Cloudflare is introducing Malware and Adult DNS filters.

[realpetertdm]

Good news for parents and system admins.

 

Bad news for students that just want to visit pornhub dot com on their school computers

[Kisai]

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

 

 

2) I can tell that your inexperience and lack of knowledge shines through here. Cloudflare does not know exactly which sites are malware or phishing. Cloudflare has millions upon millions of websites connected to it. There is no way anyone at Cloudflare actually knows which sites are or aren't using their services. They might know couple of high profile sites using it, but there is no way they have the level of knowledge you're implying they do.

Bull. I've sent DMCA's to CF, they ignore them, or pass them onto the pirates, and then the inbox gets becomes subscribed to 10,000 mailing lists.

 

They have control over these piracy sites, they know they exist, just like the child porn sites, both which they do nothing about.

[Kisai]

Cloudflare is NOT your friend. They are there to make money.

 

https://completemusicupdate.com/article/cloudflare-goes-public-warns-of-threats-posed-by-copyright-infringing-users/

 

 

[TetraSky]

8 hours ago, Kisai said:

Cloudflare is NOT your friend. They are there to make money.

 

https://completemusicupdate.com/article/cloudflare-goes-public-warns-of-threats-posed-by-copyright-infringing-users/

 

 

So... in where in that article does it say Cloudflare is not my friend?

I read that as them making life a pain for overzealots copyright holders who would DMCA the entire internet if it'd bring back the "glorious era" of people needing to buy an entire physical album just for a single song.

 

While Cloudflare does offer a basic free service, of course they are there to make money with their "premium services".
That said, they do also claim to not be selling the info from their DNS services, unlike other providers (like google)

https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/dns/what-is-1.1.1.1/

"1.1.1.1 is not selling user data to advertisers."

And I'd be tempted to believe that. They aren't in the advertising business after all.

[LAwLz]

13 hours ago, Kisai said:

Bull. I've sent DMCA's to CF, they ignore them, or pass them onto the pirates, and then the inbox gets becomes subscribed to 10,000 mailing lists.

 

They have control over these piracy sites, they know they exist, just like the child porn sites, both which they do nothing about.

I think you need to loosen your tinfoil hat a bit. Do you have any idea how big Cloudflare is? I don't know the number of DMCA requests they get every day but it's probably in the hundreds of thousands. I think it's absurd to think that just because they didn't respond to your takedown request that they are deliberately and knowingly letting pirates use your content.

 

Like I said earlier, I don't think you know much about enterprise networks and services, and because of that you're making a lot of incorrect assumptions.

 

 

Also, just because their objective is to make money doesn't mean they are bad. I don't need companies to be my "friend", as long as they provide a good service, which I think Cloudflare does in most cases (except when they for example dropped 8chan for political reasons).

[Kisai]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Also, just because their objective is to make money doesn't mean they are bad. I don't need companies to be my "friend", as long as they provide a good service, which I think Cloudflare does in most cases (except when they for example dropped 8chan for political reasons).

Look, they still protect two very highly prolific piracy sites, and several other *chan type sites. Don't make excuses for them, they have enough of their own BS to bathe in. If they want to be a legitimate company, they need to start by obeying laws and not resting on their "we don't host anything." Yes, they do host something. The criminal site's DNS, otherwise their entire system wouldn't work at all. They know this, they do nothing. Hence going back to the topic at hand, GEE I wonder where they get their list of malware sites from, because those DMCA's clearly aren't doing jack.

 

[nonamesm3]

The malware list is most likely just a list of sites that are harmful or scam sites, fake tech support etc. Not the sites that are questionable for example clean and safe site that host movie downloads. It's not about something being illegal or not it's all about safety and security.

 

And about requesting ”taking down” sites. It may take a long time before anybody even see the request, and then investigation or something happens and... It takes time.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

Look, they still protect two very highly prolific piracy sites, and several other *chan type sites. Don't make excuses for them, they have enough of their own BS to bathe in. If they want to be a legitimate company, they need to start by obeying laws and not resting on their "we don't host anything." Yes, they do host something. The criminal site's DNS, otherwise their entire system wouldn't work at all. They know this, they do nothing. Hence going back to the topic at hand, GEE I wonder where they get their list of malware sites from, because those DMCA's clearly aren't doing jack.

Thing is a site accessible in a country that is hosted in another doesn't mean those laws apply to the other. That is why copyright claims don't work, and pointing at laws being broken, because unless they are within the borders of that jurisdiction then no, laws are actually not being broken.

