Business Report Urges Cloudflare to Terminate Accounts of Pirate Sites - Kiwi's slip-and-slide effect

  • 🔧 At about Midnight EST I am going to completely fuck up the site trying to fix something.

by Ernesto Van der Sar

A new whitepaper released by brand protection company Corsearch shows that half of all the pirate sites it flagged use Cloudflare's services. The Internet infrastructure company clearly stands out and should do more to address the issue, the report suggests. Banning domains that are removed or demoted by Google could be a good start, Corsearch notes.

Popular Internet infrastructure service Cloudflare has come under a lot of pressure from copyright holders in recent years.

The company offers its services to millions of sites. This includes multinationals, governments, but also some of the world’s leading pirate sites.

These sites have proven to be quite a headache for the San Francisco-based tech company. Ideally, however, the company prefers not to be the arbiter of what content is allowed and what is not.

The Curation Conundrum​

The company reiterated its position a few months ago. To shield itself from escalating removal demands, including plain censorship, Cloudflare said it would no longer terminate customers without a court order.

Just days after taking this hardened approach, Cloudflare reversed its position. Citing an immediate threat to human life, CEO Matthew Prince justified blocking access to the controversial Kiwi Farms site.

There’s no question that death threats are in a league of their own, but copyright holders would also like to see more cooperation from Cloudflare. This call is backed by a recent report from brand protection company Corsearch.

Corsearch is no stranger to copyright issues. The company works with several of the largest rightsholders and its subsidiary Incopro has produced a wealth of piracy research, some in collaboration with governments. In this case, the research focuses on Cloudflare.

Whirepaper: Cloudflare & Pirate Sites​

The overall tenor of the whitepaper is that when compared to other intermediaries, Cloudflare appears to be linked to a relatively high percentage of torrent sites. Of all the sites flagged by Corsearch, which are all demoted by Google as well, half use Cloudflare’s CDN service.

“Cloudflare is not the host of these websites. However, the host is not readily identifiable and Cloudflare is most closely associated with 49% of websites notified for delisting by Corsearch,” the report notes.

pirate-cf.png

There’s no denying that Cloudflare stands out but it should be noted that the company is not a hosting provider, like the others on the list. In addition to Cloudflare, these pirate sites may use Amazon or Google’s services as well, even though that’s not immediately visible.

Besides pirate sites, the report also links Cloudflare to trademarking. Again, it is the most common online intermediary for these outlets.

Technically, Cloudflare can’t take these sites offline, as they are hosted elsewhere. However, Corsearch believes that the company could and should do more to tackle the piracy problem. And it has some ideas on where to start.

“Cloudflare is uniquely positioned to do more to protect rights holders and substantially to suppress the scourge of online piracy and counterfeiting,” the report reads.

“We are asking Cloudflare to do more to support rights owners by voluntarily implementing certain measures. These measures are reasonable, proportionate and if adopted by Cloudflare will have a significant impact.”

Recommendations​

Corsearch doesn’t have just one, but a whole list of suggestions for the CDN provider. Most of these boil down to terminating services to sites that others deem to be infringing. Those include the following;

– Cloudflare should terminate accounts of sites that are demoted or deindexed by Google search.

– Cloudflare should withdraw services to any site that’s deemed unlawful by a recognized law enforcement body or the ‘Infringing Website List’ (IWL).

– Cloudflare should ban sites that are on the US Trade Representative’s annual notorious markets list.

– Cloudflare should stop working with sites that are added to the European Union’s Counterfeit and Piracy Watchlist.

What Can Go Wrong?​

While it’s understandable that rightsholders want Cloudflare to do more, these suggestions are not without issues of their own. The IWL, for example, is private and can’t be scrutinized by the public. As reported recently, this includes domains of organizations such as GitHub, Blogspot, and a Portuguese University.

The USTR’s Notorious Market lists and the EU’s Piracy Watchlist also have various entries that deserve some nuance. These include the Chinese Wechat, which has over a billion users, as well as Russia’s largest social media platform VK.

Up until recently, USTR even listed Amazon’s foreign online stores as “notorious markets”. Does that mean that these shouldn’t be allowed to operate?

Given Cloudflare’s previous comments, it seems unlikely that the company will start banning accounts left and right. That being said, Corsearch also has some other suggestions that may be more realistic.

The report proposes a robust “Know-Your-Client” policy, for example. In addition, it calls for a comprehensive transparency report where Cloudflare would disclose which domain names are flagged by rightsholders and how often.
 
Where's that video...



This is pretty much exactly what Josh warned about. Once the trail has been blazed and people realize how to get stuff blown off the Internet, there's nothing stopping them. First it will be sites like this and copyright infringing sites. And then it will be alt-news sites, opinion pages and personal blogs.
 
What is Corsearch?

"Corsearch: Intelligent Trademark & Brand Protection Solutions"

Lol, honestly, this article does not really mean shit. It's PR from a company dedicated to brand protection.

This most likely will lead nowhere. Their recommandations don't mean shit.

I too could make a study like that on how Cloudflare is widely used among "whatever controversial BS" and pay people to mention it on their websites. And nothing would change.
 
Where's that video...


View attachment 4308939
This is pretty much exactly what Josh warned about. Once the trail has been blazed and people realize how to get stuff blown off the Internet, there's nothing stopping them. First it will be sites like this and copyright infringing sites. And then it will be alt-news sites, opinion pages and personal blogs.
I could see that being the spark that sends our whole society off the rails because once all the wingnuts lose their online venting places they might start living out their anger irl.
 
