuse contact, all say "Cloudflare". Cloudflare'll "pass along" a message for you and will happily refuse to tell you who actually owns the site. What's more, even when you can clearly show infringement, Cloudflare doesn't take action to stop it, even though they both can and should. Not taking action when you're informed that something is illegal is facilitation. Entities that host are not liable for the content of their clients, but entities that ignore illegal activities aren't (and shouldn't be) protected. So there's literally no other option besides suing them, even if you want to go after the party that's using Cloudflare to do the illegal thing. You literally can't unless you sue Cloudflare and get a court (that Cloudflare actually listens to) to force Cloudflare to reveal the party they're hosting and protecting. I'm not sure how you think "you sue them, not their hosting provider" is relevant in a discussion about Cloudflare unless you really didn't know all of this.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> The information in WHOIS, in the DNS SOA record, in the network hosting the content, in the servers hosting the DNS, in the registrar's abuse contact, all say "Cloudflare". Cloudflare'll "pass along" a message for you and will happily refuse to tell you who actually owns the site. What does that matter? You can initiate a legal proceeding against a John Doe. And then the court would be able to subpoena Cloudflare for the information. That doesn't mean someone should sue Cloudflare for damages. > What's more, even when you can clearly show infringement How can you possibly "clearly show infringement" without a court proceeding? A service provider doesn't even have a reasonable mechanism to identify who the copyright holder is. > I'm not sure how you think "you sue them, not their hosting provider" is relevant in a discussion about Cloudflare unless you really didn't know all of this. There is a relevant distinction between issuing a subpoena for information and naming them as a defendant in a lawsuit.
- michaelmrose 2y ago
  Its reasonable to expect compliance without a court order at least in cases where every functional jurisdiction in the world agrees that the party so protected is engaging in immoral and illegal conduct. Whereas many edge cases exist wherein conduct on the internet may have differing interpretations nothing stops anyone from handling the massive intersection where all reasonable parties agree. Doing so in fact removes a lot of ammunition for arguments for more unworkable suggestions.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    If "every functional jurisdiction in the world" agrees then you don't need to go to a court in Moldova and then try to have the foreign ruling enforced in the US because you could have just gone directly to the courts in the US, right? The issue is that they're trying to sue the wrong party -- the provider instead of the customer -- which US law rightfully discourages, which is why they're trying to cheat through some convoluted cross-border jurisdictional shenanigans.
    - michaelmrose 2y ago
      When receiving a credible support of a customer who is in every functional jurisdiction a criminal attacking the public they should act against that customer without a court case. They should block them from their service and forward the information they have available to the relevant authorities in jurisdictions which may be positioned to act against the user. Nobody has any expectation of privacy in their crimes.
      - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        > When receiving a credible support of a customer who is in every functional jurisdiction a criminal attacking the public they should act against that customer without a court case. Do you not realize the level of abuse this opens up? The company has no capacity to do thorough fact finding. They can't subpoena anyone or put them under oath. Trolls will send them complaints with plausible-sounding claims and their only practical options are to execute them without adequately investigating or to ignore them. The only non-abusive option is to ignore them and leave the law enforcement to law enforcement.
nradov 2y ago
So what's the problem? Sue Cloudflare and a "John Doe" defendant, and ask the court to compel Cloudflare to reveal their identity. Once you have that information you can amend the filing. This is done all the time, and there's no other reasonable way for the process to work.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

> The information in WHOIS, in the DNS SOA record, in the network hosting the content, in the servers hosting the DNS, in the registrar's abuse contact, all say "Cloudflare". Cloudflare'll "pass along" a message for you and will happily refuse to tell you who actually owns the site. What does that matter? You can initiate a legal proceeding against a John Doe. And then the court would be able to subpoena Cloudflare for the information. That doesn't mean someone should sue Cloudflare for damages. > What's more, even when you can clearly show infringement How can you possibly "clearly show infringement" without a court proceeding? A service provider doesn't even have a reasonable mechanism to identify who the copyright holder is. > I'm not sure how you think "you sue them, not their hosting provider" is relevant in a discussion about Cloudflare unless you really didn't know all of this. There is a relevant distinction between issuing a subpoena for information and naming them as a defendant in a lawsuit.

michaelmrose 2y ago
Its reasonable to expect compliance without a court order at least in cases where every functional jurisdiction in the world agrees that the party so protected is engaging in immoral and illegal conduct. Whereas many edge cases exist wherein conduct on the internet may have differing interpretations nothing stops anyone from handling the massive intersection where all reasonable parties agree. Doing so in fact removes a lot of ammunition for arguments for more unworkable suggestions.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  If "every functional jurisdiction in the world" agrees then you don't need to go to a court in Moldova and then try to have the foreign ruling enforced in the US because you could have just gone directly to the courts in the US, right? The issue is that they're trying to sue the wrong party -- the provider instead of the customer -- which US law rightfully discourages, which is why they're trying to cheat through some convoluted cross-border jurisdictional shenanigans.
  - michaelmrose 2y ago
    When receiving a credible support of a customer who is in every functional jurisdiction a criminal attacking the public they should act against that customer without a court case. They should block them from their service and forward the information they have available to the relevant authorities in jurisdictions which may be positioned to act against the user. Nobody has any expectation of privacy in their crimes.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      > When receiving a credible support of a customer who is in every functional jurisdiction a criminal attacking the public they should act against that customer without a court case. Do you not realize the level of abuse this opens up? The company has no capacity to do thorough fact finding. They can't subpoena anyone or put them under oath. Trolls will send them complaints with plausible-sounding claims and their only practical options are to execute them without adequately investigating or to ignore them. The only non-abusive option is to ignore them and leave the law enforcement to law enforcement.

nradov 2y ago

So what's the problem? Sue Cloudflare and a "John Doe" defendant, and ask the court to compel Cloudflare to reveal their identity. Once you have that information you can amend the filing. This is done all the time, and there's no other reasonable way for the process to work.