 

I can't have you arrested for wearing blue because I can see you over the border and here it is illegal to wear blue. Neither is a binocular rental company liable either for allowing me to see far enough to see you wearing blue on the other side of the border.

 

The internet is a great real life demonstration of the bad apple proverb.

[cdtommy]

Their Adult filter has a lot of work to do. It enables YouTube’s restricted mode by default and blocks sites like imgur. It works, but I couldn’t view half the images on Reddit with it enabled 

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, cdtommy said:

 but I couldn’t view half the images on Reddit with it enabled 

And nothing of value was lost, every time I see an image there it is some dumb political or biased meme that people mistake for valid information that can't be supported without invoking a half dozen logical fallacies and ignoring immediately observable facts.

[Kisai]

14 hours ago, leadeater said:

Thing is a site accessible in a country that is hosted in another doesn't mean those laws apply to the other. That is why copyright claims don't work, and pointing at laws being broken, because unless they are within the borders of that jurisdiction then no, laws are actually not being broken.

 

I can't have you arrested for wearing blue because I can see you over the border and here it is illegal to wear blue. Neither is a binocular rental company liable either for allowing me to see far enough to see you wearing blue on the other side of the border.

 

The internet is a great real life demonstration of the bad apple proverb.

You don't get it do you.

 

Cloudflare protects YP. YP doxxes everyone who sends CF a DMCA. They still operate.

 

What does Cloud flare do?

 

 

Their host also did nothing. Cloudflare did nothing, as per usual. and the pirates go along their merry way ripping off Patreon members. To this day I'm still getting mailing list spam from this.

[Kisai]

16 hours ago, nonamesm3 said:

The malware list is most likely just a list of sites that are harmful or scam sites, fake tech support etc. Not the sites that are questionable for example clean and safe site that host movie downloads. It's not about something being illegal or not it's all about safety and security.

 

And about requesting ”taking down” sites. It may take a long time before anybody even see the request, and then investigation or something happens and... It takes time.

They literately do nothing. I made cloudflare aware of this stuff through several channels and all I get is the same line about doing nothing. Someone has to literately be filmed being murdered, being behind cloudflare, before cloudflare will act. 

 

And that's because the only time they react is if you send them the pictures/video of the crime.

[leadeater]

6 hours ago, Kisai said:

You don't get it do you.

No I'm pretty sure you don't get it and Cloudflare's email explained it to you, I explained the situation in the the post you just replied to. Complaining to Cloudflare is legitimately the wrong place to go to for things like DCMA, all they will do and can do is forward it on and inform you that you have sent it to the wrong place.

 

Basically you dialed the wrong number.

 

And as I said unless they are breaking a law in the country where they are actually hosted or that country actually does anything about DCMA at all your options are zero and complaining here about it and specifically about Cloudflare will net you nothing.

[LAwLz]

16 hours ago, cdtommy said:

Their Adult filter has a lot of work to do. It enables YouTube’s restricted mode by default and blocks sites like imgur. It works, but I couldn’t view half the images on Reddit with it enabled 

Well that's the problem with DNS filtering. It can only block domains, not individual files.

 

So it either blocks the entire imgur domain and all of its content or none of imgur. It can't differentiate and block only certain images. So the question becomes, is imgur a site that should or should not be blocked? Since it has quite a lot of porn on it, Cloudflare took the safe route and blocked it, which means even safe for work content hosted on there is blocked.

[LAwLz]

6 hours ago, Kisai said:

Cloudflare protects YP. YP doxxes everyone who sends CF a DMCA. They still operate.

I wouldn't call that doxxing. Pretty sure doxxing involves actually doing research to try and find information, and then publish it.

In this case you're sending your info to "YP" and they publish it.

 

 

6 hours ago, Kisai said:

You don't get it do you.

 

Cloudflare protects YP. YP doxxes everyone who sends CF a DMCA. They still operate.

<image>

 

What does Cloud flare do?

 

<image>

 

<image>

 

Their host also did nothing. Cloudflare did nothing, as per usual. and the pirates go along their merry way ripping off Patreon members. To this day I'm still getting mailing list spam from this.

No, YOU don't get it.

 

Cloudflare is literally not doing anything illegal, at all. Yiff.party is the site doing something wrong by hosting pirated content.

 

Cloudflare is essentially just a carrier for the data hosted by yiff.party. They are about as involved in the piracy happening as your ISP is. Contacting Cloudflare about this makes as much sense as contacting Verizon because "illegal data from yiff.party travels on your network sometimes so therefore you need to help me shut them down". Sorry but (luckily for us) the law doesn't work that way. If you want to take down yiff.party then you need to go to the source and take them down, not some middleman like Cloudflare, or some ISP.

 

If you think of Cloudflare as an ISP I think this whole situation will make a lot more sense to you. Why they aren't acting on your demands and why they are unable to do anything to help you.

[Kisai]

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

 

If you think of Cloudflare as an ISP I think this whole situation will make a lot more sense to you. Why they aren't acting on your demands and why they are unable to do anything to help you.

 

Because Cloudflare is not an ISP. I don't know why tech forums are only willing to give insufferable lip-service to legal matters unless their own users start linking to pirated materials.

 

Cloudflare has numerous cases against it:

 

https://docs.reclaimthenet.org/cloudflare-Allure-Bridals-Justin-Alexander-complaint-200601.pdf

 

Quote

7. CloudFlare had actual knowledge of the specific infringing activity at issue here because anti-counterfeiting vendors retained by Plaintiffs delivered more than seven thousand notifications to CloudFlare of the ongoing infringement being prosecuted herein over the course of three years. To combat this staggering campaign of infringement, Plaintiffs have retained vendors to use computer algorithms and other sophisticated techniques to locate the presence of the Plaintiffs’ Infringing Images on unauthorized websites. The Plaintiffs’ notifications provided CloudFlare with hyperlinks to specific sales pages located on specific Infringing Websites on which the Infringing Website Defendants had displayed the Plaintiffs’ Images.

 

...

13. CloudFlare has never terminated a repeat infringer in response to notifications sent by Plaintiffs or other bridal manufacturers. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (“DMCA”), 17 U.S.C. § 512, provides a “safe harbor” to internet service providers, such as CloudFlare, who have adopted and reasonably implemented policies for the termination of subscribers of the service provider’s system who are repeat infringers. Instead, CloudFlare has responded to each notification with the statement that CloudFlare has passed on the DMCA report to the Infringing Website Defendant and to the company hosting the Infringing Website, even when the hoster is located in a foreign jurisdiction that does not require the hosting company to take any action in response to the receipt of the DMCA take-down notice.

 

And yet, Cloudflare knows exactly what they are protecting when they terminated 8ch

 

https://blog.cloudflare.com/terminating-service-for-8chan/

 

Quote

8chan is among the more than 19 million Internet properties that use Cloudflare's service. We just sent notice that we are terminating 8chan as a customer effective at midnight tonight Pacific Time. The rationale is simple: they have proven themselves to be lawless and that lawlessness has caused multiple tragic deaths. Even if 8chan may not have violated the letter of the law in refusing to moderate their hate-filled community, they have created an environment that revels in violating its spirit.

We do not take this decision lightly. Cloudflare is a network provider. In pursuit of our goal of helping build a better internet, we’ve considered it important to provide our security services broadly to make sure as many users as possible are secure, and thereby making cyberattacks less attractive — regardless of the content of those websites.  Many of our customers run platforms of their own on top of our network. If our policies are more conservative than theirs it effectively undercuts their ability to run their services and set their own policies. We reluctantly tolerate content that we find reprehensible, but we draw the line at platforms that have demonstrated they directly inspire tragic events and are lawless by design. 8chan has crossed that line. It will therefore no longer be allowed to use our services.

 

There by cloudflare's own admission, they know who exactly they provide services to.

 

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1477333/000119312519222176/d735023ds1.htm#toc735023_5

Quote

Activities of our paying and free customers or the content of their websites and other Internet properties could subject us to liability.

Through our network, we provide a wide variety of products that enable our customers to exchange information, conduct business, and engage in various online activities both domestically and internationally. Our customers represent more than 20 million Internet properties, many of which utilize our free self-serve plan. Our customers may use our platform and products in violation of applicable law or in violation of our terms of service or the customer’s own policies. The existing laws relating to the liability of providers of online products and services for activities of their users are highly unsettled and in flux both within the United States and internationally. We may be subject to lawsuits, regulatory enforcement actions, and/or liability arising from the conduct of our customers. For example, we have been named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits, both in the United States and abroad, alleging copyright infringement based on content that is made available through our customers’ websites. There can be no assurance that we will not face similar litigation in the future or that we will prevail in any litigation we may face. An adverse decision in one or more of these lawsuits could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

 

Several U.S. federal statutes may apply to us with respect to various activities of our customers, including: the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the DMCA), which provides recourse for owners of copyrighted material who believe their rights under U.S. copyright law have been infringed on the Internet; and section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (the CDA), which addresses blocking and screening of content on the Internet. Although these and other similar legal provisions provide limited protections from liability for service providers like us, those protections may not be interpreted in a way that applies to us, may be amended in the future, or may not provide us with complete protection from liability claims. If we are found not to be protected by the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA, CDA or other similar laws, or if we are deemed subject to laws in other countries that may not have the same protections or that may impose more onerous obligations on us, we may face claims for substantial damages and our brand, reputation, and financial results may be harmed. Such claims may result in liability that exceeds our ability to pay or our insurance coverage. Even if claims against us are ultimately unsuccessful, defending against such claims will increase our legal expenses and divert management’s attention from the operation of our business, which could materially and adversely impact our business and results of operations.

Policies and laws in this area remain highly dynamic, and we may face additional theories of intermediary liability in various jurisdictions. For example, the European Union (the EU) recently approved a copyright directive that could expose online platforms to liability. And recent laws in Germany (extremist content), Australia (violent content), and Singapore (online falsehoods), as well as other new laws like them, may also expose Internet companies like us to significant liability. We may incur additional costs to comply with these new laws, which may have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

 

Don't expect Cloudflare to be able to keep resting on the idea that they're not responsible for anything. They clearly do have customers in all parts of the world, thereby, subject to liability in those markets.

 

 

Cloudflare's own actions speak the loudest:

- They don't take action on DMCA's, merely pass the responsibility on to the customer under the assumption that the customer is innocent, or the host, who probably isn't in the US (Many pirate sites use France's OVH, who's subject to their own lawsuits, and is the host of YP in 2015 according to CF.)

- DNS hosting is something they are hosting, not proxying. This is something even domestic ISP's are capable of filtering, and by any measure, ISP DNS is caching because they don't host the entire internet's DNS. Cloudflare does host their customer's DNS, and the ability for their service to be protected by DDoS's relies on it under 17 U.S.C. § 512(n). 512(d) easily can be made against CF arguing their DNS is an information tool.

 

Sure, an ISP that is providing only the local caching of DNS might not, but that is not what cloudflare is. If you delete a zone from cloudflare's DNS, the service behind it has not disappeared, and indeed a pirate could move their DNS somewhere else, but that would also entail a lot of maintenance and make their alternative DNS a weak point in DDoS protection. 

 

And CF has shown some willingness to block a DNS if it gets them out of a lawsuit:

https://completemusicupdate.com/article/riaa-and-cloudflare-reach-agreement-over-theoretical-mp3skull-actions/

 

Ultimately they settled out of court to just block the DNS while having nothing actually settled.

 

So they're being sued again

https://completemusicupdate.com/article/riaa-subpoenas-cloudflare-again-over-piracy-sites/

 

I'm more than willing to let the MPAA and RIAA with deep pockets fight cloudflare. 

 

Had SOPA passed, CF was in for a reckoning. But I'm sure no big media company won't push for those changes again now s/

[LAwLz]

4 hours ago, Kisai said:

Because Cloudflare is not an ISP. I don't know why tech forums are only willing to give insufferable lip-service to legal matters unless their own users start linking to pirated materials.

So I take it you haven't seen my previous posts about piracy? I don't even think piracy is bad. So no, I am not one of those people you're describing here.

 

4 hours ago, Kisai said:

Cloudflare has numerous cases against it:

So what?

Lots of legal cases against them does not mean "what they are doing is illegal".

 

 

4 hours ago, Kisai said:

And yet, Cloudflare knows exactly what they are protecting when they terminated 8ch

 

https://blog.cloudflare.com/terminating-service-for-8chan/

I don't think you understand, again. They did not have any legal reason to terminate 8chan. It even says so in their press release. They chose to terminate their work with 8chan on their own volition (something I thought was a bad thing I might add).

"We did this because we wanted to" is not the same as "they have to do this because it's the law".

Terminating 8chan was the former, not the latter.

They also said the laws might change in the future, and they do not feel like going to court and defend their right to provide services to 8chan.

 

And just because they know of one website does not mean they know all other 19.99999999 million websites they provide services for.

