Court Realizes That Maybe It Can't Order Cloudflare To Proactively Block Any New Grooveshark From Ever Appearing
from the that's-not-how-this-works dept
Cloudflare complied, but asked the court to modify the ridiculously overbroad injunction, as it could easily be read to say that Cloudflare itself then had to proactively police every use of its service to make sure no one tried to similarly post a Grooveshark-related site. Instead, it asked the judge to, at the very least, require the RIAA to alert Cloudflare to sites that it believed were violating the injunction. The RIAA, of course, argued that Cloudflare had the full responsibility of proactively making sure no new Groovesharks showed up. The judge has now clarified the original injunction, saying that, yes, the RIAA needs to alert Cloudflare to any future problematic sites, but denying Cloudflare's request for a five day turnaround time.
The initial injunction still seems tremendously problematic in just how broad it is. Here's what it covers, saying that basically anyone is barred from:
- Using the Grooveshark Marks in any manner in connection with the advertising, offering for sale, or sale of any service or product, not provided by or authorized by Plaintiff UMG.
- Committing any acts calculated to cause consumers to believe that the Counterfeit Service or any other use of the Grooveshark Marks is offered under the control and supervision of Plaintiff UMG or sponsored or approved by, or connected with, or guaranteed by, or produced under the control and supervision of Plaintiff
- Infringing any of the Grooveshark Marks and damaging Plaintiff goodwill;
- Otherwise competing unfairly with Plaintiff UMG in any manner; or
- Using, linking to, transferring, selling, exercising control over, or otherwise owning the domain names grooveshark.io or groovesharkpw or any other domain name that incorporates, in whole or in part, any of Grooveshark Marks (the "Infringing Domain Names").
- Directly or secondarily infringing Plaintiffs' copyrighted sound recordings via the Counterfeit Service or any variations thereof.
Again, it's easy to say "meh, no big deal, whoever set up these sites were clearly infringing" or even to attack them for setting up a fake Grooveshark. But this goes beyond that, and raises serious questions about the court's powers to order third parties to block all access to websites without full due process.