/
Navigation
Chronicles
Browse all articles
Explore
Semantic exploration
Research
Entity momentum
Nexus
Correlations & relationships
Story Arc
Topic evolution
Drift Map
Semantic trajectory animation
Posts
Analysis & commentary
Pulse API
Tech news intelligence API
Browse
Entities
Companies, people, products, technologies
Domains
Browse by publication source
Handles
Browse by social media handle
Detection
Concept Search
Semantic similarity search
High Impact Stories
Top coverage by position
Sentiment Analysis
Positive/negative coverage
Anomaly Detection
Unusual coverage patterns
Analysis
Rivalry Report
Compare two entities head-to-head
Semantic Pivots
Narrative discontinuities
Crisis Response
Event recovery patterns
Connected
Search: /
Command: ⌘K
Embeddings: large
TEXXR

Chronicles

The story behind the story

days · browse · Enter similar · o open

US federal judge rules Cloudflare is not liable for copyright infringement between websites that use its services

Jon Brodkin / Ars Technica :

Ars Technica Jon Brodkin

Context & Ripple Effects

This ruling closes a loop opened in 2017, when a district court held in an RIAA case that DMCA protections did not shield Cloudflare from anti-piracy injunctions — a finding that positioned the CDN as a legal chokepoint for rights holders chasing pirate sites through their infrastructure. The new decision flips that framing: a US federal judge now holds Cloudflare not liable for infringement happening between the websites it serves.

The verdict also lands alongside the Ninth Circuit's 2023 determination that Instagram bore no liability for infringing embedded images on BuzzFeed News and Time, building a consistent judicial line that distribution and embedding layers escape liability even as the underlying sites remain exposed.

First-order effects

  • Cloudflare gains durable legal cover against claims that it facilitates piracy merely by routing or caching traffic for infringing sites, removing a litigation overhang that dated to the 2017 RIAA-era ruling.
  • Rights holders lose the infrastructure shortcut: pursuing infringing content now means going after each site operator directly rather than pressing one intermediary with an injunction.

Second-order effects

  • Other CDNs, hosts, and reverse proxies can cite this precedent — together with the Instagram embed ruling — when defending themselves against the same liability theory, weakening injunction strategies built around intermediaries.
  • Enforcement pressure redistributes toward the origin: takedown demand shifts to hosting providers and registrars closer to the infringing site itself, raising per-site enforcement costs for groups like the RIAA.

Third-order effects

  • If the pattern holds, liability concentrates on whoever copies or serves the content directly — a line visible in the judge's refusal to dismiss Reddit's copyright claims against Perplexity and data scrapers, where the defendants were accused of taking content themselves rather than merely transmitting it.
  • Intermediary immunity at the distribution layer becomes structural: platform business models like Cloudflare's scale without carrying copyright risk, while direct-content businesses bear it — an asymmetry regulators may eventually be pressed to address.

The trend: Judicial doctrine is hardening a two-tier copyright map in which transmission and embedding layers are immune while anyone who copies or serves content directly stays liable.

Discussion

  • @glenngabe Glenn Gabe on x
    US federal judge rules Cloudflare is not liable for copyright infringement between websites that use its services “Simply providing services to a copyright infringer does not qualify as a material contribution, the judge wrote.” https://arstechnica.com/... https://twitter.com/...
  • @rustybrick Barry Schwartz on x
    This would make sense. https://twitter.com/...