Cloudflare Is Liable For Pirate Sites and Has No Safe Harbor, Publisher Says (torrentfreak.com) 172
After dragging Cloudflare to court and accusing the web services company of various types of copyright and trademark infringement, noting that several customers used Cloudflare's servers to distribute pirated content, adult publisher ALS Scan told the California District Court this week that the company should be held liable for copyright infringements committed by its customers. According to TorrentFreak, "The company requests a partial summary judgement, claiming that the CDN provider assists pirates and doesn't qualify for safe harbor protection." From the report: "The evidence is undisputed," ALS writes. "Cloudflare materially assists website operators in reproduction, distribution and display of copyrighted works, including infringing copies of ALS works. Cloudflare also masks information about pirate sites and their hosts." ALS anticipates that Cloudflare may argue that the company or its clients are protected by the DMCA's safe harbor provision, but contests this claim. The publisher notes that none of the customers registered the required paperwork at the U.S. Copyright Office. "Cloudflare may say that the Cloudflare Customer Sites are themselves service providers entitled to DMCA protections, however, none have qualified for safe harbors by submitting the required notices to the U.S. Copyright Office. Cloudflare may say that the Cloudflare Customer Sites are themselves service providers entitled to DMCA protections, however, none have qualified for safe harbors by submitting the required notices to the U.S. Copyright Office."
Cloudflare itself has no safe harbor protection either, they argue, because it operates differently than a service provider as defined in the DMCA. It's a "smart system" which also modifies content, instead of a "dumb pipe," they claim. In addition, the CDN provider is accused of failing to implement a reasonable policy that will terminate repeat offenders. "Cloudflare has no available safe harbors. Even if any safe harbors apply, Cloudflare has lost such safe harbors for failure to adopt and reasonably implement a policy including termination of repeat infringers," ALS writes. ALS now asks the court to issue a partial summary judgment ruling that Cloudflare is liable for contributory copyright infringement. If this motion is granted, a trial would only be needed to establish the damages amount.
Cloudflare itself has no safe harbor protection either, they argue, because it operates differently than a service provider as defined in the DMCA. It's a "smart system" which also modifies content, instead of a "dumb pipe," they claim. In addition, the CDN provider is accused of failing to implement a reasonable policy that will terminate repeat offenders. "Cloudflare has no available safe harbors. Even if any safe harbors apply, Cloudflare has lost such safe harbors for failure to adopt and reasonably implement a policy including termination of repeat infringers," ALS writes. ALS now asks the court to issue a partial summary judgment ruling that Cloudflare is liable for contributory copyright infringement. If this motion is granted, a trial would only be needed to establish the damages amount.
"Publisher Says" ... nuff said (Score:5, Insightful)
"Publisher Says" ... nuff said
When court says it, or legislation saying it actually says it, then it starts to mean something.
Right now, its just horseshit. (Much like that Nunes memo.)
Re:"Publisher Says" ... nuff said (Score:5, Insightful)
And, of course, "The evidence is undisputed". No need for a trial; just seize CF's bank accounts now...
Re: "Publisher Says" ... nuff said (Score:2, Insightful)
Somehow I have a feeling that it actually is disputed. The disputing party? Cloudflare!
Someone should tell this lawyer asshat that words have meaning, and that using them incorrectly undisputedly makes him look stupid.
Re: (Score:3)
Nutria pointed out:
And, of course, "The evidence is undisputed". No need for a trial; just seize CF's bank accounts now...
This.
If Cloudflare is doing anything other than pleading guilty, the "evidence" is, by definition in dispute.
The argument presented in this motion is pure handwaving. Any competent Federal judge is going to dismiss it out of hand, because no actual evidence is cited - only the claims presented in the argument itself.
Claims and evidence are two legally distinct things, AFAIK. <DISCLAIMER>I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.</DISCLAIMER>
And then, of course, ther
Re:"Publisher Says" ... nuff said (Score:4, Insightful)
The _eviodence_ need not be in dispute for a lawsuit or criminal prosecution to need to go to court. Whether an act is illegal can be in dispute. I'm particularly reminded of Edward Snowden, whose leaking of classified documents on NSA domestic spying is not in dispute. Whether he should be tried for treason, or given a Medal of Honor as a brave whistleblower is in dispute.
Re: (Score:3)
Antique Geekmeister cautioned:,/p>
The _eviodence_ need not be in dispute for a lawsuit or criminal prosecution to need to go to court. Whether an act is illegal can be in dispute.
