La responsabilità degli internet provider per violazioni IP: quella della piattaforma Cloudfare è negata

Secondo i titolari di diritto di autore su vestiti da nozze l’avvalersi della piattaforma Cloudfare per vendere prodotti contraffatti fa sorgere anche responsabilità di questa.

Lo nega la corte del nord Californa Case 3:19-cv-01356-VC del 6 ottobre 2021, MON CHERI BRIDALS c. Cloudfare.

secondo gli attori, <Cloudflare contributes to the underlying copyright infringement by providing infringers with caching, content delivery, and security services.>
Ma il controibutory infringement ricorre solo se <it “(1) has knowledge of
another’s infringement and (2) either (a) materially contributes to or (b) induces that infringement>.

la corte osserva: <Simply providing services to a copyright infringer does not qualify as a “material contribution.” Id. at 79798. Rather, liability in the internet context follows where a party “facilitate[s] access” to infringing websites in such a way that “significantly magnif[ies]” the underlying infringement. Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1172 (9th Cir. 2007); see A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1022 (9th Cir. 2001). A party can also materially contribute to copyright infringement by acting as “an essential step in the infringement process.” Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Solutions, Inc., 658 F.3d 936,  94344 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Visa International, 494 F.3d at 812 (Kozinski, J., dissenting)). >

Pertanto rigetta la domanda.

1 – Gli attori non hanno dato prova per cui una giuria possa dire <that Cloudflare’s performance-improvement services materially contribute to copyright infringement. The plaintiffs’ only evidence of the effects of these services is promotional material from Cloudflare’s website touting the benefits of its services. These general statements do not speak to the effects of Cloudflare on the direct infringement at issue here. For example, the plaintiffs have not offered any evidence that faster load times (assuming they were faster) would be likely to lead to significantly more infringement than would occur without Cloudflare. Without such evidence, no reasonable jury could find that Cloudflare “significantly magnif[ies]” the underlying infringement. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d at 1172. Nor are Cloudflare’s services an “essential step in the infringement process.” Louis Vuitton Malletier, 658 F.3d at 944. If Cloudflare were to remove the infringing material from its cache, the copyrighted image would still be visible to the user; removing material from a cache without removing it from the hosting server would not prevent the direct infringement from occurring. >

La questione della specificità (v. parole in rosso)  è importante -spesso decisiva- anche nel ns. ordinameto sul medesimo problema.

  1. nè Clouddfare rende più difficile l’0individuazione della contraffazione: <Cloudflare’s security services also do not materially contribute to infringement. From the perspective of a user accessing the infringing websites, these services make no difference. Cloudflare’s security services do impact the ability of third parties to identify a website’s hosting provider and the IP address of the server on which it resides. If Cloudflare’s provision of these services made it more difficult for a third party to report incidents of infringement to the web host as part of an effort to get the underlying content taken down, perhaps it could be liable for contributory infringement. But here, the parties agree that Cloudflare informs complainants of the identity of the host in response to receiving a copyright complaint, in addition to forwarding the complaint along to the host provider>.

Stranamente non si menziona la preliminare di rito (o pregiudiziale di merito?) della carenza di azione ex saharbour § 230 CDA: pareva invocabile.

(notizia e link alla sentenza dal blog di Eric Goldman)

Lascia un commento

Il tuo indirizzo email non sarà pubblicato.