Do you even understand what a massive number that is? There is no way in hell they actually know which sites are or aren't using Cloudflare services. They can probably look it up if you give them the URL to something, but I am sure employees at Cloudflare is just as surprised as anyone else when they discover "oh this site uses Cloudflare".

 

 

4 hours ago, Kisai said:

Don't expect Cloudflare to be able to keep resting on the idea that they're not responsible for anything. They clearly do have customers in all parts of the world, thereby, subject to liability in those markets.

Well no, that's not how laws work. You can't impose US laws on let's say Russia, and even if you could it would be the US safe harbor clause of the DMCA which would go into effect, which would protect Cloudflare. Cloudflare as an online service provider is not responsible for what their users use the service for, just like your ISP isn't responsible for what you download using their connection.

 

 

4 hours ago, Kisai said:

- They don't take action on DMCA's, merely pass the responsibility on to the customer under the assumption that the customer is innocent, or the host, who probably isn't in the US (Many pirate sites use France's OVH, who's subject to their own lawsuits, and is the host of YP in 2015 according to CF.)

Which I think is 100% the right thing for them to do. They are a service provider, not the host of the infringing content. Going after Cloudflare makes about as much sense as going after an ISP for "letting pirates use their service for illegal activity", or a car maker for "creating the car that the bank robbers drove away with".

 

4 hours ago, Kisai said:

- DNS hosting is something they are hosting, not proxying. This is something even domestic ISP's are capable of filtering, and by any measure, ISP DNS is caching because they don't host the entire internet's DNS. Cloudflare does host their customer's DNS, and the ability for their service to be protected by DDoS's relies on it under 17 U.S.C. § 512(n). 512(d) easily can be made against CF arguing their DNS is an information tool.

I don't get your point.

So what if some site uses Cloudflare's nameservers? I don't get what that has to do with anything. You can't sue "Internetstiftelsen i Sverige" because Thepiratebay was hosted using one of their .se domains, right? See how ridiculous that argument is?

Going after Cloudflare because "yiff.party might be using their nameserver" (which might not even be the case if YP uses a CNAME setup instead) is just ridiculous. How come you haven't gone after "Global Registry Services Ltd", which owns the TLD ".party"?

 

 

4 hours ago, Kisai said:

And CF has shown some willingness to block a DNS if it gets them out of a lawsuit:

https://completemusicupdate.com/article/riaa-and-cloudflare-reach-agreement-over-theoretical-mp3skull-actions/

Hey, notice how in that article the RIAA did not go after Cloudflare, but instead went after MP3Skull in their lawsuit?

Also, as you might have noticed that the court specifically stressed that they did not want to rule whether or not Cloudflare was in "active concert or participation" with MP3Skull. That is to say, the court never answered the question if they deemed the reverse proxy hosting as actually participating with distributing illegal content.

 

Also, the entire copyright system (especially in the US) is garbage so what the US courts rules is not exactly something I care too much about. The entire system is extremely corrupt. But even though it is corrupt it did not come to the conclusion you're hoping for.

 

 

5 hours ago, Kisai said:

So they're being sued again

https://completemusicupdate.com/article/riaa-subpoenas-cloudflare-again-over-piracy-sites/

Again, this is not what you want. You want Cloudflare to cut off service to yiff.party.

What the RIAA is asking Cloudflare to do is reveal information about their customers.

 

"Give us info on this site" and "stop having this site as a client" are two very different things. RIAA wants the former, you want the latter.

 

 

5 hours ago, Kisai said:

Had SOPA passed, CF was in for a reckoning. But I'm sure no big media company won't push for those changes again now s/

And thank God SOPA did not pass.

What a terrible and horrendous bill that was. It would have allowed for example me to take down the entire LTT forum if I wanted. You know something is bad when Microsoft, Apple, Adobe and Microsoft all are against the same thing.

If RIAA and MPAA had their ways, we would probably not even have an Internet and blank tapes would be more strictly regulated than marijuana.

[Kisai]

58 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

So I take it you haven't seen my previous posts about piracy? I don't even think piracy is bad. So no, I am not one of those people you're describing here.

 

 

Good, then, I don't need to ever read your posts again on this matter. You willfully ignore copyright, and it's in your own interests to see infringement continue unimpeded. Step off.

 

I've told my own clients not to bother sending DMCA's to CF anymore because it will just result in being Doxxed by the immature children running piracy sites when CF inevitably sends that information to the pirates who then post it publicly or sign them up for mailing lists.

