Not offered any evidence that faster load times (assuming they were faster) would be likely to The effects of Cloudflare on the direct infringement at issue here. The plaintiffs? only evidence of the effects of these services is promotional material fromĬloudflare?s website touting the benefits of its services. The plaintiffs have not presented evidence from which a jury could conclude thatĬloudflare?s performance-improvement services materially contribute to copyright infringement. And, kinda like his refusal to dismiss, the opinion is kinda short and doesn’t get into much in the way of detail. But the lawsuit simply ignored that and assumed that Cloudflare should be a (c) company, rather than a (b).Īnd, astoundingly, as we wrote about two years ago, the judge refused to dismiss the case, but let it move forward past the motion to dismiss stage - meaning that it went through some very expensive discovery and other efforts before finally getting to the summary judgment stage, and now more than two years later, the judge granted dismissal on summary judgment. However, the whole “notice and takedown” aspect of the law only applies to Section (c) type companies. Different companies are treated differently under 512, and Section (b) companies for “system caching” (which is what CDNs do) are treated differently under the law than Section (c) hosting companies. But the dress company (for reasons I still don’t understand), made the stretchiest of stretchy arguments to say that (1) the counterfeit sellers were posting images of the dresses, and (2) those images were protected by a copyright held by the dress maker, and (3) because the counterfeiting sites posting the allegedly copyright infringing photos used Cloudflare for CDN ( not hosting) services, that somehow makes them contributory liable for the copyright infringement.Įven worse, the complaint itself was extremely confused about the DMCA and how it works with regards to the DMCA 512 safe harbors. If you know anything about copyright (and counterfeiting) law, you should be scratching your head. In this case, the plaintiffs, Mon Cheri Bridals - a maker of bridal dresses - sued Cloudflare because websites out there were selling counterfeit dresses. As you (perhaps?) know, Cloudflare is a popular CDN provider, helping websites (including Techdirt) provide better access to users while helping to mitigate things like denial of service attacks. More than two years ago we wrote about a truly bizarre ruling in a truly bizarre copyright lawsuit against Cloudflare. Thu, Oct 21st 2021 01:37pm - Mike Masnick
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |