CloudFlare Enjoined from Aiding Infringers: Internet Unbroken
cpip.gmu.edu
cpip.gmu.edu
> The question was whether these acts were passive such that > CloudFlare was not in “active concert or participation” > with the defendants. Judge Nathan held that the services > CloudFlare provided to the defendants were anything but > passive
That does lead into "is serving DNS for a domain actively aiding infringement?" which is much better question.
I guess I framed my comment wrong when trying to hold back my rage :)
To clarify my thoughts about it, DNS / caching / optimizing to me is an infrastructure-like service. CF is not an ISP, but it is a in-between that simply provides services to help keep sites online and fast. CloudFlare is content-agnostic in this way.
I guess the weakness of my argument in that regard is that if CF is confronted with information showing that their service, even passively, is aiding illegal activity, and they refuse to intervene or investigate- that becomes a problem. Because even with the service being passive, it's still aiding (without intent), but their refusal to intervene makes it seem like they have some intent to continue aiding the activity.
Man, what a mess of words this turned out to be, sorry.