 

The attitude taken by CF is no different than that of eBay, where they preferred to do nothing, no matter how many times they were notified that something was illegal, fake, counterfeit, child porn, snuff. The staff don't want to be subjected to that material, and the people who are in any management position don't want to be seen making money from fake materials, but also don't care if they make money off things that they haven't lost a lawsuit on. There's enough horrible 

 

The DMCA was designed to take down copyright infringement. Period. Various other countries have written their own laws modeled on it. But included the safe harbor provision because the internet was something that the politicians didn't have a good handle on, and still do not. You lose the safe harbor provision if you actively know your services are used to commit copyright infringement, and do nothing about it. That's the entire point. The Recording and Movie industry know what content is theirs and can easily provide fingerprints of their media to the likes of Youtube and Twitch to prevent their stuff from being uploaded unaltered, which is what DMCA's are for. 

 

Pirate sites like YP and 8M have their users subscribe to artists/art-sites/porn/etc steal the content, and then re-upload it to their service, and then hide behind Cloudflare knowing that Cloudflare will never discontinue service to them, and that their host will never do anything if they're hosted by an ISP. The DMCA equates yiffparty and 8muses with that of youtube and tumblr, of which both of the latter accept DMCA's because they're a legitimate service. yiffparty and 8muses exist only to steal content and there is no legitimate content to even dignify a "well what if it has non-infringing uses" argument. There are a bunch of image-sharing/video-sharing sites that have DMCA contacts, despite 100% of their content being stolen, and they rely on the copyright holders being unaware of their site's existance, so if the site gets too popular, a new site pops up and takes it's place when the old one is abandoned.

 

So what's the solution? Well discontinuing the media that the pirates are after is what is happening. We tend to get questions frequently about why certain things haven't been updated, those things just increase the amount of piracy on the whole.

 

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

So I take it you haven't seen my previous posts about piracy? I don't even think piracy is bad. So no, I am not one of those people you're describing here.

What I think is more important is for every country other than the US copyright claims is a civil matter not a criminal matter so comparing instances such as copyright and DMCA to criminal offences at an international scale, because that is the internet, is highly improper.

 

If I were the owner of Cloudflare there are things I would handle slightly differently when it comes to criminal matters or human rights types of things but I would only be doing that from an ideological point of view and reasoning, exercising my choice as the owner. However stepping in to an arbiter position like that is a minefield so doing it for civil matters is completely out of the question. I ,as Cloudflare, am not your court room or judge and will not settle matters at your request.

 

48 minutes ago, Kisai said:

The DMCA was designed to take down copyright infringement. Period.

And those are to be sent to the infringing person, not Cloudflare. You are not allowed to take down an entire site because something on there is infringing your copyright, that is not a right you actually have. You cannot argue that it should happen on the basis that everything on the site is copyright infringement because you only have claim over your property, you can only demand your property is taken down no one else's.

 

48 minutes ago, Kisai said:

I've told my own clients not to bother sending DMCA's to CF

Correct, because it was the wrong place to send it in the first place. I'm surprised Cloudflare hasn't setup a mailbox called dmca@cloudflare.com that just sends everything to trash or just bounces it back with "Sorry wrong number".

[mr moose]

I can actually see the argument against cloudflare here,  But i can also see why cloudflare is not in a position to shutdown a website. 

[Kisai]

19 hours ago, leadeater said:

 

And those are to be sent to the infringing person, not Cloudflare. You are not allowed to take down an entire site because something on there is infringing your copyright, that is not a right you actually have. You cannot argue that it should happen on the basis that everything on the site is copyright infringement because you only have claim over your property, you can only demand your property is taken down no one else's.

 

Correct, because it was the wrong place to send it in the first place. I'm surprised Cloudflare hasn't setup a mailbox called dmca@cloudflare.com that just sends everything to trash or just bounces it back with "Sorry wrong number".

 

So tell, me:

- Cloudflare does nothing, and does not care

- The ISP (eg OVH) does nothing, and does not care

- The owner of the site, knows exactly what they are doing, and does not care. Even goes as far as saying "don't bother, we're hosted outside the US"

 

The ideal solution is CF being held liable for it, since they're the ones profiting from the piracy, regardless of who the real host or owner is. If the owner and host won't act, they should as they're the US presence under which the DMCA applies.

