Hacker News Reader

> In this case, the Court established that CDN services can be liable but drew the line at DNS resolvers.

Imho this a misunderstanding of paragraph 9.1 of the Telemediengesetz. The paragraph only forces caching providers to remove or block content once the original content has been blocked or removed.

View on HN

Wouldn't that interpretation work itself out in a number of hours? CDNs are usually just a hot cache no?

If the web server sets an Expires-At header with a date far in the future, none of the rechecking headers like etag, and the CDN endpoint isn't pressed for storage (or the site is requested enough to not be evicted), why would the CDN stop serving it?

Cloudflare makes this a feature, to continue serving your website even if your server is down.

If Cloudflare provides a caching proxy, it isn't really known where the original content is hosted.

They can subpoena Cloudflare to find out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com