Cloudflare is not Responsible for copyright infringement of websites using content delivery and security services, a federal judge ruled yesterday.
It was Cloudflare in november 2018 by Mon Cheri Bridals and Maggie Sottero Designs, two wedding dress manufacturers and sellers who have claimed Cloudflare is guilty of common copyright infringement because it did not terminate the services of websites that infringe on tailors’ copyrighted designs. The companies sought a jury trial, but Judge Vince Chabria yesterday agreed to Cloudflare’s request for an expedited ruling in Rule In the US District Court for the Northern District of California.
Chapria noted that clothing makers have been hit “by the proliferation of counterfeit retailers selling counterfeit dresses using the plaintiffs’ copyrighted images” and that they “pursue violators in a raft of actions, to no avail – every time a website has been successfully closed, a resolution Replaced by a new site. Chabria continued, “In an effort to more effectively crack down on infringement, plaintiffs are now turning to a common service for many infringers: Cloudflare. Plaintiffs claim Cloudflare contributes to fundamental copyright infringement by providing infringers with caching, content delivery, and security services. A reasonable juror could not – at least on this record – conclude that Cloudflare was materially contributing to the underlying copyright infringement, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was dismissed and Cloudflare’s motion for summary judgment was granted.”
While the ruling resolves the central question of the lawsuit in Cloudflare’s favour, the judge has scheduled a case management conference for October 27 “to discuss the remainder of the case.”
Hundreds of fake websites
The two companies’ lawsuit said they are “two of the largest manufacturers and wholesalers of wedding and social event wear in the United States” and have “developed many of the world’s most unique styles of wedding and social dress.” They own the copyrights to those designs and the photographs of the designs.
The lawsuit said that most of the websites selling fake versions of the dresses operated from China. In addition to Cloudflare, there is a file Modified complaint 500 defendants from “Do” are listed, whose real names are unknown. The lawsuit said that Cloudflare’s terms of service state that any violation of law justifies termination and that “CloudFlare’s policy is to investigate violations of these Terms of Service and terminate repeat offenders.”
Prosecutors said they used a seller called Counterfeit Technology to find more than 365 infringing websites from Cloudflare users, including cabridals.com, bidbel.com, stydress.com, angelemall.co.nz, jollyfeel.com, russjoan.com and missydress. com.au, and liveressy.com. Prosecutors said they sent Cloudflare thousands of, and often up to four, takedown notices about the same infringing sites, but “Cloudflare ignored these notices and took no action after being notified of the infringing content on its customers’ websites.
Specifically, even after specific and specific acts of copyright infringement by infringing websites are known through claimant takedown notices, Cloudflare continues to store, mirror, and store a copy of the infringing websites and the infringing content on its datacenter servers, and to send copies of the offending content upon request to visitors to the offending websites.” “Cloudflare’s contributions to Internet browsers allow visitors to offending websites to access and load offending websites and content faster than if the user was forced to access the offending websites and content from the primary host that Cloudflare’s services are absent.”
The plaintiffs argued that Cloudflare should have terminated caching services for these sites, blocking traffic through the Cloudflare network to websites,” and reconfiguring[ed] Its firewall settings so that users trying to access the offending domain are redirected to a blank page.”
Cloudflare: “A lawsuit based on a fundamental misunderstanding”
Cloud Flare argue That the plaintiffs “brought this lawsuit based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Cloudflare’s services, the contributing copyright infringement doctrine, and the DMCA, all in pursuit of unanticipated legal damages unrelated to the harm they claim to have suffered,” said Cloudflare. For the court, the plaintiffs’ victory would be an “extension of the doctrine of joint abuse beyond its defined limits.”
Cloudflare continued: “Cloudflare is unlike any other peer-to-peer search engines and networks [US Court of Appeals for the] The Ninth Circuit found immaterial abuses to be “significantly amplified.” While Cloudflare’s services protect against malicious attacks and at most give a fraction of a second to the load time of a website that someone is actually visiting, the services that the Ninth Circle considered actually helped visitors find offending material they wouldn’t otherwise find. There is also no “simple action” that Cloudflare failed to take to prevent further abuse in this case. Unlike hosting providers, Cloudflare has not been able to remove the allegedly infringing material from the Internet, and there is no doubt that these images would still have been available and equally accessible on the accused websites without Cloudflare’s services. ”