 

Speaking of Cloudflare's business interests:

https://www.zdnet.com/article/cloudflare-dumps-recaptcha-as-google-intends-to-charge-for-its-use/

 

Quote

Internet web infrastructure company Cloudflare announced plans to drop support for Google's reCAPTCHA service and move to a new bot detection provider named hCaptcha.

 

Cloudflare co-founder and CEO Matthew Prince said the move was motivated by Google's future plans to charge for the use of the reCAPTCHA service, which would have "added millions of dollars in annual costs" for his company, costs that Cloudflare would have undoubtedly had to unload on its customers.

 

"That is entirely within their right," Prince said yesterday. "Cloudflare, given our volume, no doubt imposed significant costs on the reCAPTCHA service, even for Google."

 

"If the value of the image classification training did not exceed those costs, it makes perfect sense for Google to ask for payment for the service they provide," he added.

 

[StDragon]

A long time ago used to work for a *major* ISP once (I won't name names). I was a TSR (Technical Support Rep) that was basically a call center for technical support.

 

One day while on break I noticed large stacks of paper on the conference room table. I joked to my direct supervisor "I hope one of those contains my annual review for a raise". She looked at me with a straight face and said "I wish. Nope, that's a stack of subpoenas. We're ordered by law to provide a list of our subscribers based on the IP addresses listed and the date/time to whom they belonged too"

 

 

So basically what was happening is that content will being hosted out of Honey Pot servers where it would then record illegal bit torrent activity and then attempt to sue individual subscribers. I don't think they ever expected to see this to trial, rather settle out of court by scaring subscribers into paying a settlement fee. I'll never truly know, just a guess.

 

Point is, don't pirate! And if you get caught, it's not like your ISP wanted to rat you out, rather they had no legal choice.

[LAwLz]

42 minutes ago, Kisai said:

So tell, me:

- Cloudflare does nothing, and does not care

- The ISP (eg OVH) does nothing, and does not care

- The owner of the site, knows exactly what they are doing, and does not care. Even goes as far as saying "don't bother, we're hosted outside the US"

 

The ideal solution is CF being held liable for it, since they're the ones profiting from the piracy, regardless of who the real host or owner is. If the owner and host won't act, they should as they're the US presence under which the DMCA applies.

Well, you have to go after the owner. Again, you can't sue Volkswagen because someone robbed your house and drove a Golf away. Nor can you sue the road company who built the roads they drove on.

And you alone can't take down an entire site because you have the rights to some material on it, just like I can't take down linustechtips.com just because it might have pirated content on it that I own.

 

There are just so many layers of "you're wrong" to this that it's incredible. Cloudflare is not your enemy, yiff.party is. Stop going after Cloudflare, because it makes no sense.

 

 

 

42 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Speaking of Cloudflare's business interests:

https://www.zdnet.com/article/cloudflare-dumps-recaptcha-as-google-intends-to-charge-for-its-use/

What does that have to do with anything? It feels like you're scraping the bottom of the barrel to find dirt on Cloudflare but to me it comes off as desperate.

[Kisai]

On 4/9/2020 at 12:31 PM, LAwLz said:

Well, you have to go after the owner. Again, you can't sue Volkswagen because someone robbed your house and drove a Golf away. Nor can you sue the road company who built the roads they drove on.

And you alone can't take down an entire site because you have the rights to some material on it, just like I can't take down linustechtips.com just because it might have pirated content on it that I own.

 

There are just so many layers of "you're wrong" to this that it's incredible. Cloudflare is not your enemy, yiff.party is. Stop going after Cloudflare, because it makes no sense.

 

You are desperately grasping at straws to excuse Cloudflare's behavior. Cloudflare knows the identity of the pirate site, where they are hosted, but neither of those pieces of information are useful if they are outside the US, and thus that puts the liability on Cloudflare for continuing to do business with criminals. There is a reason why Cloudflare wants people to use their DNS system, because that ensures those criminals they know about are never exposed.

[leadeater]

19 minutes ago, Kisai said:

and thus that puts the liability on Cloudflare for continuing to do business with criminals.

Not it doesn't, you want it to and you wanting it to doesn't mean it does. What it means is you have no options and you don't like that, you're going to need a law change to fix that issue.

 

And again unless they are breaking laws in the country the server is in they are not breaking laws. You in your country accessing it could be breaking your laws but that is of zero concern to the website hosters. Seeing something that is illegal in your country doesn't make it illegal or a crime in another country.