The judge ruled that the content delivery service did not "participate" in the copyright infringement.
Cloudflare is not responsible for copyright infringement on websites that use content delivery and security services, a federal judge ruled yesterday. p>
on October 27 “to discuss the remainder of the issue”
Hundreds of Fake Websites
The companies’ complaint states that they are “the largest manufacturers and wholesalers of wedding dresses and gowns in the United States" and that they "developed many unique and original styles of wedding and social occasion dresses." They own the copyright to those designs and the photographs of the designs.
Most of the websites that sell fake clothes are from China. In addition to Cloudflare, he cited an amended complaint of 500 "Doe" defendants whose real names are unknown. The complaint claims that Cloudflare's Terms justify any breach of the Terms of Service Act, and that "CloudFlare's policy is to investigate violations of these Terms of Service and stop violators."
Prosecutors said they used the seller. Fake technology to find over 365 infringing websites from Cloudflare users, including cabridals.com, bidbel.com, stydress.com, angelemall.co.nz, jollyfeel.com, russjoan.com, missydress.com.au and lifesressy. com Complainants said they removed thousands of alerts from Cloudflare, often sending up to four alerts to the same offending sites, but "Cloudflare ignored notifications and detected offending content on customer sites." By itself, it does not take any action.
“In particular, Cloudflare continues to store, reverse and maintain a copy of the offending websites and content in your data center. The amended complaint states: “On request, send a copy of the offending content to your visitors Offending sites.” Cloudflare’s contributions allow browsers to infringe websites and content faster than if the user had to access the offending websites and content from the original host without Cloudflare’s service.”
The plaintiff fs argued that Cloudflare should It stops storing these websites, blocking traffic to websites through the Cloudflare network, and resetting its firewall settings so that users trying to access the offending domain are redirected to a blank page. “The plaintiffs’ claim is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Cloudflare’s services, copyright infringement doctrine, and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, all of which are seeking legal redress unrelated to the harm they claim to have suffered.” Cloudflare told the court, “Cloudflare concluded that it.” Significantly amplifies non-critical hacks, while Cloudflare protects against malicious attacks and gives maximum benefit to a few seconds to the load time of the website you're visiting." It offers services that were previously intended by Ninth Circuit to actually help visitors find content they wouldn't otherwise find Unlike hosting providers, Cloudflare cannot remove offending content from the Internet, there is no doubt that these images are available without Cloudflare's services and are equally accessible on websites. The defendant remains.
Cloudflare is A combination of free and paid services.
Judge explains why Cloudflare is not responsible
A defendant is liable for copyright infringement if he or she becomes aware of the infringement of others and the infringement or incitement to material infringement. to rub Meh against the tailors. “Merely providing services to the copyright infringer is not known as 'financial sharing,' and 'grave infringement' has facilitated the 'significantly' increase,” Chhabria writes, as the Ninth Circuit discovers: “The language used in these experiments is 'too broad,' and if considered Out of context, it can involve a lot of safe activities. Advertising
Mon Cheri Bridals and Maggie Sottero Designs claim that Cloudflare provides performance optimization services, including a content distribution network and storage capabilities that improve the quality of web pages and speed up their loading. , contribute to copyright infringement. Chapriya Books. However, the plaintiffs have not provided evidence by which a jury can conclude that Cloudflare's performance improvement services are actively contributing to copyright infringement. "These public statements do not reflect Cloudflare's effects on the direct breach discussed here." “In addition, Cloudflare removes infringing content from the cache, preventing users from viewing copyrighted images.” Chhabria wrote: “[R]Moving content from the cache without removing it from the host server does not prevent a direct breach.” The plaintiffs also attempted to prove the partnership breach by referencing Cloudflare's security services, which detect suspicious traffic and prevent attacks on the web host. The judge dismissed the argument, writing:
Cloudflare's security services also do not contribute materially to the breach. From a user access point of view, these services don't make any difference. Cloudflare's security services affect the ability of third parties to determine the web hosting provider and the IP address of the server it is on. If Cloudflare's provision of these services results in a third party removing the web host's report of abuse as part of an attempt to remove the original content, it may be liable to the contributor. But here, the parties agree that Cloudflare, in addition to submitting a complaint to the host provider, will inform the claimants of the host's identity in response to the copyright complaint. Prosecutors also requested a summary judgment from the judge against the defendants in Daewoo, "but he dropped the request in his brief response."
Cloudflare doesn't have to block websites that infringe copyright, judge by the rules
Four days ago, the ransomware website REvil, better known as "...
There is a saying in the startup world that many companies are trying to sh...
Last month, Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger took to the podium on a foggy and win...