The protection and security company, CloudFlare, had been recently sued by providing a CDN support services for online websites that host pirated data. In their defense, CloudFlare had informed the public they will seize all protection against any pirated content filled websites.
However, TorrentFreak still remains protected by CloudFlare services.
When discussing online piracy, it is often the most difficult topic to understand. When you create a website, you can do so anonymously and even obtain a hosting company from another country, thus making it rather difficult to attempt to trace who the website originally belongs too. One of these cases has been properly filed at the Californian-based Federal Court. This case is most likely to exceed the length of time than that of what they had originally projected.
Now, thanks to allegations bestowed to CloudFlare, the firm has found themselves in the spotlight.
CloudFlare is now alleged to become a factor in the protection of pirated websites, as exposed by an entertainment publisher, ALS Scan. ALS Scan is reporting that the CDN services that are provided by CloudFlare firm are in fact, utilized by pirate-based websites, as well. They have proper reasons to believe that the firm needs to be held accountable and responsible for not properly terminating their business with pirate-content-filled website clients.
While this may appear to be an extremely plausible argument, CloudFlare responds back in defense. The well known torrent website TorrentFreak, stated on a blog, that in the argument of CloudFlare providing services to pirated websites; their CDN services only assist the website in loading their pages faster. Without the services that are provided by CloudFlare, the site would then need to move forward and provide their DNS in order to remain in operations.
Also within this blog, CloudFlare states: “CloudFlare has asked a California federal court to dismiss a broad copyright complaint lodged against the service by adult entertainment publisher ALS Scan. The CDN provider says that it can’t shut down pirate sites, even it if wanted to, adding that it’s not inducing piracy either.”
CloudFlare states another clause to aid in their case by saying that even if the firm was able to seize services to pirate based websites, they are not able to stop piracy from happening. Despite the firm possessing the ability to provide automated services to anyone that signs up, the firm is in absolutely no way held responsible for providing any contribution towards the piracy of any respective website. Basically, they are stating that because the firm is providing security and protection to piracy based websites, this does not mean they are also held responsible for advocating the piracy.
The firm CloudFlare, stated in a court document: “If CloudFlare’s services were completely unavailable to the allegedly infringing websites, those websites would still exist, and the infringements would continue unabated; the sites would merely load a bit slower and be more susceptible to hacking.”
This case remains open, and probably will be for an extended amount of time. This type of discussion is not one to be held lightly, and CloudFlare’s defense only adds more weight into the minds of the prosecution team. In attempts to make things more difficult for the plaintiff, ALS Scan, CloudFlare has also stated that underneath the Grokster ruling, one will have to actively induce the general population into performing piracy activities. This act can be carried out by several means, including advertising.
As reported by the security and privacy firm, this is not a case. CloudFlare also informs that ALS Scan does not provide any solid grounds in order to lay any acquisitions upon such a topic, going further by adding that it lacks significant evidence in order to incriminate the firm with any of these allegations.
With the nature of this case, only time will be able to see which side is correct. But at this point in time, this would appear to be an extremely intense case of debates between the plaintiff, ALS Scan, and the defendant, CloudFlare.
Sources: ALS Scan, TorrentFreak, TorrentFreak (CloudFlare Blog), TorrentFreak (Dismiss Memo PDF), CloudFlare, Hack Read.
This article (CloudFlare Informs Court They Do Not Assist Pirate Sites) is a free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and AnonHQ.
