
Victory for CloudFlare Against SOPA-like Court Order - eastdakota
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/07/victory-cloudflare-against-sopa-court-order-internet-service-doesnt-have-police
======
slimsag
Our judicial system enabling content authors to go after non-hosting content
delivery network services like CloudFlare and making the act of doing so _a
successful tactic_ is _dangerous to the public_.

Why do I say that? CloudFlare does not host content at all. All content
delivery networks do not host content (arguable) but only effectively _relay_
content such that delivery is faster. Once the origin server goes down, so
does the content. This is an integral part of how CDNs operate. They should
not be subject to DMCA take-down notices either, because they don't host
content -- just enable it.

Its dangerous to the public because this significantly raises the cost in
starting such a service, because now you're not just enabling faster delivery
of content but suddenly you're responsible for the content itself. Handling
DMCA takedowns quickly becomes fast because these large corporations will
abuse the process with automation, and in turn you _must_ respond actively as
if each one is 100% correct. If you want a cost-effective solution then
suddenly Sony has unrestrained access to delete content from your service.
This is serious.

It makes sense to have services like Youtube, image hosting sites, or file
hosting sites respond to DMCA takedowns because _they are responsible for the
content_ and reaching out to the uploader would mean companies need to reveal
personal information of uploaders (which would quickly be abused).

But CloudFlare or other CDNs and their systems _do not have such knowledge_.
They don't know who is responsible for uploading content or the ability to
investigate if it's infringing on someones copyright.

If Sony doesn't like someone uploading a video to YouTube, they can file away
a DMCA takedown for it. Right now Youtube has the _oppertunity_ to look into
this case and fight it legally if they feel it is important. The key here is
that the DMCA goes to the actual content host, Youtube. But if CloudFlare was
serving Youtube and got a DMCA to takedown some video, suddenly Youtube can't
fight this in court because _its not a DMCA to YouTube but to CloudFlare_.

Corporations should be required to go through proper legal systems in which
the content host can respond to DMCAs and fight them if they wish to. We
should be afraid of giving out giant ban-hammers more than we already have.

~~~
stephengillie
> _All content delivery networks do not host content (arguable) but only
> effectively _relay_ content such that delivery is faster. Once the origin
> server goes down, so does the content. This is an integral part of how CDNs
> operate._

What's the point of a service that caches and accelerates errors?

If this is by design, then I don't understand most of the value proposition of
CDNs. If my origin is overloaded, down, or throwing intermittent errors, I
want the CDN to cover for this. But no, a CDN is just a set of mirrors for
whatever you're serving now.

~~~
slimsag
> If my origin is overloaded, down, or throwing intermittent errors, I want
> the CDN to cover for this.

Sure, that is another configuration available by many CDNs as well.

Many CDNs however suggest that your origin is contacted by nobody except the
CDN itself (not true for CloudFlare, though). It can then perfectly replicate
your origin's content as it is updated without overbearing your origin.

~~~
tomkwok
> Many CDNs however suggest that your origin is contacted by nobody except the
> CDN itself (not true for CloudFlare, though).

CloudFlare does as well. See [https://blog.cloudflare.com/ddos-prevention-
protecting-the-o...](https://blog.cloudflare.com/ddos-prevention-protecting-
the-origin/)

~~~
grrowl
Only within the scope of DDoS protection. There's no use relying on Cloudflare
to keep your site up in that scenario while publicly broadcasting your real
server IP, ripe and defenceless, at direct.mydomain.com

------
b0rbb
_Last week, Judge Alison J. Nathan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York ruled that CloudFlare does not have to search out and
block customers who use variations on the name “grooveshark.” Instead,
CloudFlare must take action only if it has “knowledge of an infringement” (for
example, when the labels send a takedown notice). Given that this is
essentially what US law already requires, Judge Nathan’s order puts paid to
the latest strategy to institute trademark- and copyright-related filtering –
at least in this case._

Fantastic. Good to see some judges demonstrating some common sense here.

------
rdl
Thank you, EFF.

------
doctorshady
Couldn't they challenge the ruling in another court?

