Content delivery network (CDN) CloudFlare has been under pressure from the RIAA for delivering its service to Grooveshark before the streaming music service shut down. Now it’s hitting back against a temporary restraining order targeted at it by the US music body forcing it to stop serving the site in its relaunched form. CloudFlare’s argument is that it is “a nonparty that provides a service to the Defendants [Grooveshark] but takes no action to further their allegedly infringing conduct and cannot control, influence, or stop it” – something it says means the restraining order cannot be enforced. “Active concert requires action, and CloudFlare has taken none. Participation means assisting a defendant in evading an injunction. CloudFlare has not so assisted defendants and, in fact, has no ability to stop the alleged infringement. Even if CloudFlare—and every company in the world that provides similar services—took proactive steps to identify and block the Defendants, the website would remain up and running at its current domain name…” The outcome of this particular legal spat could have an important impact on future piracy shutdowns.
Tools: platforms to help you reach new audiences
Tools: Kaiber
In the year or so since its launch, AI startup Kaiber has been making waves,…