What you say is true. However, the points the quoted argument cites are not evidence. They're the plaintiff's lawyer's characterization of relationships between the defendant (Cloudflare) and third parties not named as co-dependents - a.k.a. "opinions" ...
Re: (Score:2)
There's zero chance that Snowden will get a Medal of Honor.
Re: (Score:2)
The evidence is undisputed
Actually given the fact that they are in court, I think the only correct statement is that the evidence is being disputed RIGHT NOW.
Re: (Score:2)
Hear that whooshing noise? It's sarcasm zooming over your head.
Re: (Score:2)
Hear that whooshing noise? It's sarcasm zooming over your head.
No whooshing noise. Pro tip: Read the context, not every reply on Slashdot is disagreeing with you, and your sarcasm was not only noted but built upon.
In case it's not obvious: This post is a negative reply to your silly whooshing comment.
Re: (Score:2)
your sarcasm was not only noted but built upon.
If your statement Actually given the fact that they are in court, I think the only correct statement is that the evidence is being disputed RIGHT NOW was designed to build upon my sarcasm, then it did so horribly.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that neither one of you comprehend the difference between disputing evidence and disputing the law, and so your attempts at "sarcasm" are destined to be mere pedestrian ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
I do, in fact, know the difference. Does TFA mention whether or not CF disputes the evidence, or are you assuming that they don't?
Re: (Score:2)
So they say, "The evidence is undisputed, [and therefore] conclusion conclusion conclusion."
Re: (Score:2)
An important detail of civil suits that you might want to be aware of is that everything is divided into two categories, "facts" and "law," and all the claimed facts have to be either agreed to or disputed.
So it is literally up to the other side if something is disputed. They're saying that the other side didn't dispute the facts, leaving those facts undisputed.
It is not a matter of opinion, nor is it the type of situation you imply.
The facts are not in dispute, the case rests on matters of law rather than
A few simple facts. Which do you dispute? (Score:1)
The memo says a few interesting things:
The application was based primarily on claims from Steele, a person who himself had said he was "desperate that Trump not get elected and passionate that Trump not be president".
The DOJ official interviewing Steele was Mr. Ohr.
The Ohrs were being paid by the DNC and Clinton campaign to try to discredit Trump.
This information was not revealed to the Court when DOJ sought the FISA warrant.
Which is these facts do you call "horse shit" and why?
Re: (Score:2)
Cloudflare should just stop providing service for this publisher in particular and accidentally states that they did.
Re:"Publisher Says" ... nuff said (Score:4, Insightful)
"NONE OF YOU FUCKING FAGGOTS CAN LIST ONE SINGLE SPECIFIC THING WRONG WITH THE MEMO! "
I mean, its biased, and lacks information, and omits context. It's poorly researched, and poorly sourced. Its all of 4 pages; that's absurdly thin. Then on top of that, it comes to a conclusion that has no legal basis, not even the cherry picked facts in the memo support its conclusion.
That's not why the memo is a big deal. The memo is a big deal because it represents the whitehouse's willingness to undermine its own DoJ, National Security, Intelligence oversight bodies. It's a step down the path to violating the separation of powers.
Trump needs to leave the DoJ alone. If the Mueller investigation ever reaches charges, Trump can fight them vigorously within the courts -- but he can't make this go way by the firing judges and prosecutors.
Well... perhaps he can... but if he does we now live in a tin pot dictatorship. And that's kind of a big deal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
The memo shows FBI used a partisan campaign document to get a warrant to spy on a rival campaign. And shows the FBI omitted crucial information from a FISA court. No spin can change those basic facts.
It's official, Memo states FISA warrant could have not been obtained without Steele Dossier. The memo asserts that former FBI official Andrew McCabe stated in closed-door testimony that without the anti-Trump dossier, the FBI would not have been able to secure surveillance warrants.
Can you in your wildest
Re: (Score:2)
It lists facts of record, which by definition cannot be biased.
You can bias facts. You just omit the ones that aren't in your favor. Whether it is or isn't biased can't be known by the American public, and that's still a concern.
Re: (Score:2)
"1) .. It lists facts of record, which by definition cannot be biased."
This is just naive. There are lots of ways to create bias even in a list of facts.
"5) ... it has no conclusions."
The following are not facts, these are conclusions.
Our findings, which are detailed below, 1) raise concerns with the legitimacy and legality of certain DOJ and FBI interactions with the Foreign IntelligenceSurveillance Court (FISC), and 2) represent a troubling breakdown of legal processes established to protect the American people from abuses related to the FISA process.
