4 ms·

CloudFlare Enjoined from Aiding Infringers: Internet Unbroken

1 points by jayess 11y ago

kup0 11y ago
Ugh. This makes me too irrationally angry to properly respond. All browsers "aid us" in getting to websites. Are they culpable now too? (I know, I know, I shouldn't give them any ideas)
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- zimpenfish 11y ago
  (Not a lawyer but) I'd suggest that a browser was a passive aid. Cloudflare were specifically called out as being actively aiding. > The question was whether these acts were passive such that > CloudFlare was not in “active concert or participation” > with the defendants. Judge Nathan held that the services > CloudFlare provided to the defendants were anything but > passive That does lead into "is serving DNS for a domain actively aiding infringement?" which is much better question.
  - kup0 11y ago
    That's what made me angry- that CloudFlare's service would be considered "active". They weren't choosing to help aid infringement. They didn't see the content and go "ooh! let's stick it to the man!". They likely weren't even aware of the content itself and were just aware that another domain was using their service. The infringing individual signed up for their services and the legal services were provided. Or maybe I have that wrong? I guess I framed my comment wrong when trying to hold back my rage :) To clarify my thoughts about it, DNS / caching / optimizing to me is an infrastructure-like service. CF is not an ISP, but it is a in-between that simply provides services to help keep sites online and fast. CloudFlare is content-agnostic in this way. I guess the weakness of my argument in that regard is that if CF is confronted with information showing that their service, even passively, is aiding illegal activity, and they refuse to intervene or investigate- that becomes a problem. Because even with the service being passive, it's still aiding (without intent), but their refusal to intervene makes it seem like they have some intent to continue aiding the activity. Man, what a mess of words this turned out to be, sorry.

1 points by jayess 11y ago

kup0 11y ago

Ugh. This makes me too irrationally angry to properly respond. All browsers "aid us" in getting to websites. Are they culpable now too? (I know, I know, I shouldn't give them any ideas)

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
zimpenfish 11y ago
(Not a lawyer but) I'd suggest that a browser was a passive aid. Cloudflare were specifically called out as being actively aiding. > The question was whether these acts were passive such that > CloudFlare was not in “active concert or participation” > with the defendants. Judge Nathan held that the services > CloudFlare provided to the defendants were anything but > passive That does lead into "is serving DNS for a domain actively aiding infringement?" which is much better question.
- kup0 11y ago
  That's what made me angry- that CloudFlare's service would be considered "active". They weren't choosing to help aid infringement. They didn't see the content and go "ooh! let's stick it to the man!". They likely weren't even aware of the content itself and were just aware that another domain was using their service. The infringing individual signed up for their services and the legal services were provided. Or maybe I have that wrong? I guess I framed my comment wrong when trying to hold back my rage :) To clarify my thoughts about it, DNS / caching / optimizing to me is an infrastructure-like service. CF is not an ISP, but it is a in-between that simply provides services to help keep sites online and fast. CloudFlare is content-agnostic in this way. I guess the weakness of my argument in that regard is that if CF is confronted with information showing that their service, even passively, is aiding illegal activity, and they refuse to intervene or investigate- that becomes a problem. Because even with the service being passive, it's still aiding (without intent), but their refusal to intervene makes it seem like they have some intent to continue aiding the activity. Man, what a mess of words this turned out to be, sorry.