Comment by ncruces
9 months ago
There's no violin small enough for LaLiga.
What (other than greed) can possibly justify blocking hundreds of different services, with little to no oversight?
The only saving grace here, is that premium broadcasts kinda succeeded in getting the fans, rather than corrupt politicians and the state, to mostly fund the entire scheme that is the sport.
Other than that, cry me a river with how much we allow football to bend (and break) so many of our laws and regulations (not to mention ethics and decency).
It is CloudFlare that should be shutting down websites to comply with the law. If they did that, LaLiga wouldn't need to resort to a bigger hammer.
Needless to say, companies should comply with the law of the place where they do business in.
Did they serve Cloudflare a court order?
Apparently not. From Cloudflare's declarations, it seems they did not even notify them:
> "LaLiga secured this blocking order without notifying cloud providers"
[flagged]
7 replies →
[dead]
> There's no violin small enough for LaLiga.
Both?-both.gif
>What (other than greed) can possibly justify blocking hundreds of different services, with little to no oversight?
It could be that CloudFlare does absolutely nothing to aid any site, big or small, when asked to stop hosting & concealing blatantly malicious origins. I don't even care who it is at this point, at least someone is causing problems for CF who, frankly, behave as if they're untouchable.
Literally every scam site I've checked out in recent years, pretending to a government entity, or parcel delivery service, in order to defraud millions from those not blessed with much technological literacy, has been hidden behind CF. Their responses are excruciatingly slow, if they even do anything at all. Usually they don't.
“Every scam comes from Cloudflare” is an asinine metric.
“Every one of those scams” are also on the internet, use email, DNS, whatever.
The metric that matters is how much of Cloudflare is a scam, and can the rate of scamming on Cloudflare be reduced without significantly impacting legitimate uses of it, and how.
Let's get ISPs to instablock IPs shared by thousands of sites immediately, making the internet an excruciating experience on weekends, because we may be loosing some football euros on our way to charge as much as the market will bear is just indefensible. If for no other reason, because IPs are a scarce resource.
Yes, piracy will take advantage of privacy technology (EDNS in this case). If we're cautious of violating privacy to catch child abusers, again, cry me a river about LaLiga not being able to fund the next hundred million euro transfer.
And all of those generic services typically have more accountability than CloudFlare.
I disagree, I think the metric that matters is what proportion of malicious sites use CloudFlare and their ilk. I have personally had reasonable success after reporting malicious sites to the abuse@ address for their IP range. CF breaks that.
I know it was heavy handed, but nothing less would even register on CF's radar. You have to make CF's customers angry with CF for them to do anything, yet their position is they still won't. CF would rather sue someone else than make it easy for the Internet to combat bullshit.
It's not blocking hundereds of services, it's blocking one, cloudflare. A service that routinely is used to share copyright material.
> What (other than greed) can possibly justify blocking hundreds of different services, with little to no oversight?
In this case? A court order: https://bandaancha.eu/articulos/esta-nueva-sentencia-autoriz... which is a pretty heavyweight oversight mechanism.
Personally I'm broadly pro-piracy and anti-big-sports-organisation. But alas the legal system disagrees.
The court order provides the means of doing it, it isn't itself a justification for wanting to do it.
(Unless your view of ethics/morality is that anything ordered by any court is automatically good, which I'm sure some people believe but I suspect many more do not have such a binary view.)