"7) Remember, this memo did not originate with Trump. It was brought to him by members of Congress."
Yes, and what is the significance of that?
As for the rest...start here... this is pretty well written.
https://www.politico.com/magaz... [politico.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The following are not facts, these are conclusions.
No, they're not. If we assume for the sake of argument that the rest of the memo is accurate, then these are facts too, not conclusions.
Yes, and what is the significance of that?
The person to whom I was replying implied that Trump wrote the memo.
As for the rest...start here... this is pretty well written.
No, it isn't. It even begins with a misleading omission. The October 21 FISA application was not the first. They had tried to get a warrant prior to that, but the application was rejected for lack of evidence. That's why they had to produce the bogus "dossier" to bolster their "evidence".
Re: (Score:2)
if the parties were reversed, the GOP would be crying fowl right now too.
The GOP cries fowl every day, just turn on cable TV or AM radio and its all, "quack quack quack HONK quack quack!"
You have to get lucky just to get a "Gobble gobble" or a "cluckcluck" out of them, but they do still do a lot of Cockadoodledo on the side.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is a memo, a collection of *assertions* that cannot be corroborated by the writer, or anyone else. Those are quite distinct from facts.
No, that is not correct. Most of what is in the memo are established facts already known to the public.
The only part that wasn't already established public knowledge was corroborated by testimony under oath, by McCabe and others.
Jane Q. Public is purposefully gaslighting slashot commentary boards in order to paint the Nunes Memo has a collection of facts as opposed to what they really are, uncorroborated claims.
Utter nonsense.
Jane Q. Public is doing this because Putin is paying her.
Hahahahahahahahahaha!
Re: (Score:2)
"her"? No. Please don't let Jane make all women look bad. Jane is actually a man posing as a woman on the internet.
Nonsense. I'm not "posing as a woman". There is a reason for the pseudonym, but I don't care to explain it to you.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the stupidest thing I've read this month.
Re: "Publisher Says" ... nuff said (Score:2)
Iâ(TM)ll continue. The guy is guilty as hell. Not that it matters to PedoBear and his friends. And lets be honest, PedoBear is more amusing than most of the kind of comedy American politics has been creating recently.
Re:"Publisher Says" ... nuff said (Score:5, Insightful)
No comrade. You are incorrect.
If the memo were actually true and correct and its conclusions were founded in law instead of wishy-thinking, then Trump should let Mueller along his merry way; and sleep easy, and then destroy the case in court -- assuming the DoJ ever decided to even lay charges.
There's no possible need to fire mueller, and violate the separation between the exective and justice departments. Fight it in court where it belongs.
The reason this whole episode is a big deal is precisely because the white house is seeking to undermine the autonomy of the justice department.
Trump isn't some poor sap whose going to get railroaded into a false confession and sent to federal prison for life. He's going to have the best representation possible; and then appeals forever, and due to the unique situation what with him being the president there's going to be enough for the supreme court to chew on to last decades. And he appointed the last supreme court justice himself. He'll die of old age long before its over.
Firing Mueller is a gross abuse and violation of the separation of powers. Even sensible republicans think interfering in the DoJ is crossing the line.
Re:"Publisher Says" ... nuff said (Score:4, Insightful)
Was the Steele Dossier the basis for the FISA warrant (and much of the Russiagate investigation) or wasn't it? Lotsa table-pounders [quoteinvestigator.com] from both parties but this simple question is being avoided with a 20 foot pole.
Muller's investigation, like Ken Starr's before it, is a disgusting perversion of justice. Probable suspicion, initial investigation, probable cause, court proceedings is how this shit is supposed to work. None of the Russiagaters have come up with anything approaching probable suspicion, which means this is another open-ended writ of assistance [wikipedia.org] where none of the indictments thus far have anything to do with Russiagate and Muller hasn't even bothered to examine the DNC servers.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do people keep saying this as if its supposed to mean something. Sounds like cops who, after questionably targeting someone, bring up a completely irrelevant arrest record from years past as if it justifies the current actions. Was a dossier bought and paid for by one political candidate used to get a warrant to investigate someone on the opposing team, or wasn't it? Simple enough question.
Re: (Score:2)
You were there? Cool, then you can give us the transcripts.
Re: (Score:2)
"If the memo were actually true and correct and its conclusions were founded in law instead of wishy-thinking...
I'm going to repeat the question I asked above to another of your comments: To what "conclusions" do you refer?
The memo doesn't draw any conclusions. It's just a list of facts. Conclusions are what happens when you put those facts together.
"There's no possible need to fire mueller..."
Huh? Trump has expressed no desire to fire Mueller. McCabe and Rosenstein, on the other hand, may be in trouble.
"... and violate the separation between the exective and justice departments.
Huh? The Justice Department is part of the Executive Branch. It isn't part of the Judiciary. Different things.
Looks like it's back to school for you.
Re: (Score:2)
The Democratic National Committee paid a law firm who paid Fusion GPS who paid a foreign spy who paid Russians for a dossier used by FBI for FISA warrant to wiretap Trump.
Federal officials conspired to spy on a rival political campaign using information they had not verified from people they knew were untrustworthy. And these officials deliberately and repeatedly defrauded the judiciary by withholding key information.
The most messed up part is that the Congressional committee is in charge of oversig
Re: (Score:2)
Firing Mueller is a gross abuse and violation of the separation of powers. Even sensible republicans think interfering in the DoJ is crossing the line.
Firing Mueller would be a severe political mistake, but it would not be a violation of the separation of powers. The DoJ is within the executive branch, not the judicial branch, so Trump has the authority to fire Mueller. If Mueller were under the judicial branch, Trump wouldn't be able to touch him (e.g. Trump cannot fire judges). So, that said, I believe that the one thing Trump could do to end his presidency would be to fire Mueller. If he rides it out, he'll probably make it through letting his lackeys
Re: (Score:2)
HE UNEQUIVOCALLY CORRECTED THEM, REPEATEDLY, "IF TRUMP FIRES MUELLER IT'S ENTIRELY CONSTITUTIONAL WITH ZERO POSSIBLE LEGITIMATE LEGAL CHARGES. YOU CANNOT PROSECUTE A PRESIDENT UNDER ANY THEORY FOR EXERCISING HIS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER, AND HE'S THE HEAD OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH--THERE IS NOTHING ANYONE COULD DO ABOUT IT. AND EVERYONE ACTUALLY KNOWS THIS."
Therein lies the problem. The reason this becomes a crisis isn't because firing Mueller isn't legal, or isn't constitutional; its simpler than that.
Firing the
Re: (Score:1)
Fuck off Yuri.
Re: (Score:2)
That's just Chaika Veselnitskaya, its a science experiment I'm working on.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
how much proof that cliton rigged the election in her favor do you SJW crybabies need?
The election went in her favor?
Re: "Publisher Says" ... nuff said (Score:2)
According to then head of the DNC, Hillary rigged the primary to become the Democrat candidate for president. Easier to rig a primary that is built around super delegates than the national election which has the electoral college firewall.
Re: (Score:3)
So, why did you fight so hard to hide it from us again?
Because the evidence to refute it is also classified and Trump won't allow that to be released. Declassifying one side of the argument is cheating.
Just because a publisher says... (Score:1)
...doesn't make it so
Publishers... (Score:3)
What was the expression? A drowning man will clutch at a straw?
Re: Publishers... (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe the relevant quote is:
âoeIt is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.â
Re: Publishers... (Score:2)
Lol slashdot doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode in TYOOL 2018
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's check that out with some katakana:
...hmmm nothing.
If it works you should see something like a smiley face after the colon, the Tu character. I can see it in the text box I'm typing in so let's look at the preview....
So let's see if it supports other codes up to the €; here's the character eight steps down from 20AC:
Nope, there should have been a pound sign after the colon.
The Unicode support seems to be extremely selective.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, there should have been a pound sign after the colon.
If you're not getting a pound sign, you're doing it wrong: £
:-)
Or did you mean hash? #
The Unicode support seems to be extremely selective.
The funny thing is that FunkSoulBrother's initial sentence didn't contain any non-Latin9 characters and neither was it supposed to. Or which non-ASCII Unicode character was supposed to be in there?
Re: (Score:2)
The octothorpe [wikipedia.org] has many names - in the US, it can also be called a pound sign.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey Nimrod, this is an American site and we speak American English, and we use a symbol which we sometimes call a "pound symbol" after some numbers to indicate that the units are in Pounds. It is pretty ignorant to get confused and think a "pound symbol" would talk about money, since money is counted using the units "dollars" and "cents."
What you want would have to be called a "British Pound symbol," not a "pound symbol."