That slippery slope sure turned out to be a ravenous ravine didn't it.
Who could’ve seen this coming?


(Don't give Ernesto a hard time, his criticism of Kiwi Farms is about as mild as it gets.)
 
I hope Mathew Prince's company burns around him. Lick the boot, your company will be replaced.
He literally has no excuse anymore to protecting sites with illegal content. It all hinged on not being an arbiter but clearly they can choose now, which opens up all sorts of issues for them.
 
If you want to take down online piracy thats fine but lets also make sure these giant media megacorps aren't abusing tax laws and copyright laws
The problem with "taking down online piracy" is that it never stops at just that. They always use the laws as an excuse to go too far. The same laws would quickly be used to take down places like KiwiFarms because we host images and documents that put them in a bad light.

Plus they won't go after the major pirate groups anyway. They'll go after poor little Virginia Sue who downloaded a pirated copy of the latest The Sims expansion so she could play with her middle class friends.
 
Last edited:
What is Corsearch?

"Corsearch: Intelligent Trademark & Brand Protection Solutions"

Lol, honestly, this article does not really mean shit. It's PR from a company dedicated to brand protection.

This most likely will lead nowhere. Their recommandations don't mean shit.

I too could make a study like that on how Cloudflare is widely used among "whatever controversial BS" and pay people to mention it on their websites. And nothing would change.

A handful of motivated troons could harass CF into removing DDOS protection from a website, but you think a group with a thousand employees, over 5000 corporate & legal clients (according to LinkedIn), and offices in the EU, USA, and China won't be able to come up with that kind of energy?

CF took down KF due to "imminent threat of loss of life," i.e. they claimed a crime was about to happen, and they heroically intervened to stop it. So, well, it offers protection to websites that are daily involved in crimes, ranging from petty breach of copyright & IP theft to significant cybercrimes and child abuse.

A lot of lawyers are looking at this and saying, "Wait, why some crimes and not others? Why this 'imminent loss of life' threat with zero evidence and not crimes with ample documentary evidence?"
 
A handful of motivated troons could harass CF into removing DDOS protection from a website, but you think a group with a thousand employees, over 5000 corporate & legal clients (according to LinkedIn), and offices in the EU, USA, and China won't be able to come up with that kind of energy?

CF took down KF due to "imminent threat of loss of life," i.e. they claimed a crime was about to happen, and they heroically intervened to stop it. So, well, it offers protection to websites that are daily involved in crimes, ranging from petty breach of copyright & IP theft to significant cybercrimes and child abuse.

A lot of lawyers are looking at this and saying, "Wait, why some crimes and not others? Why this 'imminent loss of life' threat with zero evidence and not crimes with ample documentary evidence?"
I am not saying that this does not set a worrying precedent, but I think that Cloudflare is also very well aware of how this will affect them if they bend the knee to private companies, and it's way worse than trannies.

The big difference I see with the KF situation is that this is 100% corporate. It's not a social movement, it's not something people care about or will get behind. Nobody else but copyright holders is worried about this.

As long as what Cloudflare is doing is legal, they won't give up an inch, no matter what happened with KF.

This could very well go tits up, but as it stands right now, giving this shitty report some attention is the worst thing people can do.
 
I am not saying that this does not set a worrying precedent, but I think that Cloudflare is also very well aware of how this will affect them if they bend the knee to private companies, and it's way worse than trannies.

The big difference I see with the KF situation is that this is 100% corporate. It's not a social movement, it's not something people care about or will get behind. Nobody else but copyright holders is worried about this.

As long as what Cloudflare is doing is legal, they won't give up an inch, no matter what happened with KF.

Matthew Prince broke the minute somebody pressured him the right way, at the right time. If Liz Dong-Gone figured out how to do it, then lawyers being paid a few hundred an hour to find a pressure point will figure it out, too. Cloudflare is a publicly traded corporation. It has pressure points that privately held companies don't, due to having a board, legal obligations to the fiduciary interests of shareholders, and the like.

Just a few things they could do:
  • Work with Blackrock to lower CF's ESG score for enabling piracy & cybercrimes. This hurts CF's ability to raise capital.
  • Work with individual board members to demand answers for why Matthew Prince uses corporate action to take action against "imminent threats to human life," but not other illegal content. Maneuver these hearings to either remove Prince for misusing corporate assets and replace him with someone compliant, or force him to adopt a stricter policy on illegal content.
  • Lobby Congress to haul in Prince for hearings on the specific, criminal content CF hosts.
  • Lobby the EU to enact regulations requiring services like CF to deplatform illegal content.
  • Sue CF for enabling criminal content - they've already demonstrated they have an internal mechanism to remove it
  • Convince CF's biggest customers to switch providers unless CF takes action to protect their IP, deplatforms DDOS services, etc.
  • Use your imagination!
The point isn't any of these specific ideas will be the way they break CF. The point is, they know CF will be broken, and they will keep probing until they're the ones, not some dickless freak who never washes his make-up off, who are doing the breaking.

This could very well go tits up, but as it stands right now, giving this shitty report some attention is the worst thing people can do.

Corporate lawyers and lobbyists are in no way hindered if you and I decide not to talk about this on a website.
 
Last edited:
Back