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 a

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.