Re: (Score:2)
I actually meant a symbol that looks exactly like a £ but has Unicode 20A4 (the € sign minus 8).
The unicode siteummything calls it a lira but I tried to keep it simple, so it naturally got got sodslawed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Editor is on crack! (Score:2)
The editor of this submission needs to be sent immediately to the Copyright Office him/herself, because they infringed on their own content 3x in one paragraph!
Almighty Science! -smh :-(
Go after ... (Score:5, Interesting)
... the offender.
The reasoning here would support my electric company's termination of service because I download copyrighted material.
Re: (Score:2)
As soon as they can determine who is legally responsible for electrons...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Go after ... (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't support this move, but there is basis for it. First would be, whether to provide safe harbor to Cloudflare as a provider. I would argue to do so. The second would be the fact that the DMCA does require you to have policies in place to deal with repeat offenders. I work for an ISP and have spent a fair bit studying it when I was the one responsible for processing infringement notices. I am by no means an expert. My understanding is that it emphasizes having a policy in place, but not how you handle them. The key is that they have one, and stick to it. Finally, in regards to them being a smart system instead of a dumb pipe... I don't know enough. If Cloudflare is actively monitoring the content of the traffic, it potentially leaves them open as they now knowingly permitted the traffic.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It looks like they do have a process for dealing with offenders: https://support.cloudflare.com/hc/en-us/articles/200167716-How-do-I-file-a-DMCA-complaint-
Re: (Score:2)
The point is they have to have an additional policy for dealing with repeat offenders.
Re:Go after ... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a gigantic difference between monitoring for performance compared to monitoring content, let alone categorizing content for policing.
Who imposed the requirement for someone providing a service to monitor content for policing? Would that not be counter productive to their service offering, would anyone actively use a service which monitored all content for delivery to be used someone who is not a customer or whatever, let alone some random copyright holder?
Just think of the burden of having to police for 'every' single rights holder of any sort of information/content/whatever. Its ridiculous.
If they dont already they should internally anonymize and or encrypt everything they handle so they can divest themselves of any liability or future nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a gigantic difference between monitoring for performance compared to monitoring content
Your words would either help cloudflare, or totally sink their argument, depending on if they're actually monitoring content.
What if they are?
Re: (Score:2)
Blah, blah, blah.
Look, you and I agree that some asshats are breaking copyright laws.
The owners of the IP have a gripe with the perps and no one else.
This "get the carriers to be the police" is bullshit.
The way that would work is for the carriers to charge the IP owners for doing the dirty work.
In any case, you and I both know damned well it's "whack-a-mole."
As soon as IP is digitized, it's effectively in the public domain.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm 95% in agreement.
Where I depart is involving Cloudflare at all, at any time unless Cloudflare is compensated by IP owners and backed by court decisions to proceed.
The real culprit is at the OTHER end of the connection -- where the pirated stuff is stored by crooks. THAT'S where the focus should be.
Re: (Score:2)
Well then, the post office isn't liable if you send drugs through the mail. They would be able to detect that.
A car company isn't liable if you cause a traffic accident. They would be able to prevent many but it's too expensive.
A gun company isn't liable when you kill someone. Still, the use case for guns is extremely clear.
Etcetera. You cannot hold utility providers liable for what people choose to use it for, full period.
Re: (Score:2)
DMCA doesn't cover restrictions on Romulan Ale, so that is also irrelevant.
Oh, and they're not accused of littering, so littering law is also irrelevant.
I'm curious though, what country are you from where you mangle an English colloquialism and end up with "full period?" It is "full stop" in British English, and also in American English. You don't translate all instances of the word "stop" to "period." Just leave the colloquialisms aside, you're not supposed to intentionally try to use them.
I'm guessing Fra
Hey now! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
.........and with that, you just failed jury selection.
Re: (Score:2)
.........and with that, you just failed jury selection.
I promise to bring along paper towels for everyone though! So unfair...
Re: (Score:2)
I volunteer to be on that jury, and demand they produce every bit of the evidence!
I can see it now. Ten minutes into the plaintiff's opening arguments, one of the jurists says, "Your honor, with all due respect, pics or it didn't happen."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's the matter with you? Nobody VOLUNTEERS for jury duty...
Actually, I wanted to be on it. But the two times I was called to service, I knew the arresting police. I do know a lot of the locals, so I might have ot do a federal case in a different area.
But back to this case, I'm certain that there will be a lot of interesting evidence to pore over.
