Cloudflare is not responsible for the Hawk Counter Sites
Cloudflare is not responsible for copyright infringement on websites that use the content delivery service and security, a federal judge ruled.
Cloudflare used to be charged in November 2018 by Mon Cheri Bridals and Maggie Sottero Designs, two manufacturers and sellers of wedding dresses that Cloudflare blames are guilty of contributing copyright infringement because it did not terminate services for websites that violated the designs of copyright of the creators. The companies asked for a jury trial, but Judge Vince Chhabria yesterday granted Cloudflare’s motion for summary judgment in a judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Chhabria reported that the perpetrators were harmed “by the proliferation of counterfeit vendors selling knockout clothes using images copyrighted by the plaintiffs” and that “they followed the offenders in various ways. actions, but nothing has been done – every time a website is successfully completed, a new one takes over. ”Chhabria continues,“ In an effort to more effectively remove the violation, complainants now continue to a service common to most infringers: Cloudflare.The complainants claim that Cloudflare has contributed to underlying copyright infringement by providing infringers with caching, content delivery, and security services.Because the a fair jury cannot-at least on this record-conclude that Cloudflare material contributed to the underlying copyright infringement, the plaintiffs ’motion for in sentencing the summary judgment was denied and Cloudflare’s motion for summary judgment was granted. ”
While the verdict resolved the central question of the lawsuit in favor of Cloudflare, the judge scheduled a case management conference for Oct. 27 “to discuss what remains of the case.”
Hundreds of Counterfeiting Websites
The companies’ lawsuit says they are “two of the largest manufacturers and wholesalers of wedding dresses and occasion wear in social activity in the United States” and “have created many of the most unique and original wedding and social issues of the occasion dress. ” They own the copyrights for the designs and for the photo designs of the designs.
Most of the websites selling fake versions of the clothes operate from China, the lawsuit said. In addition to Cloudflare, a revised complaint listed 500 “Doe” defendants whose real names were not known. The lawsuit alleges that Cloudflare’s terms of service state that any violation of the law justifies termination of service and that “CloudFlare’s policy is to investigate violations of these terms of service and terminate repeaters. violated. “
The complainants said they used a vendor called Counterfeit Technology to find more than 365 infringing Cloudflare user websites, including cabridals.com, bidbel.com, stydress.com, angelemall. co.nz, jollyfeel.com, russjoan.com, missydress .com.au, and livedressy.com. The complainants said they sent Cloudflare thousands of noted removals, and often up to four notices about the same infringing sites, but “Cloudflare ignored these notices and did not taken action after being notified of the infringing content on its clients ’websites.
“Specifically, despite being aware of specific known copyright infringement acts on infringing websites through notices to obtain complaints, Cloudflare continues to cache, mirror, and store to a copy of the infringing websites and the infringing content on its data center servers, and to send requested copies of the infringing content to visitors of the infringing websites, ”as also complaint. “Cloudflare’s contributions allow Internet browsers of visitors to infringing websites to access and load infringing websites and content more quickly than if the user were forced to access the infringing websites and content from a primary host without Cloudflare’s services. “
The complainants argued that Cloudflare would have ended caching services on websites, blocked traffic traveling through Cloudflare’s network of websites, ”and reconfigur[ed] its firewall settings so that users attempting to access the infringing domain will be taken to a blank page. “
Cloudflare: ‘Lawsuit Based on a Unreasonable Basis’
Cloudflare arguing that the plaintiffs “brought this lawsuit based on a fundamental disagreement with Cloudflare’s services, the copyright infringing doctrine, and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, all in pursuit of a statutory windfall damages that has nothing to do with the damage they claim they have suffered. ”A victory for the plaintiffs could come with“ an extension of the doctrine of breach of contribution beyond its prescribed limits, ”Cloudflare said in short.
Cloudflare continues: “Cloudflare is nothing like search engines and peer-to-peer networks that [US Court of Appeals for the] The Nine Circuit was found to be ’cause exaggerated if not otherwise material violations.’ While Cloudflare’s services protect against malicious attacks and preferably provide a split-second advantage in the load time of a website that a single person has already visited, the services were previously considered Ninth Circuit really helps visitors find offensive material they might not otherwise find. Nor is there a ‘simple measure’ that Cloudflare will fail to do to prevent further violations in this case. Unlike hosting providers, Cloudflare cannot remove allegedly infringing material from the Internet, and there is no question that the images will remain usable and equally accessible to the accused websites without Cloudflare services. ”