There is a safe harbor (s.230 Communications Decency Act), however that would protect you in relation to a direct allegation of infringement. Here there is no a

There is a safe harbor (s.230 Communications Decency Act), however that would protect you in relation to a direct allegation of infringement. Here there is no allegation, rather the record company is bypassing the above section by suggesting Cloudflare are in active participation/concert with the owner of the site. I think the error in the case is really determining that CF are in active concert with Grooveshark. Like EFF say, it shifts the obligation to determine infringement on to the wrong person. Even the proposed solution (having a record company notify CF regarding infringement) is flawed. CF are still in the position of either a) automatically complying or b) expending resources determining whether it is appropriate to take down, leaving you in a similar position to previously.