Interesting implication (Score:3)
If changing the content means taking on liability would that not imply that an ISP that modifies encrypted content is liable for infringement too?
Re:Interesting implication (Score:5, Interesting)
From the article:
Previously, the court clarified that under U.S. law the company can be held liable for caching content of copyright infringing websites. Cloudflare’s “infrastructure-level caching” cannot be seen as fair use, it ruled.
Seems pretty insane, this would suggest that ISP edge caching of unencrypted content is infringing, ditto for image search engines.
Re: (Score:3)
Naw, that issue seems to have been nailed down already [cornell.edu].
I assume that's why the complaint is doing its best to break the comparison between Cloudflare and any sort of service provider or cache. I suspect there's enough room for interpretation that there's no chance they'll get the summary judgement they'd like.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what a summary judgement is for. It isn't a tool for when the judge thinks it is as easy call. In a civil case, you allege a bunch of facts, and an injury, and make claims about why the injury violates the law. The defendant is required to "answer" the complaint as their first step. In that answer they have to either agree to, or dispute, all the facts you alleged. If there are facts in dispute, then you need a Jury to decide the facts by trial. Before, during, and after the trial the Judge makes
Cloudflare/NSA (Score:4)
Cloudflare is probably a massive NSA operation to track users across websites, including such things as intercepting their logins. It'll never be allowed to be taken down...
Net Neutrality (Score:2)
This case only has merit if net neutrality is not a thing.
If net neutrality is abolished, then every service provider is liable for anything that passes though their system.
Which do you choose?
Re: (Score:2)
If net neutrality is abolished, then every service provider is liable for anything that passes though their system.
Ahem, totally different things.
DMCA's Safe Harbor provision is what protects ISPs and CDNs from being liable for their customer's actions. DMCA is still quite in effect.
Net Neutrality is about treating everyone's data the same as it moves across interconnected networks. IE: No paid prioritization.
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite: one of the implications of Net Neutrality is that ISPs are scanning packets, to determine their priority. That violates the Common Carrier laws, which grant immunity to entities such as the Post Office, for unknowingly transferring illegal items. The second a service starts opening any number - no matter how small - of the items it is transferring, then it becomes liable for any illegal items.
I'm sure there could be a clever legal argument somehow claiming they were not liable, but that is dan
Re: (Score:2)
That's a pretty big stretch to say any form of packet analysis and paid priorization auto-cancels safe harbor provisions because they're supposedly 'looking.' Look, paid prioritization needs nothing more than source and dest from the packet headers, which every router your packet transverses has to look at. So saying this somehow negates safe harbor is, well, just silly.
Deep packet inspection was (yes past tense) a bit of a gray area, but high adoption of HTTPS has rendered deep packet inspection dubiousl
CDN Protection (Score:1)
Daily Stormer did this. (Score:1)
This was inevitable, after Cloudflare removed their services from dailystormer. By demonstrating they discriminate on what content they protect, they assume a degree of responsibility for the benefits that content receives.
Trouble for Cloudflare (Score:2)
In addition, the CDN provider is accused of failing to implement a reasonable policy that will terminate repeat offenders.
This is about all they have to prove to a judge. DMCA safe-harbor or not, if you're not trying to put a stop to copyright infringement, you lose your protection and are liable.
The rest? Irrelevant.
Going after the infringers? Waste of time and money, they don't have typically have anything and plus it's more involved to prove some individual did something, especially if Cloudflare resists giving out information. The objective is to get a nice fat payday. The end-users don't yield fat paydays. Also, sui
Cutting off their nose to spite their face (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, if there is some adverse ruling instead of just randomly raising prices it is more likely that CDNs will alter their practices to comply with the law.
It may just mean that they get less business. That will lead to increased competition, and that could have prices go down, potentially even below the cost of providing the service, while the companies fight over which ones will survive in the smaller market.
You didn't do any analysis, you just did a knee-jerk that rehashed your biases.
Fuck ALS scans (Score:1)
They started off scanning other peoples work without permission. Now they shoot their own porn but they've moved on to fucking over hard working affiliates who send their customers.
DMCA. Publisher lied (Score:1)
Publishers, QUIT FUCKING WHINING and do your damned job.
A BOT can find this stuff you know!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The year is 2018.
Claiming not to masturbate just means you're at increased risk for prostate cancer, it doesn't imply Virtue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I doubt people really fap with milk, I think it just a video production-value thing.
But knowing nothing about the industry wouldn't really cause you to fap with milk.