Cloudflare is not A federal judge ruled yesterday that it is responsible for copyright infringement on websites that use its content delivery and security services.
Cloudflare is Indicted in November 2018 Authors: Mon Cheri Bridals and Maggie Sottero Designs, two wedding dress manufacturers and sellers claimed that Cloudflare was guilty of joint infringement because it did not terminate services for websites that infringed on tailors’ copyrighted designs. The two companies sought a jury trial, but Judge Vince Chhabria approved Cloudflare’s motion for summary judgment yesterday. ruling In the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Chhabria pointed out that tailors have been hurt by the “proliferation of counterfeit retailers using the plaintiff’s copyrighted images to sell counterfeit dresses”, and that they “have hunted down the infringer in a series of actions, but to no avail-every time a website is successfully closed, one The new website replaces it.” Chhabria continued, “In order to more effectively prevent infringements, the plaintiff now seeks many services commonly used by infringers: Cloudflare. The plaintiff claims that Cloudflare contributes to potential infringements by providing caching, content delivery and security services to infringers. Copyright infringement. Because a reasonable jury could not-at least on this record-conclude that Cloudflare made a significant contribution to potential copyright infringement, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was rejected and Cloudflare’s motion for summary judgment was approved .”
Although the ruling resolved the core issues of the lawsuit in Cloudflare’s interest, the judge arranged a case management meeting on October 27 to “discuss the remainder of the case.”
Hundreds of fake websites
The lawsuits of the two companies stated that they “are the two largest manufacturers and wholesalers of wedding and social occasion clothing in the United States” and have “developed many of the most unique and original wedding and social occasion clothing styles in the world.” They own the copyright of these designs and photographic images of the design.
The lawsuit alleges that most websites that sell fake skirts are operated in China. In addition to Cloudflare, Correction of complaint 500 “Doe” defendants whose real names are unknown are listed. The lawsuit stated that Cloudflare’s terms stipulate that any violation of the law can terminate the service, and “CloudFlare’s policy is to investigate violations of these terms of service and terminate repeat infringers.”
The plaintiff claimed that they found more than 365 infringing websites as Cloudflare users through a supplier called Counterfeit Technology, including cabridals.com, bidbel.com, stydress.com, angelemall.co.nz, jollyfeel.com, russjoan. com, missydress.com.au and livedressy.com. The plaintiff stated that they have sent thousands of removal notices to Cloudflare, and usually send Cloudflare up to four notices about the same infringing website. However, “Cloudflare ignored these notices and received notices on the customer’s website. No action was taken after notification of infringing content.
“Specifically, even after the plaintiff’s removal notice learns about the specific and determined copyright infringement of the infringing website, Cloudflare will continue to cache, mirror, and store copies of the infringing website and infringing content on its data center server. And upon request, send a copy of the infringing content to the visitors of the infringing website,” the revised complaint stated. “Cloudflare’s contribution allows visitors to the infringing website to access and load the infringing website and content faster than the user is forced to access the infringing website and content from the main host without the Cloudflare service.”
The plaintiff argued Cloudflare should terminate the caching service for these websites, block the traffic transmitted to the website through the Cloudflare network, “and reconfigure[ed] Its firewall is set so that users who try to access the infringing domain will be redirected to a blank page. “
Cloudflare: “A lawsuit based on a fundamental misunderstanding”
Cloud flare debate The plaintiffs “sue based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the Cloudflare service, common copyright infringement principles and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, all of which are seeking statutory damages for windfall, which has nothing to do with the harm they claim to have suffered.” Cloudflare told the court that the plaintiffs Victory would be equivalent to “the extension of the principle of joint infringement far beyond its established limits.”
Cloudflare continued: “Cloudflare is completely different from search engines and peer-to-peer networks. [US Court of Appeals for the] The Ninth Circuit found that “significantly magnified other unimportant infringements”. Although Cloudflare’s service can prevent malicious attacks and can at best provide an instant advantage in the loading time of a website that someone has already visited, the service considered before the 9th Circuit actually helped visitors find infringements they would never find otherwise Material. In this case, there is no “simple measure” that Cloudflare has failed to take to prevent further infringements. Unlike hosting service providers, Cloudflare cannot remove allegedly infringing materials from the Internet. There is no doubt that without Cloudflare’s services, these images would still be available and equally accessible on the alleged website. ”