Not Cloudflare A federal judge ruled yesterday that websites are responsible for copyright infringement of websites that use its content-distribution and security services.
Cloudflare was sued by Mann Cherry Bridals and Maggie Sotero Designs in November 2018, with two wedding dress manufacturers and vendors alleging that Cloudflare contributors were guilty of copyright infringement because it violated the copyrighted design services of dressmakers. The companies wanted a jury trial, but Judge Vince Chabria yesterday granted Cloudflare’s offer for a summary judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Chabria noted that “the proliferation of counterfeit retailers has hurt clothing manufacturers who sell knock-off clothing using plaintiffs’ copyrighted images” and they have “gone after violators in various actions, but to no avail – each time a website has been successfully shut down.” A new one takes its place. “Chabria added,” In an effort to stop the infringement more effectively, the plaintiff is now pursuing a common service to many infringers: Cloudflare. Since a reasonable jury ন্ত at least on this record could not conclude that Cloudflare contributed to materially inherent copyright infringement, the plaintiff’s offer for a brief trial was rejected and Cloudflare’s offer for a brief trial was granted.
Although the ruling resolves the central question of the case on behalf of Cloudflare, the judge scheduled a case management conference on October 2 to “discuss the remaining issues in the case.”
Hundreds of fake websites
The companies’ lawsuit says they are “two of the largest manufacturers and wholesalers of wedding dresses and social event wear in the United States” and have created “many unique and original wedding and social occasion dress patterns in the world.” They own the copyright for that design and the photographic images of the design.
According to the lawsuit, most of the websites selling counterfeit versions of clothing operate from China. In addition to CloudFlare, a revised complaint lists 500 “doe” defendants whose real names were not known. The lawsuit alleges that the CloudFlare Terms justify the termination of any breach of the law and that “Cloudflare’s policy is to investigate violations of the Terms of Service and to stop repeat violators.”
Plaintiffs say they used a vendor called Fake Technology to find more than 5 infringing websites, including cabridals.com, bidbel.com, stydress.com, angelemall.co.nz, jollyfeel.com, russjoan.com, missydress Cloudflare user. .com.au, and liveressy.com. Plaintiffs say they have sent thousands of removal notices to CloudFlare, and often four notices about the same infringing sites, but “CloudFlare ignored these notices and took no action after being notified of infringing content on its clients’ websites.”
“Specifically, CloudFlare continues to cache, mirror and save a copy of the infringing website and the infringing content to the infringing website’s violators, even after the plaintiff’s removal notice identifies specific, copyright infringement activities by the infringing website.” The complaint said. “CloudFlare contributions allow visitors to access and load Internet browsers on infringing websites and content if the user is forced to access the infringing websites and content from CloudFlare’s services that are not the primary host.”
The plaintiffs argued that caching services on these CloudFlare websites should be discontinued, traffic to the websites through the CloudFlare network should be stopped, “and reconfigured[ed] Its firewall settings are redirected to a blank page so that users try to access the infringing domain. “
Cloudflare: ‘Case based on a fundamental misunderstanding’
Cloudflare argued that the plaintiffs “brought the lawsuit based on Cloudflare’s services, contributing copyright infringement doctrine, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, all for a statutory indemnity that has nothing to do with the damages they claim.” Cloudflare told the court that a victory for the plaintiffs “transcends its established limits to the doctrine of contribution violation.”
Cloudflare continues: “Cloudflare is nothing like a search engine and a peer-to-peer network that [US Court of Appeals for the] The ninth circuit ‘significantly increases otherwise incomplete violations.’ While CloudFlare’s services protect against malicious attacks and provide split-second benefits to the loading time of a website that someone is already visiting, the services previously considered by Ninth Circuit actually helped viewers find infringing material they would never find otherwise. There is no ‘common measure’ that Cloudflare has failed to prevent further violations in this case. Unlike hosting providers, CloudFlare has not been able to remove alleged infringing content from the Internet, and there is no question that those images will be available and equally accessible on alleged websites without CloudFlare’s service. ”